Tuesday, December 30, 2014

The Best Shows of 2014: Part II

2014 is about to draw to close, and to celebrate the year that was I'm offering up my picks for the Best Shows of 2014. I've already listed shows 10 thru 5, and now its time to reveal my choices for the absolute best New York theatre had to offer. As always, this list is limited to productions I have actually seen, which means that certain popular and/or acclaimed productions are automatically ineligible. That also means the list skews towards Broadway musicals, as those are what I see the most of. So what are my Top 5 shows of the year? Read on to find out!

5) Hedwig and the Angry Inch

Hedwig and the Angry Inch managed the rare feat of winning Tonys for all of its principal actors. Granted, there were only two of them, but still.

When Neil Patrick Harris was announced to star in the first Broadway production of the cult musical Hedwig and the Angry Inch, I was skeptical. While I was reasonably sure the production would do well financially, I wasn't at all convinced Harris' polished, mainstream persona would work in a show known for being grungy and decidedly alternative. I am beyond thrilled Harris proved me and any doubters wrong, giving an utterly fearless, Tony-winning, tour de force performance as the titular transgendered rocker. With a breakout performance by Lena Hall and fantastic direction by Michael Mayer, Hedwig is the perfect example of how to properly scale up a small show so it fills a Broadway house without losing its essence or spirit. Although Harris departed at the end of the summer, the hit revival continues to run with a string of high profile replacements, and will see author and original Off-Broadway star John Cameron Mitchell don Hedwig's high heels in mid-January. Definitely worth a return visit.


 
4) Cabaret

Alan Cumming returns to the Kit Kat Klub in Roundabout's second revival of Cabaret, a show that continues to be one of the most rewarding, well crafted book musicals of all time.

Another show many were cynical about, the Roundabout Theatre Company's revival of their Tony-winning Cabaret is the exact same production that played Broadway for 6 years in the late 1990s/early 2000s, and probably exists primarily to make money. Yet whatever the reason for its return, Sam Mendes and Rob Marshall's perfectly marvellous production is one of the few musicals from this past year to actually challenge its audience rather than pander to them, and further establishes that this dark gem of the show is one of the all time great pieces of musical theatre. Contracting Alan Cumming to reprise his Tony-winning turn as the Emcee was a stroke of genius, with Cumming delivering a stellar performance that feels entirely fresh despite the 16 years that have passed since he first tackled the part. The entire production feels authentic, dangerous, and startlingly relevant, and if it were not for a miscast Michelle Williams as Sally Bowles this show would no doubt rank even higher on the list. Williams has since been replaced by Hollywood starlet Emma Stone (reportedly the producers' original choice for the part), who by all accounts is fantastic and offers those who've already been an excellent reason to return to the Kit Kat Klub.
 
3) On the Town

Jay Armstrong Johnson, Tony Yazbeck, and Clyde Alves lead the absolutely stellar cast of the 70th anniversary production of On the Town, one of the fall's biggest treats.

Who would have thought a revival of a 70 year old musical comedy would end up being one of the freshest productions of the year? Everything about John Rando's dazzling On the Town is a pure delight, a big hearted love letter to both New York City and the Broadway of yesteryear. In an era where wicked witches defy gravity and magic carpets show audiences a whole new world, one of the most thrilling sights currently on Broadway is 30 superb dancers high kicking to Joshua Bergasse's sensational choreography, accompanied by one of the largest orchestras on Broadway brilliantly playing Leonard Bernstein's original orchestrations. The pitch perfect cast is anchored by Tony Yazbeck's superb Gabey and features a breakout (Tony-worthy) performance by Alysha Umphress as the sassy Hildy, not to mention two full scale ballet sequences specifically designed to highlight NY City Ballet's Megan Fairchild in her Broadway debut. Anyone with even the slightest inclination should run to the Lyric Theatre and buy a ticket immediately.
 
2) The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

Newcomer Alex Sharp is making one of the most impressive Broadway debuts in years in the fantastic The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time.

