In Defense of Glee

"Don't Rain on My Parade," that shining moment where Glee actually lived up to its potential

There seems to be a growing sentiment among the theatre community that Glee, that Fox show about all the misfit “teenagers” with a predisposition for bursting out into song, has jumped the shark.  I find this turning of public sentiment on a show that just two years ago was the obsession of literally everyone to be both hilarious and a little sad.  Because, dear reader, this sudden swelling of hatred for the show is entirely undeserved.

Now don’t get me wrong.  Glee has major problems.  It is an underwritten, poorly plotted piece of trash TV filled with two-dimensional characters who act in ludicrously unbelievable ways, while singing heavily auto-tuned renditions of songs only tangentially related to the plot.  Whenever there is a storyline that holds actual interest, it is often shoved to the side to make way for yet another musical number or some nonsense about babies.  There are more recurring characters than the writers know what to do with, a problem exacerbated by the constant parade of guest stars eating up valuable screen time that would be better used developing the leads.

But what most people seem to forget/deny is that the show has ALWAYS been this way.  From the very beginning.  Between the six or seven main kids and the half-dozen recurring adults, there have always been more characters than the writers have been able to comfortably handle.  They have always behaved ludicrously, from Coach Sue’s irrational hatred of the Glee club (which, incidentally, was probably the most praised aspect of the show’s first season and even won Jane Lynch an Emmy) to Will’s wife attempting to fake a pregnancy around her freakin’ husband!

The show has also always struggled to incorporate the musical numbers in a way that makes sense.  I distinctly remember an episode where Mercedes was convinced Kurt, the gayest TV character outside of the LOGO network, was actually straight, and when she found out he wasn’t interested in her smashed the window of his SUV while singing “Bust the Window Out Your Car.”  As far as I can tell, this entire plot was concocted to allow her the chance to sing this song, and it came at the expense of making the character look like a complete idiot.

To claim that Glee has suddenly become bad TV is to willfully ignore the fact that it was bad to begin with.  I think the majority of people confused “different” with “good” when the show first premiered, and I’ve suddenly gone from the being the guy arguing the show isn’t that good to arguing its better than people give it credit for.  If you ask me, Glee has remained at about the same quality level as it always was: wildly uneven.  Certain episodes (or segments of episodes) work like gangbusters, and others are so excruciatingly awful you wonder how it ever made it to air. 

So be honest with yourselves.  Glee is bad, and has always been that way.  If you’re a former fan of the show who is now bashing it, you need to fess up to the fact that your former favorite show was never all it was cracked up to be.

Tony Watch: Assessing the Fall Season Part 1

One lady who should really start shopping for her Tony night gown

It’s never too early to talk about the Tony Awards.  Ever.  Hell, sometimes it can be more fun to discuss them months in advance, when almost any prediction is pure speculation.  And while I won’t go so far as discussing productions and performances that have yet to open, I thought this mid-winter lull was the perfect time to reflect on those shows that have already opened.  So read on for my completely biased, 100% speculative opinion on who is and isn’t a contender for a nomination this year.

Let’s start at the very beginning (a very good place to start, I’m told), and run through this year’s Broadway shows in chronological order:

Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark

In a turn of events that positively sickens me, this show is actually in a good position to score some Tony love.  This is not due to any actual merit in the production (it’s terrible, and earned my Worst of 2011 award), but because of Tony politics.  You see, a large number of Tony voters are producers, either for Broadway or touring houses, and they tend to favor shows with wide commercial appeal.  Having awards to brag about helps with advertising, and a Best Musical win has been proven to boast almost any show’s box office.  With an average of $1.5 million in weekly grosses, Spider-Man’s definitely has monetary appeal, and it’s the only new musical still running after this fall’s flops.  Since none of the new musicals this spring are surefire critical or commercial hits, Spider-Man could end up with a Best Musical nod, further signifying that the Mayans were right about the world ending this year.

On the positive side, I can’t imagine it scoring any writing nominations (it is much easier for a short-lived show to get nominated in the Score and Book categories).  And while I found the design aspects of the production disappointing given the amount of money and hype involved with the show, I wouldn’t be offended to see it nominated for Scenic or Costume Design.  And since the Best Supporting Actor in a Musical category is pretty slim pickings thus far, Patrick Page could find himself nominated for being easily the show’s strongest asset.

