Everything I Know I Learned From Musicals

Review – Fifty*Four*Forever at The Jerry Herman Ring Theatre

Dear Reader: The following is a guest blog posting from one of my most loyal readers, and newest friends, Dr. Geoffrey Greene (@Elder_Greene) from Tampa. Enjoy. -- C.C.

Just where has Tommy Tune been all these years?  He disappeared from Broadway in self-imposed exile following the failure of The Best Little Whorehouse Goes Public in 1994 and the abrupt out-of-town closure of the Broadway-bound Busker Alley in 1995. Given his dazzling gifts as performer and director, such exile seems wasteful, if not downright criminal. I’ve long admired Tune’s magic touch - be it the choreographed chairs of Grand Hotel or the Ziegfeldian glitz of The Will Rogers Follies – and hoped for the day he would return to Broadway with a new musical.

And now Tommy Tune is back with a new show, although Fifty*Four*Forever is definitely still under construction. The production I saw featured student actors, ran a scant 70 minutes, and lasted for only a 10-day limited engagement at The University of Miami’s Jerry Herman Ring Theatre. Figuring that even bare-bones Tune is better than no Tune at all, I lept at the opportunity.

The show’s concept sounds like musical-theater gold: a celebration of the riotous party haven that was Studio 54 during its 1970s heyday. There’s ample opportunity for stylized dance in kitschy costumes; a little sex and drugs will add spice; nostalgia should draw an older audience; and who doesn’t secretly relish a titillating glimpse into the lives of the rich and famous? It’s a bit surprising this milieu, to my knowledge, has not been mined for its stage potential before.

Why then, is Fifty*Four*Forever such a bust?

For starters, Tune has chosen to build the entire show around the character of his friend and former NYC neighbor Steve Rubbell, the chief architect and proprietor of Studio 54. In life, Rubbell was an unsavory entrepreneur jailed for tax evasion and released early only for “naming names” of other club owners involved in tax fraud. This kind of dramatic choice lands us squarely in the province of the antihero, an eminent starting point for an ambitious musical drama, but a perilous choice when staging a disco spectacular. For such a choice to work, the creators must have an audience empathize with the character and share his journey. Unfortunately, Fifty*Four, at least as currently configured, never accomplishes this feat, choosing instead to substitute glitz for content and stereotype for individuality.

Bookwriter Mark Saltzman (The Tin Pan Alley Rag) concocts a hackneyed tale of corrupted innocence, a sort of “How did you get there from here, Mr. Shepard?” only without the benefit of a Sondheim score.  The plot is bookended with scenes depicting Rubbell’s trial for tax evasion during which he intones Peter Allen’s “All I Wanted Was The Dream” as his defense. The remainder of the story is told in a lengthy flashback. In broad, swift strokes we are shown Rubbell forming his first dance club, meeting his future collaborators, converting an abandoned theatre into the fabled Studio 54, and throwing a wild opening night debauch populated by the likes of Liza, Liz, and Tru. The Studio is awash in sex, drugs, and gobs of money - literal Hefty bags stuffed with cash and crammed into the club walls.

Naturally, the IRS becomes interested in all this filthy lucre. Enter Agent Brown, a smoldering Cuban shown trysting with his equally sensuous female boss in a mesmerizing dance of seduction…on the stripper pole conveniently located in her office. The “Pole Seduction” is the closest this show comes to an actual Tommy Tune signature moment and it’s a dilly: about as tasteful a pole dance as you’re likely to encounter, but still - a pole dance at the IRS?

Saltzman conjures a love triangle when Agent Brown is dispatched to Studio 54 as an undercover agent intent on obtaining access to Rubbell’s books. Brown intends to use his chiseled looks to seduce Rubbell and gain access, but guess what? They fall in love and consummate their passion in a crude orgy bathed in flashing red lights and fueled by the throbbing strains of “I Love To Love You, Baby.” Despite the hedonism, Rubbell is portrayed as an innocent, blithely unaware of the powers with which he is meddling.

Here’s the problem with this claptrap: I didn’t care a tinker’s cuss about these characters, mere underwritten marionettes spouting platitudes in rhymed couplets. Oh, did I forget to mention that? This is a verse play and everybody speaks in childish nursery rhymes (which might be described as Seussian if they displayed any intellect or wit). A verse play can work handily if your librettist is Molière, but rhymes like “Truman Capote, self-promotey” only reinforce an atmosphere of amateur juvenilia.

Predictably, Agent Brown is reluctant to give up his lover until his jealous boss fires and banishes him, but not before he suddenly and inexplicably betrays Rubbell. At this point I kept thinking how, in the right hands, this moment might have been dramatized in song and we could have identified with a character facing a difficult choice. Instead we were subjected to another disco party sequence set to “How High The Moon” featuring the iconic Man in the Moon wall sculpture that featured prominently on the wall of the Studio dance floor, complete with animated cocaine spoon. Who cares if your lover just betrayed you and you’re about to be arrested?  Life’s a party. Come to the Cabaret…uh, I mean the Studio.

The show, as currently written, is about as welcome as a migraine headache. The characters are unsympathetic and the story lacks dramatic focus. Additionally, the absence of an original score is damaging. Generic disco hits may work wonders in establishing a sense of time and place, but when used to propel dramatic action, they fall tediously flat. The show contains one original song, “Lament for Three Jersey Girls” concerning a trio of schlubs forever denied access to Studio (music by Jeffrey Saver, lyrics by Stephen Cole), which is funny, theatrical, and highly effective. Why not an entire score like this?

According to a recent article in The New York Times, Tommy Tune hopes to someday mount Fifty*Four*Forever at the real Studio 54 in New York. He even invited producers to the Miami run hoping to generate interest. If the show is to have a Broadway life, however, a major overhaul is in order. The current production is simply not worthy of Mr. Tune’s talent and does nothing to enhance his legacy as one of the great Broadway showmen.

Review - Prometheus Bound at the A.R.T.

Pardon me if I start with a wee digression here, but I happen to be personally acquainted with a couple of the cast members of the new musical Prometheus Bound, which is currently running at the Zero Arrow Theater, the secondary venue for the American Repertory Theater in Cambridge, Mass.

One of those cast members came up to me after Prometheus Bound to see if I liked it. I didn't. "Well," this person said to another audience member, "This isn't really his kind of music." I didn't say anything at the time, but I took considerable exception to such a pat dismissal of my reaction to the show. I suppose the comment is understandable: this person was simply reflecting an unfortunate tendency that some people have of validating their own views by discrediting someone else's. (Cough, cough...Republican Party...cough, cough...)

But I will say that the remark got me thinking. As a critic and a teacher of musical theater, I think it's important that I constantly question my motives in liking or not liking a particular piece or production. I like to think that I'm not too hidebound by tradition to accept new forms of storytelling, and that artistic quality ultimately transcends idiom.

Well, maybe I am, and maybe it doesn't, but whatever the cause, I was left unmoved and rather irritated by Prometheus Bound. Director Diane Paulus goes to Herculean lengths to imbue the piece with a sense of forward motion, but she's hampered by the work itself, an atmospheric but facile exploration of tyranny, with supposedly rife yet unexplored modern resonance. The show is based, of course, on the Greek tragedy Prometheus Bound, the story of a god who has been punished by Zeus for bringing fire to, and preventing the destruction of, the human race.

Various signs and fliers throughout the auditorium heralded the partnership that the folks at the ART had struck with Amnesty International for this production, in the hopes of bringing attention and aid to the victims of various forms of modern-day tyranny throughout the world. A laudable effort, to be sure, and one with a clarity of message that the show itself lacks.

[SPOILER ALERT: I basically reveal the entire plot below. Not that there's much to reveal...]

Librettist Steven Sater (Spring Awakening) adheres fairly closely to the framework of the original play, and therein lies part of the problem. Not a lot really happens in the play, or the musical. Zeus essentially has Prometheus chained to a rock, and for the rest of the current show's 75 minutes, characters visit upon poor Prometheus and either sympathize with his plight or taunt him in his misery. The end. No development, no resolution. Oh, at one point, Prometheus starts discussing a prophecy that concerns Zeus bringing about his own undoing. Zeus will apparently be having a child by a mortal woman named Io and one of the child's descendants will grow up to set Prometheus free. But just when this tantalizing plot complication seems to arise, the show abruptly ends.

