Best of 2011 Countdown: #2

Best Shows of 2011

#2 – Follies

Jan Maxwell and the ensemble of Follies

From the first drum roll played by the luscious 27-piece orchestra, it is nearly impossible to not be swept away by the sheer grandeur of the current revival of Stephen Sondheim’s Follies.  NY Times head critic Ben Brantley calls the show “one of the greatest musicals ever written,” and everything about this sumptuous production supports his assertion. 

Follies is a legendary musical, one that rarely receives a full-scale production due to its momentous size and logistical complexity.  The score is widely hailed as a masterpiece, and its pastiche-style songs are heavily featured in various Sondheim reviews and cabaret acts around the country.  But one cannot fully appreciate Follies the score without seeing Follies the show, because hearing the songs in context wildly alters their meaning and reveals a nearly unmatched psychological complexity. 

The pastiche songs, all intended to be part of the fictional Weismann Follies from which the show derives its name, provide an excellent comment on the play’s dramatic action, making apparent some heartbreakingly sad lyrical sentiments that can easily get lost among the songs’ upbeat tempos.  And the book numbers are such superb monologues-in-song that you can literally find something new to appreciate with each listening.  Sondheim really outdid himself on this one, and being able to hear these songs sung on a Broadway stage with such an excellent and full orchestra is a delight.

And then there is the disgusting embarrassment of riches that is the revival’s cast.  Although not quite on the same level as her astounding work in A Little Night Music, Bernadette Peters gives an excellent performance as ex-Follies girl Sally Durant Plummer.  Peters makes Sally into a tragically wounded and complex creature lost in the throes of self-delusion, a quality that is especially apparent during her haunting rendition of “In Buddy’s Eyes.”  But so strong is this cast, and so uniformly excellent are the performances, that Peters is by no means the best actor on the stage.

Danny Burstein, who I found to be overrated in South Pacific and actively bad in Women on the Verge, is an absolute revelation as Buddy.  He takes what is probably the least interesting of the central quartet and makes him an utterly fascinating example of a man who simply cannot admit that the woman he loves is no good.  And during his climatic faux-Follies number, “The God-Why-Don’t-You-Love-Me Blues,” Burstein effortlessly becomes the modern reincarnation of a vaudeville comedian.  Burstein simply slays this song and his performance in general, and will almost certainly be Tony-nominated for his efforts.

And then there’s Jan Maxwell.  The brilliant, chameleon-like actress has played every type of role imaginable, but Phyllis Rogers Stone may just end up as her crowning achievement.  Looking positively stunning in her golden gown, Maxwell is the embodiment of the woman who has everything and nothing at the same time.  Trapped in a loveless marriage, Phyllis has built a wall of self-assurance and nonchalance around herself that steadily crumbles throughout the show.  When she finally tears into her husband with one of the greatest gifts Sondheim ever gave an actress, the sensational “Could I Leave You?,” Maxwell explodes with such ferocity and deep seated rage you don’t know whether to cheer or run for the exit.  And then, just in case you weren’t convinced of her brilliance, she stops the show again with her no holds barred song-and-dance routine for “The Story of Lucy and Jessie.”

This revival is one for the ages.  I guarantee that at least once during the show, you will gasp in awe at its sheer brilliance.  This production literally takes your breath away.  For me, two moments in particular stand out:  watching all of the ladies tap dance during “Who’s That Woman?” (the mirror number) while being mirrored by the ghosts of their younger selves in one of the most dizzying choreographic triumphs currently on Broadway, and the reveal of the climatic Loveland sequence, where the split-second fall of the front drop perfectly illustrates the mental break that has just occurred in the four leads and will propel them to the show’s end.  Then there’s the hauntingly gorgeous duet “One More Kiss,” the majestic brilliance of the foreboding overture, the dreamlike interweaving of the ghosts of the characters’ past….I could go on and on.  But it would be much more effective for you to run down to the Marquis Theatre and see for yourself why Follies is one of the best shows of the year, before it fades into memory on January 22^nd.

Worst of 2011: #2

Worst of 2011

#2 – Wonderland

Carly Rose Sonenclar, Janet Decal, and Darren Ritchie in Wonderland

Frank Wildhorn has been a busy boy this year, with two Broadway premieres to his credit a mere 8 months apart.  He really should have reconsidered the order he premiered them in, because I am convinced the atrocity known as Wonderland killed the surprisingly good Bonnie and Clyde before it even started previews.

Now, I personally think the Alice in Wonderland story doesn’t adapt well to begin with.  The novel is a series of unrelated incidents that have no bearing on one another; because nothing Alice learns from one encounter influences her behavior in the next, the scenes can be placed in any order, and the only reason anyone would know is because we are so familiar with the source material.  (This is also why it is so easy for adaptations to add elements from the book’s sequel, Through the Looking Glass.)  In print, this works because of the whimsical descriptions and evocative imagery used by author Lewis Carol, but to make the story work onstage, adaptors are basically forced to create both a throughline and some kind of conflict.  Which means any adaptation of Alice in Wonderland faces an uphill battle, and the low quality of the resultant musical isn’t entirely Frank Wildhorn and his book writers’ fault.

But dear God, they didn’t help matters!  The score is made up of the most generic-sounding pop music imaginable, all of them highlighting Wildhorn’s bad habits as a composer.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: a key change is not a substitute for emotion, and repeating a chorus 10 times does not automatically make it better or catchier.  At least in Jekyll & Hyde, another show I despise, Wildhorn was writing for the incredibly talented Linda Eder, whose luscious voice made all those ridiculous power ballads sound much better than they actually were.  No such luck for Wonderland.  Instead of Eder, we get the abysmal Janet Decal. 

As an ex-performer, I always try to assume the best about any actor, but Decal just sucks.  Period, the end.  She couldn’t act her way out of a paper bag, and her thin, reedy voice is not at all thrilling or inspiring to listen to.  There are chorus girls in a dozen other Broadway shows with far more impressive instruments than Decal possesses; hell, you could find a singer of her caliber in any decent undergraduate theatre program.  There is absolutely no reason this woman should be starring in a Broadway musical, and it honestly makes me angry that they cast her.

But Decal wasn’t the only one stinking up the stage of the Marquis Theatre.  Jose Llana was just as bad playing the Cheshire Cat, renamed El Gato for this “urban, modern” take on the story.  Llana’s only real success in the show was managing to cram every negative Latino stereotype possible into his limited stage time, which is not the sort of behavior that should be encouraged or rewarded.  And as the Queen of Hearts, Karen Mason chewed so much scenery that I’m surprised there was any left at the end of the show; maybe Wonderland’s rumored $15 million budget came from having the rebuild the set after every performance.  Watching reasonably talented individuals like Darren Ritchie and Kate Shindle (the White Knight and Mad Hatter, respectively) struggle to rise above all the crap going on around them was just plain sad.

