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.

How was the Show? (Part 2)

Continuing a blog post from earlier this week (and my attempt to get at least mini-reviews of every Broadway show I've seen up on this blog), here are my completely biased and at times unsubstantiated opinions on some more currently running Broadway shows.

Godspell - I haven't gotten around to seeing this one yet, but it did not get the best reviews.  Most disappointing for me is the general consensus that the show is an almost juvenile, hyperactive take on the material, which just sounds so grating and obnoxious that it may keep me away from this revival alltogether.  I will say that my general opinion of Stephen Schwatz's work is that no matter what your opinion of the music, his shows tend to have problematic books that require a cast and director capable of disguising the flaws.  It sounds like this Godspell didn't have a cast quite up to the task.

How to Succeed - I really enjoyed this show, and I saw it during the second or third preview.  I can only imagine how much it's improved since then, and if you're looking for a good old-fashioned musical comedy, this is the show for you.  Daniel Radcliffe makes a surprisingly adept musical debut, and he is ably supported by the rest of the cast and what I would argue is one of the stronger Golden Age musical books and scores.  The look of the show is 60s-tastic in the best possible sense, and unlike the garbage Rob Ashford created for Promises, Promises, his choreography here is quite inspired.  The show is a tad long and I personally didn't care for the actor playing Bud Frump, but I would argue this production is every bit as good as last season's other musical revival, Anything Goes.

Jersey Boys - In one of the umpteen million iterations of Forbidden Broadway, there is a spoof of Jersey Boys in which the characters claim they have replaced scenes with dramatic monologues so that they have more time to sing classic songs with snappy choreography.  Which *perfectly* describes Jersey Boys, and is why I find it to be one of the most overrated shows of the past decade.  They tell you what is going on rather than showing you, which is both dramatically unfulfilling and vaguely insulting.  Plus, do you really want to fight your way through the crowds of New Jersey housewives just to find your seat?

Mamma Mia! - I can't speak to this show's quality, as I've never seen it and never will unless I happen across some free tickets.  At this point my objection is more philosophical than anything else, as Mamma Mia! started the entire jukebox musical craze which was an utter detriment to the musical theatre community.  After Mamma Mia!'s success, producers took jobs away from aspiring theatre composers by using pop hits with pre-established name recognition for their musicals.  Not only did this put good artists out of work, but it also led to the creation of a series of dramtically inert shows struggling to build a story around pop tunes that lacked dramatic intent and forward momentum, two requirements of any good theatre song.  Which I find unforgivable, and will in no way support.

Mary Poppins - Another tourist-centric show I haven't seen.  My friends who have been actually have nice things to say about it, so if you're looking for something to take your out-of-town relatives to, this could well be it.

Memphis - No, this show isn't a great piece of musical theatre writing.  But it is a thoroughly entertaining evening in the theatre that has a little bit of everything.  There's comedy, drama, lots of singing and dancing, and just enough of emotional depth that you don't feel like you're watching a piece of fluff.  I personally wish the show had focused more on how being in an interacial relationship negatively affected the white male, as that is something that hasn't been explored nearly as often as the well-worn oppressed-black-woman-in-the-South angle the show's second act favors.  But the cast is talented and the singing and dancing is generally stellar.  Definitely worth a look.

Other Desert Cities - I really want to see this show, and its actually at the top of my list of shows to go see in the next few weeks, so look for a full report soon!

Well, that's enough for today.  Check back soon for more mini-reviews, and feel free to challenge my opinions in the comments (but be warned, I bite).

-Jared W

Will It Recoup?

Fair warning:  I'm about to get pretty "industry insider" on you guys right now.  Not so much in that I'm going to be using a bunch of pretentious terms you don't know, but because the topic I'm going to discuss doesn't really come up outside of industry newspapers and websites like Playbill.com.

That subject, boys and girls, is when a major Broadway musical manages to recoup its investment costs and therefore start turning a profit.  The reason this topic fascinates me is because it is not a straightforward result of popularity or the length of the run (although those things obviously come into play).  Some shows manage to recoup their investment within the space of a year, and others run for years without making back their initial costs.

For example, The Addams Family, that veritable punching bag of the 2009-2010 Broadway season, will be closing this Christmas.  By the time it's gone, the show will have run for nearly two years.  Furthermore, for the first six months of that run, it did nearly sell-out business and made over $1 million a week.  And yet, the show still won't have turned a profit by the time it closes, due to its high initial capitalization and what must amount to high weekly running costs (something tells me Nathan Lane and Bebe Nueworth did not come cheap).  Meanwhile, there are shows like the 2009 Hair revival that manage to make back their money in as little as 5 months.