You have to hand it to those Brits; they certainly know how to put on an eye-popping show. However, unlike the overhyped War Horse a few seasons back, the Broadway transfer of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time has an excellent script to support all the visual splendor. The play is one of the most arresting, honest portrayals of autism to ever hit the New York stage, and fully succeeds in placing the audience inside the head of 15 year old protagonist Christopher Boone (played by Julliard graduate Alex Sharp in an absolutely stunning, sure to be Tony-nominated Broadway debut). All of the design elements work in tandem with Marianne Elliott's excellent direction to propel this deceptively simple mystery/thriller into "must see" territory, making Curious Incident the most exciting new play I had the privilege of seeing this year.
 
1) The Bridges of Madison County

Kelli O'Hara should have won the Tony this year. Period. The end.

Jason Robert Brown's transcendent The Bridges of Madison County is both 2014's best show and its biggest tragedy, with the musical's Broadway run cut unfairly short by weak ticket sales and a bizarrely apathetic theatrical community. Perhaps the show was hurt by its association with the widely known but not widely respected book which inspired it, or maybe the musical was a victim of bad timing that forced it to close before Tony season was completed. Whatever the reason for the show's failure, it's hard to fault the soaring score or richly detailed relationship between the lead characters. And the absolutely stunning performances by Kelli O'Hara and Steven Pasquale certainly deserved to reach a wider audience, as both achieved depths of feeling most actors can only dream about. O'Hara in particular has never been more radiant, simultaneously gut wrenching and inspiring in a career-best performance sung with a nearly unequaled level of vocal mastery. Bridges was something special, and easily the most satisfying evening I spent in a theatre this year. Here's hoping the excellent original cast recording helps this show to have a long and successful afterlife.


And there you have it. Those are, in my opinion, the Best Shows of 2014. Here's hoping 2015 brings us something just as good, if not better.

Happy New Year!

Monday, December 29, 2014

The Best Shows of 2014: Part I

As 2014 draws to a close and the internet is inundated with "Best of the Year" lists, its time to add my humble voice to the cacophony with my annual "Best Shows of the Year" list. For those of you not familiar with how this list works, know that it is not meant to be a comprehensive or definitive list. It is limited to productions I have actually seen, so certain popular shows will be omitted. I have yet to see Beautiful, for instance, although all of the promotional performances make me think it wouldn't make my personal list anyway.

2014 was an interesting year for New York theatre. There were a lot of show I liked, but less I unabashedly loved than in 2013. There was still plenty of commendable work throughout the year, and part of the reason fewer shows felt like unqualified successes is because they tackled less conventional subject matter and storytelling methods (which I'll take over a safe, traditional production any day of the week). Below is the first half of my annual Top 10, with the remainder of the list to follow soon. 

Honorable Mention: Audra McDonald in Lady Day at Emerson's Bar and Grill

Audra McDonald truly disappeared into the role of jazz singer Billie Holiday, winning the acclaimed actress a well deserved and record breaking sixth Tony Award.

Lady Day at Emerson's Bar and Grill, Lanie Robertson's exploration of famed jazz singer Billie Holiday's life and career, is not a great play. The show is interesting because Holiday's life was interesting, but nothing about the play's writing contributes to more than a cursory understanding of the troubled vocalist's final days, performing in obscurity at rundown clubs. That said, Audra McDonald was a revelation in the work's recent Broadway revival, an utterly transformative performance that deservedly won the acclaimed actress her record breaking 6th Tony Award. As usual, McDonald somehow managed to exceed overwhelmingly high expectations to deliver a performance for the ages, one of the single best of I have ever seen. While the show's pedestrian writing keeps it from being Top Ten material, McDonald's performance was one of the most nuanced and entrancing of the year, and deserving of mention.


10) Pageant

The beautiful contestants of the Miss Galmouresse pageant at the center of Pageant.

