Everything I Know I Learned from Musicals

Chris Sees Plays: Film at Eleven

This past weekend represented a bit of a milestone for me. As the title of my blog implies, I'm all about the musicals. I do see the occasional "straight" play (although I hate that term: so musicals are bent?), I have always gravitated toward musical theater, and likely always will.

But this last weekend, I caught four shows in New York, and they were all plays. Not a single musical in the bunch. This was partly because I had already seen all the musicals in New York that are worth seeing (and some that frankly aren't), but it also was because there were a bunch of dramas that I was genuinely interested in seeing. I won't be posting full reviews of these shows, partly because I've been feeling overwhelmed by this blog lately, and I don't want it to start feeling like an obligation, or worse, a job. But I did want to pass along to you, dear reader, my impressions of three high-profile revivals, as well as one "new" play based on a classic movie. Here they are, in decreasing order of enjoyment (mine):

The Seagull: This was my first time seeing this Anton Chekhov work on stage, and overall I found it thrilling. It's a fascinating study of a wide array of characters, but the most compelling in this production were the female roles. Kristen Scott Thomas was just delicious as the vain and parsimonious diva Arkadina. But the real star of the show for me was English actress Carey Mulligan as Nina. Mulligan gives an incandescent, nuanced, and ultimately heartbreaking performance. The men were disappointing: Mackenzie Crook as Konstantin was one-note miserable and unappealing in a role that should be somewhat sympathetic. And Peter Sarsgard as Trigorin was laconic and indistinct. Also, his beard and costume were very unflattering, making it a wonder as to why everyone else in the play was so enamored. But the women alone make this the dramatic production to see on Broadway this fall. 

Equus: You may not have heard about this one, but apparently there's this Broadway revival of Peter Shaffer's award-winning play with a couple of British actors... But seriously folks, they don't get much higher profile than this one. I remember being transfixed when I saw the movie version of "Equus" as a teenager, and I was greatly looking forward to this production. The play hasn't aged entirely well: the whole notion of the doctor who envies his patient's "passion" when in fact the kid is frickin' miserable is outmoded, to be sure. But Richard Griffiths gives a nicely understated performance as the doctor, and Daniel Radcliffe acquits himself quite well as the troubled boy. He's got some growing to do as a stage actor, and his performance could use a level or two beyond on-and-off. But the play embodies a sheer theatricality that we don't see all that much of anymore on Broadway, and overall the production lives up to the hype.

All My Sons: Speaking of hype, you may also have heard that Mrs. Tom Cruise is making her Broadway debut this season in Arthur Miller's secondary tragedy, All My Sons. I frankly didn't care a whit about the presence of Katie Holmes; I was a lot more interested in seeing John Lithgow, Dianne Wiest, and Patrick Wilson. I saw the show early in previews, and let's just say it wasn't soup yet. Director Simon McBurney hadn't yet achieved the emotional balance necessary to turn Miller's somewhat overwrought potboiler into compelling emotional drama. Ms. Holmes does a lot of screaming, and the rest of the cast seems to be taking her cue and screaming right back. Plus, the set is hideous, comprising a square of Astroturf and some often inscrutable projections.

To Be or Not to Be: The Manhattan Theater Club's pointless stage version of the 1942 movie "To Be or Not to Be" was easily the least distinguished production of my play-ful weekend. There's a handful of decent performances in the production, including Jan Maxwell as theater diva Maria Tura, but the play doesn't do anything that the movie doesn't. It's not as though they've added song and dance to make it into a musical. And unlike The 39 Steps, this isn't an imaginative reconception but rather a somewhat literal translation. Over the weekend, I kept toying with notion of blowing TBONTB off and catching the last performance of the recently closed Xanadu. I should have gone with my instinct.

Legally Blonde to Close October 18th

Many were predicting the imminent demise of Legally Blonde, and it turns out they were right. The show has posted a closing notice, and will play its last Broadway performance on October 19th after 595 performances and 30 previews. 

The show's weekly grosses dropped by about 50% after Labor Day, shortly after original star Laura Bell Bundy was replaced by MTV reality show winner Bailey Hanks. But the pinking of American theaters isn't over yet: the show just launched a national tour, which I'll be catching next month in Boston.

Although I wasn't exactly wild about Legally Blonde (read my review here), I did appreciate the fact that it was luring younger theatergoers. But there are certainly other shows on Broadway right now that are attracting younger audiences, and Legally Blonde's departure actually makes room for a couple of upcoming productions.

In fact, the vultures have been circling Legally Blonde, virtually rooting for it to close. The impending West Side Story revival has long been slated for a Nederlander theater, but until now the only one available was the Nederlander Theatre itself, the former longtime home of Rent. But West Side Story director and librettist Arthur Laurents apparently wasn't thrilled with the idea: the Nederlander is kind of seedy, and it's way down on 41st Street. (Practically Siberia, y'know.) Legally Blonde's closure makes available the ultra-desirable and centrally located Palace Theater, a much grander place to showcase Laurents' other masterpiece.

Which means the Nederlander Theatre will likely house the Broadway transfer of the Public Theater's production of Hair. Apparently the folks at the Public have been salivating at the prospect: the funky Nederlander would be the perfect indoor locale for their dynamic and well-received production. (Read my review here.) So, despite the uncertain economic times, there's still no shortage of productions looking for a Broadway berth.

At least for now.

Enter Laughing: The "New" Musical

As part of its current mainstage season, the venerable York Theatre Company is presenting the musical Enter Laughing. The York typically reserves its mainstage slots for new works, and although the show's title may be new, the show itself is not.