I realize that these would seem to be elements inherent in the original play, but I seem to recall that whatever joys are to be found in the original work lie in the language through which Aeschylus (or whoever actually wrote it) brings Prometheus & Company to life. Sater's libretto doesn't quite replicate that feat. The spoken dialog here comprises a lot of plodding speechifying and ham-handed exposition. And then the lyrics only ever seem to talk *about* what's going on rather than actually add anything to the story.

When I could actually understand the lyrics, that is. And trust me, I'm not complaining about the decibel level here. I had my earplugs at the ready but found that, for the most part, I didn't need them. And, for what it's worth, I actually liked the music, which had a compelling drive and a surprising lyricism. (The composer here is one Serj Tankian, the lead vocalist for the awkwardly named rock group System of a Down.) The real problem was that the song lyrics got lost in the acoustics of the auditorium, the density of the rock orchestrations, and to plain old poor diction. But even when I could understand the lyrics, it turned out they really didn't tell me much anyway.

I must admit that, thanks to Diane Paulus, Prometheus Bound was a heck of a lot more dynamic than you'd expect from a show about a man tied to a rock for all eternity. Paulus finds numerous ways to liberate Prometheus, albeit temporarily, from his perch, giving the show both visual and emotional variety. Paulus is abetted handily by a razor-sharp cast, headed by an astonishingly nimble Gavin Creel, in terms of his vocal, physical, and emotional contortions throughout the course of the show. Matching Creel, if not in stage time, then most assuredly in intensity was Uzo Aduba as Io, who commanded my attention the second she entered the playing area, and scarcely gave me chance or motive to look elsewhere for the duration. A truly remarkable performer.

I think Steven Sater is a talented man, with fantastic intentions, and excellent taste in source material. I just wish his songs progressed the plot. Granted, I'm only familiar with Spring Awakening and Prometheus Bound, but from where I sit, Sater's songs are either stop-and-sing internal monologues or obliquely defiant anthems. I'd like to make a deal with Mr. Sater. I'll pledge to continue to question my own preconceptions when it comes to new forms of musical theater if he'll make an effort to write songs that are more integrated and dramatically compelling. I think that's more than fair.

Paradise Found - A Lost Cause?

Sometimes I marvel at the human capacity for self-delusion. In a recent article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, storied theater director Harold Prince spoke about his recent production of Paradise Found at the Menier Chocolate Factory in London. And some of Prince's comments really got me scratching my head. Most of them in fact.

As you may know, Paradise Found was by all accounts an unmitigated disaster. Granted I didn't see it, but we're not talking mixed reviews here, but outright hostile pans. The fabulous West End Whingers were unrestrained in their disdain. "We're still a wee bit shell-shocked, to be honest..." The delightful SarahB at Adventures in the Endless Pursuit of Entertainment wondered at the end whether it was just an "elaborate joke."

Well, according to Prince, the problems with the production stemmed from the fact that the theater and the cast were too small:

The material is great. But it should be big...Now I have to do it somewhere where there's a large chorus. We had wonderful actors...but everyone was doubling and tripling...That's not what the material demands...I'm meeting with the authors the week after next, and we’re going to aim for it.

Again, I didn't see the show, but none of the reviews that I read said that the venue or the cast size were at fault. No, most of them seemed to focus on the material itself, which one reviewer called "[A] pastiche Arabian Nights fable of unbelievable coarseness and vulgarity."

I know that some creators refuse to read reviews, but I can't imagine that Prince was completely insulated from the critical drubbing that Paradise Found received. But I was simply floored by his contention that the show just needed to be bigger. No, Hal. Great shows work in small paces and with small casts. John Doyle's recent productions of your Sweeney Todd and Company certainly come to mind. The idea that all you really need to do is throw some more money at Paradise Found for the project to work is ludicrous.

Of course, this is probably an academic discussion, because Prince is highly unlikely to find investors clueless enough to open their purse strings for a full-scale production of Paradise Found. Yes, this is the man who made millions on Phantom of the Opera. But he's also the man who gave us Lovemusik. And Roza. And Grind. And A Doll's Life. And Bounce.

You get the point.

Review - American Idiot at the St. Jimmy...er...St. James Theatre

I realize that this review is a little late to the party, but I encountered a bit of a perfect storm of work over the few weeks since American Idiot opened at the St. James Theatre in New York. The final flurry of Broadway show openings happened to coincide the the end of the semester here at the Boston Conservatory, and I had quite a few final exams to correct and whatnot. Plus, I got a last-minute assignment to write the liner notes for an upcoming cast-recording release. Watch this space for more news on that front.

In a way, it's a good thing that some time has passed since American Idiot opened, as it has helped me put the show into perspective, particularly with respect to the relative merits of all the new musicals this season. As I've said here previously, it's been a pretty lean season, at least with respect to the actual quality of the new musicals on Broadway. Unfortunately, American Idiot isn't much of an exception, at least in my estimation.

During the out-of-town tryout of American Idiot at the Berkley Repertory Theatre, the advanced word was that there wasn't much of a book to the show. Faced with this feedback, director/co-librettist Michael Mayer and Green Day front man Billie Joe Armstrong decided to cut back on what little dialog there was. (Um...what?) Apparently, their goal was to focus the show more on the songs. (Um...OK...) The result is an expressionistic rock concert, which is admittedly stunning, both visually and auditorily. I was particularly impressed with Steven Hoggett's idiomatic dance and movement. But what it all amounts to is a tale of sound and fury, signifying nothing. 

I must say, I found the score to American Idiot surprisingly tuneful. "Surprising" because I'm really not all that well versed in current popular music. I hadn't been overly familiar with the band Green Day prior to seeing the show, although I'm sure I've heard a few of those songs somewhere in my travels. But I had never heard the full album America Idiot, upon which the show is based. I had been worried that the music might turn me off, as the music to Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson did. But overall, I found the score to American Idiot pleasant and energetic.

[SPOILERS BELOW]

As for the plot of the show, yeah, not so much. It's not that the story isn't clear; it's that it's not very interesting. There are too few developments in each of the stories. The show centers around three restless teenagers: Johnny (John Gallagher Jr.), Tunny (Stark Sands), and Will (Michael Esper). Across the ninety-five intermission-less minutes of the show, each character only really deals with one plot development. Johnny gets hooked on drugs and alienates Whatshername, the girl he met along the way. Will gets Heather pregnant, but winds up rather inexplicably driving her away. Tunny goes to war, loses a leg, but manages to meet an "Extraordinary Girl." And that's it. So, basically, what we have here is Come Fly Away set to a rock score, although I will say that American Idiot is considerably better than Twyla Tharp's exercise in tedium that's currently running at the Marquis.

The cast is strong, as are their singing voices. I was particularly impressed with the dynamic Tony Vincent as St. Jimmy (Johnny's drug-induced muse, and the reason for the bad pun in the title of this post) and the electric Rebecca Naomi Jones, woefully underused here as Whatshername. But the Tony nominating committee seemed to have a definitive hair across its ass when it came to American Idiot, as not a single cast member garnered a nomination. The show got a nod for Best Musical, but the only other nominations it received were in scenic and lighting design. Despite the show's relatively poor showing with the Tonys, the show may nonetheless prove to be a hit. It has seen fairly steady grosses of about $700,000 a week, with an average ticket climbing from $50 to about $80. 

So, hey, Tonys be damned, huh?

GRADE: B (A visual and auditory assault, but ultimately lacking in impact or meaning)

Review - Million Dollar Quartet at the Nederlander

Lately, I've been sort of struck by the phrase "not my cup of tea." I've often thought of the phrase as sort of lazy. When people use it, what they really seem to be saying is that they didn't like something, but they don't want to actually do the work to formulate and justify a coherent, supportable opinion.

Then I saw Million Dollar Quartet, which opened last night at the Nederlander Theatre. And I can honestly say that it just wasn't my cup of tea. However, I shall endeavor to provide defensible support for my admittedly personal reaction.

As you may know, Million Dollar Quartet revolves around a mythical night in 1956 when Elvis Presley (played here by Eddie Clendening), Johnny Cash (Lance Guest), Jerry Lee Lewis (Levi Kreis), and Carl Perkins (Rob Lyons) got together for a jam session at Sun Records, the business home of music impresario Sam Phillips (Hunter Foster).

