Master Index of Archived Threads


Broadway season 2011-2012

Vic Sage Aug 02 2011 03:31 PM Edited 4 time(s), most recently on Sep 28 2011 02:59 PM

Another Openin', another show. A new season is upon us, so here we go again: SPIDER-MAN: TURN OFF THE DARK - The notorious musical finally opened in June; it's not terrible, but it's not a particularly well spent $75million, either, considering you could have produced 5 big musicals for that price, or 25 moderately sized plays. One can still see the vestiges of Julie Taymor's undoubtedly ambitious exploration of myths and masks just beneath the perfunctorily superficial Vegas entertainment, and it’s an uneasy patchwork. The design is all over the place, using cartoonish, perspective-skewing foldout sets, huge video images, garish DICK TRACY type costumes, Taymor-style masks, various modes of flying (which, in the performance I attended, broke down during the climax), all mashed together with banal choreography and silly Biff! Bam! Boom!-style action. There is still the haunting, ethereal Arachne, reduced by rewrites to a vestigial character existing only in Peter Parker’s mind but suggesting what might have been had Taymor's vision been coherent enough to avoid her getting fired and the show getting rewritten. But what's left of the Taymor version provides some of the more interesting visual and thematic aspects of the show. The music has some soaring U2 moments, but the songs are not particularly theatrical or lyrical, and are, instead, often droning and forgettable. The show also stumbles over its own shaky narrative. Act I is a not-quite-faithful retelling of Spider-man's iconic origin. By failing to make the boy DIRECTLY responsible for his uncle’s death, as he is in the comic book (and every other iteration of the story ever devised), this clueless adaptation undermines Parker's psychological motivation as a character, thus failing to learn 2 vital lessons…“with great power, comes great responsibility”, and "if it's not broke, don't fix it." Meanwhile, too much stage time is given to the Green Goblin’s newly invented back-story since, in Act II, he is reduced to nothing more than a silly slice of ham. The 2nd Act also presents a bunch of other colorful but pointless villains, introduced and vanquished for no narrative purpose, while J. Jonah Jameson blusters humorlessly, Mary Jane pines, and other Act I characters never reappear or get meaningfully developed or resolved. Meanwhile Spidey just bounces around from one episode to the next, and it all feels rushed, and unconvincing, and ultimately unsatisfying. The actors try their best, but there is only so much they can do. But my kids liked it, and it is a superhero musical, so I’ll add a + to its C- grade. [C] Also announced for this season, so far (in chronological order): MASTER CLASS - Revival of Terrence McNally's play about Maria Callas, with Tyne Daly FOLLIES - Revival of Sondheim's glorious tribute to show folk of yesteryear, and to roads not taken, stars Bernadette Peters MAN & BOY - Revival of Brit playwright Terrence Rattigan's play about the ruthlessness in businesses and families, with Frank Langella THE MOUNTAINTOP - Samuel L. Jackson and Angela Bassett, in a new play by Katori Hall about MLK,jr. RELATIVELY SPEAKING - John Turturro directs a trilogy of comedic 1-acts by Elaine May, Woody Allen and Ethan Coen. OTHER DESERT CITIES - family tragedies by Jon Robbie Baitz, with Stockard Channing, brought back by Lincoln Center CHINGLISH - Henry David Hwang's new comedy about US-Chinese communication, with GODSPELL - Revival of the classic Stephen Schwartz musical... The Gospel according to St. Matthew, 1970's style. VENUS IN FUR - David Ives' sexy off-Broadway play comes to The Roundabout, with Nina Arianda PRIVATE LIVES - Kim Catrall in this revival of a Noel Coward comedy AN EVENING with PATTI LUPONE & MANDY PATINKIN - They're in concert BONNIE & CLYDE - Frank Wildhorne's new musical STICK FLY - Alicia Keyes is co-producing this dramedy about race and class by Lydia Diamond ON A CLEAR DAY YOU CAN SEE FOREVER - Peter Parnell has rewritten the Alan Jay Lerner book to make the great Burton Lane score producible, with Harry Connick. PORGY & BESS - Audra McDonald headlines this revival coming to Broadway from ART/Boston. WIT - Cynthia Nixon stars in this revival of the pulitzer winner. THE COLUMNIST - John Lithgow stars in a new play by David Auburn REBECCA - Viennese musical based on the Daphne du Maurier novel is adapted by Christopher Hampton

themetfairy Aug 02 2011 04:04 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

I know you'll think less of me Vic, but I'm looking forward to Rebecca. I loved the novel.

Edgy MD Aug 02 2011 09:45 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Vic Sage wrote: THE MOUNTAINTOP - Samuel L. Jackson and Angela Bassett, in a new play by Katori Hall about MLK,jr. Samuel L. as MLK? That's a mindbender. Leaving aside that the guy is about to start collecting Social Security and King died at 39, he once took MLK, Sr. as a hostage.

Vic Sage Aug 02 2011 09:56 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

themetfairy wrote: I know you'll think less of me Vic, but I'm looking forward to Rebecca. I loved the novel. whatever floats yer boat, sweetcheeks. It all pays my rent.

Vic Sage Aug 18 2011 11:36 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

MASTER CLASS – Terrence McNally’s clever, funny, moving portrait of a Monstre Sacre’, diva soprano Maria Callas, breaks down time, space and fourth walls, even as Callas tries to break down the students coming to her in the course of her master class on singing, acting, loving…and “getting a look.” It is a great play, well rendered in this production, with a terrific performance by Tyne Daly, who projects the core of steel, the earthy origins, and the wounded vanity required of the role. The only misstep in the production is the casting of the student who stands up to her bullying. When I saw Audra McDonald play the part, Callas’ advice to her, that she should seek less challenging roles because she is not “special”, was understood to be an expression of horrible jealousy of a sacred monster in decline. The fact was that McDonald WAS special, and was right in rejecting Callas’ withering critique. Here, however, the singer is, in fact, nothing special, so Callas is actually offering fair judgment – which weakens the dramatic impact of the moment and undermines the statement about Callas. Also, there is a moment when Daly is required to sing a few lines… not just in the “Rex Harrison style” of acting the lyrics while speaking the notes which she does expertly throughout, but actually singing in an operatic fashion. Now, even a Callas who was past her prime and had lost her voice is not going to sing like Tyne Daley, an untrained Broadway belter. It sounds especially false after hearing the other “students”, who are all trained opera singers. But it’s a minor misstep in a beautiful production of a marvelous play about the deforming loneliness of ambition and greatness, and about the importance of art as a force for salvation in our everyday lives. [A-]

Vic Sage Sep 28 2011 03:12 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

FOLLIES - This recent revival of Sondheim's cult classic comes to Broadway via the Kennedy Center. The show features one of Sondheim's greatest scores, as it runs the gamut of 20th century Broadway musical stylings, in service to a flawed but fascinating book by James Goldman, about memory, regret, love, psychosis and show biz. Even the humor draws blood. This revival is well directed and designed, with the ghosts of striking showgirls (as well as the characters' younger selves) effectively haunting a reunion of former chorines in a bare, dilapidated theater. Act I is funny and fizzy, even with its ghostly echoes of the past haunting the action. But Act II devolves into a total psychotic meltdown as past, present and delusion meld into a musical fantasia of emotional pain for all involved. Illusions are shattered, the past is buried, and life goes on. I just wished the 4 principal actors were all pulling their weight through this musical and emotional maelstrom. Unfortunately, Bernadette Peters seems a bit miscast as Sally, the former chorus girl who lacked the sophistication to ever win the heart of Ben, the man she loved, and has become unhinged as a result. After decades as a Broadway icon, buying Peters as an earthy, unsophisticate is a bit of a stretch. And Ron Gaines as Ben, the erudite diplomat and object of Sally’s unwanted affections, is only a stentorian voice in search of a performance, lacking the depth required to make the role sympathetic. But Jan Maxwell is terrific as the classy but bitter Phyllis, who suffered the fate of being the one to marry Ben, and song & dance man Danny Burstein is brilliant, too, as Sally’s philandering husband, cursed to love Sally despite her fixation on a fantasy. And there are some great featured performances, as well, including Elaine Page (“I’m Still Here”) and Jane Houdyshell (“Broadway Baby”). On balance, it’s a worthwhile production of a sorry/grateful, regretful/happy, sad/exuberant, haunted American musical. [B+]

sharpie Sep 28 2011 04:10 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Seeing it Saturday afternoon.

Vic Sage Sep 29 2011 10:54 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

let us know what you think. i'm kind of bored of always being the only one to comment on theater here. guys, its ok. it doesn't make you gay. i think... NTTAWWT! you can even talk about local theater; it doesn't have to be about Broadway.

Valadius Sep 29 2011 11:09 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Where's The Best Man?

Vic Sage Sep 29 2011 11:31 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

i'm right here. oh, you mean the Gore Vidal play? It's tentatively planned for the Spring of 2012, with James Earl Jones.

TransMonk Sep 29 2011 01:58 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Back in in my just-out-of-high-school thesbian days, I played Young Ben in a local production of Follies. I almost remember the dance moves to "You're Gonna Love Tomorrow".

Edgy MD Sep 29 2011 02:01 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

I think Broadway needs more Sex & the City actresses. That would get me out more.

Vic Sage Oct 03 2011 12:06 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

sharpie wrote: Seeing it Saturday afternoon. so? whadja think?

sharpie Oct 03 2011 02:21 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

I liked it a lot. For the most part I agree with you. While Bernadette Peters is not who would spring to mind for Sally I thought by emphasizing the neurotic rather than the dowdy side of the character she made it work for me. I though Jan Maxwell, Danny Burstein and the other featured showgirls were terrific. Ron Gaines, was, however, the weakest part of the show. Had a hard time caring about him and I don't think it's because of the way the part is written. Nonetheless, it looks great and it's such a great show that I'm very glad I went. The construct of the show is fascinating -- the way it gives so many different characters opportunities to have show-stopping numbers, the "psychotic meltdown" of the Loveland section, the equivocal ending -- it really is everything you could want in a musical for adults.

Vic Sage Oct 05 2011 10:40 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Des MacAnuff's production of JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR is planned to come down from Stratford for a Broadway run in March. And Commander Data is playing Pontius Pilate. Hosanna! Heysanna!

Vic Sage Oct 05 2011 03:11 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

I think Broadway needs more Sex & the City actresses. That would get me out more. 2 of 4 ain't enough for you? :) well, it's MORE than enough for me. although i wouldn't mind seeing Sarah Jessica Parker again in a revival of SYLVIA. she played a dog. it was type casting.

Edgy MD Oct 05 2011 07:34 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Irony. I was exercising irony. Clearly, somebody has done some data mining and realized the S&tC market was their target.

MFS62 Oct 05 2011 09:25 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Vic Sage wrote: although i wouldn't mind seeing Sarah Jessica Parker again in a revival of SYLVIA. she played a dog. it was type casting. Vic, take a bow. That was your best review ever. Later

Frayed Knot Oct 05 2011 09:32 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

I was thinking more about her in a revival of Equus

Vic Sage Oct 05 2011 09:45 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Irony. I was exercising irony. yes, that's why i had a :) thingy. and when you exercise it, is that like Pumping Irony?

Vic Sage Oct 05 2011 09:46 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Frayed Knot wrote: I was thinking more about her in a revival of Equus Well, they've already done that with Harry Potter. But she could go into the current production of WARHORSE.

MFS62 Oct 06 2011 06:52 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Vic Sage wrote: Irony. I was exercising irony. yes, that's why i had a :) thingy. and when you exercise it, is that like Pumping Irony? And that was your worst. :) Later

Edgy MD Oct 06 2011 07:41 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

When you're sharing puns with Tony Kornheiser, you've hit the bottom of the barrel.

Vic Sage Oct 06 2011 08:19 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

doh! fair cop.

Vic Sage Oct 12 2011 03:44 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

MAN AND BOY – Brit playwright Terrence Rattigan’s 1963 minor flop is revived by the Roundabout for its “timeliness”, and the story of a Madoff-style financial villain during the 1930s would seem more relevant than ever, if it were a great play. Alas, it’s a flawed work. But Frank Langella offers yet another towering performance as the slick, monstrously amoral European financier making a final stand while hiding out in his estranged son’s shabby Greenwich Village apartment. The director presents a crisp, engaging first act, as we watch Langella at the height of his power. But Act II limps to an undramatic conclusion, as plot machinations lead to his defeat, and leave the Father-Son relationship at the heart of the play woefully undeveloped. It represents a missed opportunity, dramatically speaking, as Rattigan has set the stage for Greek Tragedy with mythic resonance but settles, instead, for warmed over melodrama. As for the rest, among the supporting cast only Zach Grenier stands out. The design elements are equally unremarkable. Overall, the production is worthwhile for Langella’s performance alone, which is really all it delivers. [C+]

themetfairy Oct 12 2011 03:49 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

We just bought tickets to see Relatively Speaking in December.

Vic Sage Nov 02 2011 03:54 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Nov 30 2011 03:27 PM

RELATIVELY SPEAKING – 3 comic 1-acts (from Ethan Coen, Elaine May and Woody Allen) on the general theme of family dysfunction are staged by first-time director John Turturro with widely disparate levels of success. In the Ethan Coen piece, Talking Cure, writer/actor Danny Hoch gives a comically menacing turn as a postal worker who has been institutionalized for… well, going postal. The exchanges with his shrink are funny, the flashback to his parents is banal, and then the play just stops… author Coen seems to think a “short play” is just a play that is left unfinished. [D] However, Elaine May’s George Is Dead is a fully realized play, with an unexpectedly funny and touching performance by Marlo Thomas as a spoiled, rich, infantilized matron who has nowhere to turn upon the sudden death of her husband except to the tiny apartment of her old nanny’s daughter… the girl who she long ago displaced as the center of the nanny’s maternal affections. Lisa Emery holds her own as the put-upon daughter trying to do the right thing. The play is hilarious and poignant. [A] Woody Allen’s Honeymoon Hotel is also quite funny, but it’s a dated sex farce with over-the-top performances by Steve Guttenberg, Julie Kavner, Mark Linn-Baker and a host of others directed to play it like it’s 1963. The play bursts with Allen’s typically mordant mélange of Jewish jokes and one-liners about god, sex, death and morality, covering all his familiar territory. Unfortunately, the basic theme (delivered at the end by Danny Hoch as a pizza delivery guy) -- that the heart wants what the heart wants, and society should just shut up about it, no matter who gets hurt-- comes off as a nauseating rationalization for Allen’s own dubious romantic history, making all the forced and familiar laughs seem all the more disturbing. [C-] Overall, i'd say it was more funny than not, more worth seeing than not, but (other than the May play) not great. And though you'll likely laugh while watching the Allen play, the more you think about it later, the creepier it gets. [C]

themetfairy Nov 02 2011 05:48 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Thanks Vic. I'll let you know what I think about it next month.

Fman99 Nov 02 2011 07:51 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Vic Sage wrote: Woody Allen’s Honeymoon Hotel is also quite funny, but it’s a dated sex farce with over-the-top performances by Steve Guttenberg, Julie Kavner, Mark Linn-Baker and a host of others directed to play it like it’s 1963. The play bursts with Allen’s typically mordant mélange of Jewish jokes and one-liners about god, sex, death and morality, covering all his familiar territory. Unfortunately, the basic theme (delivered at the end by Danny Hoch as a pizza delivery guy) -- that the heart wants what the heart wants, and society should just shut up about it, no matter who gets hurt-- comes off as a nauseating rationalization for Allen’s own dubious romantic history, making all the forced and familiar laughs seem all the more disturbing. [C] Holy shit, it's a 1980's forgotten stars restrospectus! Understudies Tempestt Bledsoe, Philip Michael Thomas and ALF are all waiting in the wings.

Vic Sage Nov 03 2011 08:09 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Nov 03 2011 08:29 AM

as a haven for exiled 80s tv stars, we should note that the Allen play also features * Grant "Miles Silverberg" Shaud from 80s-90s sitcom MURPHY BROWN, and *Richard Libertini, who got his start in the play and movie version of Allen's DON'T DRINK THE WATER in the 1960s, had his own sitcom, FAMILY MAN, which lasted 7 episodes in 1988 (Coincidentally, Libertini also played Miles Silverberg's dad in an episode of MURPHY BROWN).

Vic Sage Nov 03 2011 08:18 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

also, * Jason Kravitz, best known as the ferret-like ADA Richard Bay on THE PRACTICE, was a child actor who appeared on a short-lived PBS series called POWERHOUSE in 1982.

Vic Sage Nov 15 2011 11:59 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

THE MOUNTAINTOP – young playwright Katori Hall has grafted her hero-worshipping hagiography of Martin Luther King onto a spiritual fantasy about King’s last night on Earth, spent in a Memphis hotel room with a new maid… or is she really a camp follower, or an FBI spy, or something else entirely? And is he seducing her, or just longing for company, a drink and a cigarette, or in need of an audience on his night in Gethsemane, as the rain pours down and the lightning flashes? To say I didn’t care in the least who or what she was, or why he was doing what he was doing, perhaps overstates, but I think the play assumes the audience radiates with a level of unambiguous affection for King (beyond mere respect for his accomplishments and oratory) to fill in the play’s emotional holes. Also, the author’s arbitrary cosmology speaks of a silly kind of spirituality that speaks less about King than it does about the author. Still, at the play’s climax, when the room deconstructs and a def poetry jam ensues over projections indicating the journey of Black Americans over the last 40 years, it’s hard not to be impressed by its shear theatricality despite the heavy-handedness of its manipulation. And Hall should also be applauded for the clear-eyed professionalism that allowed her to author an easily produced 1-act / 1-set / 2-character play that can attract movie stars like Samuel L. Jackson and Angela Bassett to tell a politically correct tale that is likely to have a long life in community theaters and colleges around the country. But it left me uninvolved. [C+]

sharpie Nov 15 2011 12:29 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Went to see SEMINAR in previews last week. Alan Rickman stars as the embittered instructor of an advanced writers workshop who systematically breaks down his students in what seems like a cruel way but ends up probably helping them all. My place of work was mentioned several times and I certainly recognized the types if not the actual people the characters might be based on. I found it to be an enjoyable evening at the theater. This is the second show I've seen Alan Rickman in this year, also saw him in Ibsen's rarely-performed "John Gabriel Borkman" at BAM in January. I discovered why that show is rarely performed but Rickman was compelling in both shows.