In the pursuit of high art and a better understanding of the human condition, it can sometimes be easy to forget that theatre is primarily a form of entertainment. The Off-Broadway review Pageant, about a fictional beauty contest where all of the contestants are men dressed in drag, may not have been the most intellectual of evenings, but it was one of the most enjoyable 90 minutes I spent in a theatre last year. The extremely talented and versatile performers milked every bit of campy humor possible out of the premise, somehow making a spoof of beauty pageants feel relevant even when the format is long past its prime. The loose structure allowed the contestants plenty of chances to ham it up, but beneath all the shtick and broad caricatures they remained recognizably human, which only added to the show's appeal. Definitely an underrated gem of the summer/fall months.

9) If/Then

While there were plenty of strong performances in If/Then, let's be honest: Idina Menzel is the reason people are interested in this show, and the Tony winner delivers with what may be the performance of her career.

I can't understand why If/Then has gotten so much flack from the theatrical community. While the show is by no means perfect, it is one of the increasingly rare musicals not based on any pre-existing property that furthermore dares to ask big questions about life (as opposed to most of the successful musicals of the past few seasons, which are primarily meant to entertain). Perhaps the show suffered in comparison to Next to Normal, the groundbreaking Pulitzer Prize winner by the same creative team. And while If/Then doesn't match that show's emotional wallop, the concurrent narratives of Liz and Beth raise a lot of interesting questions about choice versus fate. Idina Menzel has never been better, easily topping her Tony-winning work in the megamusical Wicked 10 years ago and proving that she is one of the most formidable singing-actresses of her generation. The show's sagging box office numbers and Menzel's impending departure probably mean this show is on its last legs, so everyone who claims to support originality in the theatre really owes it to themselves to see this thought provoking new work before its gone. It may be flawed, but its heart is 110% in the right place, and I will take an ambitiously flawed show over a safely conventional one any day of the week.

8) Heathers

Off Broadway's New World Stages is generally where older shows go to extend their runs, but occasional the complex will birth exciting new works like the hilarious and inventive Heathers the Musial.

A darkly comic coming of age tale set in perhaps the worst high school of all time, Heathers proved to be a highlight of the crowded spring theatre season. Featuring a top notch score by Laurence O'Keefe and Kevin Murphy ("Candy Store" is one of the catchiest musical numbers of the year), Heathers' endlessly inventive writing was brought to life by an excellent cast of mostly unknowns. A vast improvement upon the film that inspired it, the musical managed to resolve most of the tonal issues that plague the source material without losing the story's edge, and somehow uncovered an emotional core underneath all the 80s slang and teen melodrama. Although the Off-Broadway production has long since shuttered, the show is already well on its way to achieving the kind of cult status shows like Rocky Horror and Reefer Madness enjoy.

7) Aladdin

Courtney Reed and Adam Jacobs appear to have literally leapt off the screen in Disney's Aladdin, one of the most sumptuous spectacles to grace Broadway this year.

20 years after Beauty and the Beast, Disney Theatricals finally got around to tackling the last major film from the company's early 90s animation renaissance, the Oscar winning 1992 comedy Aladdin. Recovering nicely from their last animated adaptation (the less than successful Little Mermaid), the company brought their trademark high production values and slick presentation to this story of a street rat who dreams of something more. Featuring a game cast (lead by James Monroe Inglehart's Tony-winning Genie) and fantastic direction/choreography by Casey Nicholaw, Aladdin is one of the most magically entertaining shows currently running on Broadway. Genuine showstopper "Friend Like Me" is one of the most elaborate, thrilling production numbers around, and the famed magic carpet ride is every bit as magical onstage as it was on film. An excellent option for families and the young at heart, tickets have been hard to come by, but are definitely worth the effort.
 
6) Much Ado About Nothing

Recovering from an uneven couple of years, the Public Theatre's Shakespeare in the Park presented a top notch (and free!) production of Much Ado About Nothing this past summer.