The show met with quite the bell curve of critical response, ranging from a few raves to a few pans to a swell of mixed reactions in between. It's likely that your own reaction to the show will depend on your personal connection to these men and their music. The show is certainly professionally staged and performed, and the crowd was frickin' eating it up. But I think I would have been a lot more engaged if I were in any way a fan of the members of the titular quartet, which I decidedly am not.

Fortunately, the show comprises more than just the jam session itself, otherwise I would have found it unbearably tedious. There's certainly a goodly amount of music, and the four central performers (who also play their own instruments, and quite well, I might add), do a bang-up job of capturing the essence of their respective characters, at least insofar as I'm familiar with these men and their work. But on the whole the show left me with the impression that it was a very professional Vegas tribute show.

Librettists Colin Escott and Floyd Mutrux try to imbue the evening with a decent amount of dramatic tension: Will Sam Phillips sell Sun records to RCA? Will Johnny Cash sign a three-year extension on his contract with Sun? Will Phillips make the leap to RCA to work again with Elvis Presley, whose contract he sold to RCA in order to remain in business? Will upstart Jerry Lee Lewis ever get a chance to record his own songs, or will he continue to play backup for other artists? Will Carl Perkins vent his anger at Elvis for "stealing" Perkins' signature hit, "Blue Suede Shoes"?

Here's the thing, though: I don't care. I don't care. I don't care. I don't care. And I don't care.

Million Dollar Quartet doesn't really add anything new to the musical-theater form. In fact, it seems to borrow numerous elements from other shows. The show's final moment seems cadged from the act 1 finale of Sunday in the Park With George. The libretto makes liberal use of lazy narration, much like Jersey Boys. And the show even ends with a mini-concert, a la recent productions of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat and Grease.

That said, the show is certainly well presented. Director Eric Schaeffer keeps everything moving apace. There's nothing stilted, awkward, or even remotely amateurish about the show. The show's flashback structure is effective, if repetitious. There is some rather clunky exposition, particularly regarding Jerry Lee Lewis' familial connection to Jimmy Swaggart as well as Sam Phillips' then-budding working relationship with Roy Orbison. On the whole, if you're not a fan of these particular iconic performers, there's really no larger reason to see the show. At least not from where I sat.

GRADE: C+ (For fans only. Or for those who can't get tickets to Jersey Boys.)

Review - The Addams Family at the Lunt-Fontanne

I had heard not-so-great things about the new musical version of The Addams Family from my Chicago blogger peeps, as well as from numerous students and readers. The main complaints seemed to be that the show didn't have much of a plot (and what plot it had seemed borrowed from La Cage aux Folles), that Andrew Lippa's score was bland and unmemorable, and that the show's story was focused too much on irrelevant characters.

When I saw The Addams Family in previews in mid March, the only fix the creative staff seemed to have made was in redirecting the focus of the show to shine firmly on the family. Otherwise, the show represented a reasonably funny but ultimately pointless and undistinguished night of musical theater.

The opening curtain met with a thunderous ovation from the faithful in attendance, mostly because the creators had made the wise choice to fork over the bucks to for the rights to the insidious and iconic theme for the TV show. But there were also considerable plaudits for the show's stars, Nathan Lane as Gomez, and Bebe Neuwirth as Morticia. If only the show itself had been worthy of their admitted collective talents.

It's certainly no secret that the show's directors of credit -- the idiosyncratic Phelim McDermott and Julian Crouch (Shockheaded Peter) -- were unceremoniously shunted aside after the show's less-than-spectacular Chicago tryout. Reportedly, Nathan Lane demanded, and got, his old pal Jerry Zaks to come in and punch things up a bit. The main contribution of the "directors" seems to be the show's design concept, which features a modular set of staircases, which are fun to watch the cast move but ultimately distracting.

The show also features an ingenious mobile curtain setup that almost seems like a character itself, and provides some visual focus to the scenes as well as physical coverage for set changes. There's also a rather elaborate visual setup for a second-act number in which Uncle Fester (the always wonderful Kevin Chamberlin) proclaims his amorous attachment to the moon. But designers as directors? Have we learned nothing from Julie Taymor? Much like The Lion King, The Addams Family comprises some interesting visual elements, but not much in the way of dramatic cohesion.

The book by Marshall Brickman and Rick Elice (Jersey Boys) features some fairly frequent laughs, and some of the jokes are quite sharp and topical. But it's not clear how much of that may have been the work of, or at the urging of, uncredited director Zaks. The result is a bunch of decent one liners connected by a contrived plot lacking any engaging or believable drama, and saddled with forced complications and pat resolutions. In brief, the Addams daughter Wednesday comes home and announces that she's going to be married, and that Gomez and Morticia had better be on their best behavior when the future in-laws come to visit. Needless to say, havoc ensues. ("The best of times is now. What's left of summer but a faded rose...") 

What's more, the story represents an unconvincing morass of forced subplots and lame narrative conceits. Bebe Neuwirth is saddled with what is probably the least interesting and justifiable narrative thread. During the entire show, she frets about growing older. And that's just about it. Bebe gets a couple of would-be showstoppers, including a tango with Gomez, but they weren't working when I saw the show in previews. Otherwise, she just frets. I'm not a huge Bebe Neuwirth fan (I've heard too many stories about how she treats her cast members and production staff), but there's no question she's a talented woman who deserves better than what she gets in this show.

As for narrative conceits, at the start of the show Uncle Fester raises the Addams ancestors from the dead, only to tell them that they can't return to the grave until love triumphs. Really? In a musical about the Addams Family? Cuz, other than the fact that dead people are involved, that seems about as far from an Addams Family conceit as you'd be likely to devise. Plus, it's just not very interesting or compelling.

Besides its flat, jokey book, The Addams Family is saddled with decidedly undistinguished songs from Andrew Lippa, who wrote the Off-Broadway The Wild Party and a few new songs for the revival of You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown. The Addams Family score features one lackluster, stop-and-sing, solo character song after another and not nearly enough ensemble work. The procession grows wearisome, indeed. The one fun tuneful number, "Full Disclosure," comes at the end of Act 1, by which time I had sort of given up anticipating anything of real distinction musically. Choreographer Sergio Trujillo seems to work overtime to give the show some life, but his style here is more MTV than Charles Addams.

As I said, there's considerable merriment to be had at the Lunt-Fontanne, particularly in the performance of Nathan Lane as Gomez, but also from the always hysterical Jackie Hoffman as Grandmama. The show seems to be selling like gangbusters so far, with weekly grosses well above $1 million. But will that continue after the reviews come out? Does this show have enough of a built-in audience, based on its stars and its source material, to make it review-proof?

GRADE: C- (Essentially, this season's Shrek. Strong performers and lotsa larfs, but forgettable score and forced gaiety.)

American Idiot Will Play the St. James

Even in this economy, most Broadway theaters don't remain vacant for very long. (That's either a testament to the reinvigorated status of the Broadway musical, or the sheer idiocy on the part of producers and investors. Perhaps both.) The current revival of Finian's Rainbow will play its last performance on January 17th, but the venerable St. James Theater has already signed on its next tenant: America Idiot, the new rock musical based on the eponymous recording by the popular band Green Day. The show is scheduled to begin previews on March 24th and open on April 20th.

American Idiot features a number of Spring Awakening alumni, including producer Tom Hulce and director Michael Mayer, and during its recent two-month run at Berkeley Repertory Theater, it starred Tony-Award winner John Gallagher Jr. Mayer is collaborating with iconic Green Day front man Billie Joe Armstrong on the show's book. Although the Berkeley run sold out, and the run was extended twice, the reviews were rather mixed.

The Sacramento Bee deemed American Idiot "worthy," but said that, while the characters "do eventually grow, the production's weakness lies in their lack of compelling development." Robert Hurwitt of The San Francisco Chronicle wrote that the show "doesn't deliver much in the way of character or story" but said that it "packs plenty of excitement and entertainment into a remarkably theatrical rock concert." Leslie Katz of the San Francisco Examiner concurred that the book for the show "remains thin," but Karen D'Souza of the San Jose Mercury News called the show as "compelling as it is abstract," adding that the show reflected "the grungy spirit of punk while also plucking at the heartstrings."

So the consensus seems to be that there are the makings of a pretty powerful show here, but the book and characterizations could both use some fleshing out. Will Mayer and Armstrong be making any significant changes to the show before it hits New York? We shall see. In the meantime, anyone interested in getting a sense of how the show will sound can download the cut "21 Guns," recorded by the Berkley Rep cast and available on Amazon and iTunes.

