Wow, it's been quite a time for things I love in theater. Really. There is so much to talk about.
1) PRODUCER STATEMENTS
My favorite thing of the last few weeks was the Vanities delay statement. It was great to hear that the production was "being rescheduled for later this season out of responsibility to the investors at this complicated economic time, which makes it very hard to support a new musical on Broadway." I would have preferred: "due to the fact that, currently, while it is fun, this doesn't seem like a Broadway show, we've decided to hope and pray and then maybe we will come to realize that this is an off-Broadway show if a musical other than Altar Boyz or Forbidden Broadway could exist off-Broadway, but, since it is virtually impossible to survive off-Broadway, we'll probably scrap the whole idea." As someone who has seen it, that would have been my dream statement (well, a better written, more coherent version of that), but, alas, maybe we will see it, though hopefully the writing will be tighter than when I saw it previously.
2) RIDICULOUS TRANSFERS
Not since A Class Act.... Rock of Ages. 'nuff said. Actually, I'll say this: I wish everything success, so I hope it has a low running cost.
3) PULL QUOTES THAT SAY NOTHING ABOUT THE PRODUCTION
Pal Joey is a good show. And I appreciate the critics mentioning that. I often think people blame the show when it is the production's fault--I thought that a lot about the recent Sweet Charity, (though I loved Applegate) the production made the show seem worse than it is and so people said the show was just out-dated. I disagree. So I do like critics talking about an underlying show in a positive light. But... umm... poor Roundabout... "Glorious songs" (or whatever) only sells to people who would have been attending anyway.
4) THROW EVERYTHING AGAINST THE WALL AND SEE WHAT STICKS
I understand that theater shows need to attract all kinds of audiences, but I wish some of them would pick a tone, a style and, I don't know, maybe really focus in on main characters. There are so many random things going on in Shrek, I walked out thinking the creatives must have been high. And--is there any need for Broadway jokes coming out of the mouth of a small town kid from Indiana in 13? (That is where he moves, right? Indiana?) I mean, I personally love randomness in life in general (I use the word "random" all the time--my mother even used it in her post as sort of an ode to me), but I think it takes away something from the quality of a show. Would In My Life have been better without the lemon subplot? I don't know... when your show is going to be ridiculous no matter what, you might as well go all out... but, in general, some judicious editing is often wise.
5) CLAY AIKEN GETS A SARDI'S CARICATURE
Can they just stop giving these? Please? And, of course, Aiken is not nearly the worst of them, but he was the last straw in my mind. Can there be criteria beyond performing once on a stage and eating/drinking there? I mean, it's there place, so they totally should hang up their patrons, as they please, but, maybe I just want no coverage of it whatsoever. Because, when people cover it, it somehow makes it seem like a respectable honor. I think it used to be actually. Ah, how times have changed.
I am actually going to stop now because I want to sleep. Next week I am going to write a happier post (I hope). Meanwhile, two closings things... First, please go see Striking 12 if you never have. Lastly I want to take a moment to say something about the passing of Eartha Kitt, who was one of my father's very favorite performers. Eartha was one of those people who was exactly what you thought she would be like--a real personality. She was always very nice to me, even when I bombarded her with news questions. And she had such a presence on stage, even when she was not actually doing very much. You never lost Eartha on a stage. Of course, the news was mainly about Pinter this week (and, you know, that little holiday we had), but the loss of Eartha is a significant one in many ways. She was an old time perfomer--always giving the audience what they wanted. She never wanted to move on from the purring, she knew what people came to see.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Mama's Talkin' Loud
I have much to write about some of the happenings in the last few weeks… But that will wait until I post again later this week. (The delay will be good because I have yet to see Shrek and I will probably want to comment on the reviews/show.) Right now I am going to turn over the blog to my mother. This may be the only time this ever happens, so let me introduce her to those of you who do not know her. I have a Jewish mother (complete with baking skills) who lives in the suburbs and loves theater. An example of how this played itself out in my childhood: I was raised to believe Harvey Fierstein was really, really famous and amazing. You get the idea. In many ways she is my litmus test for how the non-tourist audience of her ilk will react to something. I take her to almost all Broadway shows; she knows virtually every press agent by face. And she loves to talk about the theater—my friends want her to start her own blog! Based on what I have said about her, you might imagine that she is a big Mandy Patinkin fan. So when I was invited to see one of his shows at the Public, I knew she would be the one who would have to comment on it. We saw Dress Casual on Saturday night (it is playing in rep. with two other Patinkin concerts: Mamaloshen and Celebrating Sondheim). I will say that, in my opinion, if you like Mandy, this is definitely for you, if you don’t, you will likely not be converted. But I will let her say the rest on this topic and, as a special bonus, she will also discuss Billy Elliot just because she wanted to do so. (My disclaimer is of course that the thoughts below are not my thoughts and I do not endorse them, I'm just giving them space.)
Jill David speaks:
“I must start by saying that I am a huge Mandy Patinkin fan so there is definitely some prejudice involved here. Going to the Public is always somewhat of an experience because their organization is somewhat sporadic. For example, the ushers seemed to have no idea of the seat locations so people were put in the wrong seats and then had to move climbing over many more people than necessary
To the show. Dress Casual was the one show out of the three that has no song list because, we are told in the playbill, it changes all the time.
Lights fade, stage black. Lights come back on to reveal the star in the middle of the stage in black t-shirt slacks. He immediately launches into song – “Children and Art” - from Sunday in the Park with George, with Mandy playing all the parts in different voices. It seems to go on forever. But his immense talent is evident. The show continues and the pace picks up, thank G-d. The songs are interspersed with amusing anecdotes from the past. He tells a story about Joseph Papp and launches into a Yiddish song, "Yossela,Yossela," that, as far as I am concerned, would be worth the price of admission. Mr. Patinkin is not only a singer with an unbelievable range, but a wonderful actor. He not only sings the songs but acts them out. The show lasts over 2 hours without an intermission but you will not get bored (if you make it through the first song). Take my advice and do not miss it.
A show you can and should miss is Billy Elliot. If this is the Broadway musical of the season, Broadway is in really big trouble (having nothing to do with the economy). The book, adapted from the hit movie Billy Elliot, has potential. The score is totally non-memorable. The first act is interminable and totally random. The second act is better, perhaps because it is so much shorter. I know that the critics gave this show good reviews. I don’t get it. Maybe they think that if something is a hit in England it has to be good. NOT.”
Jill David speaks:
“I must start by saying that I am a huge Mandy Patinkin fan so there is definitely some prejudice involved here. Going to the Public is always somewhat of an experience because their organization is somewhat sporadic. For example, the ushers seemed to have no idea of the seat locations so people were put in the wrong seats and then had to move climbing over many more people than necessary
To the show. Dress Casual was the one show out of the three that has no song list because, we are told in the playbill, it changes all the time.
Lights fade, stage black. Lights come back on to reveal the star in the middle of the stage in black t-shirt slacks. He immediately launches into song – “Children and Art” - from Sunday in the Park with George, with Mandy playing all the parts in different voices. It seems to go on forever. But his immense talent is evident. The show continues and the pace picks up, thank G-d. The songs are interspersed with amusing anecdotes from the past. He tells a story about Joseph Papp and launches into a Yiddish song, "Yossela,Yossela," that, as far as I am concerned, would be worth the price of admission. Mr. Patinkin is not only a singer with an unbelievable range, but a wonderful actor. He not only sings the songs but acts them out. The show lasts over 2 hours without an intermission but you will not get bored (if you make it through the first song). Take my advice and do not miss it.