Master Class

Yes, this show happened.  It even got pretty good reviews.  But it closed so long ago, and there are many more plays opening between now and Tony time.  It may manage to make it onto the Best Play Revival list, and leading lady Tyne Daly could conceivable get a Best Actress nomination.  But with so many plays premiering this season, such recognition seems unlikely.

Follies

Follies will be a major presence at this year’s Tony Awards.  That isn’t mere speculation, it’s fact.  The toast of the fall season and an event musical for the Broadway community, there was such overwhelming love of both the show and this production in particular that I can’t imagine it not getting a bevy of nominations.  It’s a lock for Best Revival, leaving only three slots up for grabs in that category.  It will also end up in one or more design categories (if it only gets one design nod, my money is on the costumes).  For so expertly realizing such a tricky piece, director Eric Schaeffer really deserves a directing nod, and “Who’s That Woman” (the mirror number) should be enough to net Warren Carlyle a Best Choreography nomination on its own.

Oddly enough, the show’s greatest potential of being snubbed comes in the acting categories.  With such a uniformly excellent cast, and many of them competing against one another, someone will surely get overlooked.  Of the four leads, I would say Rob Raines is the weakest, and he was still wonderful.  Although I would never underestimate the Broadway community’s love of Bernadette Peters, her take on Sally has proven oddly divisive and may keep her from being a strong contender in a year when Best Actress in a Musical is likely to be a bloodbath (we’ll see why a bit later).

However, there are two performers who so deserve acting recognition that if either one is omitted, you can expect a lengthy blog entry from me decrying how wrong the Tony voters got it.  Jan Maxwell was utterly sensational as Phyllis, and if her universally praised performance doesn’t warrant one of the five Best Actress slots I don’t know what does.  And Danny Burstein, who was positively revelatory as Buddy Plummer, is not only a shoe-in for a Best Actor nomination, but at this early date is the man to beat.

Man and Boy

Did you remember that this early fall revival even happened?  Probably not, which tells you just about everything you need to know as far as its Tony chances are concerned.  Three-time Tony-winner Frank Langella is so adored by critics that he may end up with a Best Actor nomination, but that is Man and Boy’s only shot at Tony gold.

The Mountaintop

This show disappointed a lot of people, and will pay for it come Tony time.  After receiving a lot of critical accolades during its London run and securing two genuine movie stars for its US premiere, this new drama underwhelmed most critics.  Samuel L. Jackson and Angela Bassett got good but not great reviews, and the entire enterprise seems to have been damned by faint praise.  If the show had opened in the spring it would be more of a contender, but with the amount of competition this year it may be completely shut out.

There’s plenty more Tony chatter where this came from, but given the short attention spans of internet readers, I’ve probably already lost you.  The rest will have to wait for another day, while I spend the rest of this week trying to figure out what the hell a Superbowl is.

5 Reasons Why I'm NOT Excited About the "Les Miserables" Film (The Picture Should Give You a Major Hint)

This woman will soon be stinking up a multiplex near you

You may have heard that after years of rumors, they are finally making a film version of 80s megamusical Les Miserables.  This show will always hold a special place in my heart, as it was my first Broadway show, and I had fallen in love with (re: memorized) the entire score long before I actually saw it onstage.  While it can come across as too earnest for its own good, I think Les Miz is an inspiring story of redemption and people struggling to rise above the unfortunate circumstances life has dealt them. 

 

 

All that being said, I am not the least bit excited for the film version of Les Miserables.  And here’s why:

 

 

1)  Tom Hooper is directing.  The Oscar winner gained a lot of fans with last year’s Best Picture winner, The King’s Speech.  I was not among them.  While I think Speech is a perfectly respectable film, I also think it is perfectly ordinary.  There is nothing particularly daring or interesting about the way it is made; it is just a well acted, well shot period drama, the type of film that has been winning Oscars for decades.  Given how familiar Les Miz the musical already is, I think that adding Hooper’s very familiar directorial style into the mix will result in a decidedly bland and uninvolving film that lacks the key element to all great musicals: a sense of life.