Ragtime Revival to Close Sunday

That's the thing about rumors. Sometimes, they're actually true.

Word came over the weekend that the financially ailing Broadway revival of Ragtime will close this coming Sunday. At that point, the show will have played 57 regular performances and 28 previews, and will very likely lose its entire $8-million investment.

Michael Riedel of the New York Post had reported earlier this month that such an announcement was imminent, but the show's producers asserted that, although closure had been discussed, there were no concrete plans to do so. As if to prove the show's viability, there was even a weekend-long TV blitz from December 18th to the 21st, during which Ragtime cast members appeared on both local and national TV shows. In addition, cast member Bobby Steggert announced on Twitter that rumors of the show's closure were unfounded, which prompted an article in the New York Times about how the Internet rumor mill was doing Ragtime wrong. 

Alas, the publicity efforts were too little too late, and over the weekend, Ragtime cast members heard that the show would indeed be closing on January 3rd, as had been rumored. On Monday, the producers issued the official closing announcement to the press.

So, what happened? The show's reviews were certainly strong, if not unqualified raves. Ragtime has long been a sentimental favorite with the "in" theater crowd, but as the [title of show] folks learned, that's not enough to keep a show running. Did the show simply come back to Broadway too soon? It's never too soon to bring a show back if there's a genuine audience for it. (e.g. Les Miserables, A Chorus Line, Grease.) Was Ragtime poorly marketed? Well, as I've said, the show's logo is washed-out and indistinct, but although good logos can certainly help a show establish a public presence, it's unlikely that a visual identity can make or break a show by itself.

Perhaps Ragtime simply got lost amid the blockbusters. There's been a growing tendency among casual theater goers to patronize only the biggest hits (e.g. Billy Elliot, Wicked, Jersey Boys). Although there may be room on Broadway right now for smaller shows to find a way to survive (e.g. Next To Normal, Rock of Ages), even a scaled-down Ragtime had a cast of 34 and some 30 people in the orchestra. Perhaps Ragtime is simply too big to ever succeed on Broadway.

Or maybe -- just maybe -- this Ragtime failed because the word of mouth just wasn't there. Sure, there are plenty of musical queens and theater mavens who've been talking the show up big time on Twitter and Facebook and the [shudder] theater chat rooms. But big shows rise and fall based on the pass-along "wow" factor. Maybe this production just wasn't getting the all-important man/woman on the street to go home and say, "Hey, you really gotta see this." As I said in my review, I'm a huge Flaherty and Ahrens fan, and an ardent admirer of Ragtime as a show. But I wasn't really blown away by this particular production. There seemed to be something missing, a lack of an emotional center. There was no questioning the talent on stage, but for me there just wasn't anything outstanding about the production itself.

The current production notwithstanding, Ragtime remains, in my humble estimation, a musical for the ages. It has a strong book and an amazing score, and I've been very gratified by how it has caught on in the provinces, despite the need for a large number of African Americans in the cast. (African Americans haven't always been interested in musical theater, although thankfully that seems to be changing.) If you have a chance to see the show before it closes, I recommend taking it in. But I remain quite confident that this isn't the last we've seen of Ragtime.

ADDENDUM: The producers of Ragtime have announced that the show will play an extra week of performances, and will now close on January 10th. At that point, the show will have played 65 regular performances. Could this be the start of a trend? Or will the week amount to little more than a dead-cat bounce? I just got a ticket to see the show again on Friday, January 8th. Stay tuned for my re-review.

Stephen Sondheim at Sanders Theater - Part 2

Last week, I posted some of my notes from A Life in the Theater - An Evening With Stephen Sondheim, a conversation between Stephen Sondheim and Frank Rich at Sanders Theater in Cambridge, Mass. There was so much good stuff, I decided to break my notes up into two different posts. In my first set of notes, I included Sondheim's observations about some of his earlier shows, including Follies, Company, and A Little Night Music. Here, musical theater's greatest living practitioner discusses some of his later shows, as well as one of his first.  

Sweeney Todd
- Sondheim said that, in general, he's not really a fan of movie versions of stage musicals, and that most definitely includes A Little Night Music and A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. Because they weren't conceived for film, they don't tend to work well in that medium.
- The film version of Sweeney Todd, he said, was a notable exception, because director Tim Burton completely re-conceived the piece for film. Burton cut all the chorus songs -- what Sondheim refers to as "peasants on the green" pieces -- and retained the songs that came from the emotional life of the characters. The cast actually rehearsed "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd," but didn't make it into film, because it's really a theatrical piece.
- Rich asked Sondheim why he thought Sweeney Todd has become such an admired and accepted work, given the (ahem) distasteful subject matter. Sondheim said it was because the musical is based on the Christopher Bond version of the Sweeney Todd legend. Previous versions portrayed Todd and Mrs. Lovett as merely greedy, bumping off customers in order to steal their money, and cooking them into pies to hide the evidence. Bond added the revenge plot, the Count of Monte Cristo tale of the wronged man seeking justice, and the tragedy that unfolds. "Bond made the story human," said Sondheim. "That's what makes the story sing."
- Sondheim said that although he loves working on plot-less musicals (Company, Follies, Assassins), he also loves shows with solid plots. That's why Sweeney and A Little Night Music work so well, he said, because they have very strong stories upon which the music hangs.
- One of the most difficult numbers to write for Sweeney Todd was "Epiphany," the point in the show when Sweeney decides to take his vengeance out on all of humanity, rather than simply the people who done him wrong. But mass murder is an awfully hard thing to justify dramatically. Sondheim says that "Epiphany" was actually based on "Soliloquy" from Carousel, a song that Sondheim says "changed the face of musical theater." Obviously, the two songs are entirely different in terms of tone and intent, but they both set out to justify major, life-altering decisions on the parts of the characters singing them. The key to making "Epiphany" work, said Sondheim, was in having Sweeney break the fourth wall and threaten the audience, which made the threat more credible.
- Sondheim said that there really isn't any moral to the story of Sweeney Todd. "It's really just meant to be a horror movie," he said. "We just wanted to scare people."
- Sweeney Todd did reasonably well on Broadway (although the production closed at a financial loss), but the show positively flopped in Britain. The show played the famed Theatre Royal Drury Lane, and was basically a recreation of the Broadway production, and it folded within a month. Sondheim says it was probably because Sweeney Todd is just a silly folk tale in Britain, a ruse to scare children into going to bed, lest Sweeney Todd come and get them in the night. As playwright John Guare put it to Sondheim, "Imagine someone coming to America with a serious musical based on 'I Love Lucy.'"

Gypsy
- Sondheim compared "Epiphany" from Sweeney Todd to "Rose's Turn" from Gypsy. "I love to write nervous breakdowns," he said, then added wryly, "I understand them so well."
- Apparently, Gypsy director/choreographer Jerome Robbins had originally intended "Rose's Turn" to be a ballet. In an early version of the show, there were three different actresses playing June and Louise at various ages, and at the end of the show, all six of them were going to come out for a kaleidoscopic ballet portraying Rose's breakdown. But Robbins turned to Sondheim one day in rehearsal and said, "I don't have time to stage it. Go write a song."
- Robbins and Sondheim went to the rooftop theater above the New Amsterdam, the place where Ziegfeld used to hold his Midnight Frolic revues, and talked for hours about what the song should say. Robbins played the part of Rose, and began to ad lib, dipping and swaying across the stage, a la Mama Rose in Gypsy Rose Lee mode. Sondheim took his notes to composer Jule Styne and the two of them filled out the song into the tour de force that we know today.
- Oscar Hammerstein didn't live long enough to see Sondheim write both music and lyrics for a show, but he did get to see both West Side Story and Gypsy, and was impressed. Hammerstein approached Sondheim after seeing Gypsy, and said that there were three problems. First, the doorknob in the kitchen scene wasn't working. Second, "You'll Never Get Away From Me" shouldn't end with dialog, but rather with the end of the song.
- And third, "Rose's Turn" was ending in such a way that robbed the audience of an applause break for Ethel Merman. Instead, it was ending by having the character slowly lose focus, and trail off into confusion. You have to let them give Ethel a hand, Hammerstein said. Because the audience wasn't able to acknowledge Merman, they were uneasy and unable to focus on the following scene, the pivotal one in which Louise and Rose have their final resolution, and the mother/daughter roles reverse. But that's not true to the emotion of the scene, said Sondheim. There's a difference between real truth and theatrical truth, said Hammerstein. Some things that are false emotionally are right for the stage. So they added the now-iconic "For me!" at the end of the number, gave Ethel her applause, and suddenly the audience was paying attention for the final two pages of the show.
- Rich asked Sondheim whether Hammerstein might have been put off by the subject matter of some of Sondheim's shows. Sondheim said that he would like to believe that Oscar would be proud of all of his shows, because, although he and Hammerstein have different tastes in subject matter, the shows are all in keeping with Hammerstein's artistic principles. People wrongly think of Hammerstein as old-fashioned and sentimental, but he really never was, and neither are his shows. He was a man of very strong artistic ambition and opinions and was very articulate about voicing those opinions.