After a couple of less than stellar seasons (2012's Into the Woods was divisive to say the least, and 2013's Comedy of Errors and Love's Labors Lost were less than memorable), the Public Theatre's Shakespeare in the Park returned in top form with a fantastic production of one of the Bard's best comedies, Much Ado About Nothing. The always excellent Lily Rabe was perfectly cast as the tart-tongued Beatrice, and Hamish Linklater's Benedict made for a perfect comic foil. But while Rabe and Linklater were definitely the star attractions, the entire supporting cast was filled with excellent actors under superb direction by Tony winner Jack O'Brien. A truly magical evening that successfully ran the full gamut of human emotion in just two and a half hours, this production was an unadulterated delight from beginning to end. The lack of a marquee star or available theatre precluded a Broadway transfer, but this mounting of Shakespeare's comedy was as deserving of that honor as anything Shakespeare in the Park has produced.


And that's Part I of my list. Keep an eye out for Part II in the coming days, where I'll list my Top 5 favorite theatrical experiences of the year.

Saturday, December 27, 2014

I Never Thought I'd Be So Happy (With This Film)

Movie Review: Into the Woods

James Cordon as the Baker and Meryl Streep as the Witch in Disney's Into the Woods.

After what seems like an eternity, Disney's highly anticipated film adaptation of Stephen Sondheim's Into the Woods has finally arrived in theatres. The good news is that the internet's concerns about the film's fidelity to the source material are almost entirely unfounded; this is an incredibly faithful and respectful adaptation of the beloved stage show. Even better news is that the movie is a very good and at times even great film in its own right, featuring an excellent cast and a suitable dose of movie magic to make this fractured fairy tale truly sing on the big screen. Purists will no doubt have their complaints, but for most fans and the uninitiated this is an excellent representation of a contemporary classic from one of musical theatre's undisputed masters.

For those who don't know, Into the Woods weaves the well-known fairy tales of Cinderella, Jack and the Beanstalk, Little Red Riding Hood, and Rapunzel together with an original tale about a childless Baker and his Wife. Early in the film, the Baker discovers that his family has been cursed by the village's resident Witch, and the only way to lift the spell is to collect four magical objects before the impending blue moon. What follows is a series of misadventures that ultimately subverts the notion of "happily ever after" while also exploring what happens when you get exactly what you want, only to find that it wasn't at all like you expected.

The musical's original librettist James Lapine adapts his own script into a very smart condensation of the stage show. Into the Woods has always been a marvel of tight pacing, so the fact that Lapine managed to trim things in way that doesn't sacrifice plot is truly impressive. Cut musical numbers are replaced with scenes that cover the same story beats, and the bridging of the musical's two distinct acts is handled about as well as conceivably possible. Sondheim has tweaked some lyrics where necessary, and listening to Jonathan Tunick's symphonic arrangements is like hearing this score afresh. Even the musical numbers that didn't make the film are represented via underscore in their same approximate locations, and truly sharp-eared fans will catch a surprising reference to one of Sondheim's other Tony-winning musicals.

Speaking of the fans, those afraid Disney would sanitize the musical's darker edges can rest easy. Pretty much everything that happens onstage happens in the movie, with the difference being the film tends to only imply things the stage version made more explicit. There's even a surprisingly sexual "Hello, Little Girl" that somehow slipped past the censors, proving that director Rob Marshall and company weren't lying when they insisted they were doing a very faithful adaptation.

Rob Marshall's direction is somewhere between his Oscar-nominated work on Chicago and his more questionable choices on the underwhelming Nine. His kinetic camerawork certainly keeps things interesting, although the constantly revolving camera sometimes distracts from the storytelling rather than enhances it. Marshall smartly limits his use of special effects to some key moments, which keeps the magic feeling magical without overwhelming the characters. His production team has lovingly designed the film with lavish sets and costumes, although the film tends so dark it can be difficult to make out the details.

One thing Marshall and his team have absolutely nailed is the casting, with nary a weak link among the story's dozen or so principal and secondary characters. Oscar-winner Meryl Streep is clearly having a blast as the Witch, making a veritable feast out of the "Witch's Rap" and chewing the scenery in the best possible way. Streep also sings like a dream, ranging from breathy intimacy to full throttle belting over the course of her musical numbers. Her tour de force performance of "Last Midnight" meets even the loftiest expectations and definitely proves that whether or not he intended to, Sondheim wrote a genuine showstopper when he added the song after the musical's out of town tryout.