The list of problems goes on and on.  The show was stuffed to the brim with outdated cultural references (if you still think boy bands are ripe for parody, Wonderland is the show for you!) and paper-thin characters.  There’s some nonsense about the grown up Alice regaining her inner child and patching things up with her estranged daughter and husband, who also appear in the Wonderland-set sequences like some third rate Wizard of Oz knockoff.  There were a couple of interesting stage pictures and perhaps three minutes that bordered on entertaining (not consecutive minutes, mind you), but on the whole this was one of the worst shows I’ve seen in a loooong time.

In the end, I don’t know which is more upsetting:  that a show as horrendously awful as Wonderland made it to Broadway, or that it was still only the *second* worst show I saw this year.

Best of 2011 Countdown: #3

Best of 2011

#3 – The Normal Heart

Joe Mantello and John Benjamin Hickey in The Normal Heart

This show wasn’t even on my radar until I was given the opportunity to review it.  I think I had some inkling that it was an AIDS play, and I knew it marked Joe Mantello’s return to acting after a long and very successful period of directing (among other things, he helmed a little skit called Wicked).  I am so incredibly grateful that I went.

The Normal Heart was a theatrical sucker punch.  I wasn’t prepared for the ferocity of this piece, which was born of playwright Larry Kramer’s outrage over the way the government, media, and medical community reacted during the early days of the AIDS epidemic.  It is the anger of a man trying to do something, anything to save his community from the ravages of an unseen enemy, perfectly encapsulated in the story of activist Ned Weeks’ attempt to bring attention to the way the epidemic was destroying the gay community in early ‘80s New York City.  And unlike many didactic works of theatre, this play’s righteous anger never felt unjustified or overwrought.  Indeed, you left the theatre feeling just as outraged as Weeks, and a tad guilty for not having done more, sooner.

For a 25-year-old play, Normal Heart felt surprisingly, alarmingly current, due in no small part to the Herculean efforts of an exceptional ensemble.  Mantello absolutely sizzled in the central role, a performance made all the more remarkable given his nearly two decade absence from acting.  Despite spending the better part of two hours angry at seemingly everyone, Mantello always remained sympathetic, the perfect facet through which to view the play.  And as a doctor desperately trying to secure funding for research, Ellen Barkin blew the roof off of the Golden Theatre with her climatic monologue late in Act II.  The night I saw the play, Barkin’s speech was greeted with the kind of thunderous applause usually reserved for showstopping musical numbers, and was such a dizzying display of acting skill that it took several minutes for me to recover from it enough to focus on the remainder of the play.

After The Normal Heart, I left the theatre knowing I had seen not just an excellent play, but an important one.  As a gay man, it gave me insight into a time of our shared history of which I had only a passing understanding.  And as a member of the human race, it reawakened me to the continued plight of millions of people, a plight it is easy to marginalize because we in America have things relatively under control.  Few shows have had such a profound effect on me, and that easily makes The Normal Heart one of the Best Shows of 2011.

Worst of 2011: #3

Worst Shows of 2011

#3 – Arcadia

Bel Powley, Raul Esparza, Lea Williams, and Tom Riley in Arcadia

Tom Stoppard’s Arcadia represents everything I hate about that snobby entity known as “The Theatre.”  Here is a show so concerned with being highbrow that it blatantly disregards concepts like interesting characters and dramatic tension in favor of hyper-literate philosophical mouthpieces and intellectual debate.  The end result is one of the least entertaining plays of the past 20 years, made even more insufferable by David Leveaux’s miscast and plodding revival.

The show’s very premise is the first indication that someone involved (likely Stoppard) was more interested in showing off his highly educated mind than in writing a compelling drama.  There are two distinct plot threads, one involving the tutoring of a precocious young girl in 1809 and the other the investigation by present-day scholars into a previously unknown chapter of the poet Lord Byron’s life.  Linking the two storylines is their shared location (the entire play is set in front room of an English country house) and a lot of talk about high-level math.  Yes, math.

Now, I’m not saying that a play in which large portions of dialogue deal with the contested authorship of an obscure work of literature or a 13-year-old girl’s discovery of a complex mathematical theorem nearly 150 years before it is formally recognized can’t make for interesting drama (although it would be an uphill battle).  I am saying that if you purposely make the dialogue of such a play so dense that only someone with a specialized master’s degree can understand it, you need to provide characters who display recognizable emotional conflict.  That way, those of us not intimately familiar with fractal equations and the biographies of 19^th century poets have something to latch on to.  But I guess Stoppard was afraid that would be the same as dumbing down his brilliant work of genius, so he instead opted for an extremely pretentious show that runs north of 3 hours in length. 

The actors in this production did nothing to help matters.  For starters, the cast had the biggest case of mush-mouth since Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain, making them virtually impossible to understand.  Since they were already talking about concepts and using jargon the average audience member isn’t familiar with, the extra barrier to comprehension made it frustrating beyond belief to try and follow the plot (assuming there was one to begin with).  The characterizations tended towards shrill more often than not – I guess math and literature make these people extremely angry – which made sitting through Arcadia feel like some kind of bizarre torture.

Everyone involved in this production needs to learn a simple lesson: plays are meant to entertain.  This does not mean they cannot be intelligent, thought-provoking, or challenging an audience’s assumptions about life and the universe.  But if people aren’t enjoying themselves, they aren’t going to go home and have lengthy discussions about the Big Ideas you tried to cram into your show.  They’re going to say “that sucked” and do their best to forget about the time and money they wasted on your crappy play.  That's what I’m doing with Arcadia, something I intend to avoid like the plague from now on.

Best of 2011 Countdown: #4

Alright, I got a little behind on these lists due to the holiday.  But better late than never, right?

Best of 2011

#4 Venus in Fur

Hugh Dancy and Nina Arianda in Venus in Fur

I loved Venus in Fur.  On a superficial level, I loved the fact that Venus is a new work by an American playwright (David Ives) debuting on Broadway, in a production free of gimmicks or celebrity stunt casting.  But on a deeper level, I loved that this is simply a damn good play with some damn good actors.

The show centers on an extremely unorthodox audition for an adaptation of the sadomasochistic novel Venus in Furs.  After a long day of fruitless searching for his female lead, writer-director Thomas agrees to let struggling actress Vanda audition for him, and the ensuing 90 minutes becomes an erotically charged game of cat and mouse where neither party is completely in control.  To go into greater detail would spoil the fun, but rest assured that the play’s already brief runtime practically flies by, thanks to the skill of Ives’ writing and the fantastic performances.