Vic Sage Nov 27 2011 03:18 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Nov 28 2011 10:45 AM

CHINGLISH – David Henry Hwang’s new play is amusing and engaging, if not quite what it should be. A businessman is giving a lecture about doing business in China, and the play is a flashback to his experiences there. The central comic conceit is the bad ways we translate each other’s complex languages and intentions. But this play about cultural values and miscommunication probably reads better than it plays, due to a lackluster cast and generally unimaginative staging. The love story at its core is bereft of real emotional content, and so it all is a cerebral exercise… not a bad one, mind you, but not particularly memorable one either [C+] OTHER DESERT CITIES – There are 3 kinds of plays I particularly hate: (1) overtly political diatribes, (2) dysfunctional family tragedies and (3) exercises in sitcom-style dialogue. This is all of the above. Not only that, it cheats on the dysfunctional family stuff, giving everybody an easy emotional “out” with a last scene coda that transforms it from tragedy to mere melodrama. All that being said, it’s totally engaging throughout, almost entirely due to the quality of the cast. From Rachel Griffiths’ novelist coming out her depression by writing a tell-all book about her conservative parents and their emotional responsibility for the suicide of her radical terrorist brother, to Stockard Channing and Stacey Keach as her wealthy Palms Springs Republican parents, living in the desert with their own secrets, to Judith Licht as her alcoholic aunt, living with her controlling sister in the desert and encouraging the daughter’s literary betrayal to ameliorate her own guilt, to Thomas Sadoski’s hedonistic Hollywood brother, just trying to stay afloat, despite his bitterness over playing second fiddle to their martyred brother. The individual pieces of the production far exceed the sum of this play, but there is no denying the raw emotional power on stage. [B-]

Vic Sage Nov 27 2011 03:35 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

VENUS IN FUR – This thrillingly erotic tragi-comedy by David Ives features another star-making performance by the brilliantly talented young actress Nina Arianda (Tony nominated last season for BORN YESTERDAY), who originally created this role off-Broadway before MTC brought it uptown. Arianda plays "Vanda", a mysterious, vulgar, funny, raw young woman who shows up unscheduled for an audition. Hugh Dancy is the playwright / director casting his play, based on Sacher-Masoch’s S&M cult classic “Venus in Furs”, about sex and power. As the audition goes on, the two act out the play within the play, as thunder clashes outside and mysteries deepen within. All the while, roles reverse and secrets reveal. Much like the movie INCEPTION, there are layers to Arianda's performance, as she plays an actress who is playing a character who adopts various roles until…well, the ending is unexpected but entirely inevitable. The play does meander a bit and, despite its humor, it ends up being the kind of feminist screed that the playwright had (rightfully) decried earlier, but its sheer theatricality overcomes the limitations of its heavy-handedness to make a truly audacious, original and effective work of drama. [A-]

Vic Sage Nov 30 2011 03:02 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

PRIVATE LIVES - Noel Coward is the bane of my existence. His trifling sex comedies of a bygone age are so dated and irrelevant they render me nearly comatose. Yet off I go, duty bound, to sit through each new revival. I suppose that audiences may have found this comedy of manners amusingly shocking once upon a time, but who cares about this stuff anymore? It's not fast and furiously physical enough to be screwball comedy or farce, it's not sincere or melancholy enough to be poignant or moving, it has nothing on its mind beyond clichés about comically mismatched lovers that you've seen a million times, from Shakespeare to LOVEBOAT episodes. In sum, there's nothing interesting or original either in the storytelling or the story being told. Kim Catrall, at least, seems authentic in the role, but the rest of the cast is appropriately obscure. And yes, there are the standard Coward bon mots and tunefulness in evidence, and some nice design work evocative of the period, so if that's enough for you, have at it. [D+]

MFS62 Dec 01 2011 08:24 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Vic Sage wrote: PRIVATE LIVES - Noel Coward is the bane of my existence. His trifling sex comedies of a bygone age are so dated and irrelevant they render me nearly comatose. Yet off I go, duty bound, to sit through each new revival. Vic, that's interesting. Do you go to a show with a preconceived notion of how its going to be or with an open mind? A blind dog hits an occasional fire hydrant. This may be the hit. As a reviewer, is this something you have to guard against? Later

Vic Sage Dec 01 2011 10:52 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

I do go into every show with a hope that it'll be "good"... whatever that means. But though my hope is high, with regard to Noel Coward or other dated stalwarts of western civilization, my expectations are low. Actually, i think having low expectations gives a show a BETTER chance of impressing me rather than a worse one. The bar is set low and the show doesn't have to accomplish much to surpass it. But everybody has preferences. as long as i'm upfront about mine, a reader can take my view from that perspective. I think its more of a problem when a critic pretends to an objectivity they clearly don't have, and just use their predelictions as an excuse to batter something all the while speaking as if from on high. objective journalism is a pompous contradiction in terms, Hunter Thompson once wrote. and objective criticism even more so. what a critic brings isn't objectivity... it's taste, borne of experience and expertise, and the ability to express it in an economical (and hopefully entertaining) way.

MFS62 Dec 01 2011 09:30 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Makes sense. Makes me wish more critics (as you define them) were sportswriters. I have soem severe doubts about the journalistic integrity of Ohm Yumischkuk (sp?) who used to cover the Nets for the Daily News and now reports on football for ESPN radio and ESPN. com. I'd go into details of why I think that, but this isn't the proper thread. Thanks. Later

themetfairy Dec 03 2011 07:38 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Vic Sage wrote: RELATIVELY SPEAKING – 3 comic 1-acts (from Ethan Coen, Elaine May and Woody Allen) on the general theme of family dysfunction are staged by first-time director John Turturro with widely disparate levels of success. In the Ethan Coen piece, Talking Cure, writer/actor Danny Hoch gives a comically menacing turn as a postal worker who has been institutionalized for… well, going postal. The exchanges with his shrink are funny, the flashback to his parents is banal, and then the play just stops… author Coen seems to think a “short play” is just a play that is left unfinished. [D] However, Elaine May’s George Is Dead is a fully realized play, with an unexpectedly funny and touching performance by Marlo Thomas as a spoiled, rich, infantilized matron who has nowhere to turn upon the sudden death of her husband except to the tiny apartment of her old nanny’s daughter… the girl who she long ago displaced as the center of the nanny’s maternal affections. Lisa Emery holds her own as the put-upon daughter trying to do the right thing. The play is hilarious and poignant. [A] Woody Allen’s Honeymoon Hotel is also quite funny, but it’s a dated sex farce with over-the-top performances by Steve Guttenberg, Julie Kavner, Mark Linn-Baker and a host of others directed to play it like it’s 1963. The play bursts with Allen’s typically mordant mélange of Jewish jokes and one-liners about god, sex, death and morality, covering all his familiar territory. Unfortunately, the basic theme (delivered at the end by Danny Hoch as a pizza delivery guy) -- that the heart wants what the heart wants, and society should just shut up about it, no matter who gets hurt-- comes off as a nauseating rationalization for Allen’s own dubious romantic history, making all the forced and familiar laughs seem all the more disturbing. [C-] Overall, i'd say it was more funny than not, more worth seeing than not, but (other than the May play) not great. And though you'll likely laugh while watching the Allen play, the more you think about it later, the creepier it gets. [C] I ultimately agree with this assessment, although I'd give George is Dead a B+ rather than an A.

Vic Sage Dec 05 2011 02:57 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

GODSPELL - the revival of this Stephen Schwartz classic is trying SOOOOO hard to be hip and contemporary it is often, instead, just laughable. The new rock orchestrations are good in spots but sometimes overwhelm the beautiful melodies. There is a "dope" new rap version of something or other (I've already forgotten which parable they screwed up with it) which was, frankly, pandering of the most unhip sort. New topical references have been added for humor and timeliness (Donald Trump is made the rich man in hell in the Lazarus story, and the whole opening has various philosophers texting and tweeting), plus we get to see a bunch of trampolining apostles during WE BESEECH THEE… why? I don’t know, but boy it sure looks fun! And there is a lot of interactive stuff, too… audience members are brought up for Charades and Pictionary, Mardi Gras beads are thrown out into the crowd, tinsel cannons are shot off, and the audience is invited up onto the stage during intermission to share grape juice with the cast. In fact, this show is over-directed within an inch of its life, in what seems a cynical attempt to be “kid-friendly.” But the cast is exuberant and, even if too "Benetton" meets "Glee", they all sing and dance well, with charm and energy. Jesus looks like a pop idol, and doesn't put over the angry moments as well as he does the sweet ones, but he’s effective nonetheless. The in-the-round space is used well, too, with an especially well-staged crucifixion scene. In the end, the power of the story has worked for 2000 years and the songs are as tuneful, moving and joyous as ever. I just wish the director trusted the audience to appreciate the material without all the bells and whistles. My daughter loved it, but my son, who loves the movie, seemed annoyed by the changes. [B-]

Edgy MD Dec 05 2011 09:04 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Save me from anybody who thinks zinging Donald Trump is timely.

Vic Sage Dec 06 2011 02:39 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

have you seen the paper today? Gringrinch and the Donald. the GOP nom seems to run thru Trump tower.

Edgy MD Dec 06 2011 02:53 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Sure. As a self-promotional buffoon, he's current. As a symbol of wealth-hording indifferent uber-rich, that's pretty eighties, don't you think? Religious sidepoint: the Gospel (Talmud/Upanishads/Koran) is easy and cheap to turn on public figures as satirical entertainment. ("Ha, Trump's going to Hell! Psyche!") Give me a Godspell that turns it on the audience.

Vic Sage Dec 06 2011 03:18 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

totally, dude.

Vic Sage Dec 07 2011 11:22 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 15 2011 10:40 AM

SEMINAR - 4 pretentious, self-absorbed, one-dimensional character types ("wannabe writers of serious fiction trying to advance their careers") are berated week after week by another pretentious, self-absorbed, one-dimensional character type ("cynical, destructive, formerly great writer, now a teacher") who eviscerates their stories and their characters, but he really only wants to help them, you see. There is some glibly amusing dialogue, and a few compelling ideas about art, and some great performances, especially by Alan Rickman as the teacher, that almost make this worth watching, but being stuck in a theater with these "characters" for 90 intermission-less minutes, as the playwright stares intently at her navel, was almost more than i could stand. [D+] Sharpie: I found it to be an enjoyable evening at the theater. Sharpie and I have radically different ideas about enjoyable evenings at the theater.

Vic Sage Dec 15 2011 10:19 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

BONNIE & CLYDE - Composer Frank Wildhorn, who has penned an ongoing litany of Broadway flops going back to JEKYLL & HYDE, has done it again. Working with noted hack lyricist Don Black and sitcom writer Ivan Menchell, they've added absolutely nothing to the quasi-historical legend of Depression-era gangsters Bonnie & Clyde. By keeping the focus on the love story and striving for romantic tragedy, they arrive instead at insipid banality. Times were bad...They wanted to be famous...They were hot for each other...He was hardened by prison...They go on a spree....Bang Bang Bang... The end. It’s history made from a paint-by-numbers kit. While the songs are not the worst of Wildhorn's career, influenced by rockabilly, gospel, & country music instead of his usual power pop ballads, they are still inauthentic and mostly unmemorable, except for "Dying Ain't So Bad", which Bonnie sings as her 11 O'clock number. The performers are pretty good, especially Jeremy Jordan (Clyde) and Laura Osnes (Bonnie), who are attractive, sympathetic and strong-voiced. But the direction by Jeff Calhoun is humorless, slack and uninspired, and he provides no choreography to give the show any sense of movement. His designers adds nothing, either... in fact, the wooden slat panels that comprise the physical set is especially irritating when it is used as the screen for projections, which are difficult to read against it. However, my primary complaint is -- why? Why this story again, why now, and why are they singing? At the heart of any good musical, there is a rationale, a reason to sing, even if it’s just a heightened emotionality. Little is evident here. There is a lovely moment in the 2nd act, where the killers are sitting together in a bathtub, and Clyde is making up a song for Bonnie on his ukulele. It is sweet, touching and entirely affective in demonstrating the musicality in their romance. Unfortunately, it’s too little, too late. Beyond that, the storytelling is unimaginative and doesn't go as far as it should in making the parallels between Depression-era America and today, and the corruption of the "American Dream" for those with nothing, who seek fame and riches at any cost. It would have been easy to see the relevance in retelling this story in that context, but it is a premise left entirely vestigial and undeveloped, using all its dramatic energy, instead, to focus on the doomed lovers. But that takes us nowhere new or interesting. It's earnest, and not without some engaging moments and performances and songs, but overall, don't bother. [C-]

Vic Sage Dec 15 2011 10:52 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

As a side note, somebody will have to explain the career of Frank Wildhorn to me. Over the past 15 years or so, he's had 6 musicals produced on Broadway, and numerous others in regional theaters, with some still threatening a Broadway move. Yet his shows have never been successful, either commercially or critically. So why do investors still put his money in his productions? On BONNIE & CLYDE, there was an ungodly number of producing entities listed above the title... 20 to 30, but i haven't counted. I'm sure his shows probably tour well, as he usually deals with popular, pre-sold concepts and historical or literary figures, and he's now a "brand" as well... but a brand signifying what, beyond crap? Middle-brow mediocrity, cloying romantic sentimentality, with the occasional soaring ballad, usually featuring a key change mid-way allowing for vocal pyrotechnics and the most obvious kind of emotional manipulation. I often hear new musicals in developmental settings that could benefit from the financial backing Wildhorn's shows always seem to get, but they never do. Instead, we get this Wildhornian shit over and over. At least when A.L.Webber was pumping out this crap, there was a higher degree of musicality and great commercial success to justify it. But why Wildhorn? somebody tell me.

Edgy MD Dec 15 2011 12:10 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Well, you ask "Why this story again?" And the answer is as plain as the nose on your face. Familiar stories are familiar. Even if we don't really know the story, the names resonate from the spines of books we never read or the sun bleached hues of movie posters of 40-year-old films we never saw. So people will be more likely to see a film called Sleepy Hollow --- even if it has almost no fealty to the The Headless Horseman of Sleepy Hollow, and turns Ichabod Crane into a Knickerbocker-era forensic detective --- than, say, a story called, Ezekial Bender, Knickebocker Detective. And so, producers are more likely to greenlight it, crappy or no. If the guy brings anything to the table, I guess it's the sense of which resonating evergreen story is ready for a dramatic musical retelling. And the guys who bankroll him are not necessarily backers who got where they are because of their taste, but rather because of their sense of the marketplace. "Yeah, you're right, Franky. America is ready to fork over their dwindling money for a musical Last of the Mohicans. (Note: good scansion.) Good call!" The fact that he sucks? Yeah, but I bet his failures aren't typically carpetbombing open-and-close-in-the-same-night failures. Rather, they're probably poorly received things that generate little or no buzz but still run for eight to twelve weeks or so on the strength of sales to touring bus groups who selected the show, again, based on name recognition and available seats. It has one or two good songs that play at the Tonys or the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. It plays to three-quarter houses. It's loud and disorientingly lit. A lot of tourists stumble back to their buses feeling like they've gotten a Broadwayish experience, even if their souls aren't changed. A few years later, local reperatory and school groups, a little bit bored by the same fare --- "We've done Guys & Dolls three times the last eight years!" --- start selecting it from catalogs --- again, based on name-recognition ---- without actually listening to the music. Guys in the company start practicing their smoking --- imagining how cool they'd look as classic gangsters --- and the chicks start experimenting with gun moll makeoup. It's three weeks into rehearsals before they realize, "My God, this is hopelessly awful." But by then, the check to the publishers has cleared, and the producers of the original show get their cut. Purveyors of crap? Maybe. They probably won't be knighted or win any Kennedy Center Honors. But I bet they have a better house than I do. And probably better than yours, also.

Vic Sage Dec 16 2011 02:02 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

yes, of course, to all that. But when i asked "Why this story again?", i was speaking from an aesthetic point of view. What were they bringing to this story that was new or warranting a revisit? The answer: nothing. But my confusion isn't about his viability despite his lack of quality. It's about his continued success despite his work's consistent lack of COMMERCIAL viability. Looking at it solely from a commercial POV... CLYDE just gave notice that it's closing Dec 30, so it'll have run 69 performances (that's about 4 weeks of previews and 4 weeks of post-opening perfs). It must've cost around $8-$12m, since most musicals of this size do, and it undoubtedly lost its entire capitalization. Now, not all his shows closed this quickly (though CIVIL WARS and WONDERLAND closed just as quickly; DRACULA lasted only a few months longer), but ALL of them LOST MONEY, including his first 2 shows, JEKYLL & HYDE and SCARLET PIMPERNEL, which were the only ones to have relatively long runs. I just don't get what the business model is for investing in a Wildhorn musical. On CLYDE, there were an inordinate number of producers listed on the title page (maybe 20 to 30), so clearly its getting harder to raise big chunks based on Frank's name, but i still don't get how ANYBODY puts money into his shows. While I don't know what shows are being booked into schools, camps, JCCs, and community theaters around the world (i.e., the "amateur market"), I do see many professional theaters' seasons listed during the course of a year and they aren't bursting with Wildhorn shows. And i don't think any of his shows have become movies or spawned any other adaptations, either. So he'd have to be outdoing the Rodgers & Hammerstein catalogue in the amateur market for investors to ever just break even on most of his shows. I just don't get it. Maybe his shows are just unbelievably huge in France. That would figure. Freakin' frogs.

Edgy MD Dec 16 2011 02:17 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Maybe it's a long tail, just a flat one. They'll break even in 2048. Has anybody done Last of the Mohicans? Let's do it. You and me. Write down the names of those 30 suckers on the Bonnie & Clyde playbill and let's start calling.

Edgy MD Dec 16 2011 02:22 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

HEY!! Check it out! Jecklyll and Hyde is knockin' 'em dead is Hertefordshire, Ouijanbou, and Helsingborg! Suckers born ever minute, baby

seawolf17 Dec 16 2011 02:30 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Edgy DC wrote: HEY!! Check it out! Jecklyll and Hyde is knockin' 'em dead is Hertefordshire, Ouijanbou, and Helsingborg! Suckers born ever minute, baby And that's without the power of Sebastian Bach behind it.