The always enjoyable Emily Blunt is excellent as the Baker's Wife, a natural comedienne with a surprisingly strong voice and effortlessly natural line delivery. Her chemistry with James Corden's Baker is palpable, with the latter also doing a fine job with his character's more emotional scenes during the movie's second half. Anna Kendrick continues to prove adept at just about anything she sets her mind to, even if the more intimate medium of film highlights that some key points of Cinderella's emotional growth occur off screen. Her "Steps of a Palace" is a knockout, aided by Marshall's brilliant decision to play the entire song as a split second decision that occurs while Cinderella is being chased by the Prince.

Speaking of the Prince, Chris Pine isn't quite as at home in a movie musical as many of his costars, but that doesn't stop him from being a perfectly aloof foil to Kendrick's introspective Cinderella. Pine and Billy Magnussen's gloriously campy "Agony" is nearly perfect in its beefcake-skewering brilliance, second only to Streep's "Last Midnight" on the list of the film's standout moments. Lilla Crawford makes for a hilariously deadpan Little Red, and Daniel Huttlestone brings a genuine boyish glee to the role of Jack. Tracey Ullman, Christine Baranski, and Johnny Depp all make strong impressions despite limited screentime, and the uniformly excellent cast is one of the movie's strongest assets.

Into the Woods is ultimately about as good an adaptation as one could hope for. Purists will certainly find things to nitpick, and fans will no doubt miss some of the cut songs (I'm particularly sorry we lost the Witch's "A bear?/Bears are sweet..." segment from the Act II opening), but overall this is an incredibly faithful adaptation in spirit, tone, and execution. The plot and themes remain virtually unchanged from the stage version, with Marshall and his game cast embracing the opportunities offered by the big screen without abandoning what has made this such an enduringly popular property in the first place. It won't replace the invaluable recording of the original Broadway production, but it is an excellent companion piece and definitely worth seeking out.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Matilda Just Recouped, and That's a Bad Thing

The revolting children of Broadway's Matilda are officially in the black, which should make saving for their college funds significantly easier.

Matilda recently announced it had officially recouped the entirety of its $16 million capitalization, meaning the production is finally in the black. Any money made over its weekly operating costs is pure profit at this point, a milestone only an estimated 1 in 4 Broadway productions reach. And while this is an excellent celebration for Matilda and its producers (who will hopefully put some of those profits into developing more new work), the implications for the greater Broadway community are a little more troubling.

You see, by pretty much every metric Matilda is an unqualified success. Critics (myself among them) loved the show, giving it across the board raves for its inventive staging, winsome performances, and clever writing that challenges rather than talks down to its family audience. The production is often sold out, and even on a bad week rarely dips below 80% capacity. It routinely brings in over $1 million in weekly grosses, and shows no signs of slowing down almost 2 years into its run. Come January, the only other show still running show from the 2012-2013 Broadway season will be Kinky Boots, the musical the beat Matilda in that year's Best Musical race (and in hindsight, Matilda is probably the more deserving show).

So why on earth did it take Matilda so long to turn a profit? Kinky Boots turned a profit over a year ago, no doubt bolstered by a summer of sell-out business following its Best Musical win. That season's Best Musical Revival, Pippin, also recouped around the same time, although to be fair its capitalization was only half of Matilda's. To be doubly fair, Pippin's weekly grosses were often far below Matilda's during the same timeframe.

The obvious answer for the delay is that Matilda, like a growing number of Broadway shows and especially new musicals, cost a lot of money to mount. The cast is large, especially when taking into account that many of the children's roles are doubled or even tripled. Add in the fact that the production is contractually obligated to hire child wranglers to supervise all these minors and you have another major expense. The set is rather intricate, and there are several special effects that are surely driving up the weekly running costs. A higher weekly nut (the industry term for a show's running costs) means less of the gross can go towards paying back investors, something that surely slowed the show's progress towards turning a profit.