Sunday in the Park With George
- Working with James Lapine changed Sondheim's creative life in a number of significant ways. Sondheim had never worked Off-Broadway before; he had usually written shows for out-of-town tryouts or opened them cold on Broadway. But with Sunday, for the first time, he had the luxury of developing a show in a not-for-profit setting, and he says it made for a much more relaxing experience, even if the production was in fact only a few geographic blocks from Broadway.
- Sondheim wrote the song "Finishing the Hat" to express what he called "the joy of trancing out." "When you're creating," he said, "the world is going by while you're making your own world." Of course, at the end of the song, the character Georges has no one to share his creation with except the dog, which expresses one of the key themes of the show: the sacrifices that an artist makes.

Into the Woods
- After Sunday in the Park With George, Sondheim and librettist/director James Lapine were looking for a quick way to make some money. They briefly toyed with the idea of creating a musical that was based on a TV special, featuring such iconic TV characters as Ralph Kramden, Lucy Ricardo, and Mary Richards. They even contacted TV producer Norman Lear to see if he might be interested in collaborating. But they eventually decided to focus on fairy tale characters instead.

General notes
- Sondheim also talked about various productions that he's heard of in which people change certain aspects of his shows, including an all-male version of Company, another in which Bobby shot himself at the end, and a version of Merrily We Roll Along that did the show "backwards" (i.e. "forwards").
- Sondheim is currently working on a two-volume, annotated edition of all of his lyrics throughout his career. The books will include historical background and essays about each show. The first volume, titled Finishing the Hat, appropriately enough, is scheduled to come out in late 2010 with second to follow in 2011.

Stephen Sondheim at Sanders Theater - Part 1

Last weekend, I had the pleasure of attending A Life in the Theater - An Evening With Stephen Sondheim, which took place at the lovely Sanders Theater in Cambridge, Mass. The event comprised a conversation, of sorts, between Stephen Sondheim, looking rather spry for his 79 years, and Frank Rich, the man formerly known as the "butcher of Broadway" during his stint as chief drama critic for the New York Times. 

In truth, Rich needn't have showed up. His questions were rather on the soft-ball side, and didn't really go much beyond "And then you wrote Follies. What was that like?" Pretty much anyone with even a passing knowledge of musical theater could have performed the same function. Sure, there was a certain added value to his presence, given his now legendary review of Follies for the Harvard Crimson, and other such overlaps, including his presence at the final DC performance of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. But on the whole, the added value to Rich's presence was minimal.

Sondheim talked about a lot of stuff that we've heard before, but it was certainly a delight to hear it from the horse's mouth, as it were. What follows is a show-by-show breakdown of some of the stories and recollections that Sondheim related to a rapt audience of about 1,100 admirers. There was so much great stuff to relate that I'm going to be breaking it up into two separate posts.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum
- This was definitely one of the more oft-told tales of the evening, but Sondheim related a few details that I found compelling. Famously, Forum was flopping in DC. The final out-of-town performance had 50 members sparsely scattered throughout a 1,700-seat theater. Jerome Robbins had come in to help doctor the show, and said the opening number, "Love Is in the Air," wasn't working. The song was charming, but Forum isn't. It's a low comedy. Enter "Comedy Tonight."
- Sondheim says that this certainly made sense to him, given what had learned from his apprenticeship with Oscar Hammerstein, who told him that the opening number is the most important part of a musical: it needs to tell the audience what to expect in terms of style and substance. "Comedy Tonight" went into the show in Broadway previews, and the rest, as they say...

Company
- The original closing number to Company was called "Happily Ever After," which was eventually replaced by "Marry Me a Little" and ultimately "Being Alive." It's often said that "Happily" was cut because it was too much of a downer, but Sondheim said it was actually cut because it made the ending too bitter.
- "Side By Side" was originally supposed to be the 11 o'clock number, but Sondheim's agent suggested moving it to the opening of act 2 to give the audience a sort of progress report on Bobby. In its current place, the song really livens up the rest of the act.
- Most of the characters in Company were based on real people in librettist George Furth's life, while the part of Joanne was written specifically for Elaine Stritch. Sondheim was working on a number for her called "Crinoline," which was about memory and living in both the present and the past. (This, of course, would later become the theme for Follies.) Furth said, "No, that's not Elaine." Furth was out drinking very late one night with Stritch, in a bar on 3rd Avenue that was about to close. Stritch persuaded the bartender to keep bar open for her. "Honey," she said, "just give me a bottle of vodka and a floor plan." That's Elaine. 

Follies
- During the show's tryout in Boston, the opening sequence to Follies was somewhat abstract and featured shrill, dissonant music and slowly moving ghosts, and the audience just wasn't getting it. Sondheim spoke of the responsibility that creators have to their audience. "It's OK if they don't like it, but if they don't understand it, that's something you have to fix," he said.
- Sondheim thought the original opening would have been truer to the theme of the piece, but he worked with choreographer/co-director Michael Bennett to devise a new opening. "The audience is your collaborator," he said. "It's not about pandering. You can be subtle or indirect, but you're not allowed to baffle." 

A Little Night Music
- After such an expensive "flop" (his word, meaning Follies), Sondheim and Harold Prince wanted to make something that was a crowd-pleaser. Sondheim joked that he may indeed have a bit of a dark streak, but at the time a friend advised him to use Night Music as a chance to "show off." The friend exhorted him to "make it delightful, just a lighthearted operetta."
- The show was based on the 1955 Ingmar Bergman film, "Smiles of a Summer Night." While Night Music was running, Bergman contacted Sondheim about collaborating on a movie version of Franz Lehár's The Merry Widow. Bergman visited Sondheim the day after Bergman first saw A Little Night Music on Broadway. Sondheim asked him what he thought. Bergman said, "My dear boy, my movie and your musical share a story and nothing else. But we all eat from the same cake." Strangely enough, Bergman related that Victoria Mallory, who played the part of Ann, looked just like the woman Bergman had based the part on. "As for that Hermione Gingold, she does tend to fuck the audience, doesn't she?"
- Speaking of Hermione Gingold, when she auditioned for Night Music, Sondheim and Prince were worried that she might be too campy for the role, but she actually read extremely well. On her way out of the audition room, she told Sondheim and Prince, "I notice the character is 74 years old. So am I." (Later they found out she was actually 75.) Gingold also had noticed that at the end of the show, Madame Armfeldt dies, and the stage direction indicated that she slumps over and her wig falls off. Gingold took off her own wig, revealing that she was completely bald.
- Rich asked Sondheim if he knew whether Ingmar Bergman had seen the film version of A Little Night Music. "It may be what killed him," he said.
- Of course, Elizabeth Taylor played the part of Desiree in the movie version. Sondheim said that, to make her appear to sing on key, they had to cut and paste individual notes from multiple audio takes. And this was before digital editing.
- Taylor shared a trailer with co-star Diana Rigg. One day, Rigg asked Taylor if she knew that day's date. Taylor didn't, but started looking around for a newspaper. She found one, but said, "Oh, never mind. This is yesterday's paper."

COMING SOON: Sondheim's recollections on Sweeney Todd, Into the Woods, and Gypsy, including the revelation that "Rose's Turn" was originally supposed to be...a ballet?

Catch Me If You Can and First Wives Club in Tryouts

Two rather high-profile musicals are currently in the middle of their out-of-town tryout runs. First, there's Catch Me If You Can, which is in previews at Seattle's 5th Avenue Theater. (The show's opening was tragically delayed by the murder of Norbert Leo Butz's sister Teresa. I'm sure all of our thoughts are with Norbert during this terrible time.) Quite a bit further south, we have The First Wives Club at the Old Globe Theater in San Diego.