Reprising her role from the show’s Off-Broadway premiere, Nina Arianda is sensational as Vanda.  She has complete mastery of her character, effortlessly shifting from slapstick comedy to heightened period drama, all the while looking positively radiant in Anita Yavich’s superb costumes.  To see Arianda in this role is to see a star being born, and while that may sound cliché, I challenge you to think any different after seeing the show.  Expect Arianda to make a repeat appearance among this year’s Best Actress Tony nominees, and possibly even win (she’s just that good).  Thankfully (and somewhat miraculously), her costar Hugh Dancy is every bit as superb, albeit in a less showy performance.

Venus in Fur is top tier theatre.  It is a smart play that raises serious questions about the nature of power, and how being submissive is not necessarily the same as being powerless (in some ways, it can be the stronger position).  It examines gender roles without become preachy or completely demonizing men (an issue I have had with many a feminist-leaning play), and more importantly it does all of this while remaining vastly entertaining.  The play’s success, including the just announced commercial Broadway transfer, is the perfect indication that good theatre is still alive and well on the Great White Way.  Venus in Fur completely deserves it spot among the year’s best shows.

(Note:  To read my full review of Venus in Fur, click here.)

Worst of 2011: #4

Worst Shows of 2011

#4 Sister Act

Patina Miller and the cast of Sister Act

The creators of Sister Act are going to have to say a lot of Hail Marys to atone for the multitude of sins committed by this movie adaptation gone awry.  It’s not often that a show manages to insult my intelligence *and* offend me, but Sister Act did both with such ease it’s almost scary.

One of the show’s many unforgiveable sins is the absolutely atrocious, anachronism-filled book.  I shudder to think what the show was like in London if Douglas Carter Beane’s many rewrites are considered actual improvements.  The show makes a point of being set in the 1970s (presumably to compliment Alan Menkin’s disco-infused score), but almost all of the jokes and the manner in which they’re delivered are supremely contemporary.  They also aren’t particularly funny, making the choice even more irritating.

The script also suffers from particularly uneven characterization, oftentimes violating the show’s established rules in an attempt for laughs.  The biggest example of this comes during the number “It’s Good to Be a Nun,” in which the members of the convent complain about the various aspects of life as a nun, like early mornings prayers and hours of meditation and self-study.  Now last time I checked, nobody in modern day America is forced to join a convent, and if these nuns are all so miserable why don’t they just leave?  The song would have been equally effective if the nuns had been enthusiastic about their lives, highlighting the fish out of water scenario lead character Delores finds herself in while actually being true the characters onstage. 

Which points to a larger problem with the show: although not Catholic, I left the show vaguely offended by the way the show continually mocked the Catholic faith and those who choose to live by it.  You would expect The Book of Mormon, from South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, to be the most offensive show of the year when it comes to religion, but I genuinely feel like it has a greater affinity for the religion at its core.  Mormon pokes fun at some of the religion’s tenants, but never crosses the line into condemning those who lead their lives based on those teachings.  Sister Act actively judges all of its characters, condemning them for choosing to participate in such a deeply ritualized faith, and yet expects us to simultaneously empathize with these women.  Talk about mixed messages!

Outside of the various structural problems, the performances in Sister Act are all over the map.  Patina Miller is clearly talented and generally quite strong in the role Whoopi Goldberg made famous, but her performance lacks that spark of vitality you expect in a big budget musical comedy.  After playing 2 years on the West End prior to coming to Broadway, Miller’s performance has started to feel stale, as if the actress is on autopilot.  Victoria Clark’s Mother Superior also doesn’t quite work, although for reasons harder to pinpoint.  On its own, her dry and understated delivery is often hilarious, but since everyone else in the show opts for a much broader acting style, Clark seems oddly out of place.

The musical takes forever to get going, with much of its first act wasted on unfunny one-liners and god-awful subplots involving the male characters.  The men are actually so poorly written and haphazardly performed, that an easy way to determine the entertainment value of an upcoming scene or song is to ask yourself, “Do I see a male onstage?”  If you do, it’s an excellent time to check your program or go to the bathroom.

Sister Act disappoints on so many levels that it makes my blood boil.  Unlike some screen to stage transfers, the show actually has a premise that naturally lends itself to musicalization.  And while I enjoyed the Whoopi Goldberg film of the same name, it is by no means one of my favorites, so I don’t have a problem with the stage version’s decision to jettison large swaths of the film in favor of original material.  What I do have a problem with is almost all of those changes being for the worse.  I’m personally hoping the show posts a closing notice soon, and puts all of us out of Sister Act’s misery.

Best of 2011 Countdown: #5

Yesterday I was naughty, now it’s time to go back to being nice.  Going forward I’ll be alternating between the Best and Worst lists, so that my number one choice for each will appear right before the New Year. :-)

 Best Shows of 2011

#5 How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying

Daniel Radcliffe in How to Succeed...

Confession time: I have a major soft spot for How to Succeed as a show.  Ever since playing Bud Frump in college, I’ve had an immense appreciation for this expertly crafted, Pulitzer Prize-winning musical.  The story is so tightly structured that even at 3 hours, there’s very little fat on the show.  There is an excellent assortment of characters that all receive the perfect amount of stage time, and the score is ingenious in the way it complements the show’s tone while remaining melodic and inventive.  And the witty satire of 1960s corporate culture is spot on, yet cannily hidden beneath a layer of fun that makes the show supremely accessible and entertaining to everyone.  Add to this my crush on Daniel Radcliffe and I was predisposed to love this show.

However, How to Succeed shares a lot of similarities with Promises, Promises, including director Rob Marshall, who absolutely butchered the latter show back in 2010.  And these star-driven revivals can be very hit or miss (especially with Radcliffe being a complete unknown in the song and dance department), so I approached the show with a mixture of excitement and dread.  And I left 3 hours later grinning from ear to ear.

This is the show many recent revivals were trying to be.  It highlights all of the best aspects of traditional musical theatre while updating things just enough to appeal to a contemporary audience.  No unwieldy concepts or gritty real world approach or scaled-down production values here; just good old fashioned musical comedy, executed by a uniformly excellent cast.  In the lead role Radcliffe is surprisingly good, his natural charm going a long way to make up for any vocal shortcomings (which are minimal for the demands of the show).  His dancing is genuinely shocking in its quality, and it’s refreshing to see a big name star actually get down and dirty with the ensemble rather than have everyone dance around them while they remain stationary.  You can tell Radcliffe is giving 110% and pushing himself to improve, and it just makes his performance that much more impressive.

The show has many great numbers, including two genuine showstoppers.  “Brotherhood of Man” is every bit as good as you could hope, and Rob Marshall must have been particularly inspired the day he came up with his staging for “Grand Old Ivy” (one of the few major changes for this revival, and one of best additions to a preexisting show I’ve seen in years).  And the choreography – another area where I’ve taken issue with Marshall in the past – is fantastic.