Enter Laughing is actually a reworked version of So Long, 174th Street, a 1976 flop starring Robert Morse and George S. Irving (and a young Rita Rudner in the chorus), based on comedian Carl Reiner's early life and career. The York presented Enter Laughing last year as part of its Musicals in Mufti series ("mufti" being an Arabic word for "dressed in street clothes"), and the response was apparently so enthusiastic that the folks at the York decided to give the show a fully produced mainstage run. 

I wish I could say that the York had rediscovered an under-appreciated gem, but alas I can not. Enter Laughing seems destined to remain a curious musical-theater footnote. In the program notes, the York would have you think that the reason the show didn't succeed was that Robert Morse was too old at the time for such a juvenile role, so the creators set the whole show as a flashback, with the forty-ish Morse playing himself at both ages. Well, the present production of the show removes that admittedly awkward conceit, but what remains isn't exactly great musical theater.

The show's plot involves a stage-struck and female-obsessed young man during the 1930s (the fictionalized Carl Reiner). The show is not without its charms, and features some moderately amusing set pieces, including the hysterical recreation of Reiner's first experience on stage. But the style of the show was thirty years out of date back in the '70s. I'm not saying that the idea is old-hat, although it's not very inspired. The show is old-fashioned not so much in conception as in execution. Joseph Stein's amusing-but-creaky book often does little to integrate Stan Daniels' somewhat tuneful score. The show is very stop-and-sing, with songs that seem to come out of nowhere, a practice that was outdated in the 1940s.

The show's main attraction is its stellar cast. What an unmitigated treat it is to see on stage a spry George S. Irving (who made his Broadway debut in the original frickin' cast of frickin' Oklahoma), recreating his role from the 1976 production. His sharp rendition of the salacious "Butler's Song" is reason enough to see the show. It was also great fun to see husband-and-wife team Michael Tucker and Jill Eikenberry share the stage. I've been a fan of these two talented actors since "L.A. Law," and although Tucker doesn't have much to do in the present show, Eikenberry puts a terrific spin on the stock Jewish mother character.

Janine LaManna gives a delightful turn as the man-hungry Angela, delivering "The Man I Can Love" with more hysterical, borderline psychosis that the song really deserves. It's nice to see LaManna back in form after her disappointing stint as Janet van de Graaf in The Drowsy Chaperone. But the real find here is Josh Grisetti in the lead role. Grisetti is a young actor with a very natural presence, a clarion-clear singing voice, and a natural gift for comedy. If there's any justice in show business, this kid is going places. Let's hope that he finds a vehicle soon that is more worthy of his multifarious talents.

UPDATE: The York Theatre has announced a two-week extension for Enter Laughing. The show is now scheduled to play through October 12th. It's worth a look, particularly for the terrific cast.

A Chorus Line Tour: For Mature Audiences?

Before I talk about the Boston stop of national tour of A Chorus Line, I need to address a major factor that definitely influenced my mood and may have affected my attitude toward the production. The night that I saw the show, there were hundreds of inner-city children in attendance as part of the Marilyn Rodman Theatre for Kids program, sponsored by Suffolk Construction. First, I want to say that I applaud every effort to engage children in the theatrical arts. I commend both organizations for their worthy efforts, and strongly encourage them to continue.

It would be great if, as part of providing an entree into the theater for these kids, that the organizations also educated them on proper theater behavior. The kids talked non-stop throughout the show, and there was a constant rustling of plastic bags as they enjoyed their snacks of choice. A Chorus Line has no intermission, and the kids were frequently getting up to go to the bathroom.

Also, I have to wonder if anyone involved had actually seen A Chorus Line before. There's a lot of saucy language, and the kids giggled every time someone said a dirty word, even if it wasn't meant to be funny. This was particularly distracting during Paul's monologue, which prompted hoots and cries of "Gross!" as Paul described his experiences with lecherous older men and forays into drag performance.

Again, I heartily applaud efforts to introduce children to the theater, but I would respectfully suggest that the parties involved choose the shows more carefully. The national tours of Legally Blonde and Spring Awakening are also part of the Broadway Across America series. Legally Blonde would be great for these kids, but I would strongly advise against Spring Awakening. I'm not trying to be a prude here: I vociferously oppose censorship. But the themes and language of this show would likely prompt inappropriate responses from the kids in attendance, and ruin that admirable and very serious show for others.

Anyway, about the show itself. When I saw the recently closed Broadway revival, I found it professional but bloodless. (Read my review.) Director Bob Avian captured all the details of Michael Bennett's original production, but none of the heart. Well, the current touring production makes the admittedly lackluster revival look good by comparison.

The strongest aspect of this production is the choreography, recreated lovingly by original cast member Baayork Lee. But while the dancing is crisp, the individual performances are forced and unfocused. There's no question that the people onstage are talented, but there's no clear directorial hand here to modulate and sharpen the performances.

Probably the most disappointing is Gabrielle Ruiz as Diana Morales, who crosses over the line from spunky to abrasive. Her attitude towards Zach, the director character, is far too confrontational and disrespectful. She'd never get away with being that in-your-face with this guy. Likewise unsatisfying was Kevin Santos as Paul, who seems to have passed Melodrama 101 with flying colors. Crying onstage is admittedly difficult, but Santos doesn't seem to know how to do it convincingly. Natalie Elise Hall was similarly over-the-top as Val, but she brought an impish sort of porn star charm, and some original touches, to "Dance Ten Looks Three." 