I would argue that moreso than the initial cost, the thing that really makes or breaks a show financially is the weekly running cost.  It costs money to pay the actors, musicians, and stagehands, not to mention maintain the props, costumes, and sets while also paying rent on the theatre and the monthly power bill.  And since even the biggest theatres can only cram in about 10,000 people during a typical 8 show week, that means a very finite amount of earning potential for even sell-out shows (and this is assuming everyone pays full price for their tickets, which pretty much never happens).  If the weekly costs aren't kept in check, your show is going to have a tough time turning a profit even if it runs for years, since they amount to additional money being spent on top of the initial capitalization.  It's basically like trying to pay off a credit card while continuing to make charges on it; the more you "charge" in weekly running costs, the longer it will take to pay the balance down to zero.

So in the spirit of this fascinating (to me, anyway) subtopic of the theatrical business, I wanted to play a little guessing game about which of this season's musicals will actually turn a profit and prove financially successful.  I'm going to focus on the musicals because they:  a) cost more; b) are more likely to be commercial runs instead of not-for-profit productions that aren't actually concerned with making money.  So let's take a look at the first 5 musicals opening on Broadway this season, starting with Broadway's other favorite punching bag, Spider-Man.

(Note:  This may or may not be an attempt to salvage an article written for a certain nameless website who decided not to run it at the behest of their marketing department, after I had put in a lot of time and energy to write it.  Just sayin'.)

Spider-Man:  Turn Off the Dark

Yes, it’s been running for almost a year, but Spider-Man is technically part of the current Broadway season due to its mid-June opening.  This famously troubled musical is the most expensive in Broadway history, with a whopping $75 million in initial production costs (for comparison, Wicked cost “only” $14 million).  That hefty price tag, combined with the critical lashing the show received, led many to predict the show’s early demise.  But ticket sales have remained strong throughout the fall, and the show regularly grosses over $1 million a week.

Will It Recoup?  No.  Despite steady box office returns, there’s almost no chance of Spider-Man turning a profit.  In addition to its astronomically high initial capitalization, the technologically advanced show spends almost $1 million a week paying salaries, power bills, and maintaining sets and costumes.  Spider-Man would need to continue its current earning patterns for five to seven years before it begins making money, something that seems incredibly unlikely.  Only 15 musicals in history have run for that long, with recent megahits like The Producers and Hairspray only managing six year runs.

Follies

One of the many attractions of the critically lauded revival of Stephen Sondheim’s groundbreaking 1971 musical Follies is the fact that the show is a fully staged production.  The large-cast, costume-heavy musical is usually performed in scaled down concert versions due to its prohibitively expensive production costs (the original production was at the time the most expensive Broadway show in history, with an $800,000 capitalization).  In this era of bare bones revivals and smaller scale new musicals, the show’s 41-person cast and 27-piece orchestra seems particularly extravagant.

Will It Recoup?  Probably not.  The weekly running costs (including actor and musician salaries) are just too high.  Box office returns have been strong enough to prompt a three week extension of the show’s limited run, but Follies is also one of the few new productions currently open.  The glut of show openings in late October and November will surely steal some of Follies’ box office thunder, but if strong word of mouth continues to drive business there’s a possibility of a second extension which would increase its chances of recouping.

Godspell

This staple of high school and community theatre is prepping for its first Broadway revival, and its financial prospects are particularly up in the air.  The show does have a pre-established brand that’s familiar to the tourists who drive a large percentage of Broadway ticket sales, and being from the same composer as Wicked certainly won’t hurt.  In fact, the revival’s location next door to the Witches of Oz may make it an ideal alternative to those unable to score tickets to the perpetually sold-out hit.

Will It Recoup?  The chances are 50/50 on this one.  Popular regional shows do not necessarily set New York box offices on fire, and people may wonder why they should spend $135 to see something they could view for significantly less back home.  But with a 10-person cast and a small venue like the Circle in the Square Theatre helping to keep running costs down, the show shouldn’t need to sell-out every night to remain financially viable.  With some good reviews and positive word of mouth, it could easily run for a year or more, which is likely all it would need to turn a profit.