 

 

2)  Hugh Jackman is not my ideal Jean Valjean.  I will say that, since they almost had to go with a major movie star (that’s the only way these film adaptations can secure the budget they really need to be done right), they could have done much worse than Jackman.  We know he can sing, and his brooding Wolverine persona could work for Valjean.  However, he strikes me as too young to play someone who starts the musical around age 40 (he’s been in jail for 19 years, after all), and ages another 20 over the course of the story.  I also question whether his voice is up to the demands of such a challenging role, especially given Hooper’s ludicrous decision to have all the actors sing live on set.  I’d love to see how they’re going to get a usable audio track onset, and how Jackman’s voice will hold up for the 20^th take of “Bring Him Home.”

 

 

3)  Anne Hathaway is playing Fantine.  Again, we know she can sing, and we know she can act (she is sensational in her Oscar-nominated turn in Rachel Getting Married).  She is also very young and glamorous, traits that don’t really suit Fantine.  Yes, Fantine probably isn’t that old physically, but she is definitely an old soul emotionally.  And she kind of gets sick and dies for no apparent reason early on (I assume she contracts syphilis during the “Lovely Ladies” montage), which means she’s gonna need to look like hell for her final number.  Will the makeup artists be able to tone down Hathaway’s natural beauty, especially in a big Hollywood film where the stars rarely have a strand of hair out of place?

 

 

4)  Taylor fucking Swift has been cast as Eponine.  This was really the straw that broke the camel’s back for a lot of people, myself included.  The country songstress has somehow managed to become a global music superstar despite the lack of any apparent vocal talent.  I assume her songwriting abilities are what have gotten her this far, but technique-wise she just isn't up to snuff.  If I wanted to hear a young 20-something woman butcher “On My Own,” the epitome of 80s Broadway belting, I would simply look the song up on YouTube and let the hilarity ensue, comfortable in the knowledge that those girls weren’t being paid large sums of money to do it.  Plus, we have no idea if Swift can actually act, although I suspect she is more Brittany Spears than Cher.

 

 

5)  Like all great musicals, Les Miz is inherently theatrical.  All of the best movie musicals have been altered significantly during the transition from stage to screen, letting them take advantage of cinema's inherent strengths (which can be quite different from theatre's strengths).  Even West Side Story, which on the surface is a very faithful adaptation of its stage counterpart, actually reshuffles several major numbers in an order to work on film.  And even then, that famed “Quintet” doesn’t really work onscreen, where it’s much more difficult to do simultaneous action, which does not bode well for “One Day More.”  In a best case scenario (which I’m not sure we’ll get), the Les Miz movie will end up like the Sweeney Todd adaptation:  perfectly respectable in its own right, but unable to replicate the magic of the stage version. 

I Loves You, Porgy

Review: The Gershwins' Porgy and Bess

Audra McDonald and Norm Lewis in The Gershwins' Porgy and Bess

After more press than any other revival this season, The Gershwins’ Porgy and Bess makes a triumphant return to Broadway in Diane Paulus’ reconceived staging.  Although certain changes made to the classic are up for debate, there is no denying this is a true American masterpiece with a bevy of strong performances led by the truly extraordinary Audra McDonald.

For those who don’t know, Porgy and Bess is set in South Carolina’s fictional Catfish Row, an African-American community in the late 1930s.  The show traces the love story between the crippled beggar Porgy and the town’s drug-addicted outcast, Bess.  Originally an opera, this version recasts the work as a more traditional musical, with dialogue scenes replacing many of the recitative sections.  While Paulus and new bookwriter Suzan-Lori Parks have altered or added some minor plot details, purists can rest assured that this is a fairly faithful adaptation of George Gershwin’s magnum opus, and leaves all of the most famous songs, like “Summertime” and “I Got Plenty of Nothing,” intact.

One thing Paulus’ production does startlingly well is create a genuine sense of danger, something rarely achieved in musical theatre.  Even those who know the story will experience an uneasiness during the show’s more dramatic scenes, which often spiral out of control into an engrossing chaos.  This is most evident during the second act, particularly the climactic storm scene and Porgy’s final confrontation with Crown, the outcome of which drew well-earned cheers from the audience at the performance I saw.  Paulus highlights the material’s dark undertones, and barring a couple of minor hiccups successfully marries the opera’s grand scale with believable and grounded emotions.