A Chorus Line is unquestionably a landmark show, and the current touring production is probably fine for people who have never seen it. But I guess I'm going to have to give up on expecting any production to even come close to the power and impact of my initial experience with the show. I was thirteen when I saw the first touring production in Boston. I was riveted by the powerful score, the electrifying dance, and the deeply personal stories that the show portrayed. I also saw my first gay role models. Granted, they were a bit stereotypical and pathetic, but they were gay, and I knew then that I was, too. As I sat crying silently in the dark of the Shubert Theater, I felt a sense of welcome, a sense that this was where I belonged. As I watched the show last night at the Opera House, I thought perhaps there might be some other thirteen-year-old boy in the audience who was having a similar experience to mine.

And suddenly I wasn't so irritated anymore.

Hair Will Arrive on Broadway in 2009

The electrifying Public Theater production of Hair, which received three extensions at the Delacorte in Central Park, will apparently transfer to Broadway in 2009. No casting has been announced, but I would assume that they'll try to keep as much of the current cast as possible, including the dynamic Will Swenson as Berger. Tony nominee Jonathan Groff may also return as Claude, after completing filming for the new Ang Lee film, "Taking Woodstock." Also no word yet on the preview and opening dates, nor on which theater the show will play.

As I said in my review, this production of Hair forced me to rethink the place of the show in the musical theater canon. The show doesn't read well on paper, but somehow the magic of theater, combined with director Diane Paulus's vivacious production, transform the fragmented bones of the piece into a fully fleshed wonder. Not just a product of its time and place, Hair has a message that speaks to our time, indeed to any time. (Paulus was recently picked as the new artistic director of the American Repertory Theater in Cambridge. I may actually have to start seeing shows at the ART. I've always found the their choice of shows rather dull, although I have been impressed when I actually attended something there.)

Hair plays in Central Park until September 14th. Beg, borrow, or steal a ticket, if you can. I HATE to be one of those people ("Oh, it was soooooo much better in London...," "You mean you didn't get a chance to see the private workshop? Oh, you poor dear..."), but I can't imagine that Hair could be any better than it was at the Delacorte. Central Park makes a perfect setting for the show, lending itself nicely to numerous sharp directorial touches. I'm sure the show will play well in a proscenium theater, but something inevitably will be lost in the process. Of course, I hope to see it again on Broadway, if only to see how they've made the transfer successful.

Gypsy: The Memoir

I have this bad habit of buying theater books and then letting them pile up. I have a bookcase full of unread biographies of Bob Fosse, Jerome Robbins, and Stephen Sondheim, as well as various surveys of the musical-theater landscape. There are certainly many books on my shelves that I have read, often as research for my course at Boston Conservatory. But, it's funny, ever since I started teaching at BoCo, reading about theater has taken on a somewhat obligatory feel, becoming more like homework than pleasure reading. 

So, on my recent trip to New York, when I made my regular stop at the Drama Book Shop on 40th Street, I hesitated before buying Gypsy: A Memoir, the book upon which the Broadway musical Gypsy is based, lest I add yet another tome to my pile of shame. But, even before I had left the store, I found myself drawn into the book, and I wound up tearing through more than half of it on the bus ride home.

Not surprisingly, the book is considerably different from the musical. Of necessity, the events of the show are considerably compressed, but there are also substantive discrepancies between memoir and musical. For example, the Herbie character, so prominent in the show, appears to be a composite of a number of different men from the book, and disappears well before the pivotal confrontation scene between Rose and Herbie in the show. Likewise, the Tulsa character is an amalgam of several boys from the act.

I could go on, but suffice to say that librettist Arthur Laurents employed a generous dose of dramatic license in crafting the musical from the book's raw material. And, on the whole, he's improved it tremendously, providing focus to the drama, and creating a more compelling series of events. In a way, it reminds me of the play version of Auntie Mame. The original Patrick Dennis book is episodic at best, and lacks a coherent through line. Playwrights Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee did a bang-up job of making the story more cohesive and more humorous. (Betty Comden and Adolph Green, who wrote the screenplay for the 1958 movie version, didn't really change much of the play, although they did add some priceless one-liners.) 

Every year, when my BoCo students write their papers on the most overrated musical, someone inevitably writes about how a particular show isn't "true to its source." I usually respond by writing on the student's paper, "Name one that is." Many of the best musicals of all time play fast and loose with their source material, including My Fair Lady, West Side Story, Oklahoma!, Guys and Dolls, Fiddler on the Roof, and The King and I. All were vastly different from the works upon which they were based, some to the point of completely changing the ending, even the intent, of the original piece.

What's more, who's to say that Gypsy Rose Lee's memoirs bear the stamp of truth to begin with? Author Steven Suskin, in his liner notes to the new Patti LuPone recording of Gypsy, intimates that  Lee may have employed a bit of dramatic license herself. "Gypsy is a self-described 'musical fable'," Suskin writes, "in the sense that the musical...is just about as authentic, factually speaking, as Ms. Lee's fanciful memoirs..."

I'm not sure where Suskin himself is getting his facts (perhaps he did some actual [gasp] research), but aren't all memoirs to a certain extent fanciful? I mean, Lee wrote the book decades after the events she describes. Even if she kept a diary, there inevitably would have been some holes to fill in. Whenever I read a memoir, like an Augusten Burroughs book or Harpo Speaks (the single best autobiography I've ever read), I always wonder how people can recall actual dialog from years before. Apparently, Lee's sister, the Broadway actress June Havoc, had similar suspicions, and took great exception to how she was portrayed in Gypsy's book, eventually publishing a retaliatory memoir of her own, Early Havoc.