Hugh Jackman: Back on Broadway

Although not a musical in the traditional sense, this solo concert featuring one of Hollywood’s A-list stars qualifies as one for our purposes.  Headliner Hugh Jackman has been on Broadway exactly twice, and both times his presence has translated into box office gold.  In fact, Jackman was such a strong draw that both productions couldn’t continue without him, and The Boy from Oz even elected to temporarily shutter for a week during Jackman’s scheduled vacation rather than try to sell tickets without him.

Will It Recoup?  Yes.  Jackman’s Broadway concert already has a reported $6 million in advance ticket sales, cementing the Tony-winner’s status as a proven box office draw.  Even with Jackman’s star salary – which could easily be $100,000 a week or more – and an 18-piece orchestra to pay, running costs for a concert like this are comparatively low, making this one of the surest financial bets of the season.

Bonnie and Clyde

Frank Wildhorn must be a glutton for punishment.  Just six months after the critical and financial disaster that was Wonderland, Wildhorn is back with a new musical based on two of the most notorious outlaws in American history.  Helping this show’s financial viability is an intriguing subject matter that seems ripe for musicalization, and the large number of diehard fans of Wildhorn’s previous works.  Of course, the same could have been said about Wonderland, and that barely lasted a month.

Will It Recoup?  No.  There are just too many factors working against it.  Despite two well-reviewed out-of-town tryouts and two well liked up-and-comers in the lead roles (Laura Osnes and Jeremy Jordan, respectively), chances are Bonnie and Clyde will be ripped to shreds by New York critics, who have historically lambasted Wildhorn’s shows.  And even the composer’s biggest hit, Jekyll & Hyde, failed to turn a profit despite nearly four years on Broadway.  Given the current economic climate, Bonnie and Clyde can hardly count on a run that long, making the show’s financial prospects grim.

That's all for now.  I hope to make this a recurring article, so look for another installment as we get closer to more show opennings.  :-)

Venus in Fur Review

Venus in Fur, the excellent new play by David Ives currently playing the Samuel J. Friedman Theatre, is a godsend in this era of overtly commercialized Broadway plays which rely more on name recognition than actual talent.  Director Walter Bobbie guides two rising theatrical talents through this erotically charged and utterly fascinating new play that provides more food for thought in ninety minutes than many lesser works offer in two-plus hours.

The play’s premise is deceptively simple.  Writer/director Thomas (Hugh Dancy) is struggling to find the perfect actress to portray the role of Wanda in his adaptation of the 1870 novel Venus in Furs.  At the end of a long day of fruitless auditioning, Thomas reluctantly agrees to see one last actress, the frazzled and seemingly dim-witted Vanda (Nina Arianda).  But this after-hours audition quickly evolves into a complicated game of cat and mouse that bears an eerie semblance to the sadomasochistic work being adapted.

Ives has crafted an intricate character study full of twists and turns, a truly excellent work that will reward multiple viewings.  He expertly handles both the elevated classical dialogue of the play-within-a-play and the contemporary dialogue Vanda and Thomas use when speaking as themselves.  He provides a range of insights into gender politics and dominant/submissive relationships without ever seeming preachy or trite, and leaves things open to interpretation without coming across as vague or pretentious.  And if all of those weighty themes sound daunting, fear not; the play has a wicked sense of humor that will leave you laughing throughout.

Bringing Ives’ script to delicious, convincing life are two powerhouse performances by two equally gifted actors.  Nina Arianda, a Tony-nominee for last season’s Born Yesterday revival, is absolutely captivating as Vanda, reprising her critically lauded work from the 2010 Off-Broadway production.  Unlike the antiquated Yesterday, here Arianda has a script worthy of her considerable talents.  She perfectly captures the neurotic and sometimes airheaded antics of a struggling actress, while remaining wholly believable during the character’s frequent and disarmingly insightful observations on the play for which she is auditioning.  Her stellar handling of the classical scenes from the fictitious play-within-a-play make it immediately evident why Thomas seems compelled to prolong her audition, and from start to finish Arianda is a transfixing, magnetic presence.

Matching Arianda every step of the way is Hugh Dancy as Thomas.  Dancy perfectly encapsulates the vainglorious nature of a certain type of creative without ever becoming unlikable.  His performance effortlessly conveys Thomas’ conflicting feelings towards Vanda, believably alternating between annoyance with her shenanigans and childlike giddiness at the possibilities presented by her undeniable talent.  He displays a palpable confusion as Vanda slowly begins to dominate the audition, and watching him attempt to wrest control back from her makes for fascinating theatre.