Anything Goes ended up with all the critical love last spring, but I honestly feel like How to Succeed is the better show.  I actively want to see it again, whereas once was enough for Anything Goes (although I do love me some Sutton Foster).  Most importantly, this production makes a 50-year-old show feel brand new, as if it had never been done before.  That is the goal of all revivals, and in achieving it How to Succeed earns its place among the year’s best shows.

The Worst Shows of 2011

So today I thought I’d take a break from my Best of 2011 list to begin an equally important endeavor:  my “Worst Shows of 2011” list.  Like the “best of” countdown, this list will be limited to shows I have personally seen, because I believe all show should be given a chance to prove themselves before being slapped with such a demeaning title.  And despite rumors to the contrary, I am NOT a total Scrooge who hates everything and everyone, so this list will be limited to 5 shows as opposed to 10. 

To make the list, it is not enough for a show to be merely bad.  The “Worst of 2011” title is reserved for those productions so jaw-droppingly awful that you cannot believe none of the dozens of talented people who worked on it ever said, “You know what? This isn’t working and we should fix it.” 

The scariest thing about this list is how easy it was to compile.  Most of these shows sprang instantly to mind when I sat down to list the year’s worst productions, and were so nearly equal in their awfulness that it was a genuine struggle to figure out what order to rank them in.  So batten down the hatches and get ready for the smack talk, because here comes the #5 worst show of the past year!

 Worst Shows of 2011

#5 Born Yesterday

Jim Belushi and Nina Arianda in Born Yesterday

Some shows should not be revived.  Having seen this extremely ill-advised production starring Nina Arianda and Jim Belushi, I feel confident in saying Born Yesterday is one of those shows.  A creaky old relic from a bygone era, the script’s brief moments of comedy do nothing to excuse the overarching dullness at the play’s center.  Director Doug Hughes made an all-too-common mistake of modern day directors and attempted to use a naturalistic approach to farce, simultaneously draining all entertainment value from the piece and highlighting the lack of substance at its proto-feminist center. 

Equally offensive was Jim Belushi’s positively maddening portrayal of domineering gangster Harry Brock.  His character ended up being so despicable (and not in a good way), that his every entrance prompted eye rolling and repeated prayers for his quick exit.  Not since Henry Higgins have I encountered such an unforgivable misogynist linked to a play’s protagonist, although on the bright side Born Yesterday eventually does free beleaguered protagonist Billie Dawn free of the louse.  This kind of relationship may have been acceptable and even funny to audiences in 1946, but in 2011 we need a bit more justification as to why Billie is dating such a cad in the first place.  Perhaps if somewhere in his portrayal Belushi had shown a moment of tenderness of charm, we the audience would have an easier time comprehending how she ended up in such an unhealthy relationship.

Now, to be fair, Born Yesterday had one very bright silver lining.  It allowed for the Broadway debut of the sensational Nina Arianda, who tried her damndest to save this sinking ship.  She brought excellent comic timing and a large amount of intelligence to Dawn, and was justly rewarded with a Tony nomination for her efforts.  But throughout the show’s runtime, I couldn’t help but wish Arianda had found a better vehicle for her talents.  (Luckily she has since found it, in the form of the excellent Venus in Fur.)

Given the thousands upon thousands of scripts ripe for revival, you really have to wonder what is running through producers’ heads when they pick a clunker like Born Yesterday.  Which is perhaps the greatest sin committed by this revival: it took prime Broadway real estate and money away from a more deserving show.  That money, time, and energy could have been put towards reviving a much better show, or heaven forbid, mounting a new one.  Or saving starving children in Africa.  You know, something worthwhile.

Best of 2011 Countdown: #6

Best Shows of 2011

#6 The Importance of Being Earnest

Brian Bedford in The Importance of Being Earnest

Sometimes, you just know a show is going to be good.  As soon as you read the press release announcing a show and its cast, you make a mental note to go see it because you just know the production is going to be awesome.

The Importance of Being Earnest was not one of those shows.  While the script certainly has merit, it has been run into the ground by endless college and regional productions of middling quality, not to mention overanalysis in various theatre history and British literature courses.  On top of that you have the Roundabout’s spotty track record with play revivals (particularly that awful production of Mrs. Warren’s Profession, a play from the same era as Earnest, in Fall 2010) and the complete lack of any name stars.  In all honesty, if I hadn’t been offered the chance to review this show, I probably wouldn’t have gone to see it at all.

Thank God I did, because Earnest ended up being a top tier production which almost 12 months later remains one of my most enjoyable nights at the theatre in 2011.  Oscar Wilde’s famous wit has endured the test of time, with his clever quips and wordplay remaining as refreshing now as they must have been during the play’s premiere over a century ago.  Everyone in the cast perfectly suited their roles, and their lively interactions made this well-worn play’s nearly 3 hour runtime fly by.

The crowning jewel of this Earnest was its leading “lady.”  Director Brian Bedford pulled double duty by casting himself as the delightfully acidic Lady Bracknell, and stole the show with his perfectly modulated performance.  Although men in drag have been a source of comedy for ages, Bedford wisely avoided camp and played Bracknell as an actual person, making the performance all the more endearing.  Within a minute of his first entrance, the audience completely forgot they were watching a man in drag and were simply watching an aristocratic matriarch pass blistering judgment on everyone around her.

There are two morals to this story.  One is that the true classics earn their lauded status, due to solid construction and observations about the human condition that remain relevant no matter what century it is.  The other is that sometimes it pays to take a chance and go see a show “just because;” it may end up being one of your favorites.

Best of 2011 Countdown: #7

*Note:  I originally named War Horse as my number 9 pick for Best Show of 2011, but when I looked back at my original “Best of” list, I realized the number 8 show had no business being on it.  So I’ve bumped War Horse up a spot.  You’re welcome, Lincoln Center.*

Best of 2011

#7 Anything Goes

Sutton Foster and the Anything Goes ensemble

It’s tricky to revive a pre-Rodgers & Hammerstein musical.  In the years since the team’s heyday, it has become standard for a show’s musical numbers to work with the book scenes in advancement of plot and/or characterization.  We as audience members expect this of all shows, and generally demand a damn good reason for a show to break from that format.  But before 1943, it was perfectly acceptable for a musical to consist of elaborate production numbers padded out by a loosely constructed and often nonsensical plot. 

Such is the problem with Anything Goes.  For all of its entertainment value, including a fantastic score by the great Cole Porter, nothing of consequence really happens.  Even with multiple rewrites over the years (there are now a whopping six credited bookwriters, and lord knows how many uncredited tweaks by actors and directors), the show’s plot makes no sense.  There’s something about a working class man trying to win the affections of an upper class debutante, a completely harmless “public enemy” trying to increase his street cred, and apparently lead character Reno Sweeney is an evangelist who saves souls for a living.  But in essence the story is an excuse to have various combinations of performers sing a hit parade of Porter tunes, all in the name of entertainment.