So, facts aside, both the musical and the book provide fascinating portraits of some really compelling characters. The book affords more insight into the Gypsy character, laying bare her frustration and the keen lack of respect she felt as a burlesque star who dreamed of going legit. The creators of the musical decided to focus on the mother, partly because of their star, Ethel Merman, but also because Mama Rose is simply a fascinating train-wreck of a human being.

The book also offers intriguing glimpses of some of the famous folk that Gypsy Rose Lee met along the way, including the wonderful Fanny Brice, whose life became the subject of the next musical that composer Jule Styne would work on after Gypsy. (i.e. Funny Girl) I just ordered a couple of books about Brice from Amazon, and am eagerly looking forward to reading them. Perhaps I've finally broken my pattern.

Hair: Theater as Protest and Celebration

As I've been mentioning, over the weekend I also saw Hair in Central Park at the Delacorte Theater. On the bus ride down, I was thinking about how most of the stuff I'd been reading about the production was focused on the social context of the show, and not so much on the show itself. For me, it's always about the inherent quality of the piece. Musicals that are merely (or mostly) a product of a particular time and place don't tend to age well (e.g. This is the Army and World War II, I Love My Wife and the sexual revolution).

When I teach my unit on the '60s in my course at the Boston Conservatory, I typically address Hair rather briefly. In the past, I've dismissed the show as a novelty, possessing a fantastic score but a sketchy and episodic book. Upon seeing this production, I've recognized that, while all that is still true, somehow these fragmented parts coalesce into a powerful whole, at least as realized in Diane Paulus' (The Donkey Show) dynamic production. Hair is unquestionably a product of its time, but it's also a stunning reminder of the power of theater as a form of protest and celebration.

Act one is a particularly piecemeal melange of sketches and songs, flowing with inchoate yet interrelated ideas and notions. The connecting tissue here is the choreography by Karole Armitage (Passing Strange), comprising swells and swirls of mass frenetic movement, only sporadically resembling actual choreography, and I mean that in a good way. Armitage's amorphous clusters emphasize the importance of the tribe, and mirror the parts of the show converging toward a larger purpose.

The prime motor of the plot - Claude's draft notice - doesn't arrive until a half hour into the show, but once it does, it brings everything, and everyone, together. For the most part, the scattered structure works, although there are just a few too many numbers that don't really go anywhere, including the admittedly lovely "Frank Mills," which seems to exist merely to cover a costume change at the end of act 1.

The first act culminates with a draft-card burning ceremony of sorts, which builds hypnotically to Claude's "Where Do I Go?," delivered energetically here by Jonathan Groff. One of the major issues I had with the show is that we're never really sure why Claude is torn about going to war. We certainly understand why he *doesn't* want to go, but it's never really clear why he makes the final choice that he does.

Act two is much more powerful and cohesive than act 1. It's still fragmented, but somehow the pieces come together and the action builds to an emotional and satisfying climax. Hair is one of those shows that doesn't really work on paper, yet on stage all the elements come together to create something extraordinary.

Will Swenson as Berger makes for an effective foil to Groff's Claude. Swenson has this remarkable stage presence, which works much better here than it did in the last show I saw him in, The Slug Bearers of Karol Island (or the Friends of Doctor Rushower). (Read my review here.) In that show, Swenson's undeniable magnetism was more of a distraction than an enhancement, but here he brings just the right balance of playfulness and vulgarity to the proceedings.

Another standout in the cast was Andrew Kober, playing the father figure and then the Margaret Mead character during "My Conviction." Although his part here wasn't very big, he really distinguished himself as someone worth watching. The main hole in the cast was Caren Lyn Manuel as Sheila. There's no question she's a talented woman, but there was something about her look, style, and countenance that didn't fit in with the rest of the cast. Her style was too modern Broadway, whereas the rest of the cast were firmly centered in the manner of the '60s. Her "Easy to Be Hard" stopped the show cold, but not in the good way. It was more like an "American Idol" audition.

The Public Theater recently announced that Hair has been extended again to September 7th. Although there have been rumors of a commercial transfer or tour for the show, I highly recommend that if you're going to see it, see it in the park. There's really no better place to see this powerful and important show.

Gypsy: Still a Knockout

I started my recent theater weekend in New York with a revisit of Patti Lupone's knockout turn in Gypsy. I'm still in agreement with most of what I said in my original review, so I won't repeat any of that here. Suffice to say, I still think that Gypsy is the best musical ever (this week, anyway), and that this production of Gypsy is the best I've ever seen. (Alas, I was not alive to see the original.)

I also feel that LuPone has successfully deposed Ethel Merman as the quintessential Rose. And that's some feat. I mean, has there ever been a role that's previously been as closely identified with one performer as Rose? Yul Brynner and the king, perhaps, or Rex Harrison and Henry Higgins. But whereas we still think of those performers when we imagine those roles, it's possible that from now on, when we think of Rose, we'll be picturing Patti LuPone instead of Ethel Merman. I know I will.

Those who know me will know that I do not say this lightly: I worship Ethel Merman. But there's something about LuPone's portrayal, nay, embodiment of the role that brings the role to a place that Merman probably never could have, no matter how long she played the role. By all accounts, Merman was a heck of a performer, but her acting was often rote or two-dimensional. LuPone's Rose is vivid, multifarious, and devastating.

LuPone's fellow Tony winners were a bit of a revelation upon second viewing. Laura Benanti seems to have grown nicely into her role. The first time I saw the show, I thought that she pushed a bit too hard in the confrontation scenes, but that her transformation from repressed Louise to liberated Gypsy was astonishing. Well, I'm happy to report that she seems to have tamed her excesses, while still retaining her glistening chrysalis qualities.