MFS62 Dec 16 2011 07:22 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

As I've mentioned before, Frankie is my wife's cousin. Some long -forgotten family squabble has stood between the sides of the family for many years. We haven't spoken to them in over 30 years, so I can provide no info about his backers,those deals, or how anyone makes any money. It also means we don't get freebies. As a result, we've seen only two of his shows on B'way. J&H was ok (maybe a C or C-), but we really enjoyed Scarlett Pimpernell. Maybe it was because it didn't take itself too seriously, and came across as a broad farce that was as much fun to be in as to watch. The rest of the audience all seemed to like it, too. I'd probably have given it a B. The Civil War looked like a turkey going in, so we passed on it. The review posted here is very consistent with others I've read, including saying nice things about the two stars and some good moments. Haven't made up out minds as to whether we'll see it. I'm thinking it is more like J&H, a little too heavy handed for my liking. If we see it, I'll post a review here. EDIT: Reviewing his plays reminds me of a story Myron Cohen told on the Ed Sullivan Show: "A guy goes into the Stage Deli and asks "What's good?" The old waiter, with 10 year old mustard stains on his apron replies," None of it is any good. But nobody has died from the corned beef yet". The guy says "I'll try the corned beef." Later

Vic Sage Jan 04 2012 09:35 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

STICK FLY - Lydia Diamond's new play is yet another dysfunctional family melodrama, only this time it's a black upper-class family, so that's OK then. And it gives us a different set of characters and issues to consider than these plays commonly provide. The play is front-loaded with exposition and back-loaded with family secrets and melodramatic reveals, but despite the old-fashioned structure and messy plotting, it's rich in humor, character and humanity, making it an entertaining affair overall. The cast is excellent, especially the young Condola Rashad as the maid's daughter, who has excellent comic timing and big eyes that break your heart. Dule Hill and Mekhi Phifer are believable as brothers, different sides of the same coin, and Ruben Santiago-Hudson is the coin... the patriarch of this screwed-up clan, moving gracefully from charming to chilly. Tracie Thoms is Hill's fiancee, coming to the wealthy family home on Martha's Vinyard to meet her boyfriend's family, and her "quirkiness" is telegraphed and constantly overstated, but Phifer's visiting girlfriend, the WASPy Rosie Benton, is a strong and vital presence. Kenny Leon's direction is first rushed, and then slack, as he tries to keep the dishes spinning, and the design is chaotic, too, with the living room of this dark Victorian-style mansion abutting a beach-y kitchen and patio that seems to belong to a different house. Alicia Keys provides incidental music that goes on way too long between scenes, unnecessarily slowing things down. All in all, this play shouldn't be as funny, warm and touching as it is, but it is anyway. And it's recommended. [B+]

seawolf17 Jan 04 2012 09:56 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Two of my friends from college are hitting the big time in the cast of "Once," which opens this spring. Thrilled for them.

Vic Sage Jan 04 2012 10:54 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

i'm psyched for that show. It had quite a buzz at the NY Theater workshop production off-Broadway. And i love that movie and score.

Vic Sage Jan 04 2012 03:31 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

LYSISTRATA JONES - Doug Carter Beane has once again succeeded in driving me out of a theater at intermission. His high-camp sensibility doesn't work for me, and not for too many others this time, as the show is closing quickly. This musical adaptation and update of Aristophanes' LYSISTRATA is about a bouncy cheerleader trying to get the boys on the Athens U. basketball team motivated to actually win a game by talking all their girlfriends into withholding sex until they do. Its stupid, condescending, silly and all the "black culture" references and posing by these white kids feels vaguely and amorphously racist somehow. The music is a hodgepodge of pseudo-rap and pseudo-Broadway power ballads. At least Mr. Beane's prior excrescence, XANADU, had actual pop songs to have fun with. The production values are nil and direction perfunctory. It's hard to evaluate performances when actors are directed to play inhuman caricatures, but no one rose above the carnage. While the show employs an interesting and valid theatrical conceit, updating the ancient Greek comedy to talk about a modern girl heroically trying to make her generation care about something, it's all so arch and cartoonish... why would anyone care enough to listen? I sure didn't. [F]

Edgy MD Jan 04 2012 04:56 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

I'm no classicist, but wasn't Lysistrata about women withoholding sex to force thier men to negotiate peace, not to tease them to vicotry? Wouldn't sticking to that conceit, more or less, but setting it among contemporary violent teenagers, been possibly... I don't know, profound. Not to degrade a musical about winning a basketball game --- Oklahoma! was a musical about who gets to take a pretty girl to a dance --- but if you're going to bother updating an ancient play, you might as well honor the point of it.

Vic Sage Jan 08 2012 08:34 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

i agree the show degrades the theme of the original. but on its own terms, the actions of the protagonist in this story is to shake her peers out of lethargy and disinterest and to get them to CARE about something. yes, it happens to be a basketball game, but that's not really the point, and the show is very clear about that. overly emphatic even. Also, lets remember that LYSISTRATA was a comedy, and its that spirit to which the musical is adhering. i can't believe your making me defend this show. never mind.

Vic Sage Jan 18 2012 03:02 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Vic Sage wrote: FOLLIES - This recent revival of Sondheim's cult classic comes to Broadway via the Kennedy Center. The show features one of Sondheim's greatest scores, as it runs the gamut of 20th century Broadway musical stylings, in service to a flawed but fascinating book by James Goldman, about memory, regret, love, psychosis and show biz. Even the humor draws blood. This revival is well directed and designed, with the ghosts of striking showgirls (as well as the characters' younger selves) effectively haunting a reunion of former chorines in a bare, dilapidated theater. Act I is funny and fizzy, even with its ghostly echoes of the past haunting the action. But Act II devolves into a total psychotic meltdown as past, present and delusion meld into a musical fantasia of emotional pain for all involved. Illusions are shattered, the past is buried, and life goes on. I just wished the 4 principal actors were all pulling their weight through this musical and emotional maelstrom. Unfortunately, Bernadette Peters seems a bit miscast as Sally, the former chorus girl who lacked the sophistication to ever win the heart of Ben, the man she loved, and has become unhinged as a result. After decades as a Broadway icon, buying Peters as an earthy, unsophisticate is a bit of a stretch. And Ron Gaines as Ben, the erudite diplomat and object of Sally’s unwanted affections, is only a stentorian voice in search of a performance, lacking the depth required to make the role sympathetic. But Jan Maxwell is terrific as the classy but bitter Phyllis, who suffered the fate of being the one to marry Ben, and song & dance man Danny Burstein is brilliant, too, as Sally’s philandering husband, cursed to love Sally despite her fixation on a fantasy. And there are some great featured performances, as well, including Elaine Page (“I’m Still Here”) and Jane Houdyshell (“Broadway Baby”). On balance, it’s a worthwhile production of a sorry/grateful, regretful/happy, sad/exuberant, haunted American musical. [B+] i just went to see this again, because Bernadette Peters had a pretty bad cold the first time i saw it and i wanted to give her another chance. I'm so glad i did. She was in fine voice and the show was even better this time. It's a modern classic and has never gotten the reception it so deserves.

Edgy MD Jan 18 2012 05:10 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Vic Sage wrote: i can't believe your making me defend this show. never mind. Sorry. Not really. I just find that the updating-the-classics thing has gotten more than a little tired, flattering us for the bourgeois educations we bring to the show, allowing us to congratulate ourselves for getting the references, and unburdening the conceivers of having to come up with much of a point beyond the shoehorning. On it's own merits, great, write a story about girls fighting lethargy by withholding sex. One of the cooler things about Clueless is that they didn't initially market the film based on the Jane Austen tie-in. The writer believed in the story and adapted it. One of the cooler things about West Side Story is that, while it self consciously updates the themes of Romeo & Juliet, it doesn't waste your time making clever references to it's decendent. Long-winded way of saying that I couldn't be lured to Lysistrata Jones for love or money. In fact, I'd rather see a stage musical adaptation of For Love or Money.

Vic Sage Jan 24 2012 11:50 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

REBECCA musical postponed to next season; but William Shatner's 1-man show is coming in! And the fanboys start lining up...

Vic Sage Jan 25 2012 08:45 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 26 2012 12:52 PM

THE ROAD TO MECCA - One of legendary South African playwright Athol Fugard's later plays, ROAD TO MECCA is a long slog but ultimately a rewarding experience. Featuring stellar performances by Rosemary Harris, Carla Gugino and Jim Dale, this play of hushed speeches in a candlelit room requires effort in order to suffer through a talky, inert Act I in order to experience a transcendent Act II. Harris is an old widow living in a tradition-bound Afrikaner village in the desert. She has spent her later years, after abandoning the church, creating a sculpture garden of grotesqueries facing Mecca, which is a spiritual and cultural challenge to the town's old minister, who has loved her all these years, and now wants to move her into an old-age home, ostensibly for her own safety. Gugino is the Capetown teacher, who had befriended the old woman some years ago, now arriving in an urgent mission to stop her eviction and enslavement by conservative social forces. The play is windy and slow, and the younger woman is an unpleasant character (through no fault of Miss Gugino, who is excellent, if somewhat forced). Yet, somehow, it all pays off, when the old woman finally rises to her own defense. The direction and physical production add little magic to the proceedings, except the evocative lighting, which deserves kudos for literalizing the notion of a woman who lights a candle to dispel the darkness enfolding her. I generally find plays about how hard it is to be an artist to be too self-involved to be touching, but this one is. And because it’s Fugard, the personal has an unavoidably political dimension, but it’s not didactic or heavy-handed about it. Even if you nod off during Act I, Act II will be worth waking up for. [B+]

sharpie Jan 25 2012 11:16 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

I saw THE ROAD TO MECCA a few weeks ago and generally agree with what Vic said. Adding the third character (Jim Dale) at the beginning of Act 2 totally turned it around for me. mrs. sharpie was positive about it at the intermission and I found it hard to get through. She was surprised when at the end I ended up liking it. Any time you can see Rosemary Harris on stage you should do so.

Vic Sage Jan 26 2012 12:37 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 17 2012 01:12 PM

ON A CLEAR DAY... – This "revisal" of Lerner & Lane's dated 60s-era musical met a frosty critical reception and equally cold B.O., resulting in an expeditious exit. But I think it was treated with undue harshness. I remember seeing the movie with Barbra Streisand and Yves Montand when I was a kid and thinking, "Gosh, this is a stupid story, but there are a few good songs here." And so it has been for this property ever since... a good score with a stupid, dated book. That's why a book rewrite was deemed necessary, and Peter Parnell's clever new take on it has added a freshness and humanity it sorely lacked. Originally, the story was about a therapist who used hypnosis to treat a woman and not only discovers she had a past life but falls in love with the girl's former self. It was more about reincarnation and a rejection of science for mysticism than an effective love story. The new version offers a PRELUDE TO A KISS-type sexual inversion -- the therapist (Harry Connick) is now treating a gay man, who was a female singer in the 40s, offering a new complication for the love story to overcome. The story is now more focused on allowing the therapist to move on in his life, as he is still stuck in grief over the death of his wife, then trying to justify the reincarnation plot. The major change in the narrative, however, is that what was once a star vehicle for an actress now divides the role in two, leaving the show primarily to the doctor instead. While Connick is, as always, warm and sympathetic in a sometimes unsympathetic role (his blatant malpractice would otherwise get him fired and probably arrested), the young gay man is only ok (nothing special). The real find here is the girl singer, Jessie Mueller, a unique vocal talent offering a terrific performance. She brings the house down with her rendition of “Ev’ry Night at Seven” (a song interpolated from Lerner & Lane's film musical ROYAL WEDDING, from a where a few other songs are included as well). Though the physical elements of the production offer an array of dizzying geometric patterns, colors and lighting (to amplify the hypnotism theme, I suppose), they're mostly ugly and distracting. The play also has a difficult time representing both the 1970s and the 1940s – it’s a period piece within another period piece -- with any kind of accuracy, much less emotional truth. It’s like watching SWEET CHARITY having acid flashbacks to an ethereal version of the Big Band era. And the score isn't as entirely terrific as I remembered, with all the best songs contained in Act II and Act I mostly filler. Still, the big musical moments are well worth waiting for, and Connick's journey is ultimately a moving one. [B ]

themetfairy Feb 03 2012 09:01 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Vic - what's the advance word on Peter and the Starcatcher?

Vic Sage Feb 03 2012 01:40 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

It got a great review in the NYTimes last year, when it was presented by New York Theater Workshop: http://theater.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/t ... wanted=all no reason to think this Broadway version will be any the less... I'm looking forward to it myself.

themetfairy Feb 03 2012 02:06 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Thanks Vic.

Vic Sage Feb 16 2012 10:23 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

PORGY & BESS - The Gershwin classic has been adapted by Suzen Lori-Parks and presented by director Diane Paulus (who did the terrific HAIR revival) in a hauntingly beautiful production that is both epic and intimate. Audra McDonald’s soaring soprano is not the least of the show’s special thrills; Norm Lewis is more than up to the task of matching her moment for moment, if not necessarily note for note. And David Alan Grier makes a delightfully and unexpectedly musical and mephistophelean Sportin’ Life. The physical production is lovely, too, in a minimalist and abstract way, with evocative lighting heightening the music’s emotionality. However, I do find the more overtly operatic moments, like the funeral scene in Act I, to be tedious, and when McDonald sacrifices lyrics for operatic trills, I am less than impressed. It’s ok to caterwaul librettos in a foreign language, since you don’t know what they’re saying anyway, but to undermine the words of Debose Heyward and Ira Gershwin is a sin, and it’s one not engaged in by either Lewis or Grier, both of whom sing in a more modern idiom. I can’t speak to the cuts and revisions made by Lori-Parks and Paulus, since I’ve never seen the original (except the film, when I was a child), but it is still a moving tale well told, with music for the ages. [A-] WIT – Margaret Edson won the pulitzer in 1998 for this play and never wrote another, choosing to return to teaching Kindergarten. But if you’ve written this play, you’ve no need to write another. It’s a powerful, funny, moving and true description of a person facing their own death from cancer, discovering in the end that their towering intellect is no substitute for simple kindness. In this Broadway revival, Cynthia Nixon’s brave performance captures the pain and vulnerability of the character quite well; she is less successful with the woman’s coldly indomitable intellectual aspect, and is only intermittently able to deliver her innate humor, but overall it’s a terrific performance. The supporting roles are adequate, no more, and the play’s movement and physical production leave little imprint but are efficient. I was asked if I found the play depressing, but I do not. An object of great beauty and truth is never depressing to me, regardless of its tragic subject matter… I’m more likely to be depressed by the time wasted on cynically hacked-together entertainments of no intrinsic worth. Your mileage may vary. [A-] My take on the rest of this season's scheduled openings: ONCE (M) (2/28) - I'm really looking forward to this adaptation of the indie film (i love the music); DEATH OF A SALESMAN (P/R) (3/15) – Phillip Seymour Hoffman in one of my favorite plays ever; JESUS CHRIST, SUPERSTAR (M/R) (3/22) – I've even watched community theater productions, just to hear the score; NEWSIES (M) (3/29) - Menken score for Disney movie musical, adapted to stage by Harvey Fierstein-- little interest; THE BEST MAN (P/R) (4/1) - dated political theater from Gore Vidal, with an all-star cast -- not again; END OF THE RAINBOW (P) (4/2) - Judy Garland's last days... don't care; EVITA (M/R) (4/5) – no interest in this British revival; MAGIC / BIRD (P) (4/11) - LOMBARDI was ok, this might be too; PETER & THE STARCATCHERS (P) (4/15) - Definitely want to see this adaptation/prequel, moving from off-Broadway; ONE MAN, TWO GUVNORS (P) (4/18) – British comedy coming over -- might be fun; CLYBOURNE PARK (P) (4/19) - Pulitzer winner, looks pretentious; GHOST (M) (4/23) – high-tech Brit pop musical adaptation will likely suck; NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT (M) - (4/24) - M.Broderick and Kelli Ohara, with a Gershwin score -- could be fun; THE COLUMNIST (P) (4/25) – new Dave Auburn play always worth a look; DON’T DRESS FOR DINNER (P) (4/26) – sequel to BOING BOING, likely another dated sex farce, but this time without Mark RYlance, so no thanks; LEAP OF FAITH (M) (4/26) - another Menken musical adaptation of a movie -- i have more interest in this one.

themetfairy Feb 16 2012 10:29 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

D-Dad and I are going to see The Best Man in March. We haven't seen it before, and the all-star cast enticed us. And we're taking the boys to see Peter and the Starcatcher in June - we're huge fans of the series.

themetfairy Mar 24 2012 07:07 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

D-Dad and I enjoyed The Best Man. Not as dated as you would think, as the issues facing politicians today aren't all that different from those in 1960. And the All-Star cast was amazing - it was worth the price of admission just to see Angela Lansbury, James Earl Jones, John Larroquette and Candace Bergen share a stage. It was an enjoyable afternoon at the theater. I shot this before the show, and before the usher told me that photography wasn't allowed in the theater. The set designers really went all out, which added to the theater going experience -

Vic Sage Mar 26 2012 08:05 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

I shot this before the show, and before the usher told me that photography wasn't allowed in the theater. The set designers really went all out, which added to the theater going experience - and in recognition of the designers' great work, and the great experience to which they contributed, you decided to take an image of their designs and post it, not only without the permission of the designers but in direct contravention of the stated policy about it expressed to you in the theater. that's just great, fairy. just great.

themetfairy Mar 26 2012 08:26 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

I did. And I see your point. But I feel that the policy is silly and overzealous with respect to shots taken before the performance.

Vic Sage Mar 26 2012 08:43 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

what difference does it make if it's before, during, or after the performance? Yes, during the performance you're also violating the rights of the director, costume designer and the actors, in addition to the scenic and lighting designers, so it would be that much worse (and of course a flash would be a distraction and potentially dangerous for the actors, too) but the set is the copyrighted work of a scenic designer, and lit by the design of a lighting designer, and they're entitled to not have their work copied and disseminated without their permission, just as the playwright is, whether the play has started or not. I don't get why you think such a restriction is "silly" or "overzealous". It's an attempt by the theater to prevent copyright infringement, which the theater has an obligation to the producer (and the producer's creative team) to do. Now, of course, if you think copyright is silly and overzealous, that's another discussion entirely.

themetfairy Mar 26 2012 08:51 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

During the performance is a whole other ballgame. There's the possibility of distracting the performers as well as those who are trying to enjoy the show. And I don't think that copyright infringement is silly. I just don't share your view that this reaches that kind of level. If you quote a paragraph out of a play, you're covered by the fair use exemption. A quick shot of the stage prior to the show is similar, IMO.

Ceetar Mar 26 2012 08:53 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

I get why you would want to prevent video recording, but I've never really understood the complete blackout of photography. (beyond the normal 'flashes distract the performance angle') What exactly is the goal? Every way I think of it, pictures of the actors/dresses/stage set-up only increase publicity and interest in a show. To me, a good couple of pictures only enhances the description of the play and whether or not it's something that I would want to see.