And entertaining it is.  Kathleen Marshall has crafted a perfectly fine revival of this reliable favorite, with a (mostly) game and talented cast doing an excellent job of delivering the material with style and flair.  Her Tony-winning choreography on the title song alone is worth the price of admission, as it is one of the most joyous demonstrations of talent and stagecraft currently on a Broadway stage.  But for all of her directorial skill, Marshall can’t quite maintain that level of enthusiasm throughout the entire show.  Sometimes the show starts to feel like the 70-year-old dinosaur that it is, rather than a fresh and relevant revival of an old favorite.  In fact, I would argue that there isn’t a whole lot going on at the Stephen Sondheim theatre that couldn’t be seen in a well-done regional production of the show.

So what makes this one of the best shows of 2011?  The answer is simple: Sutton Foster.  The eminently likable and multi-talented comedienne’s take on Reno Sweeney is the kind of star turn that will be talked about for decades, and she single-handedly elevates the production to must-see status.  Her phenomenal voice and solid dance skills would be enough to make her a great Reno, but once you throw her often underrated acting ability and emotional sincerity into the mix you have a truly transcendent performance that more than deserves all the Best Actress awards she received for it.  Anything Goes cements Foster as a once-in-a-generation kind of talent, an ebullient throwback to the musical comedy stars of yesteryear.  If you haven’t seen her, go now, and watch how the pros really do it.

The Best Shows of 2011

As the New Year approaches, it’s only natural to take a few moments to reflect on the year that was, with all its attendant highs and lows.  So every day starting today, I plan on writing about some of the year’s best (and worst) shows.  I should note that this is not meant to be a definitive “Best of Broadway” list, as it will be limited to only those shows I have personally seen.  So don’t expect to see critically praised works like Good People or Other Desert Cities make the cut, as I haven’t actually seen them.  (Jerusalem, however, is being purposely excluded, as I found the British import to be vastly overrated despite a strong central performance by Mark Rylance.)

I should also mention that I was originally intending to list the year’s 10 best productions, but have only come up with 8.  This isn’t because 2011 was any worse than past years.  There was a lot of competent theatre produced this year, and in general 2011 was a much stronger year artistically than 2010.  But if we are talking about truly great theatre, the kind that sticks with you long after the final curtain has fallen, there are only 8 productions I personally saw that merit inclusion on this list (and at least one of those comes with a caveat).

So let’s get this party started.  My number 8 pick for Best Show of 2011 is:

War Horse

It should be noted that I struggled about whether or not to include this show.  As you may have noticed, the British hit received an enormous number of accolades following its American premiere, including the Tony Award for Best Play.  I have a problem with this, because as a play, the show is decidedly average.  The script is simplistic and emotionally manipulative, belying its roots as a children’s novel.  The “war is bad” sentiment is exceptionally trite, the characters are drawn in broad strokes, and the titular war horse makes so many improbable escapes from near death that it pushes the limits of suspended disbelief.

I also find it interesting that not a single one of the human deaths in a show supposedly about the horrors of war causes much distress among viewers, but even the suggestion that equine protagonist Joey might die elicits collective gasps of shock and horror.  In short, this is a simplistic show that I believe will have very little life after the current Broadway and West End productions close.

So why is it on my list?  Because the way in which Joey and his fellow horses are realized onstage is sheer genius.  Rather than attempt to train live animals (which would likely make for a disgusting and smelly backstage) or manufacture realistic-looking puppets, the creators of War Horse have taken a page from Julie Taymor’s Lion King and made the stagecraft involved readily apparent.  You can see the inner workings of the horse puppets, and the three operators it takes to bring them to life are always visible.  Yet within a minute of Joey’s first appearance, you completely forget that he is a puppet and instead invest in him as a living, breathing animal, all because of the enormous skill of the puppeteers who play him.  His ears twitch.  His tail flicks.  He whinnies, neighs, rears up on his hind legs, and gallops across the stage (sometimes with an actual human rider on top).  And at every moment you know exactly what Joey is feeling, making him the most compelling and fully realized character on the stage.  And for that feat of theatre magic along, War Horse is one of the best shows from 2011.

Bang Bang, You're Dead

Well, that was fast. After less than a month on Broadway, Bonnie & Clyde will go the way of the dodo, as it was announced that the show will close at the end of the month. This news isn't entirely unexpected, as it was reported last week the show only had tickets on sale through December 30th, although at the time producers wouldn't comment on whether or not that meant the show was ending its run. Clearly it did, and the show will become the first official casualty of the 2011-2012 season, beating out Private Lives by a whole day. (Roundabout's production of Man and Boy and Manhattan Theatre Club's Master Class don't count, as they completed their limited runs as scheduled.)

I have to say, I really think it was undeserved, and I *never* thought I would say that about a Frank Wildhorn show. Like everyone else, the press was biased against the show because of its composer (and Wonderland certainly didn't help his case). I honestly believe that had the exact same show, with the same cast and same staging, had opened with Wildhorn's name on the marquee, it would have received more encouraging reviews. Actually, the reviews really weren't that bad, but because Brantley (unfairly) ripped the show apart in the Times, the press treated the show like it had been universally panned.

I personally think the producers are making a big mistake by throwing in the towel so early. While the grosses haven't been spectacular, they also haven't been abysmal for a small(ish) show that has a relatively low capitalization of $6 million. Given the weak assortment on new musicals on the horizon, Bonnie & Clyde wouldn't have much competition among avid theatregoers who have seen most of what the Great White Way has to offer. If the producers has stuck it out through the winter months (admittedly no easy task), I really believe the show could have built word of mouth that would steadily increase box office. Had it made it to awards season, I believe it could have even been in contention for some Best Musical awards due to a sheer lack of competition. Hell, given the way public opinion towards a show typically softens after a few months of running (see Memphis, Wicked, and a host of other shows that opened to mixed reviews which suddenly became awards contenders after six months), the show may have even stood a chance at winning. And given the palpable impact Best Musical has on a shows box office, it could have ended up running for a few years, a respectable amount of time and certainly long enough to make back its money.

I truly believe this show wasn't given a fair shot because of the extremely negative association people have with Frank Wildhorn. I admit I myself was skeptical (I generally despise Wildhorn's work), and found myself flabbergasted by how much I enjoyed the show. It is by no means perfect, but very few shows are. I would argue it is about as good a show as Memphis - competent if uninventive, with a likable and talented cast doing a good job of glossing over the show's bigger flaws. Especially in a season heavy with musical revivals and light on new fare, it would have been nice to see Bonnie & Clyde nurtured a little more.

One thing is for sure: after two savage critical and commercial lashings this year, Wildhorn will probably stay far, far away from Broadway.