A show you can and should miss is Billy Elliot. If this is the Broadway musical of the season, Broadway is in really big trouble (having nothing to do with the economy). The book, adapted from the hit movie Billy Elliot, has potential. The score is totally non-memorable. The first act is interminable and totally random. The second act is better, perhaps because it is so much shorter. I know that the critics gave this show good reviews. I don’t get it. Maybe they think that if something is a hit in England it has to be good. NOT.”
Monday, December 01, 2008
Hmmmm...
Did anyone else not understand Michael Riedel's Friday column? I mean, I am the queen of not believing the reasons given in press statements for actors being out, shows being delayed, shows being cancelled, etc. So I am all for his sentence about the theater press buying things too easily -- though for me the problem is less things being accepted too easily and more reporters printing things whether they accept them or not--but that isn't relevant here.
What I am saying is his whole claim in the first few sentences is that it wasn't the economy that torpedoed Guare's play at the Public and so it's stupid that people printed it was. Then later on he says it was the economy. See, here is the issue, yeah, they pissed off Carole Shorenstein Hays, which, well, isn't smart. BUT, in another economic climate, they would have gotten away with it. Just like there are randomly people who want to produce August Wilson plays (a fact I often don't get), there are usually people that love George Wolfe enough to support his stuff. Just not now. So, okay, while they didn't lose Hays because of the economy--I am sure she has lost some of her money recently but nowhere near enough that this would put a dent in her savings--the economy did in fact screw them in the end.
What I am saying is his whole claim in the first few sentences is that it wasn't the economy that torpedoed Guare's play at the Public and so it's stupid that people printed it was. Then later on he says it was the economy. See, here is the issue, yeah, they pissed off Carole Shorenstein Hays, which, well, isn't smart. BUT, in another economic climate, they would have gotten away with it. Just like there are randomly people who want to produce August Wilson plays (a fact I often don't get), there are usually people that love George Wolfe enough to support his stuff. Just not now. So, okay, while they didn't lose Hays because of the economy--I am sure she has lost some of her money recently but nowhere near enough that this would put a dent in her savings--the economy did in fact screw them in the end.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Let it Snow, Let it Snow, Let it Snow
So I've gotten some flack for not posting in awhile, but I must say, there has sort of been nothing exciting going on. I've been busy working and nothing has screamed "blog about me." But, I have to talk about American Buffalo...
Though first i want to praise one of my favorite Broadway performers--a girl who should work way more than she does--Meredith Patterson. Longtime readers of this blog know I've been a fan of Meredith's since she was Peggy Sawyer on Broadway. I desperately wanted her to be the lead in Never Gonna Dance, but that didn't work. And there have been other roles in recent years I could have totally seen her in and, instead, we got people who weren't as good. I saw White Christmas in LA because of her and I saw it here tonight. I know she doesn't have the flashiest role, but I hope people spot that she is completely in period and doing great work. She is consistent throughout and has the right style. seriously.
Now onto American Buffalo. Usually when shows open and close they don't have stars in them, so it's somewhat less embarrassing. Like who even remembers who was in that musical at the Circle in the Square? But this was a big Mamet revival, directed by the respected Robert Falls, with three different named stars in it. And actually that last thing was part of the problem--this show had the most random cast on Broadway. Honestly. It was hard to believe. I loved it so much because if you told non-theater people about the casting they didn't believe you. My friend Barbara's only reaction was: "WHAT?" And so there were only two alternatives--it could have been a genius stunt that surprised everyone or not. And I was hoping it would work somehow, but, no, it didn't. They were acting in 3 different shows. John Leguizamo was pushing SO hard, Haley Joel Osmet wasn't pushing at all and Cedric the Entertainer was somewhere in the middle (or maybe at different points on one poll and at different points at the other). More than that though--can someone explain to me the play? What was the point of reviving it? Anyone? I just don't get it. I mean, I'm not a huge Mamet fan, but, if it's enjoyable, it's enjoyable. I don't get this play. What is the point? Why have we sat there? I really want comments from fans.
Oh, speaking of Mamet, I enjoyed Speed-the-Plow well enough, but.... Did anyone else realize it's like $1.46 a minute if you sit in the orchestra (in non-premium seats)? Because, I feel like in this economy, I want more for my $1.46 a minute. I want dancing and/or big sets and/or free food and/or Shirley MacLaine.
Though first i want to praise one of my favorite Broadway performers--a girl who should work way more than she does--Meredith Patterson. Longtime readers of this blog know I've been a fan of Meredith's since she was Peggy Sawyer on Broadway. I desperately wanted her to be the lead in Never Gonna Dance, but that didn't work. And there have been other roles in recent years I could have totally seen her in and, instead, we got people who weren't as good. I saw White Christmas in LA because of her and I saw it here tonight. I know she doesn't have the flashiest role, but I hope people spot that she is completely in period and doing great work. She is consistent throughout and has the right style. seriously.
Now onto American Buffalo. Usually when shows open and close they don't have stars in them, so it's somewhat less embarrassing. Like who even remembers who was in that musical at the Circle in the Square? But this was a big Mamet revival, directed by the respected Robert Falls, with three different named stars in it. And actually that last thing was part of the problem--this show had the most random cast on Broadway. Honestly. It was hard to believe. I loved it so much because if you told non-theater people about the casting they didn't believe you. My friend Barbara's only reaction was: "WHAT?" And so there were only two alternatives--it could have been a genius stunt that surprised everyone or not. And I was hoping it would work somehow, but, no, it didn't. They were acting in 3 different shows. John Leguizamo was pushing SO hard, Haley Joel Osmet wasn't pushing at all and Cedric the Entertainer was somewhere in the middle (or maybe at different points on one poll and at different points at the other). More than that though--can someone explain to me the play? What was the point of reviving it? Anyone? I just don't get it. I mean, I'm not a huge Mamet fan, but, if it's enjoyable, it's enjoyable. I don't get this play. What is the point? Why have we sat there? I really want comments from fans.
Oh, speaking of Mamet, I enjoyed Speed-the-Plow well enough, but.... Did anyone else realize it's like $1.46 a minute if you sit in the orchestra (in non-premium seats)? Because, I feel like in this economy, I want more for my $1.46 a minute. I want dancing and/or big sets and/or free food and/or Shirley MacLaine.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
The Green Monster
I know what you are thinking--this is the wrong Wednesday. Well, last week I had internet issues... and then holiday prep. hit... so you are getting this Wednesday. Happy New Year to my fellow Jews.
It's good because it's just in time to comment on the Chestor Gregory Shrek casting change. Now, let me tell you--they had a hard time casting that Donkey. I had a friend who was in time and time again. For a long time they just couldn't find the exact right person. I was hoping when the news of Gregory came out that they had finally found him, but, I guess not. Is it his fault? Maybe. I don't know. I will say that the whole Jason Moore thing always made me nervous, as I believe I've said here previously. Yeah, Avenue Q is good, but I've never been sure how much of that credit he should get. It never seemed like he was the huge driving force behind the concept; at the time it was happening less was said of him than, let's say, Rando during Urinetown. BUT, nevertheless, after the success of Avenue Q, Moore began hot. Then he directed Steel Magnolias which, um, wasn't well directed. And, yet, people continued to think highly of him. He escaped heavy criticism. Even those that admitted to me they felt the revival was poorly directed thought that he was still a good musical director, it was just that particular show was difficult. I want Shrek to succeed because I want all theater to succeed and I like Brian d'Arcy James, but, still, I wasn't sold on Moore. Now, with the casting and costume changes and the addition of Rob Ashford, I wonder what other people are thinking about Mr. Moore. Of course, I hope these changes are the sign of a smart director. The addition of Ashford makes it seem like, if they are, it's not Moore, but, I do think it is wise to make changes. I am all for changing what doesn't work--to me, that is the purpose of a tryout. I've never understood why shows go out of town and then make only tiny changes even if they aren't very good. Why did Cry-Baby not come up with a big opening number after La Jolla? Why do so many shows keep leads that aren't good? Is it just the money issue? Isn't it better to pay out an actor than have your show do worse because of him/her? (Note that I am speaking generally and not of Mr. Gregory.) I mean, I guess it is a win/loses thing when it comes to all changes, but, I tend to think most are worth it. I am not investing though.