Vic Sage Mar 26 2012 09:15 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

...I just don't share your view that this reaches that kind of level. If you quote a paragraph out of a play, you're covered by the fair use exemption. A quick shot of the stage prior to the show is similar, IMO. you took an image of the set and distributed it to the world, without approval. You want to rely on "fair use"? Ok, but that's an affirmative defense you have to prove after you've already been sued for the infringement. As to whether or not you can prove it, you seem to be relying on the "i only took a little" defense (i.e, a de minimis taking) by equating it to a paragraph of the play. First of all, there is no magic number of words below which a taking is a fair use; it depends on the nature of the use and the impact the use has on the market for the work. for example, using images in a professional review is protected as fair use because of the newsworthy/critical use (and the producer has given permission for that critic's use by providing photos (pre-approved by creatives) & video (called "b-roll"); posting unapproved images on a blog or website to say "gee look at the set of the cool show i saw" is unlikely to meet the "newsworthy" test. Also, the "market effect" test: the producer undoubtedly sells a souvenir program of (approved) images of the set, costumes, actors, quotes, etc., all of whom receive a royalty from that product. if anybody is allowed to shoot whatever they want and disseminate it on a worldwide basis, this product loses its value. Hence, negative market impact of the infringement. Then you get into the "how much was taken" prong of the fair use test. Even the newsworthy exception doesn't allow for a taking of the whole work. There are even cases that suggest a relatively small taking may still be infringment if its the "heart of the work" being infringed. In this case, you compare your taking to a paragraph of the play. Except its much greater than that. I haven't seen the show, but i'd warrant their aren't that many different sets. maybe 8, 10, 12 at most? And some are used for longer period than others, or are used repeatedly. So you can estimate the portion of the set design (and lighting design) that this set represents based on either a numerical or temporal basis, but in any event it will certainly be a significantly larger percentage than a paragraph of a play; it would be more akin to a chapter of a book, or a full scene of the play. Still feeling good about that fair use defense, are you? Maybe your comfortable with your rationalization, but i can assure you, as a practicioner in this area, you'd be found liable. Not that anybody would go to the trouble of sueing you... theater isn't the music industry. It is unlikely to criminalize the behavior of its audience. But that doesn't make the behavior any less violative of copyright law. Feelings about that are, as i said, another matter.

metirish Mar 26 2012 09:23 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Viv , bringing down the Hebrew hammer. I got to agree with Vic on this, he is in this business and that's enough for me.

themetfairy Mar 26 2012 09:25 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

I'm still feeling good about the fair use defense. I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that this reaches a level that would constitue a copyright violation.

Vic Sage Mar 26 2012 09:27 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

I get why you would want to prevent video recording, but I've never really understood the complete blackout of photography. (beyond the normal 'flashes distract the performance angle') What exactly is the goal? to prevent copyright infringement. Every way I think of it, pictures of the actors/dresses/stage set-up only increase publicity and interest in a show. To me, a good couple of pictures only enhances the description of the play and whether or not it's something that I would want to see. Yeah, what if its a bad couple of pictures? what if its a couple of pictures that mis-characterize the play? What if its an image of an actor in a nude scene, who has given no approval of his/her nudity to be recorded? What if the proliferation of pictures destroy the value of the souvenir program book that the creative contributors make a fee from, or designers who collect their works into exhibitions and books? I'm sure the producers, who hire experienced PR and marketing firms to carefully craft and disseminate their campaign for their show, really appreciate the "help" of fans (some well-meaning and some not) to decide for themselves what images and messages to send out to sell their shows, but they would sooner have those images vetted by their own staff, and approved by the folk whose creative work is being taken. Look, obviously people will do what they want, and other than a stern warning from a little old lady usher, folks will face little ramifications for their behavior (like everywhere else in this society), but all i ask is that you please stop rationalizing it and/or thinking that its perfectly appropriate behavior. It's not. It's not legal (copyright infringment), it's not ethical (your taking money out of the pockets of artists), it's not fair (everybody else is buying the program, but your just going to help yourself), it's inconsiderate (your making the jobs of the folks in the theater harder, as they have to harrass you to stop, which also is an annoyance and distraction to the rest of the audience), not to mention potentially dangerous if done during a performance.

Ceetar Mar 26 2012 09:50 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Vic Sage wrote: but all i ask is that you please stop rationalizing it and/or thinking that its perfectly appropriate behavior. It's not. It's not legal (copyright infringment), it's not ethical (your taking money out of the pockets of artists), it's not fair (everybody else is buying the program, but your just going to help yourself), it's inconsiderate (your making the jobs of the folks in the theater harder, as they have to harrass you to stop, which also is an annoyance and distraction to the rest of the audience), not to mention potentially dangerous if done during a performance. I disagree. (not that it's illegal, nor have I ever taken a picture of a play, although I don't really understand from a legal standpoint how taking a picture of a set is any different than me taking a picture of say an artist's painting in a gallery) I think it's an issue at the heart of a changing culture. Leaving aside the annoyance/distraction/dangerous parts, because those are all obvious and I agree. If I buy a ticket to a play, what I want to buy is the performance/story, not the program or the critical reviews or the any of the other stuff. Crowd-sourced reviews and publicity are part of the new world. A play will rarely, if ever, go viral on social media. (We heard over and over about Spider Man's problems with things going wrong than the play itself. I've heard multiple people comment recently "Oh, that's actually playing?" Like they just assumed it got shut down) By funneling it through PR and marketing firms, they're putting out what the play wants to sell, instead of what the consumer wants to buy. I know the "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway" argument isn't really a good one, but it should be less about clamping down on information/photos getting out and more about creating something people want to buy. Instead of being worried that people won't buy the program if they can snap a picture before the show or at Intermission or something, make the program something that they want to buy. Makeup shots, prep-work articles, etc. There's plenty there to enhance the performance that can't be "ruined" by someone taking pictures. (ignoring of course that one person can take the program and then scan every page if they really wanted) An example that struck me is the Criss Angel Cirque Du Soleil show. At the end, he's still on stage he suggests that people take out there phones and take a picture and tweet it. Costume, cast, anything they want that's out there is going to make it to facebook and twitter and be there.

Vic Sage Mar 26 2012 10:16 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

I don't really understand from a legal standpoint how taking a picture of a set is any different than me taking a picture of say an artist's painting in a gallery) you're right, they aren't any different. The only difference is that most paintings you might photograph in a museum are in the "public domain" (ie., their copyright period has expired, and therefore they can be copied freely). If you try to photograph a modern painting, at MOMA, for instance instead of the Met, you'll be told not to do so. Similarly, a set is a copyrighted work that is also not yet in the public domain. I think it's an issue at the heart of a changing culture. i would agree that times are a-changin' and producers SHOULD do more in this area, but that is for them to decide, like Criss Angel did; its not a "right" vested in the public to decide for them. And whether someone buys the program and then scans it and posts it for worldwide dissemination, or whether someone just takes the picture themselves, it's a copyright violation. But rest assured that producers are not spending any time clamping down on information or photos, beyond the feeble gesticulations of feeble semi-retired women handing out playbills, and i'm sure they don't care overmuch. It's the designers (by and large not a wealthy sub-strata of creative folk) whose work is being taken without compensation or approval. And of course there are the numerous illegal videos on youtube and elsewhere that rip off an entire play, song or musical of writers, about whom absolutely NOBODY gives a shit anymore. As for "crowd-sourced" reviews and publicity, go for it. You don't have to steal anything to do that, though.

themetfairy Mar 26 2012 11:06 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Vic Sage wrote: If you try to photograph a modern painting, at MOMA, for instance instead of the Met, you'll be told not to do so. Not true - MoMA allows still photography so long as you don't use a flash.

Ceetar Mar 26 2012 11:37 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Vic Sage wrote: I don't really understand from a legal standpoint how taking a picture of a set is any different than me taking a picture of say an artist's painting in a gallery) you're right, they aren't any different. The only difference is that most paintings you might photograph in a museum are in the "public domain" (ie., their copyright period has expired, and therefore they can be copied freely). If you try to photograph a modern painting, at MOMA, for instance instead of the Met, you'll be told not to do so. Similarly, a set is a copyrighted work that is also not yet in the public domain. I think it's an issue at the heart of a changing culture. i would agree that times are a-changin' and producers SHOULD do more in this area, but that is for them to decide, like Criss Angel did; its not a "right" vested in the public to decide for them. And whether someone buys the program and then scans it and posts it for worldwide dissemination, or whether someone just takes the picture themselves, it's a copyright violation. But rest assured that producers are not spending any time clamping down on information or photos, beyond the feeble gesticulations of feeble semi-retired women handing out playbills, and i'm sure they don't care overmuch. It's the designers (by and large not a wealthy sub-strata of creative folk) whose work is being taken without compensation or approval. And of course there are the numerous illegal videos on youtube and elsewhere that rip off an entire play, song or musical of writers, about whom absolutely NOBODY gives a shit anymore. As for "crowd-sourced" reviews and publicity, go for it. You don't have to steal anything to do that, though. well crowd sourced stuff gains more steam when it's got a picture of something associated with it. "Hey, look at this really cool set I saw!" or even niche things. Take the Mad Men Mets pennant that was on the show last night. Say that was in a play, would "Hey that play had a Mets pennant!" have as big an impact? (the biggest impact Criss Angel's stunt had was nothing, since his show was really really bad) I'm not really arguing with you, I get that it's wrong, I just feel like maybe what's wrong is too broad in scope. After all, none of these laws and rules were made with even the concept of cellphone cameras and social media. I don't think that approval and compensation for designers of unique sets are really that big a deal. It's different than say taking someone elses copyrighted picture and using it. These sets are generally unique enough that it's obvious to whom they belong, and in most cases the show is being referenced whereever said picture would be used. Maybe the effort would be better spent modernizing the experience. This could very well be just me though. I often get a stuffy/out-dated feel whenever I see a play, which admittedly isn't a regular occurrence either.

Vic Sage Mar 26 2012 12:36 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

If you try to photograph a modern painting, at MOMA, for instance instead of the Met, you'll be told not to do so. Not true - MoMA allows still photography so long as you don't use a flash. Yes, your right... to an extent. As an academic institution and a public charity, they allow photography for "personal use" in their permanent exhibitions (they allow no photography in their temporary exhibitions). Since much of their audience are students working on assignments who need the images for research, they allow that. Of course, if such an image turned up on the internet, the poster of that image would still be violating the copyright of the artist (assuming the work isn't in public domain). from MOMA website: "Cameras: Still photography for personal use is permitted in collection galleries only. No flash or tripods allowed. Videotaping is permitted in the lobby only. No photographs or videotapes may be reproduced, distributed, or sold without permission from the Museum." And of course an academic institution and public charity doesn't have the same relationship to its audience as a Broadway show. Nor should you expect it to. well crowd sourced stuff gains more steam when it's got a picture of something associated with it. "Hey, look at this really cool set I saw!" or even niche things. Take the Mad Men Mets pennant that was on the show last night. Say that was in a play, would "Hey that play had a Mets pennant!" have as big an impact? (the biggest impact Criss Angel's stunt had was nothing, since his show was really really bad) well of COURSE trading on pre-existing images, trademarks and copyrighted material has a bigger impact. That doesn't make it LESS valuable (and unprotectable) by the owners of the property; it makes that property MORE valuable (and in greater need of protection). As for the Mets pennant, i assure you they got "clearance" for that use of the Mets logo and property. I'm sure the Mets were delighted to have the reference in MAD MEN, and there are even companies that pay money to have their logos and products included in such a way. NONE of that detracts from the basic premise; its not free to be used by anybody for any reason, without permission. I just feel like maybe what's wrong is too broad in scope. After all, none of these laws and rules were made with even the concept of cellphone cameras and social media. Yes, it's easier than ever to steal this stuff. that doesn't mean it's no longer theft. And no, these distribution mechanisms were not around when copyright laws were invented, but in its last round of revisions, the Copyright Act had a "digital millenium copyright act" addendum which DOES provide certain rights and responsiblities about the impact of these new technologies and -- guess what? This act of taking a photograph of a stage set in the theater and posting it on line, without approval, is still an infringement, even under the new laws. I don't think that approval and compensation for designers of unique sets are really that big a deal. It's different than say taking someone elses copyrighted picture and using it. These sets are generally unique enough that it's obvious to whom they belong, and in most cases the show is being referenced whereever said picture would be used. this list of assumptions is baseless. you don't think the designer's approval and compensation is a "big deal"? Well, how nice for you. I bet they do. It's different than using someone else's copyrighted picture? In what way? In both, you're making an unauthorized copy (either via camera or via scanner/copier) and then making unauthorized distribution (whether on the internet, or in print, or otherwise). The sets are unique and reference to the show is likely? who says? Well, who designed the set that Fairy photographed and posted above? She didn't mention the designer's name ... It's by Derek McLane, by the way. He's got 2 other shows running right now, ANYTHING GOES and HOW TO SUCCEED, with NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT about to open. He's also had FOLLIES and MAN AND BOY this season, so he's been a busy beaver. But i defy any casual theater goer to know any of this, based simply on that posted image and reference to the title of the show Fairy saw. Ultimately, it doesn't matter about the marketing, or attribution, or what you perceive as being beneficial to the show and to the artists. You don't get to decide for Mr. McLane, or lighting designer Kenneth Posner (whose work is also in evidence in the photo), how and under what circumstances you'll copy their work and distribute it. Only THEY do. That's what it means to own a copyright.

Ceetar Mar 26 2012 12:57 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Vic Sage wrote: I don't think that approval and compensation for designers of unique sets are really that big a deal. It's different than say taking someone elses copyrighted picture and using it. These sets are generally unique enough that it's obvious to whom they belong, and in most cases the show is being referenced whereever said picture would be used. this list of assumptions is baseless. you don't think the designer's approval and compensation is a "big deal"? Well, how nice for you. I bet they do. It's different than using someone else's copyrighted picture? In what way? In both, you're making an unauthorized copy (either via camera or via scanner/copier) and then making unauthorized distribution (whether on the internet, or in print, or otherwise). The sets are unique and reference to the show is likely? who says? Well, who designed the set that Fairy photographed and posted above? She didn't mention the designer's name ... It's by Derek McLane, by the way. He's got 2 other shows running right now, ANYTHING GOES and HOW TO SUCCEED, with NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT about to open. He's also had FOLLIES and MAN AND BOY this season, so he's been a busy beaver. But i defy any casual theater goer to know any of this, based simply on that posted image and reference to the title of the show Fairy saw. Ultimately, it doesn't matter about the marketing, or attribution, or what you perceive as being beneficial to the show and to the artists. You don't get to decide for Mr. McLane, or lighting designer Kenneth Posner (whose work is also in evidence in the photo), how and under what circumstances you'll copy their work and distribute it. Only THEY do. That's what it means to own a copyright. Not what I meant really. Maybe I _am_ questioning Copyright law. Obviously they think it's a big deal. The set she photographed was attached to a paragraph in which she says what show she saw. No, it doesn't mention the set designer, but anyone can look that up with the information provided. That's what I mean, ultimately the attribution is there if you're looking for it, and that's what I mean by the picture often being attached to the play in some way. This is much different imo than someone snatching a photo or painting and reusing it, with no real good way to link it back to the original creator. I am not real interested in the set designer, though I do appreciate all the work that goes into sets and costumes and movie/sound editing and all those types of things. That name means nothing to me. Again, this may just be me. I appreciate all the work that goes into a play (or a movie) but I am not looking to track and follow the individuals. I also don't tend to remember directors of movies, I'm not even great with actors and authors, although I've been trying there. Their work is bundled into the play. Which is what she mentioned. Interestingly, this is different in the entertainment world. If I write something for my company, it's theirs. If someone steals it, I have no personal rights to it as my own intellectual property, nor do I get recognized for it. (Very few people know who programmed the AI for Siri for example) I guess I'm not quite getting to my point here, and maybe it's just because these finer points of law are above me. When I buy a ticket to see the show, I'm buying a ticket for the show and it's just my assumption that I can photograph things in front of me. If I bought a piece of copyrighted art on a postcard, I wouldn't think twice about snapping a picture and posting it to facebook "Look what I got!", but I guess that'd still be violating the copyright of the image in the same way I wouldn't be allowed to buy a DVD and then stream that video on my website. On that note, my Twitter background of the Fox screenshot of Endy's catch is probably also infringement.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 26 2012 01:00 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Vic Sage wrote: As for the Mets pennant, i assure you they got "clearance" for that use of the Mets logo and property. I'm sure the Mets were delighted to have the reference in MAD MEN, and there are even companies that pay money to have their logos and products included in such a way. NONE of that detracts from the basic premise; its not free to be used by anybody for any reason, without permission. I'm off on somewhat of a tangent here, but the actual Mets pennant (circa mid-60's) featured in Mad Men doesn't appear to have been licensed by Major League baseball. The pennant doesn't include any logos or even the proper Mets script. It's a generic Mets pennant and in its day was probably sold in those Midtown souvenir shops that targeted tourists. That pennant never sold at Shea or any other MLB stadium. Would Mad Men need permission to use that particular pennant? And if not, maybe the show chose that specific pennant over a licensed pennant to save on production costs?

Vic Sage Mar 26 2012 01:06 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 26 2012 01:20 PM

that's clearly the Mets trademark on that banner, along with "Mr. Met" and "Shea stadium". I doubt MLB owns the Mets trademarks; it's no doubt property of the organization. How those marks are licensed I am not sure (whether MLB is the sole and exclusive agent for use of ALL the marks owned by all its teams, or whether there are certain uses and/or certain marks that are reserved to the clubs), but someone had to give that approval.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 26 2012 01:13 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Vic Sage wrote: that's clearly the Mets trademark on that banner, along with "Mr. Met" and "Shea stadium". I doubt MLB owns the Mets trademarks; it's no doubt property of the organization. How that mark is licensed I am not sure (whether MLB is the sole and exclusive agent for use of the marks owned by all its teams, or whether there are certain uses that are reserved to the clubs), but someone had to give that approval. Which banners? Only the bottom one appeared on Mad Men. I displayed the first two only for comparison's sake.

Vic Sage Mar 26 2012 01:22 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

oh, yes, i see. They clearly are NOT using actual Mets font or logos or marks. Interesting. Maybe no license in that case; its equivalent to paraphrasing. If the paraphrase is not substantially similar, its not an infringement. It would be similar to a script which discussed the Mets; the Mets couldn't prevent such dialogue, so why could they prevent a dissimilar image for including the word "Mets"?

metirish Mar 26 2012 01:30 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

You have some patience I'll tell you that Vic.