Variety recently ran a piece talking about the pros and cons of billing a tryout production as "Broadway-bound," citing both Catch and First Wives as examples. The producers of First Wives Club are of the opinion that the "Broadway-bound" moniker gives a boost to ticket sales, and in fact the show has extended its San Diego run until the end of August. However, the folks involved with Catch Me If You Can have been very careful to call the Seattle run a "world premier," possibly to hedge their bets in case the show needs work.

Well, according to Michael Riedel of the New York Post, Catch Me If You Can would seem more likely to be bound for Broadway, whereas First Wives Club could well be dead in the water. The critical response to First Wives was, in Riedel's words, "harsh," and even worse was the word of mouth among potential investors. The show is pleasing the California crowds, but the producers are scrambling to fund a move to New York.

Meanwhile, the advance word on Catch is relatively positive, although the show is apparently in need of some polish. Catch is scheduled to open tonight (8/6/09), and I've found no indication that the delayed previews have changed this, so the reviews will likely appear tomorrow.

Here's a promotional clip from the show, featuring Aaron Tveit (in the Leonardo DiCaprio role) performing the number "Live in Living Color." Um...gee, I hope the show is better than that clip. Much better. The song itself is unimpressive, with a decent tune but generic lyrics that tell me nothing about this character. And Jerry Mitchell's choreography here is atrocious, like something from a bad community production. Perhaps it's supposed to be bad, kind of like the garish costumes? Who knows. Yeah, it's not entirely fair to judge the show solely from this clip, but there's not much here that impresses me.

Then again, if I had only seen one number from Hairspray -- say, one of the forgettable numbers, like "It Takes Two" or "Without Love" -- I probably wouldn't have been all that stoked either. But the way "Live in Living Color" was shot would seem to indicate that this clip was meant for press distribution, so this was the number that someone somewhere chose to best represent the show. But there's no questioning the talent of the team behind Catch Me If You Can. (Book: Terrence McNally, Music and lyrics: Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman, Direction: Jack O'Brien.) Count these gentlemen out at your peril. So I remain hopeful that they'll be able to pull the show into shape before its likely Broadway bow.

Vanities to Play Second Stage

It seems that the musical Vanities will in fact play New York later this year, although not on Broadway, at least not yet. The show was originally supposed to play the Lyceum Theater, but the chancy economic environment forced the producers to reconsider.

Now comes news that the show will find a berth at New York's Second Stage, an Off-Broadway nonprofit theater company. Vanities will close out 2ST's current season, taking the place of  Douglas Carter Beane's recently postponed play, Mr. and Mrs. Fitch.

The show will apparently retain its creative team from its recent run at the Pasadena Playhouse: Judith Ivey will continue as director and Dan Knechtges (Xanadu, Spelling Bee) will provide the musical staging. The cast will likely comprise  Lauren Kennedy, Sarah Stiles, and Anneliese Van Der Pol, as it did in Pasadena. Vanities has a book by Jack Heifner, who wrote the 1976 play upon which the musical is based, and music and lyrics by David Kirshenbaum (Summer of '42).

Previews for the show will begin June 30th toward a July 16th opening. The show will have performances through August 9th. If that run is successful, will a Broadway run follow? I would imagine that's what the producers are hoping for, and the 2ST run represents a relatively safe way of testing the New York waters. Heck, it worked for both The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee and Next to Normal.

Speaking of Next to Normal (er, excuse me, next to normal), the reviews for that show, which came out today, were pretty darned positive. Regular readers will recall that I have a checkered history with this show and its librettist, Brian Yorkey. Well, I'm going to be seeing the show again next week. Never let it be said that I won't give a show a second chance. But if Yorkey's apparent message -- which seemed to be a repudiation of psychiatry -- remains intact, I certainly reserve the right to speak out against it, as I did when I saw the show last year.

Catch Me If You Can Set for Seattle

Ah, stardom is so fleeting. Now that the BGMC concerts are over, I no longer get to feel pretty, at least not in song form. But now I get to catch up on some blogging posts I've been meaning to write.

The long-gestating musical Catch Me If You Can finally seems to be coming to term. The show, based on the 2002 Stephen Spielberg movie of the same name, will have its world premiere in Seattle this coming summer.

The creative staff comprises many of the same people from Hairspray, including director Jack O'Brien (once he's finished with the apparently disastrous Impressionism), and choreographer Jerry Mitchell (back where he belongs after an arguably unfortunate stint as director for Legally Blonde). Also on board are Hairspray composer and lyricist Marc Shaiman and Scot Whitman. One new member of the creative staff is Terrence McNally on book. (Thomas Meehan and Mark O'Donnell were apparently too busy with Cry-Baby. An unfortunate choice, in retrospect.)

The cast boasts some of the best performers that Broadway has to offer, including Norbert Leo Butz in the Tom Hanks role, and Aaron Tveit in the Leonardo diCaprio role. The cast will also feature Kerry Butler, Linda Hart, and Tom Wopat. So, the production has all the feel of a Broadway-bound musical, although no official Broadway opening has been announced.

Memphis Musical Coming to Broadway in Fall

You gotta admire some people's optimism. Despite the fact that the only musicals that are staying open on Broadway right now seem to be the pre-branded hits and long-running blockbusters (and some of them are even struggling along themselves), there are still intrepid souls who dare to risk the move to Broadway.

Witness the long-aborning musical Memphis, which recently announced a planned move to Broadway in the fall of 2009 at a theater TBA. The show has had numerous tryout runs, including a world-premiere engagement at the North Shore Music Theater and most recently a run at Seattle's 5th Avenue Theater. Apparently the latter engagement went so well that the producers feel confident in shepherding the show to New York, despite an admittedly chilly economic climate. (Heck, there are recent weeks when even Wicked and Jersey Boys aren't selling out.)

Memphis sports a book by Joe DiPietro (I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change, All Shook Up). Thankfully, this is not a jukebox music, but rather one with an original score by Bon Jovi's David Bryan. DiPietro and Bryan share duty on the lyrics. The pair are also collaborating on the new musical version of The Toxic Avenger, which opens Off Broadway next month.

Director Christopher Ashley (Xanadu) and choreographer Sergio Trujillo (Jersey Boys) will repeat their roles for the show's Broadway bow. Casting has yet to be announced, but recent versions of the show have starred Chad Kimball (Into the Woods, Lennon, Good Vibrations) and Montego Glover (The Color Purple). 

Subtitled "The Birth of Rock and Roll," Memphis tells the fictionalized story of a young, white radio disc jockey growing up in Memphis in the '50s. He becomes an on-air champion of African-American music, and falls in love with a black female singer, with "dramatic consequences," according to press material. That certainly sounds a lot more interesting that the show's title, but then the similarly named Chicago certainly seems to have done well for itself.

Addams Family Musical Will Hit Broadway in 2010

We've been hearing a lot lately about the upcoming musical version of The Addams Family, with a score by Andrew Lippa (The Wild Party, john & jen, new songs for the revival of You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown) and a book by Marshall Brickman and Rick Elice (Jersey Boys).

Well, now The Addams Family appears to be on track for a Broadway bow in April 2010, after an out-of-town tryout in Chicago from November to January.

A recent workshop of the show featured Nathan Lane as Gomez, Bebe Neuwirth as Morticia, and Kevin Chamberlin as Uncle Fester, although there's no word yet on whether they'll repeat those roles on Broadway.

The buzz about the workshop was quite positive, particularly for the book and the performances. Apparently the story for the musical is not based on the movies or the TV show, but rather inspired by the original Charles Addams New Yorker cartoons. (And, no, they won't be using the famed da-da-da-dum-snap-snap hook from the TV show theme song.)

Direction and design for the show will come from the eclectic pair Phelim McDermott and Julian Crouch (Shockheaded Peter), so we're likely in for a show that's, at the very least, interesting to look at.

My take: Well, I try to see everything, so it really doesn't matter if I say that I'm going to see it. But I think audiences will be attracted to the cast, if Lane and Neuwirth do indeed sign on for the Broadway run. The brand-recognition factor should attract a sizable crowd, but I don't get the sense that it will prove to be a critic-proof, guaranteed hit. The show will only have legs if it can generate positive word of mouth, something that, for instance, Shrek has so far been able to do, and The Addams Family as a very similar, pre-packaged, brand-driven feel to it.