Speaking of which--who is investing now? The recession hurts all of theater, but it particularly hurts riskier ventures. Which is sad. But true. So, I fear we won't be seeing a lot of adventurous things having commercial productions in the neat future. Stay tuned though, I suppose.
And I leave with a "thank you" for the comments below and for the emailed good wishes.
It's good because it's just in time to comment on the Chestor Gregory Shrek casting change. Now, let me tell you--they had a hard time casting that Donkey. I had a friend who was in time and time again. For a long time they just couldn't find the exact right person. I was hoping when the news of Gregory came out that they had finally found him, but, I guess not. Is it his fault? Maybe. I don't know. I will say that the whole Jason Moore thing always made me nervous, as I believe I've said here previously. Yeah, Avenue Q is good, but I've never been sure how much of that credit he should get. It never seemed like he was the huge driving force behind the concept; at the time it was happening less was said of him than, let's say, Rando during Urinetown. BUT, nevertheless, after the success of Avenue Q, Moore began hot. Then he directed Steel Magnolias which, um, wasn't well directed. And, yet, people continued to think highly of him. He escaped heavy criticism. Even those that admitted to me they felt the revival was poorly directed thought that he was still a good musical director, it was just that particular show was difficult. I want Shrek to succeed because I want all theater to succeed and I like Brian d'Arcy James, but, still, I wasn't sold on Moore. Now, with the casting and costume changes and the addition of Rob Ashford, I wonder what other people are thinking about Mr. Moore. Of course, I hope these changes are the sign of a smart director. The addition of Ashford makes it seem like, if they are, it's not Moore, but, I do think it is wise to make changes. I am all for changing what doesn't work--to me, that is the purpose of a tryout. I've never understood why shows go out of town and then make only tiny changes even if they aren't very good. Why did Cry-Baby not come up with a big opening number after La Jolla? Why do so many shows keep leads that aren't good? Is it just the money issue? Isn't it better to pay out an actor than have your show do worse because of him/her? (Note that I am speaking generally and not of Mr. Gregory.) I mean, I guess it is a win/loses thing when it comes to all changes, but, I tend to think most are worth it. I am not investing though.
Speaking of which--who is investing now? The recession hurts all of theater, but it particularly hurts riskier ventures. Which is sad. But true. So, I fear we won't be seeing a lot of adventurous things having commercial productions in the neat future. Stay tuned though, I suppose.
And I leave with a "thank you" for the comments below and for the emailed good wishes.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Hello, all
Those of you who know me, know that the reason this blog has been on hiatus is that, shortly after my father's death, one of my closest friends, Al D. Rodriguez, was diagnosed with cancer. With the stress and sorrow of it all, it just didn't seem important to keep up this blog. But, I just got back from his memorial service, and someone there reminded me that Al loved this blog. So I am going to try to bring it back. On Wednesday, we'll have the typical Cara theater musings, but, for today, I am going to paste a note I sent to my email list a week after Al's death.
Note that since this email, the foundation has been established. The the Al D. Rodriguez Liver Foundation now exists. If you want to donate, you can make a check out to the foundation and send it to Carlos R. Ortiz / 166 East 35th Street apt. 11G / New York, New York 10016.
Here we go:
Those of you who know me well know that, with the losses of my grandfather and father, this has been an extremely tough year for me. Through all of it, my dear friend Al Rodriguez was there for me. He was one of the best people I ever knew. Last week at this time he took his last breath--less than six weeks after he was diagnosed with liver cancer. On our last night out, Al told me that, if he survived, he wanted to help educate people who did not have medical insurance, did not have a regular doctor and did not know that they could have a silent killer inside them. A foundation that will bear his name is being established with that aim. In the meantime, in his honor, I send this email:
Al never took a drink and was asymptomatic until right up until his diagnosis. His cancer was likely caused by Hepatitis B, a virus that can be prevented by vaccination. It is transmitted through contact with infectious blood, semen and other body fluids. Many of you may have gotten the vaccine in your infancy, but, if you have not, I urge you to look into it. In New York City, there is a way to get a vaccinated for free: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/std/std2.shtml . If you are suspicious of the vaccine--some believe it has bad side-effects--I recommend you at least get screened for the virus, so you know if you need to do frequent liver cancer checks. (There is no vaccination for Hepatitis C, which also causes cancer, but there is a screening test.)
I know this all seems like a "this will never happen to me" thing. If I had read it a few months ago, I think I would have hit delete. But, on this day, I urge you to take a minute to make sure you are being careful.
The major thing Al taught me was to take care of your friends--so many times this year I got caught up in stupid things and forgot to be there for him. He never held it against me, but I know I need to do better in the future. And this is how I'm starting. I think he would have wanted it that way. So, please head my advice and pass on the word in his memory.
Note that since this email, the foundation has been established. The the Al D. Rodriguez Liver Foundation now exists. If you want to donate, you can make a check out to the foundation and send it to Carlos R. Ortiz / 166 East 35th Street apt. 11G / New York, New York 10016.
Here we go:
Those of you who know me well know that, with the losses of my grandfather and father, this has been an extremely tough year for me. Through all of it, my dear friend Al Rodriguez was there for me. He was one of the best people I ever knew. Last week at this time he took his last breath--less than six weeks after he was diagnosed with liver cancer. On our last night out, Al told me that, if he survived, he wanted to help educate people who did not have medical insurance, did not have a regular doctor and did not know that they could have a silent killer inside them. A foundation that will bear his name is being established with that aim. In the meantime, in his honor, I send this email:
Al never took a drink and was asymptomatic until right up until his diagnosis. His cancer was likely caused by Hepatitis B, a virus that can be prevented by vaccination. It is transmitted through contact with infectious blood, semen and other body fluids. Many of you may have gotten the vaccine in your infancy, but, if you have not, I urge you to look into it. In New York City, there is a way to get a vaccinated for free: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/std/std2.shtml . If you are suspicious of the vaccine--some believe it has bad side-effects--I recommend you at least get screened for the virus, so you know if you need to do frequent liver cancer checks. (There is no vaccination for Hepatitis C, which also causes cancer, but there is a screening test.)
I know this all seems like a "this will never happen to me" thing. If I had read it a few months ago, I think I would have hit delete. But, on this day, I urge you to take a minute to make sure you are being careful.
The major thing Al taught me was to take care of your friends--so many times this year I got caught up in stupid things and forgot to be there for him. He never held it against me, but I know I need to do better in the future. And this is how I'm starting. I think he would have wanted it that way. So, please head my advice and pass on the word in his memory.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Blue Skies
OK, I know, I know, I never got back on a regular schedule... It was all Tony stuff, all the time and I just didn't have anything to add. You know why? I didn't have any passionate attachment to any of those shows/performances. It was such a blah year for me. I don't think I'm alone.
Anyway, so it looks like we're in for the Broadway return of Diana DeGarmo, who I like and thought was a great Penny Pingleton. No, she's not going back to Hairspray. She's going to Hairspray producer Adam Epstein's other show, Godspell. So, that makes like her, Gavin Creel, Telly Leung, and, oh wait, I stopped caring already. That was quick.