As for Boyd Gaines as Herbie, he was a revelation, too, but of a different and disappointing sort. Gaines seems to have broadened his performance a bit too far for my taste. He's still the best Herbie I've ever seen, bringing a smoldering slow burn to his character arc. But he's also mugging up a storm. It's as though at some point he realized that everyone else was getting the laughs, and he might as well get some, too. Here's hoping he returns to the modulated performance that won him his fourth Tony Award.

On a side note, it's interesting that the producers have changed the color of Rose's dress in the logo. The original design featured LuPone in a blue dress on a blue background (see left), but the new Playbill features the same color dress as in the CD cover above. Perhaps they changed it because the red dress stands out more?

Speaking of the CD, it will apparently go on sale August 28th. (What's the friggin' holdup, folks?) As previously reported, the new cast recording will feature a number of cut songs performed by the current cast, but apparently Barnes & Noble will be carrying an exclusive two-CD set that will feature even more material. Looking at the B&N track listing, it appears that some of these tracks will be alternate takes of songs from the show, but there are also dialog tracks and exit music. I've heard the tracks from the Tony preview tape, and this recording, in whatever form you choose to obtain it, is looking like a must-have.

West Side Story Revival Sets Opening Date

First, I want to thank all of you out there who submitted your suggestions for what shows I should see in New York over the weekend. As you may know, I went down to see Hair in Central Park, and had a few extra show slots. On Friday night, I wound up seeing Gypsy again, and then on Saturday afternoon I took in my first professional production of The Fantasticks. I'll be posting my reviews of all three shows over the next few days. (In short: loved it, loved it, loved it. When does that ever happen?)

So, anyway, on with the news. The producers of the upcoming Broadway revival of West Side Story have announced that the show will begin previews at a TBD Nederlander theater (perhaps the Nederlander Theater itself?) on February 23rd towards a March 19th opening date. The show will play an out-of-town tryout at the National Theater in Washington, DC in December and January.

Librettist Arthur Laurents will direct, and has previously made much hay about the fact that he intends to give the show more verisimilitude, including making the kids more realistically bloodthirsty, and the central lovers Maria and Tony more sexually driven. He also plans to weave Spanish throughout more of the dialog and lyrics. (Presumably with lyricist Stephen Sondheim's blessing?)

No word yet on any casting, nor on when the tickets will go on sale. I'll keep you posted. I know I'm ready to see a first-rate revival of this landmark show. And after seeing Laurents' Gypsy again last Friday, I'm confident that, despite his age (he just turned 91), he's certainly up for the job. But theater has a weird, ineffable sort of alchemy, and there are never any guarantees. Let's hope Laurents and his creative staff can work some magic on this highly anticipated production.

Hair Extension and Afterlife?

Although the Public Theater production of Hair at the Delacorte Theater doesn't open until tomorrow, the producers have already long since announced an extension. The show, which started previews on July 22nd, was originally supposed to have run until August 17th, but will now play until August 31st.

Unfortunately, Jonathan Groff, Tony nominee for Spring Awakening, won't be able to play the extension, owing to a previous commitment. Enter Christopher Hanke, late of Cry-Baby, who will step into the role of Claude Hooper Bukowski for the rest of the run. Interestingly enough, Groff made his Broadway debut understudying for Hanke during the abbreviated run of the musical In My Life. (Some would call that ironic. They'd be wrong.)

According to Playbill.com, there have also been rumblings about a commercial transfer, whether via national tour or subsequent production in New York. Given the logjam of shows circling Broadway right now, it will be interesting to see if the Public tries to bring the show to the Rialto this season, or opts for an Off-Broadway venue. Perhaps the show might slip into the Circle in the Square, now that the revival of for colored girls who have considered suicide when the rainbow is enuf appears to be stalled.

I'm a huge fan of the score to Hair, but I've never actually seen the show on stage. I've read the script, which is sketchy and episodic at best, and the 1979 Milos Forman film version seems a major improvement, at least in terms of a cohesive plot. I'll be seeing the show this Saturday with fellow blogger SarahB. (Holla, girl!) Look for my review sometime next week.

[UPDATE: The "previous commitment" preventing Jonathan Groff from finishing out the run of Hair is apparently a starring role in the new Ang Lee movie "Taking Woodstock." Well, wouldn't you?]

What's the Most Revived Musical?

After my recent posts about impending revivals of Guys and Dolls and Brigadoon, I got a question from a reader (Hey, Justin) about which musicals have seen the most Broadway revivals. Intrigued, I did some research on IBDB, which is administered by the Broadway League, the organization that represents the Broadway theater owners and producers.

I can't claim that my research is definitive. (I had to search show by show, and there may be a show or two I neglected to look up, or opted not to include.) But the list below gives you a good idea of which shows have been the most popular, at least in terms of the number of Broadway productions. The numbers to the left reflect Broadway revivals, including those announced for this season, unless otherwise noted.

6 Show Boat
6 Porgy and Bess
5 The Threepenny Opera
4 Peter Pan
4 Guys and Dolls
4 Fiddler on the Roof
4 Man of La Mancha
4 Oklahoma!
4 Carousel
4 Pal Joey
4 Gypsy
4 Brigadoon (not counting the recently postponed revival)
3 My Fair Lady
3 The King and I
3 Camelot
3 Hello, Dolly!
3 The Most Happy Fella
3 West Side Story
2 Annie Get Your Gun
2 On the Town
2 Company
2 Little Me
2 Sweeney Todd
2 Candide
2 Cabaret
2 On Your Toes
2 Jesus Christ Superstar
2 Sweet Charity
2 The Pajama Game
2 The Music Man
2 A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum
2 Grease

A few caveats: A good number of these shows listed have had limited engagements at City Center in the 50s and 60s. At the time this was considered a Broadway run, whereas today for some reason it's not, so those abbreviated runs pad the numbers a bit. And a few of the shows listed saw return engagements of their original productions (including West Side Story and The Threepenny Opera), which I've chosen to exclude from my counts.