The production design definitely helps bridge the gap between these two disparate styles.  Riccardo Hernandez’s set is suitably operatic in scale, but peppered with enough small details to keep Catfish Row feeling like a real location.  He evokes a large variety of locations with minimal set dressing, and his narrowing of the proscenium opening during key scenes intensifies the show’s drama.  ESosa’s costumes have an everyday beauty about them, and their commonplace appearance makes every character feel real.  Meanwhile, the dramatic lighting design by Christopher Akerlind emphasizes the larger than life aspects of the story, and is a perfect contrast to the more subdued costumes.

The cast is led by the incomparable Audra McDonald, making her triumphant return to Broadway after four years on ABC’s Private Practice. Words cannot express my joy at having McDonald, arguably the greatest singing actress working today, back on Broadway after this extended absence.  And while I don’t have the necessary points of comparison to call her the best Bess ever, I can certainly tell you that her searing portrayal is one of the most full-bodied performances to grace the musical stage in years.  McDonald completely inhabits Bess, conveying more with a single look than most actresses can with pages of dialogue.  One of her most memorable scenes is entirely silent, as you watch Bess struggle against the supreme temptation offered by dope-dealer Sporting Life and his “happy dust” late in Act II.  McDonald’s Bess is a woman who has made all the wrong choices and is struggling to better herself, but simply cannot overcome the vicious cycle of abuse in which she finds herself trapped.  From the moment she steps onstage until her final exit, McDonald is utterly mesmerizing, and listening to her full-voiced soprano sing Gershwin’s soaring melodies is as close to heaven as you’re likely to find in a Broadway theatre. 

While Norm Lewis’ Porgy isn’t quite on McDonald’s level, he still makes for an excellent leading man.  He has mastered the physicality of this disabled beggar, and plays Porgy with an unending optimism and quiet strength that is utterly endearing.  Lewis’ glorious baritone sounds fantastic on these classic songs, particularly his thrillingly sung rendition of “I Got Plenty O Nothing.”  His two duets with McDonald are the show’s most transcendent, filled with the deeply felt love often talked about but rarely seen in Broadway musicals.  And his performance of the show’s finale moved even this jaded critic, so earnest and pure was his love for Bess.  (It should be noted that Paulus and Parks have restored the show’s original ending after experimenting with alternate versions out of town, which prompted Stephen Sondheim’s famous critique in the NY Times.)

There is solid work from much of the supporting cast, including Joshua Henry as Jake and Nikki Renee Daniels as Clara.  Phillip Boykin makes a truly fearsome villain as Crown, coupling his commanding stage presence with a glorious baritone voice.  The only disappointment is David Alan Grier as Sporting Life.  While Grier does just fine with Life’s big number, “It Ain’t Necessarily So,” he is the only one of the principals who doesn’t seem to fully understand his character’s motivations.  In some scenes he plays a harmless goof and in others he attempts something darker and more sinister, although it is never clear to the audience what’s prompting these changes.  He repeatedly talks about life in New York City, but never really gives the indication that he intends for Bess to come with him, which makes the final scene between the pair a little tough to swallow.

Overall, this Porgy and Bess largely succeeds in its intended purpose.  It definitely makes this classic more accessible to a Broadway audience, who may not have the patience to fully appreciate Gershwin’s magnificent opera.  It is a highly entertaining drama, wonderfully sung, and is the perfect vehicle to welcome Audra McDonald back to Broadway.  Here’s hoping we don’t have to wait another four years for her to return.

Lysistrata Jones Review

Patti Murin (center) and the cast of Lysistrata Jones

Some shows simply aren’t meant for Broadway.  The harsh lights of the Great White Way can expose flaws in works that seem perfectly charming in smaller, more intimate venues.  Lysistrata Jones, the new musical playing through the end of the weekend at the Walter Kerr Theatre, is such a show.

The show is a contemporary update of the Greek comedy The Lysistrata, in which the women of Athens withhold sex from their husbands in order to convince the men to stop fighting the Peloponnesian War.  In Lysistrata Jones, the title character (called Lizzie J by her friends) is a transfer student to Athens University, where the basketball team hasn’t won a game for 33 years.  Lizzie J convinces the rest of the cheerleading squad that they have to stop “giving it up” to their basketball-playing boyfriends until the men win a game (the guys aren’t applying themselves for fear of looking stupid if they actually try and still lose).