Now, I know Broadway is Raul Esparza crazy. But am I the only one who thinks Leap of Faith needs a bigger star? Now, by that, I don't necessarily mean a television or film star... But somehow I want a bigger star, someone who commands the stage no matter what. Someone who you are always watching. I'm only always watching Raul when he's being out-of-control... I say this because the material isn't amazing enough on its own, it needs a big star. It's the kind of thing that person is really going to need to sell the hell out of... I hope Raul is that person, but I'm not yet convinced. There is nothing new about that, but I was just thinking about it.
I do hear Allison Janney is now singing better, so that's good for all those of you out there who, like me, are Dolly fans.
What can I say about Legally Blonde the television spectacular? It's really something. I like all the "a broadway actress has to bring it all the time" talk. Has anyone ever seen multiple Jessica Boevers performances in the same show? Because, let me tell you....
OK, sleep. More regular posts in the future. I promise.
Anyway, so it looks like we're in for the Broadway return of Diana DeGarmo, who I like and thought was a great Penny Pingleton. No, she's not going back to Hairspray. She's going to Hairspray producer Adam Epstein's other show, Godspell. So, that makes like her, Gavin Creel, Telly Leung, and, oh wait, I stopped caring already. That was quick.
Now, I know Broadway is Raul Esparza crazy. But am I the only one who thinks Leap of Faith needs a bigger star? Now, by that, I don't necessarily mean a television or film star... But somehow I want a bigger star, someone who commands the stage no matter what. Someone who you are always watching. I'm only always watching Raul when he's being out-of-control... I say this because the material isn't amazing enough on its own, it needs a big star. It's the kind of thing that person is really going to need to sell the hell out of... I hope Raul is that person, but I'm not yet convinced. There is nothing new about that, but I was just thinking about it.
I do hear Allison Janney is now singing better, so that's good for all those of you out there who, like me, are Dolly fans.
What can I say about Legally Blonde the television spectacular? It's really something. I like all the "a broadway actress has to bring it all the time" talk. Has anyone ever seen multiple Jessica Boevers performances in the same show? Because, let me tell you....
OK, sleep. More regular posts in the future. I promise.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Greetings
Well, I've been on hiatus more that a few weeks... It took me a long time to get back into the swing of things and I apologize for that. Thank you all for your well wishes during my time away. Don't expect much from this first musing, but I'll be back to full force soon.
While I was gone, the Summer Play Festival announced its lineup and both my favorite composer, Joe Iconis, and favorite playwright, Billy Finnegan, have shows in the festival. Congratulations to the both of them. I want to encourage everyone to see Joe Iconis' The Black Suits (and you will then know it is not financially unproducable off-Broadway, no matter what evil people say) and Billy Finnegan's Esther Demsack. Those of you who are longtime readers of this blog, know I've previously excerpted another play of Billy's, that's how much I love him. So, you know, go support him.
Also, while I was out, news broke that NY Times main theater guy Campbell Robertson is going to Iraq for the summer. Apparently it is more action-filled than the summer NY theater-scene. This came as news to me.
So, this week, I saw three shows: Top Girls, Saved and In The Heights. I don't know how many of you have seen Saved yet, but it has three lyricists and yet features lyrics like "Refugees from a refugee camp" and ""Life is screwey, you do what you can/grab onto a life buoy..." In The Heights you all know about, so moving on.
Top Girls... I don't know if I've ever written here that Top Girls is one of my favorite plays. I love it! And I was so happy to finally see this production! I was surprised when MTC first announced it last year because I know that some of their subscribers have in the past complained about weird things and, um, this is Caryl Churchill, but, MTC actually did it, so let's also applaud that right away. Sadly, some Tony voters in the audience didn't share my enthusiasm and there were a handful that left after Act I. This really pisses me off for many reasons, one of which is that Tony nominee Martha Plimpton has her juciest stuff in the second and third acts. So, basically, if you leave, you're not seeing the main part of her performance. That's shady. Of course, as is well known in the community, many Tony voters don't go to half the nominated shows (despite the fact that they are supposedly not allowed to vote in a category where they have not seen everything), so I know someone out there is totally thinking: "Well, at least they went..." But, no. It still sucks, whether they saw some of her performance or not. If you are a Tony voter, you should be able to sit through an entire show, unless you're physically ill. To not sit there shows disrespect to the nominated performers. Now, there is some argument that if only the show is nominated and you hate it in the first act, you might as well leave because you know there is no way you are voting for it. But, in a case where there is a nominated performer, unless that performer REALLY rubs the voter the wrong way in Act I, that voter really needs to stay for the rest of the show. This is especially true when, as is the case here, that nominated performer plays a different character in the rest of the show. I mean--do I really think that the people who left thought, after the first act: "martha gives the worst performance ever and no matter how genius she is in the coming acts I'd never vote for her?" NO! So, basically, the people who left, unless they were actually ill, are just shady and disrespectful.
I'm tired now. That is enough for my return entry.
While I was gone, the Summer Play Festival announced its lineup and both my favorite composer, Joe Iconis, and favorite playwright, Billy Finnegan, have shows in the festival. Congratulations to the both of them. I want to encourage everyone to see Joe Iconis' The Black Suits (and you will then know it is not financially unproducable off-Broadway, no matter what evil people say) and Billy Finnegan's Esther Demsack. Those of you who are longtime readers of this blog, know I've previously excerpted another play of Billy's, that's how much I love him. So, you know, go support him.
Also, while I was out, news broke that NY Times main theater guy Campbell Robertson is going to Iraq for the summer. Apparently it is more action-filled than the summer NY theater-scene. This came as news to me.
So, this week, I saw three shows: Top Girls, Saved and In The Heights. I don't know how many of you have seen Saved yet, but it has three lyricists and yet features lyrics like "Refugees from a refugee camp" and ""Life is screwey, you do what you can/grab onto a life buoy..." In The Heights you all know about, so moving on.
Top Girls... I don't know if I've ever written here that Top Girls is one of my favorite plays. I love it! And I was so happy to finally see this production! I was surprised when MTC first announced it last year because I know that some of their subscribers have in the past complained about weird things and, um, this is Caryl Churchill, but, MTC actually did it, so let's also applaud that right away. Sadly, some Tony voters in the audience didn't share my enthusiasm and there were a handful that left after Act I. This really pisses me off for many reasons, one of which is that Tony nominee Martha Plimpton has her juciest stuff in the second and third acts. So, basically, if you leave, you're not seeing the main part of her performance. That's shady. Of course, as is well known in the community, many Tony voters don't go to half the nominated shows (despite the fact that they are supposedly not allowed to vote in a category where they have not seen everything), so I know someone out there is totally thinking: "Well, at least they went..." But, no. It still sucks, whether they saw some of her performance or not. If you are a Tony voter, you should be able to sit through an entire show, unless you're physically ill. To not sit there shows disrespect to the nominated performers. Now, there is some argument that if only the show is nominated and you hate it in the first act, you might as well leave because you know there is no way you are voting for it. But, in a case where there is a nominated performer, unless that performer REALLY rubs the voter the wrong way in Act I, that voter really needs to stay for the rest of the show. This is especially true when, as is the case here, that nominated performer plays a different character in the rest of the show. I mean--do I really think that the people who left thought, after the first act: "martha gives the worst performance ever and no matter how genius she is in the coming acts I'd never vote for her?" NO! So, basically, the people who left, unless they were actually ill, are just shady and disrespectful.
I'm tired now. That is enough for my return entry.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Inside My Mind
Some quick hits:
Now that A Tale of Two Cities is apparently happening, I guess I have to stop calling it "Masada, The Second." Oh, well.