Will It Recoup? Winter 2012 Edition

The past couple of months have brought with them a flurry of new shows hoping to take advantage of the influx of tourists clogging the streets of Times Square during the holidays.  And while some of these shows may do quite well for themselves, the sad fact is that most shows, even if they are brilliant, will never recoup their initial investment.  Here’s a look at the next 5 musicals opening this season, and my personal analysis of their money-making potential.

An Evening with Patti LuPone and Mandy Patinkin

The former Evita costars finally return to the Great White Way in this combination concert/vanity project.  The pair (expectedly) leans heavily on the work of Stephen Sondheim, and offers up a couple of dynamite renditions of songs from the show that made them famous.  They also perform abridged versions of Rodgers & Hammerstein’s Carousel and South Pacific, despite both actors being far too old for the romantic leads  (LuPone in particular strains credibility as Nellie Forbrush and Julie Jordan).

Will It Recoup?  Hard to say, although my gut tells me “no.”  Working in the show’s favor is its small size, with only two performers and two musicians on the payroll.  Given their genuine love of the theatre and one another, I wouldn’t even be surprised to learn LuPone and Patinkin had agreed to relatively modest salaries for this endeavor.  But the unfortunate box office reality is that theatre stars – and make no mistake, these are two legitimate Broadway stars who make the newer generation look woefully untalented by comparison – rarely draw the same size audiences that Hollywood celebrities do.  LuPone and Patinkin’s fans definitely skew older, which will limit their box office appeal, but there is an upside to that:  older audiences tend to pay full price.

On a Clear Day, You Can See Forever

I’m just going to say it: I have no idea why this show is being revived, let alone on Broadway.  For the past decade, most musical revivals have employed some combination of a well-respected property, one or more big name stars, and a well-regarded “tryout” production, be it in the West End or at a regional theatre.  Clear Day has such a notoriously problematic book that the show is rarely performed, and its big name star (Harry Connick, Jr.) is playing way outside his comfort zone.  Director Michael Mayer has completely reconceived the show, rewriting so much of the show’s book he considers it more of a new musical than a revival.

Will It Recoup?  I’m going out on a limb and saying that not only will this musical not recoup, it will be one of the biggest flops of the season.  Star Harry Connick, Jr. won’t be able to rely on his innate charm like he did in The Pajama Game, and those who do show up specifically to see the crooner may be thrown for a loop by the show’s downbeat tone.  And the last time director Michael Mayer was this heavily involved in a show’s actual script, we got American Idiot, a misguided musical that failed to ignite the box office despite having massively popular Green Day songs for its score.  Mayer’s retooling of the show’s already bizarre plot now centers on the love triangle between a therapist (Connick, Jr.), his gay male patient, and that gay patient’s past self as a female longue singer.  It's as if Mayer was actively trying to alienate both the show’s existing fans and the matinee ladies who typically drive the success of these types of shows!  This has disaster written all over it.

Lysistrata Jones
After a successful Off-Broadway run earlier this year, Lysistrata Jones (loosely based on the Greek comedy Lysistrata) arrives on Broadway as one of the more interesting new musicals of the season.  The titular heroine, a transfer student to fictional Athens University, convinces the school’s cheerleaders to withhold sex from their basketball-playing boyfriends until the team breaks its long running losing streak.  It all sounds like an entertaining if lightweight evening of theatre, but I worry if the small scale show might be better suited to smaller scale Off-Broadway venues like the one that birthed it (the previous New York production took place in an actual gymnasium).

Will It Recoup?  I would like to say yes, because it would be nice to see new musicals continue to flourish, but my heart tells me no.  I’m just not convinced the show is strong enough to endure all the pressure that comes with being a Broadway musical.  And book writer Douglas Carter Beane remains on my shitlist after the atrocity that was the book to last season’s Sister Act.  But from a financial standpoint, the greatest problem with this show is its absolutely abysmal grosses during previews.  The show has yet to break $200,000 a week, and while preview grosses are always lower due to discounted or comped tickets intended to fill seats and spread word of mouth, I doubt the producers can even pay their bills on that amount.  The show needs some kind of turnaround, and I’m not sure the mixed to positive reviews it received will be enough to cause one.

The Gershwin’s Porgy and Bess

She’s back.  After four long years in Hollywood, Audra McDonald is back on Broadway in a true American classic – assuming Diane Paulus’ production hasn’t strayed so far from the famed opera by the brothers Gershwin that it’s unrecognizable.  Paulus and her new book writer Suzan-Lori Parks incurred the wrath of God (well, Stephen Sondheim, but in musical theatre they’re practically the same thing) when word got out they were toying with new scenes and a new ending during the show’s out of town tryout.  But the latest info says these changes were nixed in favor of a less radical reinterpretation of the piece, and no matter what, you can bet that McDonald will be sensational as Bess.

Will It Recoup?  This show is well poised for financial success.  Audra McDonald is Broadway royalty, and may well have picked up even more fans after four years on a hit TV show.  Theatre folk will turn out in droves to see McDonald play this role, and Sondheim’s nasty editorial in the Times probably garnered a huge amount of free publicity.  Ben Brantley raved about McDonald out of town, and I have a feeling Paulus and her team are smart enough to have actually used the time since then to bring the rest of the show up to that level.  And by setting the show up as a limited run, the producers have shifted to a business model that by necessity will make the show more cost effective, as they now have less time to actually make back their money.

Once

Well, you certainly can’t accuse the producers of Once of lacking faith in their show.  Before it even opened Off-Broadway, they announced a transfer for this stage adaptation of the Oscar-winning indie film.  And why not?  The show had already garnered strong buzz during previews, including lots of positive word of mouth.  While the reviews that greeted the show could have been stronger, they were certainly encouraging, and Once could end up as one of the season’s sleeper hits.

Will It Recoup?  Although I wouldn’t call Once a sure thing, it is certainly well positioned to make back its investment costs.  Strong ticket sales helped prompt the Broadway transfer in the first place, so the show definitely has an audience.  Although there won’t be much time for rewrites between its Off-Broadway closing and Broadway opening, there will be plenty of time for the performers to become more comfortable in their roles and find the nuances that could propel the show into greatness.  With the lack of strong competition among this season’s new musicals, the show may end up being the best option for a lot of theatre goers, and could prove a strong contender for Tony Awards in the spring.  And if the small cast show receives the box office bump that comes with a Best Musical win, I’m almost certain it will make back its money by the end of next year.

Review: Bonnie & Clyde

“Shocking” is the only word that can describe Bonnie & Clyde, the latest Broadway musical from much maligned composer Frank Wildhorn.  The shock doesn’t come from any surprise plot twist or provocative material, but rather from the fact that the same man behind infamously terrible shows like Wonderland and Dracula has miraculously produced a rather entertaining and welcome addition to the Broadway season.