There are a few minor missteps in the production.  The set design is rather bland, and the lighting errs a tad on the dark side.  The play’s final five minutes take a turn for which the proceeding eighty-five don’t quite prepare you, although it ultimately adds to the play’s allure and thought-provoking nature.  In short, Venus in Fur is must-see theatre, and is one of the highlights of the fall Broadway season.

How was the Show? (Part 1)

So one of the many joys of living in New York is the ability to go see Broadway theatre on a regular basis.  And after you go, it is a theatregoing tradition to distill everything you've just seen, which includes months of hard work by dozens if not hundreds of generally talented professionals, into a few short sentences so that you can quickly answer the question "How was the show?" when asked by your friends.

It is also theatregoing tradition to offer these overly biased, simplified opinions up without actually being asked for them, which is what I'm about to do. :-)

Now, I should point out that I am actually a big fan of legitimate reviews that take the time to dissect the hard work of the many, many artists and craftsmen involved in mounting a theatrical production.  My plan going forward is to write a full-fledged review of every Broadway show I see, and I would love to go back and write full reviews of all the productions I have already seen.  However, I do not have the time nor the memory to do so, given my two jobs and the fact that I haven't seen some of the long-running shows in years.  So this will have to do.

So let's pretend you've just asked me, "Hey, how was [insert show title]?"  Here's how I would respond:

Anything Goes:  Sutton Foster is fantastic and the production numbers are stellar, especially the 8-minute tap routine that accompanies the title song.  Unfortunately, Joel Grey seems to not know what is going on (or even his lines on occassion), and while the production is very slick, it's not significantly different from past productions of the same show.  Worth it to see Sutton completely earn her 2nd Tony Award, espcially if you can get in for cheap thanks to Roundabout's Hiptix program (one of the greatest deals on Broadway).

Man and Boy:  I haven't seen, so I'll have to get back to you.  From what I've heard Frank Langella is amazing but the show itself is kind of blah.

Billy Elliot:  I found the American production to be overrated, but I am probably biased because I saw the original London cast back in 2005 and they were spectacular (especially their Billy).  The choreography is astounding, but some of the show's heart seems to have been lost during the trans-Atlantic journey (and Elton John's score is pretty ho-hum).  Maybe the show is simply too British for American actors to be able to fully convey the nuance and emotion the Brits displayed.  Whatever the reason, I maintain the show has been over-praised and should have lost the Best Musical race to the far superior Next to Normal.

Chicago:  Needs. To. Close!  At one point it was probably really entertaining, but that was likely about 200 celebrity stunt castings ago.  Aparently if you manage to catch a celebrity-free cast the show is still really good, but I would just as soon rewatch the movie version.  I wish this show would shutter and free up that theatre for (gasp!) a new musical or play.

Chinglish:  Haven't seen.  Sounds mildly interesting, but it isn't at the top of my list of shows to go see.  Let me know what you think if you go.

Follies:  Is amazing!  It's seriously one of the best shows running right now, if not one of the best productions of the past few years.  It features some of the most glorious music and staging I've seen in quite some time (props to the producers for opting for a full orchestra).  Moments like "Who's That Woman?," where the fantastic Terri White leads the entire company of ladies (including Bernadette, Elaine Paige, and Jan Maxwell) in a tap routine where they dance with the ghosts of their former selves, will blow your mind.  I'm also in LOVE with the Loveland sequence, especially the transitions in and out of it.  All of the leads are fantastic, especially Jan Maxwell and Danny Burnstein (who is something of a revelation considering I have not enjoyed his previous Broadway outings).  You need to go see this before it closes in January.

That's about enough for now.  I'll be back later with more mini-reviews and recommendations for your viewing pleasure.

Here's a Little Story That Should Make You Cry

This week, the Tony Awards Administration Committee got together and made their first round of decisions about Tony eligibility, including what performances fall into what categories.  And in the process, they robbed Jan Maxwell of a well-deserved Tony.

Okay, that statement is a bit of hyperbole.  The Tony Awards are a long way away, and it is entirely possible that four time Tony-nominee Maxwell will finally get her moment in the sun for her sensational turn as the embittered Phyllis Rogers Stone in the top-tier revival of Follies currently running on Broadway.  But by classifying her in the Best Leading Actress category, the Tony committee has made that a lot less likely.