The big question of the week to me is: What will Glory Days do to the Tony race? It's out-of-town reviews were not like 'this is the best thing ever.' But, yet, it will almost surely earn a Best Musical Tony nom. How about the actors races? One lead, one featured? I'd bet book and score, because we like to support young-uns. So, that's a lot of noms.
Gavin Creel in Godspell. Wow, that's the most exciting choice ever. (Sarcasm.) I mean, I like Gavin, I do, but I was hoping for someone a) with some outside name recognition or b) someone very different. Maybe that is just me. I know people love Mr. Creel.
Is anyone else not at all surprised at the Rent extension? I mean, nothing closes in June. Don't be ridiculous. So when I heard about the ticket rush for the "final" performance I was like--"UMM.. that's so not the final performance!" I mean, come on. Why are you spending $7000 for a ticket to a performance in June? (Yes, I know--why are you spending that much for a performance anytime?!? but, that's another story.) I mean, they are letting people exchange tickets for one final to the other... This is "subject to certain restrictions," but it's still nice.
Poor Mask. All these years and still not great. I saw the long ago concert and I liked the score, but it wasn't a show and the score didn't go with the book. The composers held out for tons of money and some other drama stuff and so for years no one would do it. Now, someone finally has and the critics don't like it. Is it a surprise a show has been sitting around for years and still hasn't been improved? I wish it was, but it's not. (NOTE: I did get two emails from non-theater people who saw a photo from the show and had to email. So, maybe there is an audience for it, regardless. Though I'm not sure these people who actually attend.)
I believe I've written here before that I LOVE Pamela's First Musical, the book. So please go see the BC/EFA benefit of the musical. Support it, applaud loudly and then one day maybe we'll see a fully staged version of the musical. I've been waiting...
Who is Sam Thielman at Variety and why is he incompetant? I mean, normally I tend not to blame the journalist because it could be the editor. But, in this case, I doubt it is the editor. First he wrote Julia Murney was part of the current cast of Wicked (umm... no) and then, in another story, he wrote this sentence: "Williamstown Theater Festival has announced the rest of its '08 lineup: a new production of Christopher Durang's "Beyond Therapy" with Kate Burton will be directed by Les Freres Corbusier A.D. Alex Timbers at the Bay Street Theater in Sag Harbor, opening July 8." Well, yeah--the Williamstown cast will also be seen at Bay Street. But... what is the quoted sentence missing? Umm... maybe the Williamstown dates? Any mention that it will also be at Williamstown? I'm just saying...
That's it. Rest time.
Now that A Tale of Two Cities is apparently happening, I guess I have to stop calling it "Masada, The Second." Oh, well.
The big question of the week to me is: What will Glory Days do to the Tony race? It's out-of-town reviews were not like 'this is the best thing ever.' But, yet, it will almost surely earn a Best Musical Tony nom. How about the actors races? One lead, one featured? I'd bet book and score, because we like to support young-uns. So, that's a lot of noms.
Gavin Creel in Godspell. Wow, that's the most exciting choice ever. (Sarcasm.) I mean, I like Gavin, I do, but I was hoping for someone a) with some outside name recognition or b) someone very different. Maybe that is just me. I know people love Mr. Creel.
Is anyone else not at all surprised at the Rent extension? I mean, nothing closes in June. Don't be ridiculous. So when I heard about the ticket rush for the "final" performance I was like--"UMM.. that's so not the final performance!" I mean, come on. Why are you spending $7000 for a ticket to a performance in June? (Yes, I know--why are you spending that much for a performance anytime?!? but, that's another story.) I mean, they are letting people exchange tickets for one final to the other... This is "subject to certain restrictions," but it's still nice.
Poor Mask. All these years and still not great. I saw the long ago concert and I liked the score, but it wasn't a show and the score didn't go with the book. The composers held out for tons of money and some other drama stuff and so for years no one would do it. Now, someone finally has and the critics don't like it. Is it a surprise a show has been sitting around for years and still hasn't been improved? I wish it was, but it's not. (NOTE: I did get two emails from non-theater people who saw a photo from the show and had to email. So, maybe there is an audience for it, regardless. Though I'm not sure these people who actually attend.)
I believe I've written here before that I LOVE Pamela's First Musical, the book. So please go see the BC/EFA benefit of the musical. Support it, applaud loudly and then one day maybe we'll see a fully staged version of the musical. I've been waiting...
Who is Sam Thielman at Variety and why is he incompetant? I mean, normally I tend not to blame the journalist because it could be the editor. But, in this case, I doubt it is the editor. First he wrote Julia Murney was part of the current cast of Wicked (umm... no) and then, in another story, he wrote this sentence: "Williamstown Theater Festival has announced the rest of its '08 lineup: a new production of Christopher Durang's "Beyond Therapy" with Kate Burton will be directed by Les Freres Corbusier A.D. Alex Timbers at the Bay Street Theater in Sag Harbor, opening July 8." Well, yeah--the Williamstown cast will also be seen at Bay Street. But... what is the quoted sentence missing? Umm... maybe the Williamstown dates? Any mention that it will also be at Williamstown? I'm just saying...
That's it. Rest time.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
You Could Be Dancin', Yeah...
I don't have much to say tonight (I am a little exhausted), but I do want to talk about Dancin'. I'm surprised not more has been made of this huge step into commercialism by Roundabout.
I know previously I've discussed my support of Roundabout doing random money-making things. Because, in general, I think people that put on big shows should be entitled to make money to support them. Roundabout has many times previously taken a show that commercial producers just couldn't manage to get on and done it. One past example is The Pajama Game. Another example is the upcoming Pal Joey. But Dancin' is a little different.
Back in the fall when news surfaced of this Dancin' it was to be a commercial Broadway revival with a Toronto tryout. For whatever reason, that plan did not work out. So now we have a Roundabout production at Studio 54 produced in association with Greg Young, Elaine Krauss, Dancap Productions and Richard Levi. It is of course standard procedure to list the commercial producers, as these are the people that are hoping the show is a huge hit and they can move it and capitalize on its hit status. So, the deal is, for those of you who know nothing about the industry, it takes a lot less money to get something on at a non-profit because of a lot of factors, especially LORT actor contracts which allow for lower salary minimums. Like, they knew Love Musik was iffy commercially. So the commercial producers put it on in association with MTC in the hopes that people will love it and they'll be able to move it. If it is not well-loved (which was the case with Love Musik), the commercial producers lose a lot less money than they would have if they put it directly in the Belasco. But this is all usually (with some exception) done behind-the-scenes. It's not something you would know unless, well, you knew.
The Dancin' announcement has something markedly different about it-- the statement "that "A national tour of DANCIN' will open in the fall of 2009" following the Roundabout mounting. That makes it clear that this is a commercial endeavor right from the get-go. Of course, I'm sure if it is a bomb, the tour will be scrapped. But its announcement says something.
I know previously I've discussed my support of Roundabout doing random money-making things. Because, in general, I think people that put on big shows should be entitled to make money to support them. Roundabout has many times previously taken a show that commercial producers just couldn't manage to get on and done it. One past example is The Pajama Game. Another example is the upcoming Pal Joey. But Dancin' is a little different.
Back in the fall when news surfaced of this Dancin' it was to be a commercial Broadway revival with a Toronto tryout. For whatever reason, that plan did not work out. So now we have a Roundabout production at Studio 54 produced in association with Greg Young, Elaine Krauss, Dancap Productions and Richard Levi. It is of course standard procedure to list the commercial producers, as these are the people that are hoping the show is a huge hit and they can move it and capitalize on its hit status. So, the deal is, for those of you who know nothing about the industry, it takes a lot less money to get something on at a non-profit because of a lot of factors, especially LORT actor contracts which allow for lower salary minimums. Like, they knew Love Musik was iffy commercially. So the commercial producers put it on in association with MTC in the hopes that people will love it and they'll be able to move it. If it is not well-loved (which was the case with Love Musik), the commercial producers lose a lot less money than they would have if they put it directly in the Belasco. But this is all usually (with some exception) done behind-the-scenes. It's not something you would know unless, well, you knew.