Vic Sage Mar 26 2012 02:44 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Just pushing the rock up the hill, Irish. Sisyphus is my role model.

Vic Sage Mar 27 2012 12:07 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

off the soapbox and back to the reviews: DEATH OF A SALESMAN – Mike Nichols directs Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Arthur Miller’s tragedy, perhaps the greatest of all American plays. Nichols, in staging the play as an homage to the original production, has gone back to the original music and scenic designs, and they still work well. And Hoffman is more than up to the Lear-like challenge of Willy Loman, an everyman at the end of his tether. But, alas, Hoffman’s co-stars are not quite there with him. Andrew Garfield (soon to be starring as Peter Parker in the upcoming SPIDER-MAN movie reboot) as Willy’s son, Biff, is moving but never really convincing as the Hercules/Adonis HS football star gone to seed. In fact, he’s more like the team’s waterboy than its star QB (casting tip: if an actor is appropriate to play in Peter Parker’s origin story, he’s the WRONG ACTOR for Biff Loman. You’re welcome). Linda Emond as Willy’s wife is fine, but not spectacularly so, and the same can be said of the rest of the cast. But in the end, it doesn’t matter. Hoffman is magnificent in a perfectly sound (if not overly inventive) production of a play that should be seen annually by every citizen before they vote. It would change our politics, and our Father’s Days. [B+] tomorrow: ONCE

Vic Sage Mar 29 2012 09:24 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Edited 7 time(s), most recently on Apr 02 2012 12:42 PM

ONCE - Wow...just wow. Every once in a while, a show comes along that is startlingly original (NEXT TO NORMAL, PASSING STRANGE, and SPRING AWAKENING come to mind from recent seasons) and this is one of those shows. Even though it's an adaptation of a recent film, its originality springs from the manner it which it re-invents the little Irish movie musical into an organically theatrical work that you couldn't even imagine ever having been a movie in the first place. The book of the show by Dubliner playwright Enda Walsh brilliantly compresses the action and consolidates the supporting characters, with dialogue and back stories that gives each a unique voice and story arc largely absent from the film, all in service to the play's larger ideas, about having the courage to live your life. The love story at its center is heartbreaking and uplifting as ever, with a brilliant performance by Cristin Milioti as "the girl" driving the action and forever changing the life of "the guy", brought to life with a sympathetic performance by Steve Kazee. They are a part of a company of a dozen talented musician/actors, all occupying a Dublin pub and participating with them to enact the story (feel free to go on stage and step up to the bar during the pre-show and intermission; drinks are for sale). The movement and direction of the actors within that space is endlessly imaginative, employing all kinds of theatrical devices, choreography and transitions to propel the narrative and engage the audience, as the actors bring various props into the pub (tables, chairs, a piano) to continuously reinvent and redefine it. And the music... well, it's not "theater music", inasmuch as it doesn't really advance the story or develop character, but it does what pop music does best by announcing a particular feeling or idea at a particular moment in the show with great emotional intensity. If you liked it in the movie, you'll like it here, too. They cut some songs and added a few others, but it’s basically the same score with some new arrangements, making the same dramatic points in the story and in the same manner. That is to say, the characters don't just burst into song; when they sing, they are performing... either for others, or in the recording studio, or for themselves, but not in the traditional manner of a character singing their feelings. So, it's a musical for people who don't really like musicals, and it’s one of the best in years.[A]

Edgy MD Mar 29 2012 09:29 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Thanks for the review. I'll jump in before duan here, though, and say that the source shouldn't be described as a UK film.

Vic Sage Mar 29 2012 09:31 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

i changed it even before i saw your post, edgy. sorry.

Edgy MD Mar 29 2012 09:35 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Not at all. Great work.

Vic Sage Apr 02 2012 12:10 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

JESUS CHRIST, SUPERSTAR – This classic Webber/Rice rock opera is a relic of the late 60s-early 70s, and if it’s more successful in evoking that era than it is in transporting us to Judea in 33 AD, then that’s as it should be. It still presents an energetic, kick-ass score that crosses rock, folk, and R&B influences with operatic bombast. The story’s view on the Christ tale (focusing on the central question: JC -- human or divine?) never offered any particularly original insights, but it was a freshly provocative take in its day and still has a critical edge without denying the impact of Christ’s humanity and martyrdom. As usual, a production of JCS rises and falls with Judas, through whom the story is basically told. Here, understudy Jeremy Kushnier is more than up to the vocal and emotional challenges of the role. Unfortunately, the actors playing other 2 players in the triangle, Jesus and Mary, are less than charismatic performers, adequate vocally but nondescript otherwise (the other supporting roles fare better, particularly Tom Hewitt’s surprisingly moving Pilate, Bruce Dow’s typically campy Herod, and Lee Siegel’s affecting Simon). Paul Nolan's Jesus, in particular, seems vaguely narcoleptic throughout, until he’s finally roused in the great 2nd act number, Gesthsemene. But he goes back to playing a robotic sleepwalker until his crucifixion in the show’s penultimate moment, spectacularly envisioned by Director Des McAnuff. McAnuff employs an industrial-looking modern design for the show, with endlessly rolling metal stairs, scaffolds and ladders, stark rock-concert lighting and LED crawls (indicating time and place) and entirely unnecessary video projections, as well as contemporary hip-hop Mtv-style choreography and vaguely generic costumes, all of which are at odds with Webber’s endearingly retro 70s score and Rice’s colloquial lyrics (either hilariously clichéd, dated and campy, or timelessly clever, depending on your generosity of spirit). Now, whether this is MacAnuff attempting to underline the universality of the material or simply a symptom of his schizophrenic approach to the production, I’ll let others decide. I just thought it was too fussy by half. Despite its multitude of sins, JCS is still a powerful piece of theater, effectively (even if inconsistently) rendered, though perhaps more potent as nostalgia than anything else, which is ironic considering this production's desperate attempt to seem modern. [B-]

Vic Sage Apr 04 2012 02:12 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

END OF THE RAINBOW -A semi-musical semi-biopic not even up to standards of Lifetime TV, this British vision of Judy Garland's final drug & booze-addled death lap by Peter Quilter features an energetically unpleasant (and much lauded) impersonation of the gay icon by Tracie Bennett. She sings well enough in Ms. Garland's style (though anyone would suffer in comparison), throws off her bitchy one-liners with good comic timing, and otherwise degenerates realistically into a crawling, drooling, profane mess before our eyes. For our pleasure? Amusement? Insight? Actually, none of the above is offered... certainly none, at least, that I could discern. If the play ultimately came to some powerful insight, or otherwise developed compassion for its subject that made you care about or even interested in her descent, it would have to have come in an Act II that I didn't stay for because Act I drove me out of the theater. But the quality of the writing, and of Terry Johnson's heavy-handed direction, makes me seriously doubt such an 11th hour turnaround occurred. As for the rest, the terrific Michael Cumpsty is criminally wasted as her sympathetic gay piano player and her swaggering young manager / fiancée is charmlessly played for maximum smarm by Tom Pelphrey. While Ms. Bennett must be given her due (even if just for her stamina), it's hard to reconcile her writhing, twisting, body- in-motion performance with the reality of the frail, worn out, end-of-her-tether Garland that died shortly after the events of the play. If you want to see someone sing Judy's songs in her style (if somewhat less well than the original), there are probably clubs in the West Village and Vegas with entertainments of that type offered with less sturm and considerably less drang, a cheaper ticket price and a fuller play list. [D] Tomorrow: THE BEST MAN

Vic Sage Apr 05 2012 09:33 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

THE BEST MAN - Gore Vidal’s 1960 satire of America’s backroom politics is as archly funny, insightful and contemporary as the day it was written. His well-crafted, if somewhat old-fashioned, 3-act play is a morality tale with arch-types rather than characters, but they are sly, witty types so we don’t mind so much, and the twist ending, dressed up as a noble act by a man of conscience, is deliciously cynical. Also cynical is the star casting of the brilliant James Earl Jones as a Truman-esque ex-president enjoying one last political fight before succumbing to cancer. In a production falling over itself to give the audience an authentic sense of a political convention in 1960 Philadelphia (with period costumes and sets, evocative sound effects, and antique TV cameras and Philco monitors hanging from the balcony boxes flickering with black & white images), the notion of casting a black man as an American president from the Truman era is as ludicrously jarring as a Twilight Zone episode (unintentionally evoking the Rod Serling- scripted 1970s TV movie, THE MAN, about a Black senator who unexpectedly becomes president, which starred Mr. Jones as well). Jones is, of course, brilliant in the role, but so would be any number of more obscure actors more appropriate for a production attempting verisimilitude – perhaps none of whom may have had Mr. Jones’ culturally iconic cache. The producers can stand behind the politically correct notion of “color blind casting” (except, of course, that no one else in the cast is a person of color) to justify the presence of a star of Mr. Jones’ magnitude, making it a perfect double whammy – a commercial decision with moral justification... and whoa to an audience member or critic that dares question it! At any rate, I got past the stunt casting eventually (and the cynicism is in keeping with the themes of the play anyhow), so it didn’t overly undermine the production for me. As for the rest: John Larroquette is solidly amiable but distant as the philandering liberal intellectual candidate (see Stephenson, Adlai), spouting sermons from the mount as he suffers his Hamlet-like bouts of conscience. Eric McCormick is only OK as the smarmy, soulless conservative candidate (see Nixon, Richard) whose ambition knows no bounds (his faux southern accent comes and goes); Kerry Butler as his southern belle wife is more cornpone caricature than Lady Macbeth; Candice Bergen as Larroquette’s wife seems like an “after” picture from an electroshock therapy clinic, with an awkward stage presence and no chemistry with Larroquette; Angela Lansbury, as a party operative from the DAR, makes a delectable meal of her few scenes; and the often interesting Michael McKean is given almost nothing interesting to do. So it’s a mixed bag, performance wise, but it's still a first rate production of a prescient play that should be revived every 12 years or so, at least in presidential election years, until it’s no longer relevant – which may be a day that never comes, people being what they are. [B+]

Vic Sage Apr 09 2012 08:58 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

NEWSIES - Disney has adapted its flop movie musical into a piece-of-crap stage musical... so the adaptation is faithful i guess. It features the weakest Alan Menken score ever sung in public, performed by a game cast playing the most cloying conglomeration of "ain't poverty just the cutest thing" characters since ANNIE. The dancing is highly athletic and more evocative of a HS gymnastics exhibition, and TV movies like HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL, than choreography that illustrates character or advances the narrative. The set is comprised of rolling and rotating scaffolding and projections that do nothing to evoke 1899 NYC's tenements or any other environs, but instead work to sometimes create a tryptich of 9 panel grids that calls to attention the page of comic book... which suggests the emotional depth of the story. Actually, comics have long since established more compelling narratives, and even ANNIE had more resonance in tapping into the harsh realities of the Depression than this does in establishing the hardships leading to the Newsboy strike of 1899. It so deneuters the pro-unionist story at its heart that tourist families will happily applaud and cheer this unabashedly pandering entertainment and then return home to vote for Tea Party candidates that continue to destroy unions and the middle class they helped to create in this country. Fuck this show and the hypocrisy it rode in on. [F]

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 09 2012 09:16 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Great review!

Vic Sage Apr 18 2012 08:53 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

vitriol is the lubricant for the birthing of pithy criticism. next up: EVITA

seawolf17 Apr 18 2012 12:06 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Vic Sage wrote: ONCE - Wow...just wow. Every once in a while, a show comes along that is startlingly original (NEXT TO NORMAL, PASSING STRANGE, and SPRING AWAKENING come to mind from recent seasons) and this is one of those shows. Even though it's an adaptation of a recent film, its originality springs from the manner it which it re-invents the little Irish movie musical into an organically theatrical work that you couldn't even imagine ever having been a movie in the first place. The book of the show by Dubliner playwright Enda Walsh brilliantly compresses the action and consolidates the supporting characters, with dialogue and back stories that gives each a unique voice and story arc largely absent from the film, all in service to the play's larger ideas, about having the courage to live your life. The love story at its center is heartbreaking and uplifting as ever, with a brilliant performance by Cristin Milioti as "the girl" driving the action and forever changing the life of "the guy", brought to life with a sympathetic performance by Steve Kazee. They are a part of a company of a dozen talented musician/actors, all occupying a Dublin pub and participating with them to enact the story (feel free to go on stage and step up to the bar during the pre-show and intermission; drinks are for sale). The movement and direction of the actors within that space is endlessly imaginative, employing all kinds of theatrical devices, choreography and transitions to propel the narrative and engage the audience, as the actors bring various props into the pub (tables, chairs, a piano) to continuously reinvent and redefine it. And the music... well, it's not "theater music", inasmuch as it doesn't really advance the story or develop character, but it does what pop music does best by announcing a particular feeling or idea at a particular moment in the show with great emotional intensity. If you liked it in the movie, you'll like it here, too. They cut some songs and added a few others, but it’s basically the same score with some new arrangements, making the same dramatic points in the story and in the same manner. That is to say, the characters don't just burst into song; when they sing, they are performing... either for others, or in the recording studio, or for themselves, but not in the traditional manner of a character singing their feelings. So, it's a musical for people who don't really like musicals, and it’s one of the best in years.[A] Plus Lucas and Mike are great guys, fellas I know from college, and are both fucking awesome. Going on the Sunday of Memorial Day weekend; a ton of Geneseo folks (like 30-40 of us, I think) all hitting the matinee that day.

Vic Sage Apr 19 2012 11:47 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Edited 5 time(s), most recently on Apr 25 2012 11:17 AM

EVITA – This long-running London revival of the Webber/Rice mega-hit finally comes back to Broadway, featuring a tiny Argentinean spitfire, Elena Roger, and Ricky Martin, the Latin pop star of the 90s, as the sardonic narrator, Che. But it's a pretty mediocre production of an overrated show. Evita Peron is an Argentinean peasant girl who rises from obscure poverty to wealth, power and celebrity, before dying young (at 33, like Jesus) after becoming First Lady of a nation and a (not so) secular saint. In combining Mary Magdalene with the Virgin Mary, Madonna with The Madonna, and Lady Macbeth with Lady GaGa, Webber/Rice created a complex character. Originally, the show tempered Evita's story by using passionate revolutionary Che Guevara as the narrator and critic of both Evita and her Fascist husband's behavior. As played by Mandy Patinkin, Che's acerbic commentary and begrudging admiration formed a conversation with Evita's naked ambition and profligacy, giving the show some balance. But the lightweight Ricky Martin is just a generic "Che" with no revolutionary edge, and his critique is more admiring than begrudging, more disappointed than angry. The narrative imbalance in this production is unintentionally exacerbated by the terrific Michael Cerveris as Evita's husband, Argentinean president Juan Peron. His brilliant performance turns the character from a mere opportunist into a charismatic leader and loving husband, leaving the Che/Evita dialectic far from the audience's consideration. Yet none of this would matter if Roger's Evita was able to make the music take flight, as Patti LuPone and Elaine Paige once did. Unfortunately, Roger’s soprano is thin, nasal and harsh, with an unpleasant vibrato in the upper register. She is a terrific actress and dancer, but EVITA is an opera, entirely sung through, with much of the score comprised of dull recitative and filler that bursts only occasionally into ecstatic moments of gorgeous melody. So unless you have an Evita that can make each of those melodic outbursts soar, then the show doesn't either. And this show is surely one soarless bird, sorely in need of some goosebumpery. Brit director Michael Grandage does nothing to help the show take wing, staging the work in a prosaic, respectful and sincere manner that remains utterly earthbound, even with Rob Marshall's excellent choreography. Ultimately, it pales in comparison to the sparklingly innovative staging provided by Hal Prince in the show's original Broadway incarnation. The show does still have its moments, including the opening of Act II, where Roger is able to pull off DON'T CRY FOR ME ARGENTINA with a subdued and restrained beauty that marks the highlight of this production. And her love story with Cerveris is more fully felt than I've seen in the work before, due in part to their performances, but also the inclusion of the song from the movie adaptation, YOU MUST LOVE ME, meant originally to give Madonna an Oscar opportunity, but serving now to bolster their marital relationship, strengthening a former weakness in the story. All in all, though, EVITA is a dull, plodding piece of work that was once elevated by an ironic approach, ingenious staging and a brilliant cast… and is now not. [C+]

Vic Sage Apr 19 2012 11:55 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

next up: * MAGIC / BIRD then: * PETER & THE STARCATCHERS

Vic Sage Apr 22 2012 11:40 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Edited 4 time(s), most recently on Apr 25 2012 11:04 AM

MAGIC / BIRD - Eric Simonson, the writer who authored last season's NFL play LOMBARDI, seems to be the go-to guy when sports leagues try to spread their trademarks over the theater world like manure. If only he was a good playwright, it would make these commodifications endurable. Alas, mediocrity is his high water mark, as his dramas are nothing more than hagiographies cut and pasted from Wikipedia entries. Here, Simonson has taken the parallel careers and rivalry of the 2 NBA superstars, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, and tries to make a case for a "Castor & Pollux"-style Greek myth. But his reach exceeds his grasp and the play plummets to Earth like Icarus flying too close to the sun. The cast doesn't help much either. At least LOMBARDI featured some great actors giving great performances. This has Peter Scolari as Red Auerbach, Jerry Buss and Pat Riley. I guess Mr. Scolari had a break in his schedule and decided to take time off from doing Willy Loman at dinner theaters from Scranton to Sacramento. The unknowns in the other roles are unknown for a reason and there is no need to embarrass them further by mentioning their names. It's certainly not the worst play I've ever seen... hell, it's not even the worst thing I've seen this season ("Ms. Garland, white courtesy telephone please..."). But it is entirely lacking in any kind of resonance, and it evaporated as soon as I stepped out of the theater. Wait, what was I talking about again? [D]

Vic Sage Apr 23 2012 10:24 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 25 2012 10:56 AM

PETER & THE STARCATCHER - Rick Elice's adaptation of Dave Barry's PETER PAN "prequel" is presented in a thrillingly theatrical production that elevates an otherwise mediocre play. Using a "story theatre" approach, an ensemble both tells and plays out a story that ostensibly answers all the questions about the origins of all the various elements of the PAN mythos. Performances are terrific, especially Christian Borle, taking time out from SMASH to chew the scenery as the proto-HOOK. The cast sings some songs, but the show is not a musical per se… just a work that uses all of theater's tools to communicate a narrative to and with an audience. When the actors pick up a rope and transform it (first into a doorway, then a window, then the surface of a ship's deck, and the waves of a stormy sea), they're engaged in theater at its purest, and pull it off with great style and energy. My only problem is the story being adapted. It's an exercise in narrative reverse engineering which, while clever and amusing, is also unduly convoluted and not nearly as charming, or inspired, or magical as it should be. But my 11-year old was thoroughly engaged throughout. So there you go. [B]

Edgy MD Apr 23 2012 10:29 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Do they find actors who are 6'8" and 6'9" to play Magic Johnson and Larry Bird?