This change in premise marks the beginning to Lysistrata Jones’ myriad of problems.  The original play was a political allegory, in which the comedy was used to comment on both war and gender politics.  This redux completely removes any political overtones from the story, and fails to replace them with compelling characters or interesting observation on the way men and women behave.  Also, the refusal to EVER utter the word “sex,” while talking about boners, porn, and whores, creates a clash of tones.  The show alternates between innocence and bawdiness, but the transitions aren’t smooth and neither style really works because it is forced to coexist with the other.

In fact, the entire book for Jones leaves something to be desired.  Douglas Carter Beane has no business writing musicals, as this is the second inept musical libretto he’s foisted upon the Broadway community in as many seasons (the other being Sister Act).  The characters are disastrously underwritten, never evolving beyond the stereotypes they are initially presented as.  Their relationships are ill defined, and Beane glosses over major plot points and character developments that could have made the show really endearing.  The show also thinks it is far cleverer than it actually is, with much of Beane’s post-modern humor and fourth-wall breaking asides falling flat.  Lewis Flinn’s pop-influenced score is marginally better, although none of the songs will stay with you beyond the final curtain.

I would love to report that the fresh-faced young cast helps elevate the material, but this is sadly not the case.  Like the music, there is nothing particularly wrong with this cast; there just also isn’t anything particularly memorable.  As Lizzie J, Patti Murin is suitably spunky and sings well enough, but she does nothing to help hide the character’s poorly written swings from ditz to pseudo-brainiac.  As the captain of the basketball team and Lizzie’s boyfriend, Josh Segarra oscillates from dumb jock to enlightened poet without rhyme or reason, and his second act love scene is one of the worst in the show.  The rest of the supporting cast is unfortunately allowed (encouraged?) to play such ridiculous stereotypes they are borderline offensive, especially the two Hispanic characters.

The only real standout among the cast is Liz Mikel as Hetaira, who doubles as the narrator and the grand madam of the local brothel.  With a big voice and even bigger personality, Mikel scores the evening’s biggest laughs with her sassy attitude and clever one liners.  The scene in Act II where the men go to visit her at the brothel is easily the show’s most entertaining, and also contains the script’s best zinger (“I’m moist like a sponge cake”).  You don’t necessarily wish there was more of Mikel, as she gets plenty of stagetime; rather, you wish the rest of the cast was up to her level.

The show is well-designed, with the set doing an excellent job of evoking a community college gymnasium.  The costumes are nice, particularly a hooker outfit one of the characters buys from “The Ho Depot” and the beautiful Grecian-inspired finale outfits.  In fact, the finale as a whole is surprisingly effective, and gives a glimpse at what the show could be had it undergone a few more rewrites before transferring.  In its current state, Lysistrata Jones is a second-string musical that will likely be forgotten soon after it closes on Sunday.  Which is too bad, because this season is in desperate need of a breakout new musicl.

The Best Show of 2011

The Book of Mormon

Andrew Rannells in The Book of Mormon

“Hello.  My name is Elder Price, and I would like to share with you the most amazing book.”

With those innocent words, set to an ingenious sing-song melody, begins one of the most outrageously offensive, entertaining, and expertly crafted musicals of the last 20 years.  The Book of Mormon has taken Broadway by storm, winning every best musical prize imaginable and becoming a sold-out sensation on a level not seen since Wicked. It’s understandable that those who have yet to see Mormon may be suspicious of its ability to live up to the insane level of hype surrounding it.  But I promise you that it not only meets, but handily exceeds any and all expectations you may have.

My first time seeing the show (it’s so good I’ve made the time to see it twice more, and am already contemplating a fourth visit) ranks as one of the most memorable nights of the theatre in my life.  The air of excitement was palpable, as nobody knew quite what to expect from this mystery-shrouded show.  No publicity stills had been released, only the vaguest of plot summaries was available, and the musical numbers weren’t even listed in the Playbill.  I personally was hoping for something pretty exceptional, because Trey Parker and Matt Stone proved with the South Park movie they know what an expertly constructed musical looks like.  But even I wasn’t prepared for how jaw-droppingly amazing Mormon turned out to be.