However, the nearly 2 year saga of Matilda's inching towards profitability begs the questions: what is wrong with Broadway budgeting when even a hit takes so long to recoup? Did the show really *need* all 16 million of those dollars, or is a large chunk of that tied up in needless waste from redundant union contracts and unnecessarily costly production elements? The show's high price tag is especially disheartening when you learn that the production team actually cut certain expenses present in the London production in an effort to keep costs down, and the Broadway mounting still costs almost 4 times its West End counterpart (where theatre is much more heavily subsidized by the government).

This is ludicrous, and it is a problem that no one in the Broadway industry seems particularly keen on tackling. It is the main reason ticket prices continue to climb, making theatre an ever more elitist art form instead of the populist entertainment it used to be. The average person cannot afford a $135 ticket more than once or twice a year, if that. But when your show costs $16 million and you want to pay back your investors' money, you can understand why producers feel the need to charge that much. Which in turn begins a cycle where people want to see something that looks like it costs that much, which again raises prices, which continues ad naseum until you end up with an ungainly monstrosity so focused on the spectacle it becomes a creative nightmare (Spider-Man being the most high profile recent example).

This is not an easy problem to fix, and solving it will take a seismic change in the way the industry works. First and foremost, everyone should probably take a pay cut, something that will of course be horribly unpopular but is ultimately an investment in the future of the industry. No one will have any jobs if costs end up pricing theatre out of reach for all but the wealthy elite. The pay cut doesn't necessarily have to come from the salary if the unions would make some concessions in other areas; for instance, maybe the stagehand and musician unions take a long, hard look at how many people they require Broadway shows to hire. And as very few actors manage to qualify for Equity's healthcare but the universal payment amount to a major production expense, maybe producers could stop being required to pay into the system for actors who don't opt in.

Secondly, all designers and directors should really adopt a less is more approach. There are some eye-popping special effects in Matilda that are plot driven and need to be included, but there are also things like lasers which may look cool but don't particularly add much to the show other than running costs. In my experience, some of the most effective theatrical moments are the simplest, the ones that embrace stagecraft rather than trying to produce a literal representation of whatever they're meant to portray (something film is significantly better at, anyway). The Lion King is one of the most spectacle driven shows on Broadway, and the moment that most took my breath away was one of the simplest: a bright blue piece of fabric being pulled through an upstage hole, simply and elegantly conveying the drought that plagues the African savannah.

Now of course artists need to make money, and I'm not arguing that we suddenly start paying the most talented people in our industry nothing. And I'm certainly not against spectacle or lavish production elements when warranted, as they contribute to some of the magic of theatre. But being more selective about how productions spend their money is probably a good idea. There's no reason for a hit show like Matilda to take 2 years to turn a profit, especially in an age when the average length of a Broadway run is growing shorter. Many shows - even well received ones - can't count on running 2 years, so any budget that requires that much time to turn a profit isn't the most fiscally responsible. Addressing these issues will take a major shift in the way producers and unions think about Broadway budgets, and will take some self sacrifice on everyone's part in order to ensure the future health of the medium. But if no action is taken, Broadway will soon go the way of opera, catering to a small, elite minority rather than the masses. And that would be a true tragedy of Shakespearean proportions.

Thursday, December 4, 2014

A Premature Defense of "Peter Pan Live"

Allison Williams gets all glammed up for NBC's Peter Pan Live!


Last year, NBC took a gamble and tried something that hadn't been done in decades: a live Broadcast of a full scale musical. The Sound of Music was the show, and Grammy-winner Carrie Underwood was chosen to play the lead role of Maria in an obvious attempt to court her sizable fan base (spoiler alert: it worked). From the moment Underwood was announced, a vocal segment of the population began proclaiming the endeavour a disaster waiting to happen. These people began looking forward to the show with the same gleeful cynicism that caused them to eagerly devour the many missteps of the ambitious but flawed TV show Smash (a show I still miss from time to time, ill-advised Bollywood numbers and all).