The Dancin' announcement has something markedly different about it-- the statement "that "A national tour of DANCIN' will open in the fall of 2009" following the Roundabout mounting. That makes it clear that this is a commercial endeavor right from the get-go. Of course, I'm sure if it is a bomb, the tour will be scrapped. But its announcement says something.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
RIP Curtains
Well, Curtains will end its New York run on June 29. It will have run almost a-year-and-a-half, which is a healthy run... but it has yet to make back its $10million capitalization and it is doubtful that it will.
There is an odd thing about Curtains--it was a show that lasted a while, had a great lead who won a Tony, was fun, and yet never had a tremendous amount of buzz. (Despite a very committed press agent.) To me personally, before it came, there was a certain excitement about seeing a new Kander & Ebb musical. But that excitement never reached the masses. That's not to say the show didn't sell at all--it's still around, which is saying a lot... But it was never a show that a great amount of people were like "We MUST see this."
Why not? You know, when Curtains opened, it had that old-fashioned feel and I thought it would attract people who wanted to see that sort of thing. It had great dance numbers. The song Thataway, which was catchy. Two strong lead performances, one by a television name. So it had things going for it... (And it's hard for me to say that about anything with Karen Ziemba in it.) But, most of all, it should have had going for it the Kander & Ebb label.
There are very few musical theater songwriters who are famous. Kander & Ebb are famous. The general public doesn't know that in addition to hits they've made flops. They just know their names and thus associate them with hits. But, even Kander & Ebb apparently don't have names that are marketable enough to sell a show with a named star automatically. (Yes, I am sure their name sold some tickets, but not an astounding amount by any means.) Which leads me to think--is there any songwriting team who could truly sell tickets to a contemporary, non-theater savvy audience? If someone uncovered an unheard Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, would it sell enough tickets in advance to really build up super-buzz? I don't think so...
Now--the second part of this inquiry is... Is that sad? Part of me thinks it is. Part of me wishes tons of people rushed out and bought tickets to see a new Charles Strouse musical. But, the other part thinks--maybe shows should stand and fall on their own. But that's never the case. Every show brings with it the reputation of not only its songwriters, but its stars and creative team. So it's never just about the plot and the quality. And, thinking about it that way, it does make me sad that the general public no longer supports certain songwriters. It shows a lack of respect for theater history, in a way. Then again, we all know so few people care about theater in general anymore. It doesn't really surprise me that you can't continually fill a theater with Kander & Ebb fans. You can fill a theater with Julia Roberts fans, but, she's not a theater person. And that says it all.
It's late. I'm tired. I've lost track of where I was going with this. Musings for the night over.
There is an odd thing about Curtains--it was a show that lasted a while, had a great lead who won a Tony, was fun, and yet never had a tremendous amount of buzz. (Despite a very committed press agent.) To me personally, before it came, there was a certain excitement about seeing a new Kander & Ebb musical. But that excitement never reached the masses. That's not to say the show didn't sell at all--it's still around, which is saying a lot... But it was never a show that a great amount of people were like "We MUST see this."
Why not? You know, when Curtains opened, it had that old-fashioned feel and I thought it would attract people who wanted to see that sort of thing. It had great dance numbers. The song Thataway, which was catchy. Two strong lead performances, one by a television name. So it had things going for it... (And it's hard for me to say that about anything with Karen Ziemba in it.) But, most of all, it should have had going for it the Kander & Ebb label.
There are very few musical theater songwriters who are famous. Kander & Ebb are famous. The general public doesn't know that in addition to hits they've made flops. They just know their names and thus associate them with hits. But, even Kander & Ebb apparently don't have names that are marketable enough to sell a show with a named star automatically. (Yes, I am sure their name sold some tickets, but not an astounding amount by any means.) Which leads me to think--is there any songwriting team who could truly sell tickets to a contemporary, non-theater savvy audience? If someone uncovered an unheard Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, would it sell enough tickets in advance to really build up super-buzz? I don't think so...
Now--the second part of this inquiry is... Is that sad? Part of me thinks it is. Part of me wishes tons of people rushed out and bought tickets to see a new Charles Strouse musical. But, the other part thinks--maybe shows should stand and fall on their own. But that's never the case. Every show brings with it the reputation of not only its songwriters, but its stars and creative team. So it's never just about the plot and the quality. And, thinking about it that way, it does make me sad that the general public no longer supports certain songwriters. It shows a lack of respect for theater history, in a way. Then again, we all know so few people care about theater in general anymore. It doesn't really surprise me that you can't continually fill a theater with Kander & Ebb fans. You can fill a theater with Julia Roberts fans, but, she's not a theater person. And that says it all.
It's late. I'm tired. I've lost track of where I was going with this. Musings for the night over.
Monday, March 17, 2008
I get my coffee...
Greetings from Long Island, where I am dealing with yet another family situation. My life is exciting, isn't it?
In The Times article about Young Frankenstein today, Campbell Robertson doesn't discuss my favorite point: That all the new commercials prominently display the phone number, which is 1-888-Mel-Brooks (or 1-888-Mel-Broo), seemingly saying, "Hey, you may hate Young Frankenstein, but remember who wrote it! You love Mel Brooks!" That number might have been around before the bad reviews, but never have I seen it so much...
Anyway, the biggest news of the past week (the news I ignored on Wednesday) was the "huge success" of In The Heights. I have yet to see it on Broadway and I'm excited to one day do so... I hope all its problems were fixed in transfer. But I want to take a look, as I often do, at how spin frequently takes over from fact.
I was out Sunday night and I kept getting calls about the "rave" Times review for the show. Sample caller: "Cara, did you read the Times review? It's so good..." Then, when I got home, I did read the review. (I try not to read reviews before I see the production, but, because I saw this off-Broadway, I figured it was semi-safe.) Am I the only one who didn't read it as a rave? I mean--here is what I got from it: this guy is great, his music is top-notch and the choreography is interesting, but the story isn't good. That to me isn't a rave. That's like: go see it for this guy and his tunes, but the show needs work it didn't get in the transfer. Now, it does say "go see it" but it's still not a rave, in my mind. Yet the spin is so "RAVE." That's all I hear. I'm happy to hear that people are excited about something--especially something that can bring in a new audience--but I often wonder why spin takes over on some shows and doesn't on others. The same thing happens out-of-town--I think I mentioned before that for a while the buzz was randomly that Cry-Baby got across-the-board GREAT reviews, when, in fact, that isn't true. And, again, if the people are excited, I'm excited about that excitement, but.... I'm confused by it as well.
Perhaps there is a bent to support new artists in the theater? A Catered Affair won the majority of San Diego critics awards over Cry-Baby yet the NY buzz on that was much softer on that out-of-town. Of course the reasoning could be that Cry-Baby is THE NEW JOHN WATERS MUSICAL and A Catered Affair is a musical version of a movie I did not remember seeing... But, the reasoning could also be based on the fact that (despite this being Bucchino's first Broadway show) Cry-Baby seems like it has a hipper team attached to it... And we like to support hip teams more... (Someone is going to point out that Cry-Baby is more of a big crowd-pleaser and so the positive reviews of that were more like 'this is great fun!' and that is natural based on the subject matter... but I contend there is more to it.)
I believe the desire to support young theater artists is a perfectly valid one. So I am not attacking it. And I'm not saying that's the reason for overly-positive spin reviews of certain shows receive. I'm just saying that is one possible theory behind it. I'm sure there are many more... (Thus ends the disclaimer portion of the evening.)