Vic Sage Apr 23 2012 10:33 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Next 5 shows (4 in the next 3 days): - STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE (tues) - CLYBURNE PARK (wed mat) - ONE MAN, 2 GUVNORS (wed eve) - GHOST (thurs) - LEAP OF FAITH (Sat eve)

Vic Sage Apr 23 2012 10:34 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

Edgy DC wrote: Do they find actors who are 6'8" and 6'9" to play Magic Johnson and Larry Bird? i'm not sure how tall they are, but they are both very tall (especially standing next to Peter Scolari). If they had any other qualifications for the roles, they're not immediately apparent. i did a little research: Tug Coker (playing BIRD) is about 6'5". Kevin Daniels (as MAGIC) seems roughly the same height.

themetfairy Apr 23 2012 11:52 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

They could alternatively cast a couple of six foot tall guys and round out the cast with really short actors.

bmfc1 Apr 23 2012 04:29 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012

DEATH OF A SALESMAN – Mike Nichols directs Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Arthur Miller’s tragedy, perhaps the greatest of all American plays. Nichols, in staging the play as an homage to the original production, has gone back to the original music and scenic designs, and they still work well. And Hoffman is more than up to the Lear-like challenge of Willy Loman, an everyman at the end of his tether. But, alas, Hoffman’s co-stars are not quite there with him. Andrew Garfield (soon to be starring as Peter Parker in the upcoming SPIDER-MAN movie reboot) as Willy’s son, Biff, is moving but never really convincing as the Hercules/Adonis HS football star gone to seed. In fact, he’s more like the team’s waterboy than its star QB (casting tip: if an actor is appropriate to play in Peter Parker’s origin story, he’s the WRONG ACTOR for Biff Loman. You’re welcome). Linda Emond as Willy’s wife is fine, but not spectacularly so, and the same can be said of the rest of the cast. But in the end, it doesn’t matter. Hoffman is magnificent in a perfectly sound (if not overly inventive) production of a play that should be seen annually by every citizen before they vote. It would change our politics, and our Father’s Days. [B+] I'm seeing this on June 2d. Don't tell me what happens to the Salesman. sharpie Apr 23 2012 07:57 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 I saw Clybourne Park a couple of weeks ago. I'll wait til Vic's review to give my thoughts. Vic Sage Apr 25 2012 09:01 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE - Blair Underwood and a predominantly black cast provide a fascinating remounting, and reconsideration, of the Tennessee Williams classic. As directed by Emily Mann, this revival offers a naturalistic depiction of multi-cultural New Orleans in the early 50s that seems absolutely authentic. In addition to the Jazzy interstitial music, the show replaces the enmity between Blanche's faded debutante toward a working class Polish immigrant with the racism in the black community between the light-skinned and dark-skinned, and it does it with virtually no change in the text other than dropping Stanley's last name. In fact, Blanche's references to Stanley as "Apelike" and "subhuman", and Stanley's reference to Blanche's "lily white hands" take on a new resonance and offer new meanings in the play. Beyond the creativity of the casting, the individual performances are uniformly excellent. Underwood captures the violence and feral quality of Stanley (albeit without the obvious insecurities offered by Brando... but everybody fails if compared to Brando). Daphne Rubin-Vega, whose screechy voice never suggests her high breeding, ably captures the sexual energy of Stella, which is a necessary quality to understand why she ultimately chooses and stays with Stanley. And Nicole Ari Parker is funnier, stronger and more beautiful than Blanche ought to be to justify her act II breakdown, but she pulls it off anyway. The unexpected highlight of the cast, though, is Wood Harris' Mitch, who is a lonely man of innate decency that forms a real connection with Blanche, and so when reality destroys their relationship (and Blanche herself), it is truly heartbreaking. While the direction, overall, lacks the energy and crackle inherent in the collision of delusions with reality, it has a slow, sultry, smoldering quality that reflects its setting and allows for Williams' poetry to float free. It’s not a perfect production, but it is a worthwhile one unfairly trashed by the Times. [B] Vic Sage Apr 25 2012 04:00 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 CLYBOURNE PARK- Bruce Norris's Pulitzer-winning satire on race and real estate, getting its long overdue Broadway production with the original cast from its 2010 Playwrights Horizons inception, has garnered universal accolades but I have some reservations. The 1st act, set in 1959, starts like an Eisenhower era sitcom before turning dark and poignant. Frank Wood is terrific as a man driven by a personal tragedy to sell his house in a white neighborhood to the black family from the play RAISIN IN THE SUN, over the objections of his neighbors. The 2nd act, 50 years later, have a white couple buying the same house in the now gentrifying black neighborhood, intending to raze the house and build a too big structure over the objections of their black neighbors and the city’s landmarks committee. The black/white role reversals are heightened by references to similar subject matter and by double casting, evocative of similar devices used in such works as Stoppard's ARCADIA and Sondheim's SUNDAY IN THE PARK, but despite the theatrical cleverness, race is at the heart of the matter. Unfortunately, while Act II is funny, fast and furious, it is more about "issues" than characters, and the emotional resonance of Act I is sacrificed in favor of tasteless jokes and mean-spirited characterizations. Author Norris tries to reconnect to the more moving aspects of the 1st act with a touching coda, as the tragedies of the past appear to haunt the house at 606 Clybourne Ave., but it doesn't quite work and feels like a puzzling non-sequitor instead. Overall, while it's a funny, clever, interesting play with a great cast, I'm more interested in emotions than ideas, and so in the end I would have preferred to see the story of the family from Act I continue than be subjected to the unlikable yuppies, lawyers and neighborhood association types of Act II. While it won the Oliviers in London and appears the favorite for a Tony on Broadway, the play won't get my vote over the truly outrageous VENUS IN FUR, were they both to get nominated. [B+] Vic Sage Apr 25 2012 04:10 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 sharpie, your up. sharpie Apr 25 2012 04:40 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 I mostly agree with you, Vic, except that I liked the second act better than you did (and good point connecting it to ARCADIA and SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE). Having lived in a gentrifying neighborhood (like the couple in Act 2 we also moved there when my wife was very pregnant) and watching people do that weird tiptoe around the obvious topic, maybe it resonated more for me. I do think that the series of jokes went on for too long. I also didn't think the guy who played the minister/social worker brought a lot to the table, but that could have been the parts. I did appreciate seeing a new play about serious issues on Broadway that didn't contain stars and was, in effect, brought up from the minors by using the off-Bway cast. Also, it's been a few weeks since I've seen it but moments from the play have come back to me on several occasions, which doesn't often happen. Haven't seen VENUS IN FUR yet so I'll hold my Tony vote (which I don't get to cast) but I'll go along with your B+. Edgy MD Apr 25 2012 08:26 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Did they need permission from Lorraine Hansbury's literary estate to adapt her characters? sharpie Apr 26 2012 09:59 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Only one character from RAISIN IN THE SUN appears in CLYBOURNE PARK. My guess is, yes, they would have had to make some accommodation with the Hansberry Estate. Vic Sage Apr 26 2012 12:38 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 26 2012 01:01 PM ONE MAN, TWO GUVNORS – Richard Bean adapted Galdoni’s SERVANT WITH TWO MASTERS (1753) for director Nick Hytner at the National Theater into a British music hall farce that is both a homage and perfectly executed example of classic Commedia dell’arte style entertainment. A perfunctorily farcical plot runs a cast of commedia arch-types through their paces with style and high hilarity, until it runs out of gas before crossing the finish line. Combining original songs performed by an early 60s style skiffle/proto-Brit Pop band (both as pre-show entertainment and transitional music), the show employs bits of audience participation, as well as general clowning, pratfalls, wisecracks, vulgar asides, mistaken identities, confusions of letters, murder, lechery and true love, yet somehow still feels completely original despite its many influences. This is mostly to the credit of the Harlequin servant played to Falstaffian perfection by James Corden, in a tour de farce performance as a naked and not too bright id run amok, seeking only to feed his basest appetites yet somehow never losing the audience’s sympathies. Everybody else is different degrees of excellent, the direction and design no less so, especially in evoking the "early 60s England" setting and style for the show. The only problem with the play is that most of the comedy is from extended set pieces in Act I, which are not tied too tightly to the silly plot, such as it is. So Act II, which insists on tying up narrative threads of a plot nobody (from the cast to the audience) cares much about, loses much of its farcical energy. In fact, one could probably leave at intermission having enjoyed a hilarious 90 minutes of nonsense and not miss much. But you’ll probably want to stay anyway, since you’ll be too exhausted from laughing during Act I to go anywhere. [A-] Vic Sage Apr 26 2012 12:55 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 sharpie wrote: I mostly agree with you, Vic, except that I liked the second act better than you did... Having lived in a gentrifying neighborhood (like the couple in Act 2 we also moved there when my wife was very pregnant) and watching people do that weird tiptoe around the obvious topic, maybe it resonated more for me. I do think that the series of jokes went on for too long. I also didn't think the guy who played the minister/social worker brought a lot to the table, but that could have been the parts. In an era marked by CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM-style embarrassment comedy, your mileage may vary as to the toleration of the 2nd Act characters. I couldn't stand them. It didn't ruin the play for me, but it didn't elevate it either. sharpie wrote: I did appreciate seeing a new play about serious issues on Broadway that didn't contain stars and was, in effect, brought up from the minors by using the off-Bway cast. Also, it's been a few weeks since I've seen it but moments from the play have come back to me on several occasions, which doesn't often happen. absolutely, to all that. But what has stayed with me the most is the haunting image of the father/construction worker reading his son's letter at the end, evoking the emotions of Act I. Act II has already vanished from my memory, except the feeling of annoyance i experienced. Did they need permission from Lorraine Hansbury's literary estate to adapt her characters? not necessarily. i would argue that its a "fair use" under the 4-factor test since: 1 - while a play constitutes a commercial use (as opposed to a non-commercial use), its also artistic expression and social criticism; 2 - the amount taken is "de minimis" and so it's a "limited taking" from the original play (it uses only the name and idea of one minor character in the original play as a supporting character in the new play, on stage for a portion of the first act, without using any of the dialogue or situations from RAISIN, or any other characters except by oblique reference); 3 - the nature of the taking is transformational (it creates new artistic expression that comments at least by reference on the original and doesn't just restate the original expression), and 4 - it is unlikely to have any negative commercial impact on the value of the original work (it is not meant to replace the original in the marketplace; it might even encourage interest in the original). But even if he had a legal right, he may have sought permission anyway... or face being accused of the same kind of "gentrification" of Hansberry's work, a kind of cultural appropriation that he critiques in the play (even as he criticizes those who are doing the criticizing). Yet i don't know for a fact if Norris went forward with or without the Hansberry's estate blessing, permission or approval. There is nothing in the program or credits acknowledging Hansberry or RAISIN in any way. Vic Sage Apr 27 2012 09:53 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 GHOST - Arriving on Broadway fresh off its success in London, the supernatural chick flick of the 90s is staged practically verbatim in this high-tech musical directed by Matthew Warchus, with a book adapted by the film's screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin (that's never a good sign) and songs by the wrong half of the Eurythmics, Dave Stewart (with an assist from popmeister Glen Ballard). Instead of inventing theatrical ways to re-imagine the film, the authors decided instead to just retype the film script and interrupt the story with unnecessary songs. So the talented Warchus, stuck with a score and book by writers with no clue (or interest in) how to tell a story on stage through music, has instead created a "stage movie", drenching the work's heavy-handed sentimentality and goofiness with eye-popping (and sometimes stomach-turning) special effects, video projections, and stagecraft of various types to keep audiences mesmerized and distracted from the silly narrative and the embarrassing lyrics surrounded by empty, repetitive pop music. And surprisingly, he often succeeds. He even manages to fit parts of "unchained melody" in about 5 different scenes (unintentionally underlining the relative inferiority of the original songs), and of course includes the "pottery wheel" scene, all to give the audience (i.e., females) what it wants... or at least what HE thinks the audience THINKS it wants. Good performances and strong voices by the whole cast support the goings on, especially Da’vine Joy Randolph as the psychic (played by Whoopie Goldberg in the movie). The subway ghost is also staged to particularly strong effect. And, to be sure, the lovers have their share of achingly sad ballads and teary-eyed moments. So the show, overall, while not very good, was not as bad as i expected, and despite a thrashing from critics, is likely to find an audience here as it did in London. [C] Edgy MD Apr 27 2012 10:06 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Dave Stewart come on! Wrong half?! Shouldn't you want the composer/producer half rather than the secondary-composer/frontwoman half of the band composing your play? I mean, unless Annie the performer comes with the package. That said, it would take a lot of firearms get me to see this. Vic Sage Apr 27 2012 01:50 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Edgy DC wrote: Dave Stewart come on! Wrong half?! Shouldn't you want the composer/producer half rather than the secondary-composer/frontwoman half of the band composing your play? I mean, unless Annie the performer comes with the package. That said, it would take a lot of firearms get me to see this. all i know is the songs Annie Lennox has written and performed since leaving Eurythmics are, in my opinion, greatly superior (by and large) to those she sang and co-wrote with Stewart, and he's done nothing of note since her departure. So i have only your assurance that she was merely the "secondary-composer/frontwoman" and not the heart and soul of that combo. Edgy MD Apr 27 2012 02:15 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Most of the time, Stewart wrote the music and Lennox wrote the lyrics. Vic Sage Apr 29 2012 12:05 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 01 2012 10:04 AM LEAP OF FAITH - After GODSPELL, JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR and GHOST (and last season, SISTER ACT), I'm more than a little exhausted by Christ, God and the hereafter on Broadway this year, but the last show this season felt compelled to hammer it home, if you'll pardon the expression. The Steve Martin movie about the possibility of personal redemption left its con man unsure of what the miracle meant, and left his life unresolved before him. This story is transformed into a honest-to-goodness god-is-great revival meeting, where the con man has bought his own con, hook line and sinker, because a cripple boy walked and rain storm came to a drought-stricken town. On the same topic, this is no 110 IN THE SHADE, but it's entertaining enough, with the estimable Raoul Esparza as the con man with a traveling circus religious revival show, and big gospel style numbers and good dance numbers, mostly well staged, and the songs by Alan Menken are at least better than his work this year on NEWSIES, if not up to his animation standards, but the whole thing is kind of icky and cloying. The movie's sharp-edged cynicism is diluted into pure creampuffery and, by so doing, feels more cynical in function than the movie ever did, as dozens and dozens of theater producers (most of whom wouldn't buy this bullshit under any circumstances) are literally passing the plate to gouge audiences who do. So I give it a [C], but if you buy the ole time religion, add half a grade. Vic Sage Apr 30 2012 11:30 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 last 4 shows to go: NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT THE LYONS THE COLUMNIST DON’T DRESS FOR DINNER Vic Sage May 01 2012 09:52 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Edited 3 time(s), most recently on May 01 2012 11:00 AM 2012 Tony Nominations (my preliminary votes noted with a *): BEST PLAY "Clybourne Park" by Bruce Norris ''Other Desert Cities" by Jon Robin Baitz ''Peter and the Starcatcher" by Rick Elice * ''Venus in Fur"by David Ives A good year for new plays. I would have preferred to see CHINGLISH nominated over OTHER DESERT CITIES but that wasn't going to happen. CHINGLISH is a better play but CITIES was a better production, and the award's for both. Otherwise, an excellent list. BEST MUSICAL "Leap of Faith" -- music:Alan Menken; lyrics: Glen Slater; book: Janus Circone & Warren Leight ''Newsies" -- music:Alan Menken; lyrics: Jack Feldman; book: Harvey Fierstein ''Nice Work If You Can Get It" -- music: George Gershwin; lyrics: Ira Gershwin; Book: Joe DiPietro * ''Once" -- music & lyrics:Glen Hansard & Markéta Irglová; book: Enda Walsh One the other hand, it was a terrible year for new musicals. ONCE is the clear choice as the only musical to rise above mediocrity, much less utter suckitude. I haven't seen NICE WORK yet, so my ballot is still open. The other 2 Alan Menken shows are different degrees of "feh". Overlooked are the mega-FX musicals by rock interlopers, GHOST and SPIDERMAN, either of which i'd prefer over the Menken shows. But the nominators are hostile to outsiders, so all other factors being crappy, they'll go for the old hands over productions by novices. Although that didn't help Wildhorn on BONNIE & CLYDE. When you suck, you suck. BEST BOOK OF A MUSICAL "Lysistrata Jones" by Douglas Carter Beane ''Newsies" by Harvey Fierstein ''Nice Work If You Can Get It" b Joe DiPietro * ''Once" by Enda Walsh Another exemplar of the terrible musicals this season. LYSISTRATA JONES was an utter embarrassment and NEWSIES made me want to stick a pencil in my eye. I haven't seen NICE WORK, but Walsh's work on ONCE was brilliant. BEST ORIGINAL SCORE "Bonnie & Clyde" Frank Wildhorn & Don Black ''Newsies" by Alan Menken & Jack Feldman ''One Man, Two Guvnors" by Grant Olding * ''Peter and the Starcatcher" by Wayne Barker & Rick Elice Once the Tony committee decided ONCE didn't have enough new music to constitute an "original score", this category became a wide open race, since the rest of the original scores sucked. Again, a major diss to U2 and EURYTHMICS composers, with the nominators preferring the score for 2 PLAYS over either of those musicals. Both plays do have surprisingly good songs, though PETER's are few and far between and GUVNORS has them throughout. I'm surprised Menken's derivative score for NEWSIES was preferred over his original score for LEAP OF FAITH, but perhaps the nominators didn't buy the little Jewish white guy's gospel chops. They threw a bone to Wildhorn; it was the least bad aspect of his show. I haven't made up my mind yet, but my vote will go to one of the plays. For now I'm leaning towards PETER, where the songs were more integral to the story. BEST REVIVAL OF A PLAY "Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman" ''Gore Vidal's The Best Man" * ''Master Class" by Terrence McNally ''Wit" by Margaret Edson A good year for play revivals, too. These are all worthy, though ROAD TO MECCA and STREETCAR deserve some recognition, too. I'm leaning to MASTER CLASS over the miscast SALESMAN. BEST REVIVAL OF A MUSICAL "Evita" by Webber & Rice * ''Follies" by Sondheim & Goldman ''The Gershwins' Porgy and Bess" ''Jesus Christ Superstar" by Webber & Rice The musical revivals were far superior to the originals, and these were the top 4. I'm voting for FOLLIES as an imperfect but excellent production of an imperfect but brilliant show. The same could be said of PORGY, but i don't want to encourage the rewriting of classic works with a vote, all other factors being equivalent. And more importantly, I was a bit bored during stretches of PORGY. BEST PERFORMANCE BY LEAD ACTOR IN A PLAY James Corden, "One Man, Two Guvnors" * Philip Seymour Hoffman, "Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman" James Earl Jones, "Gore Vidal's The Best Man" Frank Langella, "Man and Boy" John Lithgow, "The Columnist" First of all James Earl Jones is not playing a leading character in BEST MAN. Langella is brilliant in the Rattigan play, but its not very good. Hoffman is great too, as is Corden in GUVNORS. I haven't seen THE COLUMNIST yet, and i hear Lithgow is terrific. So this is a tough category. I'll have to wait til I see Lithgow, but my preliminary pick is Hoffman. BEST PERFORMANCE BY A LEAD ACTRESS IN A PLAY * Nina Arianda, "Venus in Fur" Tracie Bennett, "End of the Rainbow" Stockard Channing, "Other Desert Cities" Linda Lavin, "The Lyons" Cynthia Nixon, "Wit" Arianda is beyond great... she's transcendent. But i don't get the oversight of Tyne Daly in MASTER CLASS or the love for Bennett's over-the-top Garland impression. While I haven't seen THE LYONS yet, and Lavin is always good, I can't imagine she'll be better than Arianda. BEST PERFORMANCE BY LEAD ACTOR IN A MUSICAL Danny Burstein, "Follies" Jeremy Jordan, "Newsies" Steve Kazee, "Once" * Norm Lewis, "The Gershwins' Porgy and Bess" Ron Raines, "Follies" Raines was the weakest element of FOLLIES, Kazee was good as "the guy" but overwhelmed by "the girl", Burstein was terrific, but Lewis carries PORGY on his back. BEST PERFORMANCE BY LEAD ACTRESS IN A MUSICAL Jan Maxwell, "Follies" Audra McDonald, "The Gershwins' Porgy and Bess" * Cristin Milioti, "Once" Kelli O'Hara, "Nice Work If You Can Get It" Laura Osnes, "Bonnie & Clyde" Milioti as "the girl" gives the best performance in ONCE; Maxwell is great, too, in FOLLIES, as was Osnes in the crappy BONNIE, while McDonald was more concerned with operatic trills than communication in PORGY. I haven't see NICE WORK yet, and O'Hara is always great, but for now its Milioti. BEST PERFORMANCE BY FEATURED ACTOR IN A PLAY * Christian Borle, "Peter and the Starcatcher" Michael Cumpsty, "End of the Rainbow" Tom Edden, "One Man, Two Guvnors" Andrew Garfield, "Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman" Jeremy Shamos, "Clybourne Park" This is a weak field; if James Earl Jones's role had been properly categorized as "featured" instead of "lead", he'd be a shoo in. As it is, Cumpsty is wasted, Garfield miscast, Shamos cartoonish, Edden more so and Borle most of all. But like i say, go big or go home, so i'll go with Borle. BEST PERFORMANCE BY FEATURED ACTRESS IN A PLAY Linda Emond, "Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman" Spencer Kayden, "Don't Dress for Dinner" Celia Keenan-Bolger, "Peter and the Starcatcher" Judith Light, "Other Desert Cities" * Condola Rashad, "Stick Fly" I haven't seen DONT DRESS yet, and i hear Spencer Kayden was terrific, but for now i'm going with the young Condola Rashad who made STICK FLY work, to the extent it did. I do think Marlo Thomas deserved some recognition for the work she did in RELATIVELY SPEAKING. BEST PERFORMANCE BY FEATURED ACTOR IN A MUSICAL Phillip Boykin, "The Gershwins' Porgy and Bess" * Michael Cerveris, "Evita" David Alan Grier, "The Gershwins' Porgy and Bess" Michael McGrath, "Nice Work If You Can Get It" Josh Young, "Jesus Christ Superstar" Haven't seen NICE WORK yet, but Cerveris gave a performance that transcended the limitations of the role. Grier was entertaining, and surprisingly musical, but that's Sportin' Life for ya. BEST PERFORMANCE BY FEATURED ACTRESS IN A MUSICAL Elizabeth A. Davis, "Once" Jayne Houdyshell, "Follies" Judy Kaye, "Nice Work If You Can Get It" * Jessie Mueller, "On a Clear Day You Can See Forever" Da'Vine Joy Randolph, "Ghost the Musical" Mueller was an absolute sensation in a show that didn't really work. Randolph is runner-up, delivering in standard "big, sassy black woman" role. BEST DIRECTION OF A PLAY Nicholas Hytner — One Man, Two Guvnors Pam MacKinnon — Clybourne Park Mike Nichols — Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman * Roger Rees and Alex Timbers — Peter and the Starcatcher PETER is so much more than the sum of its parts, with a wonderfully imaginative production that outdoes the material. Hytner's 2 GUVNORS is a close 2nd, but its excellence is more about performance than conception. Nichols and MacKinnon make minimal contributions to brilliants texts. BEST DIRECTION OF A MUSICAL Jeff Calhoun — Newsies Kathleen Marshall — Nice Work If You Can Get It Diane Paulus — The Gershwins’ Porgy and Bess *John Tiffany — Once No contest, nuff said. BEST CHOREOGRAPHY * Rob Ashford — Evita Christopher Gattelli — Newsies Steven Hoggett — Once Kathleen Marshall — Nice Work If You Can Get It Again, haven't seen NICE WORK yet. I wasn't impressed by any of the other shows' choreography, so i'm holding out hope for Ms. Marshall. for now, i have to lean toward the veteran Ashford's work on EVITA. BEST ORCHESTRATIONS William David Brohn and Christopher Jahnke — The Gershwins’ Porgy and Bess Bill Elliott — Nice Work If You Can Get It * Martin Lowe — Once Danny Troob — Newsies Waiting to see NICE WORK, but so far it's a toss up between the simplicity of ONCE or the sumptuousness of PORGY. I guess i'll go with ONCE for now, since its the only way to recognize this brilliant score. BEST SCENIC DESIGN OF A PLAY John Lee Beatty — Other Desert Cities Daniel Ostling — Clybourne Park Mark Thompson — One Man, Two Guvnors * Donyale Werle — Peter and the Starcatcher Its a toss-up for me between the childlike simplicity of PETER and the fun cartoonishness of GUVNORS. I'll lean toward PETER. BEST SCENIC DESIGN OF A MUSICAL Bob Crowley — Once * Rob Howell and Jon Driscoll — Ghost the Musical Tobin Ost and Sven Ortel — Newsies George Tsypin — Spider-Man, Turn Off the Dark Give the devil its due; GHOST did things on that stage that i've never seen before and were truly amazing. SPIDERMAN's tech was comparatively cheesy. NEWSIES showed you exactly what NOT to do with projections, and ONCE's simplicity is graceful but not award-winning. BEST COSTUME DESIGN OF A PLAY William Ivey Long — Don’t Dress for Dinner Paul Tazewell — A Streetcar Named Desire Mark Thompson — One Man, Two Guvnors * Paloma Young — Peter and the Starcatcher I haven't seen DON'T DRESS yet, but all the shows were good in this category. I'm going with PETER for the mermaid outfits. BEST COSTUME DESIGN OF A MUSICAL * Gregg Barnes — Follies ESosa — The Gershwins’ Porgy and Bess Eiko Ishioka — Spider-Man Turn Off the Dark Martin Pakledinaz — Nice Work If You Can Get It The costumes are always a highlight for any good production of FOLLIES. Still have to see NICE WORK. BEST LIGHTING DESIGN OF A PLAY Jeff Croiter — Peter and the Starcatcher * Peter Kaczorowski — The Road to Mecca Brian MacDevitt — Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman Kenneth Posner — Other Desert Cities candlelight was a 4th character in this play and very much central to the impact of the work. BEST LIGHTING DESIGN OF A MUSICAL Christopher Akerlind — The Gershwins’ Porgy and Bess Natasha Katz — Follies Natasha Katz — Once * Hugh Vanstone — Ghost the Musical GHOST lighting works with its projections and scenic elements flawlessly to create original stage FX never seen on Broadway. BEST SOUND DESIGN OF A PLAY * Paul Arditti — One Man, Two Guvnors Scott Lehrer — Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman Gareth Owen — End of the Rainbow Darron L. West — Peter and the Starcatcher i rarely know what to look for in this category beyond particularly creative sound effects or effective use of music in plays. GUVNORS has a Brit pop band providing transitional songs and its well done, so i guess i'll go with them. BEST SOUND DESIGN OF A MUSICAL Acme Sound Partners — The Gershwins’ Porgy and Bess * Clive Goodwin — Once Kai Harada — Follies Brian Ronan — Nice Work If You Can Get It see above. ditto. ONCE just because, until i see NICE WORK. Edgy MD May 01 2012 10:06 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 I hope you're putting all this stuff in a blog. It deserves a bigger and better audience than us. Vic Sage May 01 2012 10:21 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 i can't really go "on record" with this stuff, cuz of my job. this pseudonymous post is as far as can go. sharpie May 01 2012 10:23 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Bigger I can agree with. I will dispute better. Let us know if any of the ones you haven't seen knock off the preliminaries, Vic. Edgy MD May 01 2012 10:25 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Blogs work pseudonymously. Better was a joke. Of course there are none better. But there are some hitting more Broadway shows per capita than us lot. Edgy MD May 01 2012 08:45 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 The closing of Magic-Bird on Broadway does not bode well for the cast and crew of Sikma-Paultz. --- Josh Lewin MFS62 May 01 2012 09:44 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Vic, as I recall, the movie Newsies was almost a laughing stock. Terrible reviews. What was there about it that made it Broadway-worthy, much less multiple Tony-nomination-worthy? (I'm still laughing from that Sikma-Paultz line.) Later Vic Sage May 02 2012 10:42 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Vic, as I recall, the movie Newsies was almost a laughing stock. Terrible reviews. What was there about it that made it Broadway-worthy, much less multiple Tony-nomination-worthy? Absolutely nothing, but that doesn't stop Disney, or your cousin, Mr. Wildhorn. But more to your point, NEWSIES was a flop movie 20 years ago, but as a singing/dancing period story, it has a natural affinity for the stage musical form. Though its Metacritic rating of 46 indicates mediocre (rather than terrible) reviews overall, it has a 9.7 user rating (out of 10), supporting the view that audiences likeD it even if critics didn't. Over the years, it has developed a cult following, so Disney reckoned that it was probably commercial at this point (i.e., "Broadway worthy"). What made it "Tony-nomination-worthy" was timing; it opened in a season with many other crappy musicals. Lets not forget even cousin Frankie's BONNIE & CLYDE fiasco got a few nominations, and LYSISTRATA JONES got one, too, so that bar is pretty low this year. now pardon me, I'm off to a matinee of NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT Vic Sage May 02 2012 03:28 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 07 2012 01:30 PM NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT - A “new” musical that retrofits 20 or so top-notch Gershwin tunes into a funny, idiotic and utterly charming Jazz age tale about bootleggers, the idle rich, and true love in a Long Island mansion during Prohibition. Joe DiPietro’s book, inspired by the works of Guy Bolton and P.G. Wodehouse (particularly their "little princess" musicals, as well as ANYTHING GOES and OH, KAY!), and borrowing plot points from GREAT GATSBY and ARTHUR, gives screwball comedies the slightest bit of a modern spin. While short on outright hilarity, the show is long on adorability, and it’s just self-aware enough to avoid unintentional clichés (preferring intentional ones instead) and just engaging enough to make you care. Kathleen Marshall’s clever direction and expert choreography keeps things moving and light (although the absence of a good tap number is noticeable), with clever design elements that drip with fun. Matthew Broderick and Kelli O’Hara are the mismatched (and miscast) lovers. While both a bit long in the tooth for young romantic leads (and with O'Hara not the least bit convincing as a tough-talking, streetwise bootlegger), they are expert performers delivering winning performances. Michael McGrath and Judy Kaye give brilliant comic support, and Estelle Parsons arrives toward the end as a sassy deux ex machina to make things turn out right. And when you can drop the curtain on the final strains of RHAPSODY IN BLUE, you’re way ahead of the game. While it's pointless fluff that's not quite as funny as CRAZY FOR YOU, with dancing not quite on the level of ANYTHING GOES, it’s still a totally enjoyable show and one of the best things I've seen in a dry season.[B+] Vic Sage May 07 2012 01:11 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 THE LYONS - Nicky Silver's dysfunctional family comedy starts as an extended "Jewish mother" joke, and the play could have been a terrifically searing, blackly comic 1-act about the unique ability of a family to annihilate its members. But it seems to lack the courage of its convictions and so is betrayed by an unsatisfying 2ndAct, inconsistent in tone and structure, which fails in a pointless attempt to redeem irredeemable characters. Whatever the play's shortcomings, Linda Lavin gives a tour de force performance as a lacerating wife and mother, sitting by her husband's hospital deathbed waiting for him to die so she can get on with her life. And the still vital Dick Latessa holds his own as the dying Lyon, swearing a blue streak as he angrily faces his ungraceful exit. But the two adult children, gay writer son Curtis and alcoholic divorced daughter Lisa, are both such damaged masochistic victims of these two monsters, they are naught but monsters themselves, and when the son becomes the focus in Act II, it's too much to stand. There is also a false sentimentality that emerges, with the elder Lyon given a post-mortem walk-on describing (directly to the audience) his reunion with his own beloved father in the afterlife. The son, too, is given a brief respite from loneliness with the hospital ward's nurse, and even the daughter is given some masochistic release by helping a dying man down the hall. These are all preamble to the mother's bombshell dropped on her kids as a final kick in the pants as she walks out of their lives forever. As depicted by Lavin, the mother is both monster and hero of the piece, and whenever she's onstage the play works. But when she's not, it doesn't. And when it doesn't, it REALLY doesn't. [C-] Vic Sage May 07 2012 03:18 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 1 show left! DON'T DRESS FOR DINNER Ashie62 May 07 2012 05:08 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Kevin Smith is bringing Clerks to Broadway. seawolf17 May 07 2012 05:43 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Ashie62 wrote: Kevin Smith is bringing Clerks to Broadway. Between that and the Barenaked Ladies-scored "Animal House," I foresee more Broadway shows in my future. Of course, I've been saying that about "Avenue Q" for like thirty years and still haven't seen it. themetfairy May 07 2012 06:22 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 You HAVE to see Avenue Q! It's awesome, and since you're smack in the middle of the Sesame Street years you will especially love it. Vic Sage May 09 2012 09:51 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 oops, i forgot one: THE COLUMNIST - Pulitzer-winning playwright David Auburn's new work is a star vehicle for Jonathan Lithgow as the leading political columnist of the cold war era, Joe Allsop. While Lithgow is good (as he nearly always is), seeing him play a gay, New England patrician type is not much of a stretch for him. And while the production is well acted overall, and well directed and designed too, the play itself is little more than a series of scenes, arranged chronologically, to present a slice of history as "character study". But history is not necessarily dramatic, nor is chronology always theatrical. In fact, there seems to be no real dramatic arc for the character, or overarching story or theme being rendered in theatrical terms. After the first scene, where the KGB in Moscow use a gay hustler to blackmail him, he goes from New Deal liberal democrat taking on Joe McCarthy to virulent anti-communist pushing our foreign policy into an aggressive military posture in Vietnam. And that's who he was and what he remained throughout. The play doesn't deal at all with the last 20 years of his life, where he went from being a pillar of establishment power to utterly forgotten and obscure, which is really the missed opportunity of the text, where such a fall in the context of our current celebrity-driven culture may have had at least some resonance, instead of none at all. The play is barely engaging, on the strength of the production, but the text is in dire need of further development and exploration to find its theatrical Raison d'être. [C-] Vic Sage May 09 2012 01:50 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 okay, the marathon is over. Here's the last one: DON’T DRESS FOR DINNER – The main problem with the revival of this `60s French sex farce sequel to BOING-BOING is that, unlike last season’s B-B revival, this one doesn’t have Mark Rylance. Rylance may be the best actor alive on the planet, and his recent spate of Broadway performances (from the silent film-inspired virtuosity in B-B, to the linguistic pyrotechnics of LA BETE, to the mythic drama of JERUSALEM) showcased his dazzling range, but also evinced a humanity and pathos underlying all his work. And it’s that humanity that is lacking (among many other things) from this mechanical, by-the-numbers, dated nonsense to make it palatable. The cast is uninspired, except for Spencer Kayden as the French chef who almost rises above the carnage. But director John Tillinger ties an anchor around her and the show, with a dull design and stop-and-start pacing that inhibits the comic lunacy to which it aspires. But Tillinger could have only done so much with a script that should never see the light of day again, much less a Broadway stage. Even people who like this sort of thing are unlikely to like this one. [F] seawolf17 May 28 2012 06:48 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Caught Lucas and Mike in "Once" yesterday; like nothing I'd ever seen. Stunning, beginning to end. That would be twenty-seven Geneseo folks who came into to town to support our fellow alumni, some of whom I haven't seen in over ten years; photo taken at the "afterparty" at the Top of the Strand. A day I'll remember for a very long time. Vic Sage Jun 10 2012 03:53 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Tonight's the big night. Here's my final ballot and why (my votes noted with a *): BEST PLAY "Clybourne Park" by Bruce Norris ''Other Desert Cities" by Jon Robin