The Sound of Music Live premiered to big numbers, although critical reaction ranged from "not terrible" to "unholy affront to the gods of film and theatre." But the numbers are really all that matter, and with 18 million viewers Underwood and company were clear winners. High on their success, NBC announced their intent to make these live musicals an annual event, with this year's edition being Peter Pan. The 1954 musical is best remembered for Mary Martin's Tony-winning performance as the Boy Who Won't Grow Up, which was preserved via an incredibly popular television Broadcast that was eventually released on home video. Attempting to fill Martin's big shoes is Allison Williams, who is perhaps the fourth or fifth most famous person to appear on HBO's buzzed about but only haphazardly viewed Girls, and her nemesis Captain Hook will be played by Oscar-winning film actor Christopher Walken.

Like last year, many are dubious about the artistic prospects of this broadcast. Williams is a largely unknown commodity, and Walken at this point is probably more famous for his distinctively bizarre mannerisms than his acting talent. I will admit that I fully expect it to be a disaster (I cannot imagine Walken in any kind of musical situation that doesn't involve more cowbell), partly due to casting and partly due to the fact that Peter Pan is a much weaker show than The Sound of Music, which for all its saccharine sweetness does feature a solid narrative and songs so catchy they have entered the popular consciousness. That said, anyone who complains about the existence of Peter Pan Live is missing the point.

First and foremost, a live musical broadcast like this is massive exposure for musical theatre at a time when it is not at the forefront of the pop culture conversation. Even if Pan draws only half the audience of The Sound of Music, that is still 9 million people who took 3 hours out of their day to watch a musical. For comparison's sake, the Broadway production of Wicked would have to sell out every performance for nearly 12 years to be seen by that many people (and it is playing Broadway's biggest theatre). That is a lot of people being exposed to theatre, and if even a fraction of a percent of those viewers are then motivated to buy tickets to a live performance it will be a lot of extra bodies in seats.

One major complaint levied against NBC (and most film adaptations of musicals, really) is that they opt for Hollywood talent over actors with theatrical backgrounds for the leads, robbing arguably more qualified people of work. While casting filmed musicals exclusively with Broadway talent is nice in theory, it is also wilfully ignoring the business side of the industry. The fact of the matter is that name talent attracts both viewers and investors, and without someone like Walken involved it is far less likely the whole enterprise would even get off the ground.

And while the two leads in  Peter Pan have dubious connections to the theatre at best, the supporting cast and ensemble are stuffed to the brim with Broadway talent. This is both work and exposure for some of Broadway's best and brightest (Kelli O'Hara and Christian Borle both have pivotal roles), and as anyone in the industry will tell you TV pays a good deal more than theatre. The money from a project like this will help give these hard working actors a financial cushion so they can continue to pursue passion projects like The Bridges of Madison County or Peter and the Starcatcher.

Now yes, you could argue that a subpar production would ultimately turn people off of live theatre. But in the same way that seeing a bad movie doesn't make people swear off films forever, I don't believe seeing one or even a few bad musicals is enough to make people avoid them for the rest of their lives. The prohibitive cost of live theatre is doing a lot more to turn people away from the medium than one or two bad productions.

So feel free to watch Peter Pan Live and (not so) secretly root for it to be awful. That is everyone's right, and no one can stop you. In all honesty, I would much rather the broadcast reach legendary levels of awfulness than have it just be mediocre. But in between any snarky comments and barbed critiques, do keep in mind that whatever the artistic quality of the show, it is doing a lot of good for the theatrical community. NBC has been one of Broadway's biggest Hollywood allies, casting scores of New York talent for its various shows. Mounting a live broadcast on this scale is no easy feat, and it would have been much easier for the network to schedule a Saturday Night Live clip show during Peter Pan's 3 hour slot. But NBC has chosen to present a Broadway musical to a wider audience, and has looked locally for most of their onscreen and behind the scenes talent. We should be grateful, even if we are secretly hoping for them to cast Jessie Mueller and Norbert Leo Butz in their already announced Music Man.

One final thought: Tony winners Kristin Chenoweth and Matthew Broderick couldn't do anything to help ABC's telemovie version of the same show, proving Broadway talent does not automatically equal success.