Now I need to get something to eat. Until Wednesday...
In The Times article about Young Frankenstein today, Campbell Robertson doesn't discuss my favorite point: That all the new commercials prominently display the phone number, which is 1-888-Mel-Brooks (or 1-888-Mel-Broo), seemingly saying, "Hey, you may hate Young Frankenstein, but remember who wrote it! You love Mel Brooks!" That number might have been around before the bad reviews, but never have I seen it so much...
Anyway, the biggest news of the past week (the news I ignored on Wednesday) was the "huge success" of In The Heights. I have yet to see it on Broadway and I'm excited to one day do so... I hope all its problems were fixed in transfer. But I want to take a look, as I often do, at how spin frequently takes over from fact.
I was out Sunday night and I kept getting calls about the "rave" Times review for the show. Sample caller: "Cara, did you read the Times review? It's so good..." Then, when I got home, I did read the review. (I try not to read reviews before I see the production, but, because I saw this off-Broadway, I figured it was semi-safe.) Am I the only one who didn't read it as a rave? I mean--here is what I got from it: this guy is great, his music is top-notch and the choreography is interesting, but the story isn't good. That to me isn't a rave. That's like: go see it for this guy and his tunes, but the show needs work it didn't get in the transfer. Now, it does say "go see it" but it's still not a rave, in my mind. Yet the spin is so "RAVE." That's all I hear. I'm happy to hear that people are excited about something--especially something that can bring in a new audience--but I often wonder why spin takes over on some shows and doesn't on others. The same thing happens out-of-town--I think I mentioned before that for a while the buzz was randomly that Cry-Baby got across-the-board GREAT reviews, when, in fact, that isn't true. And, again, if the people are excited, I'm excited about that excitement, but.... I'm confused by it as well.
Perhaps there is a bent to support new artists in the theater? A Catered Affair won the majority of San Diego critics awards over Cry-Baby yet the NY buzz on that was much softer on that out-of-town. Of course the reasoning could be that Cry-Baby is THE NEW JOHN WATERS MUSICAL and A Catered Affair is a musical version of a movie I did not remember seeing... But, the reasoning could also be based on the fact that (despite this being Bucchino's first Broadway show) Cry-Baby seems like it has a hipper team attached to it... And we like to support hip teams more... (Someone is going to point out that Cry-Baby is more of a big crowd-pleaser and so the positive reviews of that were more like 'this is great fun!' and that is natural based on the subject matter... but I contend there is more to it.)
I believe the desire to support young theater artists is a perfectly valid one. So I am not attacking it. And I'm not saying that's the reason for overly-positive spin reviews of certain shows receive. I'm just saying that is one possible theory behind it. I'm sure there are many more... (Thus ends the disclaimer portion of the evening.)
Now I need to get something to eat. Until Wednesday...
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Dear Little Girl
I’m very excited I got back just in time for news to surface of the return of They All Laughed!, er, “The Untitled Gershwin Project.” It was back in 2001 when I first saw this show. It was already on at least its second director—right before Goodspeed, Christopher Ashley had to step in for a then-hot John Rando.
The show was tremendously troubled—it was somewhat enjoyable, but very slight and confused. Though for years after I kept hearing about rewrites and new readings. Joe DiPietro was working away on it. But, honestly, I never thought we’d see it again. I maybe blame Drowsy Chaperone for this Gershwin return, because Drowsy made people think an old-fashioned musical could sell. (Now, note, I personally never thought Drowsy was an old-fashioned musical, but I’m talking about other people’s conception.) Before that, the last new, old-fashioned musical was maybe Never Gonna Dance… and we know how that turned out.
Anyway, so it’s back. Now, interestingly, Christopher Ashley is out, Kathleen Marshall is in. And the show is, in theory, heading for a December Boston tryout in preparation for a Broadway bow next year. Original producers Jonathan Pollard, Dena Hammerstein and Bernie Kukoff have been replaced by another three, Scott Landis, Emanuel Azenberg and Ann Marie Wilkins.
Will we ever see it? Well, Azenberg is a big name, so that adds some weight to the whole thing. I’m not holding my breath or anything, but, that’s something. But the bigger question is—if we see it, why? We all know how DiPietro’s last big Broadway attempt at taking on an old catalog, All Shook Up, went. (Note that Ashley directed that one.) Plus, Broadway has seen a Gershwin revue before. Well, actually, one concert-like revue, Fascinating Rhythm, and one new musical incorporating old songs, Crazy For You. Just as Crazy For You was loosely based on Girl Crazy, They All Laughed was loosely based on Oh, Kay!. So do we really need it?
I mean, I’m all for supporting brilliant musical comedies. I’m a musical girl. But, let’s face it, we know this isn’t going to be genius. The most we can hope for is fun. And, if that’s all it’s about, isn’t Crazy For You a safer bet?
Just musing… I will of course be excited to see the new They All Laughed. I like fun and hopefully it will be that. That being said, I don’t know if I’d mount it for $12 million, but, then again, I live in a tiny studio apartment, so, it’s not like I’m mounting anything for $12 million.
The show was tremendously troubled—it was somewhat enjoyable, but very slight and confused. Though for years after I kept hearing about rewrites and new readings. Joe DiPietro was working away on it. But, honestly, I never thought we’d see it again. I maybe blame Drowsy Chaperone for this Gershwin return, because Drowsy made people think an old-fashioned musical could sell. (Now, note, I personally never thought Drowsy was an old-fashioned musical, but I’m talking about other people’s conception.) Before that, the last new, old-fashioned musical was maybe Never Gonna Dance… and we know how that turned out.
Anyway, so it’s back. Now, interestingly, Christopher Ashley is out, Kathleen Marshall is in. And the show is, in theory, heading for a December Boston tryout in preparation for a Broadway bow next year. Original producers Jonathan Pollard, Dena Hammerstein and Bernie Kukoff have been replaced by another three, Scott Landis, Emanuel Azenberg and Ann Marie Wilkins.
Will we ever see it? Well, Azenberg is a big name, so that adds some weight to the whole thing. I’m not holding my breath or anything, but, that’s something. But the bigger question is—if we see it, why? We all know how DiPietro’s last big Broadway attempt at taking on an old catalog, All Shook Up, went. (Note that Ashley directed that one.) Plus, Broadway has seen a Gershwin revue before. Well, actually, one concert-like revue, Fascinating Rhythm, and one new musical incorporating old songs, Crazy For You. Just as Crazy For You was loosely based on Girl Crazy, They All Laughed was loosely based on Oh, Kay!. So do we really need it?
I mean, I’m all for supporting brilliant musical comedies. I’m a musical girl. But, let’s face it, we know this isn’t going to be genius. The most we can hope for is fun. And, if that’s all it’s about, isn’t Crazy For You a safer bet?
Just musing… I will of course be excited to see the new They All Laughed. I like fun and hopefully it will be that. That being said, I don’t know if I’d mount it for $12 million, but, then again, I live in a tiny studio apartment, so, it’s not like I’m mounting anything for $12 million.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
A.C. Slater's full name? Anyone?
I am back... and would like to extend my own personal welcome to Mario Lopez. When are we getting Tiffani Amber Thiessen and Mark-Paul Gosselaar? Oh my god, why did they not do Barefoot in the Park?
So I got back on Monday, but I haven't had much time to catch up on the gossip, as I've been catching up on, I don't know, actual work. Thus this will be a more general topic.... Secrets of a Soccer Mom. Clearly, this is going after the Menopause the Musical audience.... but does it really have the name to capture them?