Dirty Dancing: Dead on Stage

The Playbill for the national tour of Dirty Dancing: The Classic Story on Stage, now playing at Boston's Opera House, has a number of telling omissions. There's no mention anywhere of a librettist, a composer, or a lyricist. And why? Because not a single shred of creativity or original thought went into mounting this lazy, venal, and cynical enterprise. Even the guy who sings "I Had the Time of My Life" sounds exactly like Bill Medley on the original recording.

Say what you want about the stage versions of Footloose and Saturday Night Fever. The creators at least made the effort to integrate the songs into those shows and put them in the mouths of the main characters. But with Dirty Dancing, we have groundskeepers and chambermaids walking through the scenes singing the songs that many of us know, and some of us even love. (Though not I.) Baby and Johnny never sing a note.

Is this even a musical? Well, I happen to be of the opinion that, if the people who created a show call it a musical, then it's a musical. So Contact is a musical. Movin' Out is a musical. But note that the title of the show at hand is Dirty Dancing: The Classic Story on Stage, and not Dirty Dancing: The Musical. It's like an admission of guilt on the part of the creators here. "Basically, we didn't even try."

But let's for the moment accede that Dirty Dancing is, indeed, a musical. The question is: is it any good? Is it entertaining? Does it tell a compelling story about characters whom we care about, and engage us with humor and pathos along the way?

No.

There's certainly a lot of action on stage, but there's really no focus. The wall-to-wall dance blends into an undifferentiated morass. For example, in one scene, Johnny and his dance partner demonstrate the mambo to the resort guests. Then, in the next scene, they're supposed to be letting their hair down and performing the titular "dirty dancing" in the staff quarters. But choreographer Kate Champion hasn't managed to find a way to make these two styles look different.

The whole production suffers from the same bland, uniform indifference. It also suffers from an over-reliance on numerous antiquated theatrical techniques: blackouts, crossovers, scenes-in-one, and irrelevant dance to cover set changes.

The regular Johnny Castle was out sick for this performance, so we got standby Easton Smith. To put it bluntly, except for his dancing, which is decent, Smith has no business on a professional stage. His acting is as flat as his hairstyle. He makes Patrick Swayze seem almost lifelike by comparison. Apparently the producers placed dancing first among their criteria for the role, but Smith doesn't have the acting chops to make Johnny sympathetic or credible.

There were a few bright spots in the cast, including Amanda Leigh Cobb (The Coast of Utopia) as Baby. Cobb is simply a terrific actress, very natural and endearing. Not surprising, since she boasts an MFA from Yale Drama, no less. (Oh, the indignity.) The scene in which Baby apologizes to and confronts her father almost made this turkey worth seeing. And then there was the always reliable Kaitlin Hopkins (Bat Boy, The Great American Trailer Park Musical) as the mom, bringing humor and warmth to an admittedly minor role.

Apparently there was an orchestra hiding somewhere backstage, but I can't imagine why they even bothered. Much of the time, they were just playing recordings from the movie soundtrack anyway, for instance during "Hungry Eyes." (Pedantic aside: the lyric "I feel the magic between you and I..." is painfully ungrammatical. "Between" is a preposition, which makes "I" the object of the preposition, making the use of "me" imperative, which I can show you by drawing a very simple chart...)

It's a really a shame that this production is such a dog, because there just might be a decent musical at the heart of Dirty Dancing. Typically, movie adaptations at least add something that you couldn't get from simply renting the movie. This one doesn't. Even so, apparently the producers have every intention of taking this one to Broadway, possibly at the Neil Simon, recently vacated by the long-running Hairspray. 

God help us all.

Next to Normal Will Play Broadway

After what appears to have been a successful run at the Arena Stage, the new musical Next to Normal is now Broadway bound. The entire Arena Stage cast -- including Alice Ripley, J. Robert Spencer, and Aaron Tveit -- will make the transfer to New York, where the show will play the Longacre Theater, recently vacated by Boeing-Boeing.

The producers have announced an unusual move: they will close off the Longacre balcony, reducing the number of potential audience members from 1,100 to 820. This is apparently to provide more intimacy for the six-character musical.

Regular readers will recall that I had problems with both the message and the execution of Next to Normal when I saw it at the Second Stage. (Read my review.) Librettist Brian Yorkey continues to contact me about my review and my subsequent postings about his show. I have no intention of responding to his mean-spirited emails, nor any interest in getting into a pissing contest. Although you'd think that someone who has a show about to open on Broadway would be a little more careful in his treatment of potential influencers. I'm no Michael Riedel, but I do have a decent number of readers, and many of them are influencers in their own right.

But, believe it or not, I do plan on taking in the show again when it comes to Broadway, and I encourage my readers to see the show as well, to form their own opinions. I hear there have been considerable changes to the show since its Off-Broadway run, and if I can give Billy Elliot and In the Heights a second chance, I can do no less for Next to Normal. But, if I have the same problems with the show that I had before (e.g. an inconstant tone, a preponderance of clichés, and a message that includes an apparent repudiation of psychiatry), I certainly reserve my right to make those opinions known.

In other Next to Normal news, the folks at Ghostlight Records recently recorded the score, which will be released at a future date TBD. 

West Side Story: Almost a Masterpiece

Over the weekend, I flew down to Richmond, VA to spend some time with my old friend and colleague Phaedra Hise and her 13-year-old daughter, Lily, the latter of which is has been bitten pretty badly by the stage bug. In fact, she's so obsessed with musical theater that Phaedra's husband Bill has joked that I must be Lily's real father. (Hey, stranger things have happened, but I think Bill can sleep pretty comfortably with the knowledge that that's about as likely as a revival of Lestat.)

It was a lovely weekend all around, but of course we had to take Lily to see a show. Fortunately, the Pre-Broadway engagement of West Side Story was still playing at the National Theater in Washington, DC, so Phaedra and I ventured north to the capital to take Lily and a friend to see it. A good time was had by all.

There's been a lot of press and blog chatter about this production, particularly about how original librettist and current director Arthur Laurents was hoping to accomplish at least three things with this revival: 

1. To make the gang members credibly gang-like
2. To bring out the raw sexuality of two teenagers in lust
3. To successfully translate significant portions of the show into Spanish, particularly when there are only Latino characters on stage

So, has Laurents achieved these goals? In short:

1. Not at all
2. Sort of
3. Not really

But it's a testament to the quality of the original piece itself, to Leonard Bernstein's outstanding score, and to Jerome Robbins' brilliant choreography, expertly recreated here by Joey McKneely, that the production succeeds despite Laurents' unrealized ambitions.

Laurents starts the show off with a slow and sinister prologue, then seems to forget his directive to make the gang tension and violence believable. But the trouble here really starts with the casting: there's not a single member of the Jets or the Sharks whom I'd be a-scared of in a dark alley. Street hoodlums these are not. That's one of the constant challenges of West Side Story: you gotta have guys who can dance, but often the best dancers aren't exactly the most masculine or intimidating of men. Take for instance Cody Green as Riff, who's a terrific dancer, but hasn't a whit of street toughness, nor any spark on stage at all, for that matter. The only gang member who comes even close to the requisite grit is Curtis Holbrook as Action, although I couldn't help thinking of him in his skimpy tunic as Thalia in Xanadu.

Fortunately, the central pair of lovers are reasonably well cast. Matt Cavenaugh (A Catered Affair, Grey Gardens) is terrific as Tony, bringing vocal restraint and emotional honesty to the most important male role. Josefina Scaglione as Maria, a casting discovery from Argentina, seems a bit green. Her voice is sweet but thin, and her acting is at times quite touching, at other times phony and forced. As for the raw sexuality that Laurents promised, it wasn't in evidence at the performance I saw, although Cavenaugh and Scaglione had a frisky, playful quality, and were genuinely moving during the famous balcony sequence.

The strongest member of the cast was Karen Olivo as Anita. I wasn't a fan of Olivo's performance as Vanessa in In The Heights, but in retrospect it may have been the underwritten nature of the role that irked me. Here, Olivo is the best thing on stage, giving Anita the sass and grit that many of her fellow cast mates were sorely in need of.