Baitz ''Peter and the Starcatcher" by Rick Elice * ''Venus in Fur"by David Ives It was a great year for new plays. VENUS was by far my favorite; CLYBOURNE a respectable second. PETER and CITIES were exciting as productions even if a bit disappointing as plays. I would have preferred to see CHINGLISH nominated over either of them, but that wasn't going to happen. But what about ONE MAN, 2 GUVNORS? That was the funniest thing on Broadway this season. BEST REVIVAL OF A PLAY "Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman" ''Gore Vidal's The Best Man" * ''Master Class" by Terrence McNally ''Wit" by Margaret Edson It was a good year for play revivals, too. These were all worthy productions, and ROAD TO MECCA and STREETCAR deserved some recognition, too. I went with MASTER CLASS, in a tight race with the SALESMAN reproduction. BEST MUSICAL "Leap of Faith" -- music:Alan Menken; lyrics: Glen Slater; book: Janus Circone & Warren Leight ''Newsies" -- music:Alan Menken; lyrics: Jack Feldman; book: Harvey Fierstein ''Nice Work If You Can Get It" -- music: George Gershwin; lyrics: Ira Gershwin; Book: Joe DiPietro * ''Once" -- music & lyrics:Glen Hansard & Markéta Irglová; book: Enda Walsh On the other hand, it was a terrible year for new musicals, which made this category easy. Other than NICE WORK, which is a delightful if inconsequential entertainment, ONCE is the clear choice as the only musical with real impact. The 2 other shows nominated are Alan Menken works operating at different degrees of "feh". Overlooked were the mega-FX musicals by rock interlopers, GHOST and SPIDERMAN, either of which I preferred over the Menken shows, if only for their stagecraft and technical ambition. But the nominators were hostile to outsiders, it seems, so all other factors being crappy, they went for the old hands over productions by Broadway novices. Of course that didn't help Wildhorn on BONNIE & CLYDE, but nothing could. BEST REVIVAL OF A MUSICAL "Evita" by Webber & Rice * ''Follies" by Sondheim & Goldman ''The Gershwins' Porgy and Bess" ''Jesus Christ Superstar" by Webber & Rice The musical revivals were far superior to the original works this year, and these were the top 4. I'm voting for FOLLIES as an imperfect but excellent production of an imperfect but brilliant show. The same could be said of PORGY, but I don't want to encourage the rewriting of classic works with my vote, all other factors being equivalent. And more importantly, I was a little bit bored during stretches of PORGY, when it devolved into “opera”. Neither of the Webber shows were particularly good revivals, though SUPERSTAR at least had the sense to cast good vocalists. BEST BOOK OF A MUSICAL "Lysistrata Jones" by Douglas Carter Beane ''Newsies" by Harvey Fierstein ''Nice Work If You Can Get It" b Joe DiPietro * ''Once" by Enda Walsh Here’s another exemplar of the terrible musicals this season. LYSISTRATA JONES was an utter embarrassment and NEWSIES made me want to stick a pencil in my eye. NICE WORK is nice work but its book is entirely derivative, while Walsh's work on ONCE was entirely brilliant, so this category is a no-brainer. BEST ORIGINAL SCORE "Bonnie & Clyde" Frank Wildhorn & Don Black ''Newsies" by Alan Menken & Jack Feldman * ''One Man, Two Guvnors" by Grant Olding ''Peter and the Starcatcher" by Wayne Barker & Rick Elice When the Tony committee decided ONCE didn't have enough new music to constitute an "original score", this category became a wide open race, since the rest of the original scores were dreadful. I'm surprised Menken's derivative score for NEWSIES was preferred over his original score for LEAP OF FAITH, but perhaps the nominators didn't buy the little Jewish white guy's gospel chops. And with an open slot due to the ONCE decision, they threw a bone to Broadway vet Wildhorn; actually his score was the least bad aspect of that show. But then, in a major diss to the rock composers from U2 and EURYTHMICS, the nominators preferred the scores for 2 plays over either of those new musicals. Both plays do have surprisingly good songs, though PETER's are few and far between and GUVNORS has them throughout. So, I’m going with the proto-Beatles Brit-pop songs in GUVNORS. BEST PERFORMANCE BY LEAD ACTOR IN A PLAY James Corden, "One Man, Two Guvnors" * Philip Seymour Hoffman, "Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman" James Earl Jones, "Gore Vidal's The Best Man" Frank Langella, "Man and Boy" John Lithgow, "The Columnist" James Earl Jones is not playing a leading character in BEST MAN. And while Langella is brilliant in the Rattigan play, he loses a little steam in Act II. Lithgow is fine in THE COLUMNIST but it’s not exactly a stretch for him. Hoffman is great, as is Corden in GUVNORS. I guess I’ll go with Lear over Falstaff and vote for Hoffman. BEST PERFORMANCE BY A LEAD ACTRESS IN A PLAY * Nina Arianda, "Venus in Fur" Tracie Bennett, "End of the Rainbow" Stockard Channing, "Other Desert Cities" Linda Lavin, "The Lyons" Cynthia Nixon, "Wit" While Linda Lavin is giving a tutorial in stage acting in THE LYONS, and Nixon is offering a brave performance in WIT, Arianda is beyond great... she's transcendent. But I don't get the nominators’ love for Bennett's over-the-top Garland impression, or Channing’s sitcommy mommy, over both Tyne Daly in MASTER CLASS and Rosemary Harris in ROAD TO MECCA. BEST PERFORMANCE BY LEAD ACTOR IN A MUSICAL Danny Burstein, "Follies" Jeremy Jordan, "Newsies" Steve Kazee, "Once" * Norm Lewis, "The Gershwins' Porgy and Bess" Ron Raines, "Follies" Raines gives by far the weakest performance of FOLLIES, and I think it was perverse of the nominators to give him a nod over Matthew Broderick in NICE WORK. Perhaps they were tired of Broderick’s odd and affectless shtick, but it works here and he’s infinitely better than Raines, who is just a voice. As for Kazee, he was good as "the guy" in ONCE but utterly overwhelmed by "the girl", and while Burstein was terrific in FOLLIES, Lewis carried PORGY on his crippled back. BEST PERFORMANCE BY LEAD ACTRESS IN A MUSICAL Jan Maxwell, "Follies" Audra McDonald, "The Gershwins' Porgy and Bess" * Cristin Milioti, "Once" Kelli O'Hara, "Nice Work If You Can Get It" Laura Osnes, "Bonnie & Clyde" Maxwell is great in FOLLIES, as was Osnes in the otherwise crappy BONNIE, while McDonald seemed more concerned with operatic trills than communication in PORGY. Kelli O’Hara is always good, and she’s certainly very good in NICE WORK, but I’ve seen her better. For me, it’s Milioti, who gives the best performance in the best musical of the season. BEST PERFORMANCE BY FEATURED ACTOR IN A PLAY * Christian Borle, "Peter and the Starcatcher" Michael Cumpsty, "End of the Rainbow" Tom Edden, "One Man, Two Guvnors" Andrew Garfield, "Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman" Jeremy Shamos, "Clybourne Park" This is a weak field; if James Earl Jones's role had been properly categorized as "featured" instead of "lead", he'd be a shoo-in, or if Jim Dale had not been ignored for his excellent work in ROAD TO MECCA, he might’ve won my vote. As it is, Cumpsty is tragically wasted (though I hear he has an excellent scene in Act II), Garfield is miscast, Shamos is cartoonish, Edden more so, and Borle most of all. But like I say, go big or go home, so I'll go with Borle. BEST PERFORMANCE BY FEATURED ACTRESS IN A PLAY Linda Emond, "Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman" Spencer Kayden, "Don't Dress for Dinner" Celia Keenan-Bolger, "Peter and the Starcatcher" Judith Light, "Other Desert Cities" * Condola Rashad, "Stick Fly" Spencer Kayden is the only good thing in DONT DRESS, but even she can’t escape the black hole of this awful play. I'm going with the young Condola Rashad who made STICK FLY work, to the extent it did. I do think Marlo Thomas deserved some recognition for the work she did in RELATIVELY SPEAKING. BEST PERFORMANCE BY FEATURED ACTOR IN A MUSICAL Phillip Boykin, "The Gershwins' Porgy and Bess" * Michael Cerveris, "Evita" David Alan Grier, "The Gershwins' Porgy and Bess" Michael McGrath, "Nice Work If You Can Get It" Josh Young, "Jesus Christ Superstar" Grier was entertaining, and surprisingly musical, but that's Sportin' Life for ya. Ditto the always entertaining Michael McGrath. But Cerveris gave a performance that transcended the limitations of the role. Young and Boykin were both fine, but nothing special. BEST PERFORMANCE BY FEATURED ACTRESS IN A MUSICAL Elizabeth A. Davis, "Once" Jayne Houdyshell, "Follies" Judy Kaye, "Nice Work If You Can Get It" * Jessie Mueller, "On a Clear Day You Can See Forever" Da'Vine Joy Randolph, "Ghost the Musical" Randolph is very good at delivering the standard "big, sassy black woman" role and Judy Kaye is a comic gem in a limited role, but Mueller was an absolute sensation in a show that didn't really work otherwise. BEST DIRECTION OF A PLAY Nicholas Hytner — One Man, Two Guvnors Pam MacKinnon — Clybourne Park Mike Nichols — Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman * Roger Rees and Alex Timbers — Peter and the Starcatcher PETER is so much more than the sum of its parts, with a wonderfully imaginative production that outdoes the material. Hytner's GUVNORS is a close 2nd, but its excellence is owed more to some unique comic performances than its direction. Nichols and MacKinnon wisely stayed out of the way of brilliants texts and helped the actors avoid bumping into the furniture in their recreations of earlier productions. BEST DIRECTION OF A MUSICAL Jeff Calhoun — Newsies Kathleen Marshall — Nice Work If You Can Get It Diane Paulus — The Gershwins’ Porgy and Bess *John Tiffany — Once The work by Paulus and Marshall was excellent, but Tiffany’s conception is spectacular. NEWSIES is an abomination. BEST CHOREOGRAPHY Rob Ashford — Evita Christopher Gattelli — Newsies Steven Hoggett — Once * Kathleen Marshall — Nice Work If You Can Get It NICE WORK is consistently lovely; NEWSIES offers characterless HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL-style gymnastics; EVITA and ONCE offer solid but minimal work. BEST ORCHESTRATIONS William David Brohn and Christopher Jahnke — The Gershwins’ Porgy and Bess Bill Elliott — Nice Work If You Can Get It * Martin Lowe — Once Danny Troob — Newsies It's a toss up between the simplicity of ONCE or the sumptuousness of PORGY, with a nod of appreciation to the rendering of the classic Gershwin score in NICE WORK. I'll go with ONCE, since it’s the only way to recognize this brilliant score. BEST SCENIC DESIGN OF A PLAY John Lee Beatty — Other Desert Cities Daniel Ostling — Clybourne Park Mark Thompson — One Man, Two Guvnors * Donyale Werle — Peter and the Starcatcher In a toss-up between the childlike simplicity of PETER and the funny cartoon cutout style of GUVNORS, I’m going with PETER, but without conviction. BEST SCENIC DESIGN OF A MUSICAL Bob Crowley — Once * Rob Howell and Jon Driscoll — Ghost the Musical Tobin Ost and Sven Ortel — Newsies George Tsypin — Spider-Man, Turn Off the Dark Give the devil its due; the GHOST scenic elements did things that I've never seen on stage before and were truly amazing. Even SPIDER-MAN's tech was comparatively cheesy. NEWSIES showed you exactly what NOT to do with projections, and ONCE's simplicity is graceful but not award-winning. BEST COSTUME DESIGN OF A PLAY William Ivey Long — Don’t Dress for Dinner Paul Tazewell — A Streetcar Named Desire Mark Thompson — One Man, Two Guvnors * Paloma Young — Peter and the Starcatcher All the shows were good in this category. I'm going with PETER for the mermaid outfits. BEST COSTUME DESIGN OF A MUSICAL * Gregg Barnes — Follies ESosa — The Gershwins’ Porgy and Bess Eiko Ishioka — Spider-Man Turn Off the Dark Martin Pakledinaz — Nice Work If You Can Get It The costumes are always a highlight of any good production of FOLLIES. BEST LIGHTING DESIGN OF A PLAY Jeff Croiter — Peter and the Starcatcher * Peter Kaczorowski — The Road to Mecca Brian MacDevitt — Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman Kenneth Posner — Other Desert Cities Candlelight was a 4th character in this play and very much central to the impact of the work. The production should’ve gotten more recognition overall. BEST LIGHTING DESIGN OF A MUSICAL Christopher Akerlind — The Gershwins’ Porgy and Bess Natasha Katz — Follies Natasha Katz — Once * Hugh Vanstone — Ghost the Musical GHOST’s lighting worked with its projections and scenic elements flawlessly to create groundbreaking stage FX. BEST SOUND DESIGN OF A PLAY * Paul Arditti — One Man, Two Guvnors Scott Lehrer — Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman Gareth Owen — End of the Rainbow Darron L. West — Peter and the Starcatcher I rarely know what to look for in this category beyond particularly creative sound effects or effective use of music in plays. GUVNORS has a live band providing pre-show and transitional songs and it’s well done, so I guess I'll go with them. BEST SOUND DESIGN OF A MUSICAL Acme Sound Partners — The Gershwins’ Porgy and Bess * Clive Goodwin — Once Kai Harada — Follies Brian Ronan — Nice Work If You Can Get It See above. Ditto. ONCE, just because. seawolf17 Jun 10 2012 08:11 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 "Once" was fucking amazing. "Gold" is a fucking great song; so glad they played it. (Very cool to see Lucas and Mike on TV.) themetfairy Jun 23 2012 04:40 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 We took the boys to see Peter and the Starcatcher today. I loved the book, and had trouble not comparing the show to it. While the play stands up on its own, it's more campy and less clever than Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson's prequel to Peter Pan, and doesn't tell as clear a story as the book does. It was nonetheless entertaining (and it was a treat seeing Tony winner Christian Borle chewing up the scenery with aplomb), but I couldn't help myself from wanting it to be something more than it was. Swan Swan H Jul 25 2012 07:15 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 The cast of 'Once' will be on 'America's Got Talent' tonight, and from what I've seen so far they will be the only people who do. seawolf17 Jul 27 2012 10:24 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Swan Swan H wrote: The cast of 'Once' will be on 'America's Got Talent' tonight, and from what I've seen so far they will be the only people who do. Somehow we totally missed this. Watching it in the hotel trying to get the kids to fall asleep the other night, and they started drifting off, so we turned it off, not knowing they'd be on; we woke up yesterday to our FB feeds lighting up about it. Blargh. RealityChuck Aug 12 2012 04:28 PM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 CLYBOURNE PARK- Bruce Norris's Pulitzer-winning satire on race and real estate, getting its long overdue Broadway production with the original cast from its 2010 Playwrights Horizons inception, has garnered universal accolades but I have some reservations. The 1st act, set in 1959, starts like an Eisenhower era sitcom before turning dark and poignant. Frank Wood is terrific as a man driven by a personal tragedy to sell his house in a white neighborhood to the black family from the play RAISIN IN THE SUN, over the objections of his neighbors. The 2nd act, 50 years later, have a white couple buying the same house in the now gentrifying black neighborhood, intending to raze the house and build a too big structure over the objections of their black neighbors and the city’s landmarks committee. The black/white role reversals are heightened by references to similar subject matter and by double casting, evocative of similar devices used in such works as Stoppard's ARCADIA and Sondheim's SUNDAY IN THE PARK, but despite the theatrical cleverness, race is at the heart of the matter. Unfortunately, while Act II is funny, fast and furious, it is more about "issues" than characters, and the emotional resonance of Act I is sacrificed in favor of tasteless jokes and mean-spirited characterizations. Author Norris tries to reconnect to the more moving aspects of the 1st act with a touching coda, as the tragedies of the past appear to haunt the house at 606 Clybourne Ave., but it doesn't quite work and feels like a puzzling non-sequitor instead. Overall, while it's a funny, clever, interesting play with a great cast, I'm more interested in emotions than ideas, and so in the end I would have preferred to see the story of the family from Act I continue than be subjected to the unlikable yuppies, lawyers and neighborhood association types of Act II. While it won the Oliviers in London and appears the favorite for a Tony on Broadway, the play won't get my vote over the truly outrageous VENUS IN FUR, were they both to get nominated. [B+] Saw the play this week and loved it. One important point: the first act is a direct sequel to A Raisin in the Sun, taking part immediately after the final act of the first play. Karl is Karl Lindner from Raisin; he was the one who tried to convince the Younger family not to move (and played in the original production John Fiedler, best known as the timid Mr. Peterson in The Bob Newhart Show). It fills in a plot hole in the original play: why did someone sell the house to the Youngers? The point of the coda is extreme pessimism: the mother believes that everything will get better, and we all know how wrong that is. It says a similar thing about race relations. The play, despite its darkness, is ultimately a comedy about a serious issue and the second act juxtaposes the feelings of the people in the neighborhood in both cases: things haven't changed so much. It's clever that the actor playing Karl plays the new buyer in the second act, a nice bit of irony. I also think the characters were well drawn, especially the couple moving in and the couple from the neighborhood. Edgy MD Aug 13 2012 06:48 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 Late-blooming question for Vic Sage: do you feel similarly, if not the same, about Act II of Sunday in the Park? Vic Sage Aug 13 2012 08:50 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 no, not at all. I find Act II heartbreakingly beautiful. Frankly, i find the music and pacing of Act I somewhat tedious. I recognize that the time and tone shift from Act I to Act II makes the work feel disjointed, but the artist of Act II has an emotional journey that connects him to his grandmother and to Seurat, so when he faces the blank canvas at the end, there is a feeling of uplift, of redemption. It also has the best songs in the show: "Putting It Together", "Children and Art" and the spectacular "Move On", along with a haunting reprise of "Sunday". Here's the blurb i wrote about the last revival a few years ago: SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE – This Brit revival of one of Sondheim’s most cerebral works is a transcendent experience. It made me appreciate the show in a way I never have before, and not just because of its superior performances and ingenious staging (including a remarkable use of projections). Despite critical opinion that has long held the 1st Act to be superior, and Act II to be an afterthought simply to be endured, I had the reverse reaction. Act I is a beautiful artifact, but repetitive (purposely “pointillist” in its structure, adding dots in a form of static storytelling), with music cold and distancing, and with an Act I finale that, while normally spectacular, is cramped here by the physical space of the Studio 54 stage. On the other hand, Act 2’s “Move On” provides the launching pad for an emotional catharsis unmatched by any show so far this season. [A-] Edgy MD Aug 13 2012 11:06 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 I agree, but yeah, the two parts are tough to reconcile with regard to tone and theme. Same is true of Into the Woods to an extent. Two good plays in one night --- related but largely separate. Vic Sage Aug 13 2012 11:19 AM Re: Broadway season 2011-2012 I'm taking the family to see INTO THE WOODS at the Delacorte in Central Park next weekend. The cast includes Chip Zien as the Mysterious Man, Donna Murphy (Passion, Wonderful Town) as the Witch, Denis O'Hare (Take Me Out, Assassins) as the Baker, Amy Adams ("Enchanted," "The Fighter") as the Baker's Wife, and Jessie Mueller (On a Clear Day...) as Cinderella.