It's a marketing issue, I believe. Because Menopause had a genius title--like I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change. But Secrets of a Soccer Mom could be ANYTHING. It could be about affairs, ala Desperate Housewives. But it's not. It centers on mother's talking about their lives at a soccer game. How do you make that seem interesting in marketing materials? Because there is an audience out there for it--it's the Menopause audience. But you have to know how to target them.
This is what Ken Davenport and his team does so well--target his audience. There is a crowd for Altar Boyz, Awesome 80s Prom and My First Time, but all three of those titles easily could have bombed. The reason they succeed is because of the way they come across, which is young and fun. And the right people got that message.
So let's first look at the Secrets website. First of all, on the flash it says "under the expert direction of Judith Ivey" credited to The Times and on the inside is a quote from the Times that says "the knowing direction of Judith Ivey." But, moving on. The champagne and theatre boutique is a clever ploy. The website is in general cute, which keeps the focus on that this is a comedy. So that's all good--but they need to get people to the website or the theater. It's not like everyone is just going there randomly.
My friend's mother lives in the NJ suburbs and belongs to a community group that sees theater. I saw her at a party a couple of weeks ago and I asked her if she was going to see Secrets of a Soccer Mom , but she hadn't heard of it. Now I'm sure they've done press and ads in The Record and Star Ledger... So why hadn't she internalized any of it? She is the audience... And I don't know the answer. Is it maybe that there needs to be flyers at the supermarket? This seems like a show perfect for train station and supermarket cart promotion. How about ads in the Pennysaver? Is anyone with me? That's really the audience that needs to be pitched and pitched again. I mean, my friends aren't going... It's all about these soccer moms. And these are busy women--you need to keep pushing for them in places you know they'll be.
Anyway, so I have no idea what I was thinking of that, but there you go. It will be interesting to see this in the long-run. We all know the audience is there. They have nothing else to go to. But we don't know if they'll come in droves to the Snapple Center. Stay tuned.
Sunday's post will hopefully be less random. Now I'm off to watch Project Runway.
So I got back on Monday, but I haven't had much time to catch up on the gossip, as I've been catching up on, I don't know, actual work. Thus this will be a more general topic.... Secrets of a Soccer Mom. Clearly, this is going after the Menopause the Musical audience.... but does it really have the name to capture them?
It's a marketing issue, I believe. Because Menopause had a genius title--like I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change. But Secrets of a Soccer Mom could be ANYTHING. It could be about affairs, ala Desperate Housewives. But it's not. It centers on mother's talking about their lives at a soccer game. How do you make that seem interesting in marketing materials? Because there is an audience out there for it--it's the Menopause audience. But you have to know how to target them.
This is what Ken Davenport and his team does so well--target his audience. There is a crowd for Altar Boyz, Awesome 80s Prom and My First Time, but all three of those titles easily could have bombed. The reason they succeed is because of the way they come across, which is young and fun. And the right people got that message.
So let's first look at the Secrets website. First of all, on the flash it says "under the expert direction of Judith Ivey" credited to The Times and on the inside is a quote from the Times that says "the knowing direction of Judith Ivey." But, moving on. The champagne and theatre boutique is a clever ploy. The website is in general cute, which keeps the focus on that this is a comedy. So that's all good--but they need to get people to the website or the theater. It's not like everyone is just going there randomly.
My friend's mother lives in the NJ suburbs and belongs to a community group that sees theater. I saw her at a party a couple of weeks ago and I asked her if she was going to see Secrets of a Soccer Mom , but she hadn't heard of it. Now I'm sure they've done press and ads in The Record and Star Ledger... So why hadn't she internalized any of it? She is the audience... And I don't know the answer. Is it maybe that there needs to be flyers at the supermarket? This seems like a show perfect for train station and supermarket cart promotion. How about ads in the Pennysaver? Is anyone with me? That's really the audience that needs to be pitched and pitched again. I mean, my friends aren't going... It's all about these soccer moms. And these are busy women--you need to keep pushing for them in places you know they'll be.
Anyway, so I have no idea what I was thinking of that, but there you go. It will be interesting to see this in the long-run. We all know the audience is there. They have nothing else to go to. But we don't know if they'll come in droves to the Snapple Center. Stay tuned.
Sunday's post will hopefully be less random. Now I'm off to watch Project Runway.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Come my little friends
So, Oscar night... Why did they have Amy Adams sing the boring song and Kristin sing the more fun one?
Anyway, let's talk about Campbell Robertson's "james earl jones curses" story. Why do more people notice it now than when Ned Beatty did it? Is it indeed, as the end of the story says, that it might be "the shock comes from watching the actor known from "On Golden Pond," "Star Wars" and CNN get so down and dirty?" Or is it a color thing? After all, those are the options.. and there are options...
One way of looking at why people didn't notice it from Beatty, is Beatty seems like he often does yell and scream and curse. Whereas I don't see James Earl Jones cursing. Mostly because James Earl Jones is more classical and mannered. Beatty seems like he could be a scrapper--so it wouldn't stick out when he did it.
The other way of looking at it, is because this is an all-black cast, people notice it because they think it is the producers' attempt to make the show more hip and urban. I know people who buy this reasoning. But, let me tell you, the only people who notice it and would have this viewpoint are theater people. Because it wouldn't really make sense for the producers to do this purposely--for people who are used to hearing curses and don't know Cat on a Hot Tin Roof--they won't notice them. Would a younger crowd really be more likely to recommend a show because people curse in it? I suppose you could argue that it makes the show seem more current and therefore younger folks would be happier with it, but, well, that's not true. Cursing isn't really a current thing. And, again, I don't think most younger people will notice them. Now, sure, you could argue that while they wouldn't stick out, they'd add to an edgy feeling, but I just don't buy it. If the play is going to seem dated, it's going to seem dated with or without salty language. (I've never used the phrase 'salty language' before and it feels very sailor--I love it.)
So, yeah, I'm backing the "James Earl Jones doens't seem like he would curse" approach. And I'm also fine with the curses... I don't think they add that much, but they don't bother me either. There are certainly shows with more!
Anyway, let's talk about Campbell Robertson's "james earl jones curses" story. Why do more people notice it now than when Ned Beatty did it? Is it indeed, as the end of the story says, that it might be "the shock comes from watching the actor known from "On Golden Pond," "Star Wars" and CNN get so down and dirty?" Or is it a color thing? After all, those are the options.. and there are options...
One way of looking at why people didn't notice it from Beatty, is Beatty seems like he often does yell and scream and curse. Whereas I don't see James Earl Jones cursing. Mostly because James Earl Jones is more classical and mannered. Beatty seems like he could be a scrapper--so it wouldn't stick out when he did it.
The other way of looking at it, is because this is an all-black cast, people notice it because they think it is the producers' attempt to make the show more hip and urban. I know people who buy this reasoning. But, let me tell you, the only people who notice it and would have this viewpoint are theater people. Because it wouldn't really make sense for the producers to do this purposely--for people who are used to hearing curses and don't know Cat on a Hot Tin Roof--they won't notice them. Would a younger crowd really be more likely to recommend a show because people curse in it? I suppose you could argue that it makes the show seem more current and therefore younger folks would be happier with it, but, well, that's not true. Cursing isn't really a current thing. And, again, I don't think most younger people will notice them. Now, sure, you could argue that while they wouldn't stick out, they'd add to an edgy feeling, but I just don't buy it. If the play is going to seem dated, it's going to seem dated with or without salty language. (I've never used the phrase 'salty language' before and it feels very sailor--I love it.)
So, yeah, I'm backing the "James Earl Jones doens't seem like he would curse" approach. And I'm also fine with the curses... I don't think they add that much, but they don't bother me either. There are certainly shows with more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