The show has everything.  It features an incredible score stuffed with inventive, catches tunes, played by a nine piece band that through some theatrical trickery I honestly don’t understand sounds like the large orchestras of Broadway’s golden age.  There are so many jokes, both obvious and subtle, that it’s impossible to catch them all the first time through.  At least once during the show, you will be genuinely shocked and/or offended by what’s happening onstage (even hardcore South Park fans cannot anticipate some of the things Parker and Stone have gotten away with).  And most gloriously of all, the show has heart.  I doubt anyone thought the words “sweet” and “endearing” would be applied to a show written by this pair, and yet those words perfectly capture the overriding spirit of a show that is ultimately a celebration of both old-school Broadway and the healing power of religious faith (although Mormonism certain gets lovingly lambasted more than once).

And creating this atmosphere of giddy farce is one of the hardest working, most talented casts to ever grace a Broadway stage.  From top to bottom, the cast is filled with true triple threats who manage to stand out without ever upstaging their fellow castmates.  Foremost among this talented bunch are Tony-nominated stars Andrew Rannells and Josh Gad, both giving career-making performances as Elders Price and Cunningham.  It’s nearly impossible to decide who is funnier, although my personal vote goes to Rannells, who’s hilariously narcissistic Elder Price is a comic goldmine who doesn’t have the benefit of the kind of mugging allowed by the broadly written Cunningham.  They are so evenly matched that they likely split Tony votes enough to allow Norbert Leo Butz to walk off with this year’s Best Actor statuette. 

Also Tony-nominated without winning is Rory O’Malley, who brings down the house nightly with his performance of “Turn It Off.”  Without spoiling things for those who haven’t seen it, the number contains what is my favorite moment of the entire year (it involves vests).  It’s in essence an expertly executed sight gag (I still have no idea how they did it), and is the perfect illustration of why The Book of Mormon is so brilliant.  The show milks all of the expected humor out of a situation, and just when you think it’s out of ideas it comes up with one final, unexpected capper that thrills you with its ingenuity and leaves you rolling in the aisle.  I audibly gasped in delight when it happened, and being able to provide that kind of sheer, unadulterated joy is an example of musical comedy at its absolute best.

The one performer who did manage to win a Tony for her efforts is the absolutely radiant Nikki M. James.  Her Nabalungi is instantly lovable, a perfect Disney princess trapped in this warped version of the Third World.  She sings like an angel and grounds the evening with a genuine heart, especially evident during her earnest performance of the show’s big ballad, “Sal Tlay Ka Siti.”  Yet she is also capable of comic genius, and can play dirty just like the boys (her first appearance onstage is during a particularly offensive song about God).

I could go on and on about this show.  The direction is perfect, and Casey Nicholaw has graduated to the top tier of Broadway directors for his work on this show.  He expertly crafts the evening to yield the greatest possible number of laughs, while ensure that the show’s heart and message never get lost in the background or buried under too much shtick.  He has given the show a parade of ingeniously realized musical numbers, and keeps its madcap energy from flagging all the way through the final curtain.  The lighting, sets, and costumes are all phenomenal, supporting the story and setting without ever overshadowing it or becoming complex for spectacle’s sake.

I adore this show.  It may quite possibly be my favorite of all time, and that is not a title I hand out lightly.  It is easily the Best Show of 2011, and while tickets are hard to come by, they are definitely worth seeking out.  To paraphrase the opening number’s lyrics, this show could change your life.

The Worst Show of 2011

Here it is, folks.  The moment you’ve all been waiting for.  There have been some truly odious shows in our countdown, but this last one takes the cake as the single worst piece of theatre I had the misfortune of seeing in 2011.  That show is (drumroll please)….

Spider-Man:  Turn Off the Dark

A scene from Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark

Now, some of you might think I am being unnecessarily harsh on a show that spent all of 2011 (and much 2010) as Broadway’s whipping boy.  Does the much-maligned megamusical really need to be further abused in print after all of the malicious things written about it in the past 12 months?

