Review: Godspell

The cast of Godspell, in the midst of their daily sugar high.

There is nothing particularly wrong with the first Broadway revival of Godspell, which opened in November at the Circle in the Square Theatre.  Unfortunately, there also isn’t anything particularly noteworthy about it.  While solidly staged and sung, there isn’t a whole lot to make this production stand out from the hundreds of regional and amateur productions of the show that occur every year all over America.

If you are somehow unfamiliar with the show, it’s a collection of vignettes depicting the various parables used by Jesus Christ as part of his ministry, occasionally punctuated by pop-influenced songs written by Stephen Schwartz.  The only named characters are Jesus, John the Baptist, and Judas, the latter two played by the same actor for reasons I’ve never quite understood.  The rest of the 10 person ensemble is a collection of loosely defined everymen and women who are intended to take on whatever characteristics the actors playing them possess.

The cast assembled for this production is comprised almost entirely of fresh young faces, with the only “name” star among them Hunter Parish (who apparently plays the son on the TV show Weeds, though I had never heard of him until he was cast in this show).  Parish makes for a generic Jesus; he has a gentle demeanor that works for the character but is by no means the most magnetic personality onstage, and his singing voice is merely passable.  His “Alas for You” is a tad flat, both vocally and performance wise, although to be fair I’ve never really seen any Jesus pull this song off successfully. 

The rest of the cast is certainly high energy, almost too high at times.  There is a frantic, hyperactive quality to this production which is off-putting, especially in the intimate Circle in the Square.  But one cannot fault the cast for trying, and their eagerness is ultimately more endearing than it is annoying.  All fine singers, the vocal standout is Lindsay Mendez, whose rendition of “Bless the Lord” is the production’s highlight.  Among the men, Telly Leung has a seemingly endless vocal rang and a star quality that makes him infinitely watchable, although he tends to overdo the vocal gymnastics.

Part of the appeal of Godspell is that while the order of songs and parables is set, the way in which they are presented and even the specific lines are meant to be improvised, allowing each new production to speak specifically to the time and place in which it’s presented.  This means the show is a true collaboration between director Daniel Goldstein and his 10 person cast, and it’s often difficult to tell who contributed what.  Whoever is responsible, there is a definite inventiveness to the way the parables are presented, especially the first tale of a widow and a judge, which in this production is rapped.  If the rest of the show had lived up to that high benchmark, then this Godspell would be a truly transcendent experience.

Also problematic is the fact that the staging of the parables is far more engaging than the staging of the musical numbers, which in theory are Godspell’s strongest asset.  While well sung, many of the musical numbers devolve into the cast aimlessly jumping about the stage.  This looks bad enough when they do it on TV’s Glee, but to see it in person without any camera lens to focus your attention amplifies the chaos factor.  And towards the end of the show, which attempts to evoke a more somber mood by presenting a stylized account of Jesus’ final days and his eventual crucifixion, boredom starts to set in.

The physical production of Godspell is quite lovely, especially given the additional challenges of staging musicals in the round.  David Korins’ set, sparse by necessity, is always interesting to look at, with trap doors, trampolines, and other surprises constantly being revealed.  There are even several magic tricks that are supremely effective because they are in no way telegraphed; they simply happen, often to audible delight from the audience.  And the lighting design by David Weiner is truly breathtaking, enhancing the shows mood while remaining interesting in its own right.  Miranda Hoffman’s costume design isn’t quite at the same level as the set and lights, but does manage to look eclectic and cohesive at the same time.

Those who are fans of Godspell or have never seen the show before will find plenty to enjoy about this production.  It is a great entry-level Broadway show, perfect for tourists or families with young children.  But more seasoned theatre goers will be less impressed, and can probably find better shows to spend their money on this spring.

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.  :-)