I also excluded Gilbert and Sullivan shows, mostly because I didn't wanted to look each and every one of the them up, but the three most popular seem to have been The Mikado (31 revivals), H.M.S. Pinafore (27), and The Pirates of Penzance (24).

The good news is that, for the most part, the most revived shows also represent the best shows. There are certainly exceptions: Grease and Camelot aren't everyone's idea of great theater, and I personally have never seen a production of The Most Happy Fella that really worked. But overall, it seems that the cream rises to the top, and the shows that get revived are the ones that deserve it.

Or are they? Is there anything missing from the above list, dear reader? What show would *you* most like to see revived?

Guys and Dolls: This Time We Mean It

Speaking of on-again-off-again productions, the Frank Loesser estate keeps threatening us with yet another revival of Guys and Dolls. Originally, it was supposed to be an import of the recent London production, helmed by director Michael Grandage and choreographer Rob Ashford. For whatever reason, that didn't happen.

Now it appears that the Jersey Boys team will be taking the reins, with Des McAnuff directing and Sergio Trujillo providing choreography. The show is slated to play a TBD Nederlander house, which probably means it's going to play the Nederlander Theater, unless for come reason Hairspray (Neil Simon Theater) or Legally Blonde (Palace Theater) close in the interim. 

According to Jo Sullivan Loesser, this will have been the "longest period ever between Broadway productions of Guys and Dolls." With all due respect to the widow Loesser, that doesn't appear to be entirely accurate. According to IBDB, there have been five Broadway productions thus far, and if you go by opening dates, then yes this will have been the longest stretch without Guys and Dolls on the boards. But if you count from *closing* dates to the next opening date, then the current Guys and Dolls dry spell (fourteen years) actually comes in second to the one between the 1976 all-black revival and the acclaimed and most recent 1992 production (fifteen years).

But who am I to quibble?

Am I the only one who has little or no interest in seeing Guys and Dolls again? Will they have to bring in Ewan MacGregor and Jane Krakowski, or a reasonable facsimile, to put the butts in the seats, as they did in London? If memory serves, the London production followed with Patrick Swayze and then Don Johnson. I'll probably see it no matter who's in it, but I see nearly everything. The question is, will John and Jane Q. Public?

Brigadoon Boston Run Canceled

For a while there, it almost seemed as though Boston had regained its former glory as the out-of-town tryout venue of choice for Broadway productions. When I first signed up for the Broadway Across America subscription series, the list of shows included the usual national tours of established properties (Spring Awakening, A Chorus Line, etc.). But there were also two tryout runs for NYC-aimed productions: Nice Work If You Can Get It, a "new" musical based on the Gershwin show Oh, Kay!, and a revival of the Lerner & Loewe classic Brigadoon, with a new book by acclaimed playwright John Guare and direction and choreography by Tony winner Rob Ashford.

Then, last week, we heard that Nice Work If You Can Get It had "postponed" its Boston engagement. And now, I've just received an E-mail from Broadway Across America stating that Brigadoon has canceled its Boston run and postponed its Broadway bow "due to the lack of an appropriate Broadway theater in the spring of 2009." 

Of course, when shows get canceled, or postponed, we don't always hear the real reasons why, but there's certainly cause to take this explanation at face value. There really aren't a lot of vacancies on Broadway right now. The only theater I can think of that isn't currently committed is the Nederlander Theater, soon to be vacated by Rent, and no doubt the Nederlander organization is fielding inquiries. And when theaters do open up, there are plenty of incoming shows looking for homes, including the West Side Story revival. 

As for Boston, well, we're a patient city. We waited twenty years for the Celtics to rebound, and nearly five times that long for the Red Sox to make a comeback. We can certainly bide our time until we once again see the likes of Oklahoma! and Company in their tryout engagements. In the meantime, we'll make do with Legally Blonde and Dirty Dancing.

God help us.

Godspell Revival Sets Opening Date

The upcoming Broadway revival of Stephen Schwartz's Godspell will begin previews at the Ethel Barrymore Theater on September 29th (And what's the significance of that date, Ricky?), towards an October 23rd opening.

As previously announced, the show will feature Gavin Creel (Thoroughly Modern Millie, La Cage aux Folles) as Jesus and "American Idol" finalist Diana DeGarmo (Hairspray) as one of his followers.

Although it might be because I've done Godspell twice (hasn't everybody?), and seen it innumerable times more, I can't say that I'm all that excited about this new production. But what do I know about producing musical revivals? I never would have given the green light for bringing A Chorus Line, Les Miserables, or Grease back to Broadway, but each of those runs has been profitable, some abundantly so. And I had serious doubts about yet another Gypsy revival, but so far that production seems to be doing solid, if not blockbuster, business.

So I'll leave the business prognostications to others. I just hope that director Daniel Goldstein (All Shook Up) and choreographer Christopher Gattelli (South Pacific) can come up with some way to make this creaky old show fresh. The piece certainly lends itself to creative/conceptual/pretentious interpretations. I remember one local high school production that got around the show's minimal casting requirements by including a chorus of underclass-persons who acted as the fence. (The crucifixion scene was an unintentional hoot.) I've seen the prodigal son parable told with puppets, with projections, and in sign language. I've even seen an all-male version of the show at a Catholic seminary. (The performer who sang "Turn Back, Oh Man" played it drunk, a la Foster Brooks.)