As you may have guessed, the show concerns the famous titular outlaws, and chronicles their passionate romance from first meeting to final embrace.  The opening number does an excellent job of introducing young hooligan Clyde Barrow (played by Jeremy Jordan) and small-town waitress Bonnie Parker (Laura Osnes), simultaneously establishing their desires for fame and fortune while laying the groundwork for the tragic romance that will ultimately be their undoing.  Despite knowing the outcome (the show opens with the lovers dead, and the entire evening is essentially an extended flashback), you’ll find yourself caught up in their devotion to one another, from the fateful first meeting through prison breaks, crime sprees, and a government-led manhunt.

The production is blessed with a pair of extremely charismatic leads in Jeremy Jordan and Laura Osnes.  Jordan’s dashing good looks and golden voice make for an eminently charming Clyde, which he tempers with flashes of frightening anger and determination.  It’s a dynamic performance, believably charting one man’s descent from small-time criminal into murderous outlaw.  Laura Osnes’ Bonnie is equally winning, a perfect combination of schoolgirl innocence and fiery passion as she struggles to free herself from the confines of small-town life.  With Osnes’ radiant good looks and beautiful voice, you’ll find yourself as captivated by her as the nation was by Bonnie.

The show contrasts the couple’s proclamations of unyielding love with the more subdued but still heartfelt relationship between Clyde’s brother Buck and his wife, Blanche.  As played by Claybourne Elder, Buck is an affably endearing man struggling to better himself while continually being pulled in by the glamorous allure of his brother’s exploits.  Although the siblings’ duet “When I Drive” is one of the score’s weaker moments, the love and devotion between the pair is excellently conveyed through Elder and Jordan’s performances. 

As Blanche, Melissa Van Der Schyff provides the lone voice of reason among the central quartet.  Blanche has never cared for Clyde and his shenanigans, and it clearly pains her to see her husband making the same mistakes.  But rather than being an overbearing shrew, Blanche expresses her displeasure through sharp comic barbs, providing the some of the evening’s biggest laughs.  Although the character of Blanche is overwritten (she easily has as much stage time as either of the leads), Van Der Schyff is such a charming actress that she never wears out her welcome.

Overall, the show manages to avoid many of the mistakes made by past Wildhorn endeavors.  Although Bonnie & Clyde’s score still contains some of the powerhouse belting and overly dramatic key changes that are the composer’s hallmark, it doesn’t rely on them nearly as much as his other shows.  The folk-and-blues-influenced music does a wonderful job of establishing the show’s world while bridging the gap between pop and musical theatre.  The drama isn’t overwrought, and is leavened with a surprising yet welcome amount of comedy.

Most of the show’s problems stem from Ivan Menchell’s book.  Disturbingly light on subtlety, the book scenes are saved on more than one occasion by the various performers’ charms.  Menchell doesn’t spend quite enough time developing the initial connection between the two leads; Bonnie displays enough hesitation that it isn’t love-at-first-sight, but we never see what causes her the change her mind about Clyde.  The pace starts to drag during the police manhunt in the second act, and the show’s ending is a decidedly underwhelming finish to this larger than life tale.

But the good outweighs the bad, and Bonnie & Clyde proves to be the most pleasant surprise of the fall season.  A more than competent combination of comedy and drama aided by two immensely appealing central performances, the show effectively graduates Jeremy Jordan and Laura Osnes from rising talents to full-fledged stars.  It also proves that Frank Wildhorn really did have a good musical rattling around inside of him; he just needed to write some bad ones first.

Move, Bitch, Get Out the Way

It is difficult to quantify just how important  Broadway can be to a show's ultimate success.  Although a Broadway mounting is expensive and risky, it generates publicity that exponentially increases awareness of the show and the chances that it will be produced in the future (and therefore be seen by more people and make its creators some money). 

Now, before all of you avante garde artists who can't stand how commercial Broadway has become start complaining, take a couple of deep breaths.  I am not saying that Broadway is the only way a show can gain notoriety.  For plays especially, a well-received Off-Broadway or regional production can be a show needs to get noticed, and if said show happens to win a Pulitzer, it will forever be on a shortlist of scripts producers will take a look at.  But for musicals especially, they almost *need* a Broadway production to have any kind of widespread regional life.  Broadway brings the show a level of attention and legitimacy that even an acclaimed run elsewhere won't get it, and is invaluable to licensing companies attempting to sell the show's rights to regional and amatuer theatre companies.

However, one of the big hurdles on the way to a Broadway mounting is finding a theatre.  There are only 40 to choose from, and they are by no means interchangable.  Some are inimate houses better suited for plays and small-scale musicals, and some are absolutely cavernous and practically demand a big-budget musical to fill them.  Wicked would not be Wicked if someone had scaled it down to squeeze it into the Booth Theatre, and a two-character drama like The Mountaintop would be positively ridiculous in a theatre like the 1,800 seat Gershwin.

Since I value new work and am in favor of as many shows getting the kind of exposure Broadway can offer, I personally feel that the ludicrously long runs being enjoyed by certain shows need to end.  Yesterday.  By selfishly remaining in the same theatre for years, these theatrical dinosaurs are keeping new works from getting well-desrved Broadway premieres, with all the attendant publicity and notoriety that entails.  Which brings me to an "honor" I plan on bestowing from time to time: the Needs to Close Award.

This award will be given to shows that I feel have worn out their welcome, and need to close in order to make room for new, better things.  While winning this award does not necessarily mean the show is bad, the worse the show, the harder it is to justify its hogging of prime Broadway real estate.  And the winner of the inaugral Needs to Close Award is.......

Chicago.

Congratulations!  You have successful milked a scaled-down concert version of a 1970s musical classic into a 15-year run, making you the 4th longest running show in Broadway history.  But your time is up.

Why, you ask?

For one thing, you're a freakin' revival!  So not only are you preventing new work from being seen, you weren't even new yourself when you premeired!!!  Granted, your original production had the misfortune of opening the same season as A Chorus Line, leaving you completely shut out on Tony night.  And your satiric take of fame and celebrity may have been ahead of its time and not fully appreciated in 1975.  I also do not deny the quality of your writing, which I genuinely like and admire. 

But after years of ridiculous celebrity stunt casting, featuring hoardes of semi-famous people who weren't anywhere near Broadway calibre, it's throw in the towel.  So get lost, and take solace in all you have acheived.  You have brought newfound life to an aging theatrical property, making it a staple of regional, summer stock, and educational theatres.  Your success finally resulted in a long-awaited film adaptation that made the movie musical relevant again, and won that nice lady with the funny accent and extremely old husband an Oscar.  You have made Barry and Fran Weissler disgustingly rich and two of the most influential producers in the business.  Now please go away before we have to hear one more celebrity who's probably too young to be playing Roxie butcher "Funny Honey."