And then there's the Spanish. Laurents brought in Lin-Manuel Miranda, composer, lyricist and star of In the Heights, to provide Spanish translations for quite a significant portion of the show. The songs and surrounding scenes for "I Feel Pretty" and "A Boy Like That/I Have a Love" are entirely in Spanish. I've gone back and forth on this, but ultimately I think this was a mistake. The Spanish works OK when it's woven into the dialog before "America," or as part of the big ensemble numbers like the "Tonight" quintet. But I found myself tuning out during the extended Spanish sequences, when, alas, my three years of high school Spanish failed to emerge from the depths of my long-term memory. Plus, Miranda's translated lyrics don't always scan well with the music, which is a huge pet peeve of mine.

But, again, the score and the dancing carry the show, which in its essential form is almost a masterpiece. Why almost? Well, I've never been a fan of the "Somewhere" ballet, which was wisely cut from the movie version of "West Side Story." It's basically a fantasy ballet in which Maria and Tony dream of a place where they can be happy together, and where the Jets and the Sharks and, yes, even Anybodys, can live in peace and harmony. I have always found it unbearably twee, and this production hasn't changed my mind. I must admit that, when the revival's ballet first started, I almost found myself buying into it. But here, Laurents has given the "Somewhere" solo to a young boy, a new character referred to in the Playbill as "Kiddo." I guess he's supposed to represent innocence, a sort of tabula rasa, before society has inflicted its stereotypes upon his psyche. ("You've got to be taught to hate and fear...") Whatever, it doesn't work, and it only made this sappy scene even more syrupy.

So, overall, this is a very professional production of a nearly perfect show. Laurents hasn't quite (yet?) achieved what he had hoped with this revival, but the quality of the piece itself, as well as the talent of the people on stage, make it a must-see event. West Side Story begins performances at the Palace Theater in New York City on February 23rd toward a March opening. I say, get your tickets now.

Shrek: Not Great, But Not Bad

I've had an insanely busy week, so I'm just now sitting down to finish up my review of Shrek the Musical, which I caught an early preview of on my last trip to New York. Right now, I'm down in Provincetown, Mass. to perform in a couple of concerts with the Boston Gay Men's Chorus as part of the town's annual Holly Folly event. (If you happen to be in town, we have two performances on Saturday, December 6th at the Unitarian Universalist Meeting House.) Being away from Boston makes me feel a little less guilty about taking the time out to blog.

As I said, I saw an early preview performance of Shrek, and from what I understand, there are changes afoot. In fact, the producers recently canceled the show's December 2nd performance to give the cast and creative team some breathing room to institute some major changes, so I have to couch my views in the fact that I saw the show prior to said changes.

Overall, I liked what I saw. The show was in reasonably good shape in terms of the book, the performances, and the pacing, but its major liability was a score that lacks any boffo numbers. The opening number, "Big, Bright, Beautiful World," certainly serves its purpose, and Fiona's "wanting" song, "I Know It's Today," is not without its charms. Composer Jeanine Tesori serves up numerous serviceable tunes, and many of David Lindsay-Abaire's lyrics are witty, even at times inspired. Each song serves an effective dramatic purpose, but there really isn't any number that sticks in the mind, at least not for long.

After some well publicized casting difficulties, the show has settled in with an appealing and talented crew of principals. There were a few changes after the Seattle tryout, including a new Donkey and changes in the Dragon character. Kecia Lewis-Evans was originally hired to provide the voice of the Dragon, but she was let go, and the Dragon's vocal parts were relegated to the female chorus. The result is vocally indistinct and dramatically ineffective, plus the "costume" looks like something out of "A Bug's Life," with the female chorus donning various leaf-like shells that I guess are supposed to be the Dragon's scales, but the effect is inscrutable. Perhaps this is one of the things they'll be changing. One hopes.

As for the new Donkey, Daniel Breaker is an inspired choice. Breaker, who brought Stew's younger self to electrifying life in the late and lamented Passing Strange, succeeds here in a part that couldn't be more different from his Passing Strange character, and yet he brings a similarly subversive quality to both.

At first, I wasn't sure that Brian d'Arcy James was the right choice for the Shrek role, but James turns in a dynamic and sympathetic performance, despite the bulky costume and green prosthetics. Christopher Sieber is an absolute hoot as Lord Farquad, and gives a suitably camp and larger-than-life performance. Sutton Foster brings her deft gift for comedy to the Princess Fiona role. The only slight disappointment is John Tartaglia as Pinocchio, but only because this super talented guy doesn't have more stage time.

The show works best when it's not trying to ape the success of the the original "Shrek" movie. Quite a few of the lines from the movie are falling flat on stage, including a number of Eddie Murphy's priceless Donkey ad libs. The creators also seem to be relying too much on the "Oh, everyone's seen the movie" factor. There are a few too many times during the show during which, if you hadn't seen the movie, you'd be confused. For example, during a song at end of act 1, Fiona inexplicably shows up in green ogre makeup. Fans of the movie will understand why, but the guy sitting next to me, who had never seen the movie, was lost.

When I saw the show, there were a few stage sequences and transitions that weren't quite working yet. For instance, during the scene in which Farquad charges Shrek and Donkey with rescuing Princess Fiona, rather than tell the characters what they actually need to do, Farquad turns to one of his underlings and says, "Fill them in and show them out," which is a rather lazy dramatic device. And the complex escape from the Dragon's lair included some quizzical elements. At one point, the main characters are being pursued by skeletons, and we never learn why, or where these skeletons came from. Then, for no apparent reason, Shrek and Fiona temporarily turn into skeletons as well. Whah? Also, at the climax of the show, there were two crucial moments that weren't quite soup yet, including Fiona's transformation, and Lord Farquad's...um...just desserts?

Again, hopefully, those are some of the rough spots that the creative team will be trying to smooth out as the show makes its way towards its December 14th opening. There's certainly plenty here to enjoy already, including numerous humorous references to iconic Broadway shows, such as Gypsy, A Chorus Line, and Wicked. And whereas the "Shrek" movies poked fun at Disney films and characters, Shrek the Musical aims a few barbs at Disney stage shows, which is certainly apt. Because, despite its flaws, Shrek has more heart and less pointless spectacle than any of Disney's Broadway fun rides, past or present.

The Story of My Life Headed for Broadway

In the middle of my recent Rocky Horror weekend at the Boston Conservatory, I made an afternoon trip down to Chester, CT to catch one of the final pre-Broadway performances of The Story of My Life at the Goodspeed's Norma Terris Theater. It was a bit of a hike, and I wasn't entirely sure my jalopy of a car would survive the four and a half hours of driving, but she held together, and I was really glad I made the trip.

This was my first exposure to the writing team of Neil Bartram (music and lyrics) and Brian Hill (book), but I'm predicting really great things for them. It's just that I have serious doubts that The Story of My Life will survive on Broadway, although I was greatly impressed by the strength of the score, as well as the two performers, Malcolm Gets and Will Chase.

The show is essentially about the intertwining lives of two childhood friends as they grow and make their way in the world. The story starts with Tom Weaver (Chase), a bestselling author, arriving to speak at the funeral of his friend Alvin Kelby (Gets). Tom's difficulty in writing the eulogy sets the stage for a series of flashbacks illuminating their long and complicated relationship.

The story itself is clichéd beyond belief, focusing on the emptiness of success and the people you leave behind. Brian Hill's book suffers from an over-reliance on a series of banal cultural signposts, including the butterfly effect, the movie "It's a Wonderful Life," the novel The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, and making angels in the snow. (See the show's original logo, left) But the score is rich and literate, one of the best I've heard in years, with melodic yet challenging music, and solid, erudite lyrics.

Overall, I was left with the sense that these were two really promising collaborators who were focusing their admittedly strong craft on some highly unoriginal ideas. Yet, somehow, the show transcends the bromides to evince genuine inspiration. No doubt the strength of to the two performers assist in this transformation, not to mention the strong directorial hand of Broadway veteran Richard Maltby, Jr.

According to Playbill.com, the show's producers are still actively planning to bring The Story of My Life to Broadway in the spring. A casting notice recently surfaced seeking understudies for the show's two roles. Although I'm definitely looking forward to the future work of Neil Bartram and Brian Hill, I predict that New York audiences and critics will tear this earnest but sweet show apart. I also can't see it capturing a significant audience in this economic environment. But I do see it catching on with theater queens and community groups much in the same way that The Last Five Years has developed a strong regional following.