Now, in all fairness to the Tony committee, their decision makes sense.  After all, both the original Phyllis and the 2001 revival Phyllis were nominated in the Best Actress in a Musical category (with original  Phyllis Alexis Smith actually winning the award back in 1972).  The role *is* roughly equal in size and importance to Bernadette Peters' Sally.  And Maxwell is listed above the title, which according to Tony rules places her in the Leading Actress category unless the committee decides to demote her to Supporting.  So they were really just doing their job.

No, the people really at "fault" are the producers of Follies, and even then I use the term "fault" loosely.  Had they campaigned to have Maxwell considered in the Supporting Actress category, it could have been viewed as them belittling her work and the size of her part, and we all know that actors can have very delicate egos (although I suspect Maxwell would have handled it all in stride).  But if they had gotten Maxwell moved to the supporting category, I believe she very likely would have finally won a long-overdue Tony.

There is precedent for this.  Back in 2004 the producers of A Raisin in the Sun decided to have Audra McDonald compete in the Supporting Actress category, despite having a part every bit as large and important as Phylicia Rashad's role in the show.  This paid off marvelously, as it allowed both actresses to win awards for the stellar work while avoiding any competition between the two.  I think a similar strategy for Follies would have worked wonders.

Again, I'm not saying that Maxwell won't win the Tony this year.  She still could.  But by being entered into the Leading Actress category, she faces incredibly stiff competition from some of Broadway's top talent.

For one, she's up against Audra, who I'm going to go ahead and name this season's frontrunner without having seen her or most of her competition.  In addition to having already won four Tonys, she's doing Porgy and Bess, a show that she was born to do.  The last time a piece of casting was this obvious was Patti LuPone in Gypsy, and we all know how that turned out.  Even the notoriously hard-to-please Ben Brantley, head critic of the NY Times, gave McDonald's Bess an out and out rave in his review of the show's out of town tryout.  It's one of the biggest love letters I've seen him give any performer, and makes McDonald the one to watch.

Maxwell also faces competition from her esteemed co-star.  Bernadette Peters is Broadway royalty, returning to the Great White Way after a long absence.  I believe had she opened the Night Music revival, she would have completely bulldozed the competition for that year's Tony race.  She is back in her element (re: Sondheim) with Follies, and one should never underestimate voters' love of Ms. Peters.

The one thing that may give Maxwell the edge over those two Tony favorites is the fact that she has never won before, while they both have multiple statuettes to their name.  But even *that* argument works against Maxwell, because Kelli O'Hara is coming back to Broadway this spring!  Poor Kelli has been nominated three times without winning; the only reason she didn't win for South Pacific was the aforementioned LuPone.  Barring a disaster (and since no one knows much about the show O'Hara's starring in, it could be a disaster), O'Hara will likely be nominated again, and will be in the same hard-working-but-still-unawarded category as Maxwell.

The upside to all of this is that we, the audience, will have plenty to debate come Tony season, as a compelling case could be made for any of these women to be nominated and then win.  Can you imagine what kind of blood bath it would be is Sutton Foster was up for Anything Goes this season instead of last????

Curtain Up! Light the Lights!

Hello and welcome to my first ever attempt at internet blogging!

If you know me, you know that I have a *lot* of opinions floating around in my head when it comes to Broadway theatre.  However, chances are you don't know me, so you'll just have to take my word for it.  Now hopefully, you'll be a regular visitor to this blog and after a few visits, start to feel like you know me a little better thanks to the copious amounts of material I have posted.  And if there is not copious amounts of material being posted to this blog, I look to you to call me out on it, because I would do the same to you :-)

I'm not really sure what form this blog will take.  Reviews will certainly be part of it, although don't expect them to magically appear on opening night for every production.  Unlike those fancy reviewers for The NY Times and other papers, I actually have to buy my show tickets, and unless my financial situation drastically changes there's no way I'll be able to afford going to see three or four shows in one week during the season's busy periods (re: November and April). 

I will also likely chime in with my thoughts about various theatrical news stories, upcoming productions, replacement casting announcements, and insider talk about specialized industry topics like recouping investments and theatrical real estate and ghost lights.  Okay, an entire post on ghost lights is unlikely, but never say never.

Obviously, this blog will be mostly opinion.  You are welcome to agree or disagree, and if you feel strongly enough about something, please post in the comments.  However, be warned that I am always right, so by disagreeing with me you are publically declaring that you are wrong and don't care who knows it.

Just kidding.

Or am I?????

-Jared W