Often, in their zeal to find some new way to present the show, people seem to lose track of its message. I vividly recall one local version of Godspell (Ricky?) in which most of the performers wore revealing cutoffs and midriff-baring T-shirts, and performed slinky, sultry dances like something out of "Flashdance," or an old Janet Jackson video. ("Wait a minute. What's this show about again? Oh, yeah. That Jesus guy. Anyone seen my body glitter?")

Then there's the piece itself. There's no question that Godspell has a very strong score, but the book is sketchy and episodic, and that doesn't always work in the show's favor. It's the sort of show that pretty much anyone can pull off in a church basement or high school gym. (I've done both.) But when it comes to bringing it back to Broadway, the expectations are going to be a lot higher. I don't envy Goldstein and the task before him. But I'll certainly be making a trip to the Ethel Barrymore to see how he rises to the challenge.

Damn Yankees: Summer Fun at City Center

Although I briefly address Damn Yankees in my Boston Conservatory course, until last weekend I had never seen a professional production. I'm very familiar with the faithful movie adaptation, and I've long been a fan of the cast album, but this was my first time seeing the show on a real stage.

No mere concert version, the City Center's Encores! production is fully staged, with costumes and sets, and without scripts. I had heard that performers in the Encores! series have to carry scripts because they're operating under a special concert agreement with the union. This was true of Juno and No, No, Nanette, but for Damn Yankees there wasn't a script in sight. Perhaps the "Summer Stars" series has a different union agreement, and/or since the Encores! shows run a bit longer in the summer, it's more worthwhile for people to actually learn their lines.

In any case, I thoroughly enjoyed this production of Damn Yankees, although I had some minor reservations with the show itself and with a few of the performances. The marquee performers here are TV stars Sean Hayes and Jane Krakowski, and for the most part they're professional but uninspired in their respective roles as Applegate and Lola. Hayes is at his best when glimpses of his Jack McFarland character on "Will and Grace" are peeking through, but he's stiff and stilted when he's trying to play it straight, as it were. It reminded me of seeing Megan Mullaley in Young Frankenstein, who was trying way too hard not to be Karen Walker. I say, don't resist it: If something works, let it ride. Did anyone knock Jimmy Durante or Fanny Brice for always doing the same shtick? Perhaps they did, but it hasn't affected the legendary status of those performers.

Hayes has some really great moments as Applegate, and certainly has the audience on his side. However, Hayes and director John Rando have made a major miscalculation during Applegate's second act would-be show-stopper, "Those Were the Good Old Days." Hayes is a classically trained pianist, a fact that Rando mistakenly chooses to showcase during the first part of the number. It's a choice that could have worked, but doesn't. Hayes focuses so much on his keyboard ministrations that he drains the number of its comic intent. It does set up a very cute visual joke with a violin, but otherwise this choice was misguided.

Jane Krakowski has the thankless task of trying to reclaim the Lola role from the marvelous Gwen Verdon, a very difficult task, as Bebe Neuwirth discovered during the 1994 Damn Yankees revival. But Krakowski certainly holds her own. There's no real spark in her Lola, but she has a strong voice and an amazing body. Plus, she's really a terrific dancer, a fact that becomes particularly evident during the "Two Lost Souls" dance break. Krakowski didn't really get much of a chance to show off her dancing skills in Grand Hotel or Nine.

The production team have chosen to use Bob Fosse's original choreography, recreated here by Mary MacLeod. Some of the dancers aren't quite in sync with the Fosse style, including Tony nominee John Selya. He's athletic, to be sure, but he hasn't quite been able to adopt the signature Fosse postures and mannerisms.

The below-the-title cast members are for the most part outstanding, particularly Randy Graff as an animated and sympathetic Meg. Cheyenne Jackson is his strong-voiced, appealing, and gorgeous self, although some of the vocal tricks he employs to such great effect as Sonny in Xanadu don't really work for Joe Hardy. 

The show itself is not without its flaws. The Gloria character, played here by Tony nominee Megan Lawrence, starts off helping to create the "Shoeless Joe" persona, then spends the rest of the show trying to cut the guy down, and the script provides no justification for the sudden switch. And the "Who's Got the Pain?" number is a direct parallel to "Steam Heat" in The Pajama Game: neither number has any real justification in the plot, but rather merely exists to showcase some terrific Fosse choreography. But even in the '50s, this was an antiquated notion, obviated by the Rodgers and Hammerstein revolution, which dictated that every element of the show should somehow serve the plot, reveal character, or establish time and place. Both "Who's Got the Pain?" and "Steam Heat" fail on all counts. 

But, on the whole, this is a solid production with an appealing cast, and a welcome summer diversion. And it's about as close as I'm ever going to get to taking in a Yankees game. Or any game, for that matter.

Boeing-Boeing: Return Trip Even Better

One of the best times that I had in the theater this season was taking in the revival of Boeing-Boeing, a middling excuse for a sex farce given a first-rate production by director Matthew Warchus. I somehow found myself convulsed with laughter, even as my logical mind was telling me that the play shouldn't have been as funny as it was. Since I saw the show, I've been reading the script, and although there's some clever wordplay, there's really not much on paper that would lead you to think it would be so hilarious on stage. 

So I decided to see the show again to see if it would hold up to repeat visits, and I'll be damned if it wasn't even funnier the second time. The expert cast of comic actors have settled comfortably into their roles, crafting even finer farcical performances. Christine Baranski was out for this performance, but her understudy Pippa Pearthree was just as good, although admittedly Baranski hadn't exactly blown me away.