Yes.  Yes it does.  Because, my friends, any of you who actually saw Spider-Man know that it may possibly be even worse than the press has let on.  Let’s forget, for a moment, that the idea of a Spider-Man musical is already a patently terrible idea.  There is already a level of absurd fantasy in the idea of masked men with superpowers beating the snot out of each other.  Having these characters break out into song pushes things way past the point of credibility.  By musicalizing a superhero story, you also force yourself into the very expensive and danger-prone realm of having to physically execute feats of daring-do eight times a week.

But even if we forget that the concept is irrevocably busted from the start, Spider-Man remains such a poorly plotted, underwritten mess that many of the 8-year-olds in the audience have written better Spidey stories while playing with their action figures.  This is even more infuriating given that the writers of Turn Off the Dark (which is an awful, nonsensical subtitle that it pains me to type) have chosen to focus on Spider-Man’s origin story, something that has been done repeatedly in other mediums, and done well.  What should have been a simple matter of copying what has worked before is completely bungled by the inept writers, leaving a show with plot holes so big you could easily drive the show’s massive set pieces through them.

While I am more than familiar with Spider-Man’s comic book history, I am by no means a purist.  I accept that certain details will need to be altered or updated to make the show work for modern audiences.  That is fine.  What isn’t fine is to see a show that completely alters the basic personality traits of a plethora of beloved characters, and then fails to successful execute those changes.  I don’t know what comics Julie Taymor and company have been reading, but Aunt May has never been as sarcastic and mean-spirited as she is in this show.  Mary Jane may come from a broken home, but I barely recognize the sullen emo girl running around the Foxwoods Theatre stage.  It certainly isn’t the self-assured redhead whose famous first words to Peter Parker were, “Face it, Tiger, you just hit the jackpot.”  By altering these traits, the show completely throws the characters’ interpersonal dynamics out of whack, and doesn’t bother to replace them with interesting or believable new ones.

Of course, it doesn’t help that the acting is uniformly terrible.  I’m sure all the behind-the-scenes drama and months of tech work weren’t conducive to the acting process, but dammit, this is Broadway, and I expect a certain standard of work for my $100 ticket.  Many of the actors seem utterly lost onstage, as if they have never before set foot in a theatre.  Save for Patrick Page as the Green Goblin, the leads lack believability, chemistry, and the ability to sing on-pitch, with all of the show’s vocals sounding unbearably flat.

Which brings us to the atrocious pop-rock score by Bono and the Edge.  I am not a U2 fan, but I have to believe that the multiple Grammy-winners are capable of much better than the garbage they’ve written for Spider-Man.  Every song sounded the same (bad), with the “orchestra” (I use quotation marks because I didn’t hear more than 6 instruments the night I saw it) and singers so out of balance that it’s laughable.  There’s also a cast-wide diction problem, but given the quality of the lyrics I could understand I don’t think I’m missing much.  At least the songs are repetitive, giving the audience multiple chances to decipher what is going on.

And what did that reported $75 million budget get spent on, exactly?  The show I saw didn’t look any more impressive than something like Wicked, which while still expensive cost only a fraction of the amount spent on this disaster.  I didn’t find the much-ballyhooed stunts to be overly impressive, despite the producers repeated promises that it would be unlike anything I’d ever seen.  The various wires and flying apparatuses are blatantly apparent, and everything moves at such a slow pace that it saps any excitement from the aerial battles.  I should point out that I am all for the actors’ safety; I just feel that for that amount of money, they should have been able to come up with something that looked more impressive while still remaining safe.

The most disheartening thing about Spider-Man is that so far, it has been a financial success, proving that a large portion of the theatergoing public doesn’t give a rat’s ass about quality.  I can only urge all of you to avoid this show like the plague.  If you think it’s going to be a fun, Showgirls-like debacle, you are wrong.  While certainly a train wreck, it isn’t the least bit of fun, and is easily the Worst Show of 2011.

Note:  These observations are based on Julie Taymor’s original version, not the revised show currently playing the Foxwoods.  While the new version is reportedly better, the show I saw was so far gone that I cannot imagine they made enough improvements during the three week hiatus to salvage the endeavor.  For one thing, they were stuck working around Taymor’s costumes, sets, and aerial stunts, since all of these elements were far too expensive to simply throw out.  And given that Taymor’s version ran for five months, longer than several of the shows on my Best and Worst lists, I feel absolutely no qualms about naming it the Worst Show of 2011.