Sincerely,
Jared Wietbrock

Review: An Evening With Patti LuPone and Mandy Patinkin

An Evening with Patti LuPone and Mandy Patinkin, the limited engagement concert featuring the two Tony-winning Broadway legends, is a difficult show to review.  The pair has stated their intention was to create a show that breaks away from the “he sings, she sings” mold often utilized by such ventures, and in that, Evening succeeds.  But while viewing the show, especially the problematic first act, it’s hard not to wish for something a little closer to that tried and true format.

LuPone and Patinkin perform the entire evening in character, or possibly characters, as there is never a distinct break between the various segments.  There is no between song banter or fourth-wall breaking, although there are several scenes interspersed among the 35 songs which make up the concert’s two acts.  This requires the audience to provide a great deal of the songs’ context, and also ends up distancing the pair from the audience.  If you’re going to spend An Evening with someone, it would be nice if you left feeling like you’d gotten to know them, especially if they have famously outsized personalities like LuPone and Patinkin.

Both actors are in fine form vocally, although their particular vocal quirks seem to be more pronounced than in the past.  They sing plenty of Sondheim, which is to be expected, but also a surprisingly large amount of Rodgers and Hammerstein.  Come prepared to see condensed versions of the entirety of Carousel and South Pacific, as the pair performs all the standards from both shows and a fair amount of the book scenes which connect them. 

After a first act dominated by medleys and truncated songs (LuPone performs just enough of “Getting Married Today” from Sondheim’s Company to make you want to see the whole thing, and Patinkin pulls a similar trick with “Loving You” from Passion), you would be forgiven for feeling a bit disappointed.  But then Act II rolls around, and is so thoroughly enjoyable that it almost succeeds in washing the first half’s bad taste out of your mouth.  Ironically, it adheres much closer to the traditional “he sings, she sings” format, and is stronger for it.

Act II contains all the material you were likely hoping for when the show began, with the performers recreating their greatest career triumphs.  LuPone starts things off with a rousing rendition of “Some People” from her Tony-winning work in Gypsy, followed by a strong if somewhat manic rendition of Follies’ “The God-Why-Don’t-You-Love-Me Blues” by Patinkin.

And then the pair gets to the show that catapulted each of them to fame (and respective Tony Awards).  After a welcome breaking of the fourth wall to remind the audience they met and became friends doing a little skit called Evita, each actor reprises one of their iconic songs from that show.  Patinkin offers up a bone-rattling performance of “Oh What a Circus,” showcasing his best vocals and acting moments of the entire night.  After his well-deserved standing ovation, LuPone brings the house down with her searing “Don’t Cry for Me, Argentina.”  Watching these two performances reminds everyone that these two masters earned their fame through sheer talent, and reiterates the high standards the upcoming Evita revival will need to meet.

While playing Rose in Gypsy, LuPone sang “you either got it, or you ain’t.”  Despite some missteps along the way, LuPone and Patinkin have most certainly got it, and they are proving it with this concert.  Fans of either performer owe it to themselves to catch this Evening, and those who have not had the pleasure of seeing these two legends onstage should make the effort to see them now.  After all, better late than never.

The Ballad of Porgy and Bess and Sondheim

Now, the fact that you are reading this blog tells me you must be at least somewhat interested in the theatre.  And unless this interest is brand-spanking new (like, in the past 3 months), you surely heard all about the not-so-nice letter Mr. Stephen Sondheim wrote criticising the creative team of the Broadway-bound revival of Porgy and Bess for their hubris in rewriting the classic in hopes of making it "more commercial."  But in case you didn't, you can read what he wrote here.

Well, in the interest of stirring the pot, the NY Times felt the need to interview director Diane Paulus and lead producer Jeffrey Richards about the matter.  You can read all about that here.

Quite frankly, the attitudes displayed by Paulus and Richards in this article disgust me, for several reasons.  First off, the refusal to mention him by name like he's freaking Lord Voldemort is just plain childish.  They are both supposedly professionals working in one of the highest profile theatre cities in the world; they need to grow up and get thicker skin.  If they honestly thought no one would take issue with them altering a recognized American classic, they are absolutely delusional.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including Sondheim.

That's not to say I don't understand why there might be hard feelings.  Sondheim did trash their new production without having seen it, based on reports of changes (apparently authorized by the writers' estates) he hadn't seen in context.  Sondheim is certainly aware of the clout he has in the theatre community, and does not critique others lightly.  He made a point of not discussing still living or recently deceased lyricists in his book Finishing the Hat out of respect for them, and I'm sure Sondheim would be one of the first advocates of the artistic process and the necesscity of trying different approaches in rehearsals.  He had to have known publishing the letter would create a lot of bad press for a show which wasn't fully formed, and yet he wrote it anyway.

But the attitudes displayed by Paulus and Richards in this interview show that they have fundamentally missed the point.  Yes, Sondheim was probably upset that they were changing a work he has repeatedly cited as one of his favorites.  But more importantly (and this is where Sondheim is absolutely correct), he took issue with the fact that they were doing this tinkering without any of the original creators around to okay it.  As a writer himself, Sondheim understands the blood, sweat, and tears that goes into creating a theatrical work.  He has also shown he is not afraid of change, having given his blessing to many radical reinterpretations of his own works and also continuing to rewrite shows after their initial premieres (see the multiple versions of the show that ended up being called Wise Guys went through).

But Paulus, Richards, and new book writer Suzan-Lori Parks had decided they could improve upon an acknowledged masterpiece, which (as Sondheim mentioned in his letter) shows they all have enormous egos.  The claim that this is what Gershwin would have done had he lived longer is beyond presumptuous.  We can't know what Gershwin would have done; he isn't around to ask.  Even if there were things he wanted to change, we can't claim to know how he would have changed them.  It is not Paulus' place to make those decisions for him, even if his heirs have given her the okay to do so.  If the show is so broken to begin with, why is Paulus even wasting her time reviving it?

Clearly, Paulus has let the success of Hair go to her head.  Yes, she did alter and change aspects of that show, but she also had composer James Rado around to okay her alterations and ensure that the intent of the piece was preserved.  Unless she has managed to reanimate the dead corpses of George and Ira Gershwin, she can't have the same luxury with this latest project.

What must really make Paulus mad is the fact that somewhere along the way, she was forced to admit Sondheim was at least partially right.  A lot of the changes Sondheim took issue with are no longer a part of the show.  Paulus insists the decision to cut these elements has nothing to do with Sondheim's letter.  Assuming she's telling the truth (a big assumption), exorcising those changes from the production shows that Paulus realized they did not work and/or were contrary to the spirit of the show.

So Sondheim - 1, Paulus - 0.