Bradley Whitford and Tony winner Mark Rylance also gave performances that were satisfyingly on par with the ones they gave when I first saw the show. Rylance seemed to be adding business to his performance, probably to keep it fresh for him and to keep his fellow cast members on their toes. That spontaneity created an atmosphere in which everyone on stage seemed to be having a ball, which was terribly infectious.

But what really made this performance a treat were Mary McCormack and Kathryn Hahn, who have taken their already broad performances and made them even broader. Yet somehow it works, and deliciously so. This isn't the sort of play you can't really take seriously, on either side of the footlights, and McCormack and Hahn have embraced that notion and pulled out all the stops. Hahn seemed to sense the audience's approval of her exaggerated style and responded with more of the same. And McCormack was a nonstop riot from her very entrance.

The show is doing rather well at the box-office, grossing around $400,000 a week, which is pretty strong for a play. The average ticket price has been around $60, which means there are a lot of TKTS-ers in the mix, a fact I could tell by witnessing the cross-section of humanity in my immediate vicinity. A number of them talked a blue streak during the performance, and at least four of the people around me were chewing gum WITH THEIR MOUTHS OPEN throughout the entire show. Talkers I can deal with: You just politely ask them to cork their pie holes, and if they don't you get the house manager. But how do you delicately tell people to close their mouths when they chew? It's just such a fundamental element of manners that it's sort of like telling them they need to wear shoes.

But then at intermission, I overheard one of the cud-chewers talking about how Bradley Whitford was also in A Few Good Men on Broadway. "Wasn't that by that guy who did the TV show?" he asked his masticating wife. "You know, Aaron Spelling." Sometimes, if you wait, the universe provides you with its own satisfying version of revenge: blissful stupidity.

Upcoming Musicals - Coming Soon

There's certainly no shortage of musicals, both new and classic, settling into Broadway berths for the next season. Some have already found a home and are even selling tickets (Shrek, Billy Elliot, A Tale of Two Cities, [title of show]). Other have been announced, but are either waiting for a suitable theater to open up, or just haven't started to sell tickets yet (The Story of My Life, Pure Country, 13). Then there are the shows that are a little bit further on the horizon, but remain distinct possibilities for the coming season:

GODSPELL:
Cast: Gavin Creel
Staff: The upcoming Broadway production will reunite the creative team from the recent Paper Mill Playhouse production: Daniel Goldstein (All Shook Up) will direct, and Christopher Gattelli (South Pacific, 13) will choreograph.
Status: Details have been scant, but according to Broadway.com, Godspell will begin previews at the Ethel Barrymore Theater in September and open in October.
My Take: "I know I've seen this show before, in some old high school gym, on someone's basement floor..."

VANITIES:
Cast: Lauren Kennedy, Sarah Stiles, and Anneliese van der Pol
Creators: Book by Jack Heifner, who wrote the play Vanities, upon which the musical is based. Music and lyrics David Kirshenbaum (Summer of '42)
Staff: Judith Ivey will direct, Dan Knechtges will choreograph.
Status: The show will play the Pasadena Playhouse from August 22 to September 28, before bowing on Broadway, reportedly in the fall 2008.
My Take: I saw the play many years ago, and recall it being fun but slight. A group of high school friends meet in the bleachers to talk about their lives: Will this wind up being Glory Days with girls?

9 TO 5:
Cast: Allison Janney, Stephanie J. Block, Megan Hilty, and Marc Kudisch
Creators: Score by Dolly Parton, book by Patricia Resnick, based on her original screenplay.
Staff: Directed by Joe Mantello, choreographed by recent Tony winner Andy Blankenbueler.
Status: Will play the Ahmanson Theater in Los Angeles from September 3rd to October 19th. Possible Broadway bow shortly thereafter?
My Take: Great source material, fantastic cast, and Dolly Parton's first Broadway score. The show has so much going for it, but then so did Cry-Baby.

Tomorrow: Upcoming Musicals - Further Out

for colored girls...to Play Circle in the Square

So I made it through jury duty relatively unscathed. The trial upon which I was impaneled was relatively straightforward, and our deliberations only took as long as they did (about 45 minutes) because the court had brought in lunch for us, and we weren't about to let a bunch of terrific deli sandwiches go to waste.

And now back to the stuff that really matters in life: musical theater. Only today, I find myself intrigued by an upcoming production that isn't really a musical, although it's not quite a straight play either. But there aren't a lot of plays that spawn cast albums, nor many that list choreographers among their production staffs.

I refer, of course, to the first Broadway revival of Ntozake Shange's "choreo-poem" for colored girls who have considered suicide when the rainbow is enough. The show ran for 742 performances at the Booth Theater in the '70s, and the Broadway Theater Archive issued a video recording, which is now available on DVD.

Now comes the announcement that the upcoming revival of for colored girls... will play the Circle in the Square, most recently the home of the short-lived Glory Days. The Circle in the Square has a thrust stage and three-quarter wrap-around seating, which seems a much more appropriate setting for such a work than the traditional-proscenium Booth. I'm not overly familiar with the piece, but from what I know of it, it would seem to lend itself quite well to a black-box-like performance space.

Two names caught my eye in the published pieces about the for colored girls... revival. One was Hinton Battle, the three-time Tony Award winner, who will provide the choreography. (Two caveats: his three Tonys are all for acting, and his most recent New York choreography credit was for the unimpressive Evil Dead: The Musical.) The other notable name is Whoopi Goldberg, who's listed as the executive producer. You might say that Whoopi's taking a page from Oprah's book (cf. The Color Purple), b