Review - Pippin Revival on Broadway

Never let it be said that I won't give a show a second chance.

I was considerably at odds with both critical and public opinion on the recent American Repertory Theater production of Pippin. The crowds went crazy and the critics did, too. Me, not so much. (Read my review.)

I'm sorry, but I just found the production to be all flash and no substance. But then, that has always been the problem with Pippin, ever since Bob Fosse kicked composer/lyricist Stephen Schwartz and librettist Roger O. Hirson out of rehearsals and proceeded to mold the show into his nihilistic, pyrotechnical vision.

But I was open to the possibility that I might simply have been a tad dyspeptic, or perhaps out-of-sorts, on the night that I saw Pippin in Cambridge. So when I got the invite to see Pippin again, I eagerly replied in the affirmative.

The reviews for the Broadway production were no less rhapsodic, although there were a few holdouts, including Ben Brantley at the New York Times, and Terry Teachout at the Wall Street Journal. Well, after seeing the show again, I have to say that I still come down on the side of Ben and Terry. This Pippin is lively, bright, and loud, to be sure, but it still lacks any discernible meaning. For me, what we have here is the proverbial tale, full of sound and fury, yet signifying nothing.

Again, one of the main problems with Pippin as a show is that it doesn't build, it meanders, particularly during a rather uneventful second act. Fosse hid the flaws with razzle-dazzle staging, and here director Diane Paulus and choreographer Chet Walker (working "in the style of" Fosse) pretty much just substitute their own glitz for the Fosse glitz, supplemented by some admittedly impressive acrobatics, supplied by Gipsy Snider of Les 7 doigts de le mains. But, again, what does it all amount to, besides audience-pleasing showboating? How do all the cast members bouncing around on green workout balls illuminate the meaning of "Simple Joys"? What's the point of having the two hand-balancers upstaging the action during the number "With You"? I'm as big a sucker as the next guy for whiz-bang production elements, provided, of course, they add something to the narrative.

There did seem to be some changes to the production on the road from Cambridge to Manhattan. Some sequences genuinely seemed more fluid, while others seemed to produce more of an ebb in the flow of the production, notably the number "Extraordinary." I seem to recall that at the A.R.T., this number simply featured the character Pippin climbing around the set and singing, but now we have a fully staged, overly busy, distractingly cutesy barnyard number, complete with folksy costumes and lots of focus-pulling stage business for the members of the ensemble. The number lacks focus, exacerbated by a whole lot of self-satisfied mugging on the part of the chorus. (I guess that's one of the dangers of filling your show with acrobats who can't act.)

As for the cast, I remain fully enamored of both the quirky Rachel Bay Jones, in the otherwise thankless role of Catherine, and the astonishing Andrea Martin as Berthe. Martin, quite deservedly, got a mid-show standing ovation after her masterful "No Time at All," which was somehow even more of a pleasure in New York than it was in Cambridge.

I have to say that Matthew James Thomas, in the title role, has become far more animated and sympathetic. Charlotte d'Amboise as Fastrada also seems more comfortable and self-assured, although neither performer has made the cross over into memorable. Patina Miller was out for this particular performance, but Stephanie Pope made for a more-than-adequate replacement as the Leading Player. In fact, I found Pope to have more presence and a more satisfyingly sinister bent than Miller did.

Terrence Mann as Charlemagne remains marble-mouthed and mumbly, particularly during "War Is a Science." If anything, I understood even less of what he sang this time around. In fact, Mann's take on "War Is a Science" sort of crystallized for me what's wrong with Pippin as a whole. Paulus ups the tempo for the final verse, making the last part into a patter song, and all but obliterating any meaning we could derive from the lyric.

Sound and fury.

Comments

[harry]

I have to disagree with you on this one, Chris. I love Pippin. I always have. It was my first Broadway musical back in 1973. I was a 16-year-old Grade 12 student at the time and the production had a profound effect upon me. I wore out three Original Cast albums - vinyl they were, back in the day - listening endlessly to "Magic To Do", "Corner of The Sky", "Morning Glow", "Love Song" and all the others. I thought that Stephen Schwartz's score was ravishing, exciting, clever and tuneful. Bob Fosse's incredible staging was irresistible to a stage-struck kid like me.

The current revival was the inspiration for a recent trip to New York. My only fear was that I would not like the circus motif as well as Fosse's Commedia dell'Arte vision. I needn't have feared. The circus motif works beautifully and provides some truly spectacular moments. Rarely have I ever seen an audience so ready for a show to begin. They went wild the moment Patina Miller's shadow appeared and began approaching the curtain. They exploded the moment the curtain fell to reveal the circus acts on stage. I exploded with them. Magic To Do, indeed.

Yes, the book is thin and episodic. It always was. It always will be. But the score is simply gorgeous. And the showmanship on display at The Music Box is undeniably dazzling.

[ccaggiano]

I'm not denying the dazzle. Nor do I dispute the audience reaction.

But what does it mean?

[simbo]

Isn't Pippin a show about the quest for finding a meaning to your life? And ... inevitably, there really isn't an answer to that question (at the very least, no one meaning that is applicable to all people, and quite possibly, for some people, a meaning that will never be found).

For me, it ends up coming across as meaning something similar to Candide ... at the end of the day, you make your garden grow.

[harry]

Just wondering: since Patina Miller won the Tony for Best Actress in a Musical as the Leading Player and Ben Vereen won the Tony for Best Actor in a Musical for the same role, is this the first time that a man and a woman have won the Tony for the same role?

[Whisper]

The flash and dazzle serve a definite purpose in this revival. The message is that Pippin, and all of us, reach a point of maturity where we start to see through the magic and want something solid in life. The Players are spectacular diversions; they promise magic and deliver. They're fleeting attractions, however, and the heart of the story sneaks in when they've drawn back. Pippin chooses tangible love and the promise of a family. Adulthood means putting away the fantasies; I must not be there yet because I found that bit wrenching when the bright, enticing circus troupe is dismissed and the stage bared. We took two older teenagers to this who had no interest in musical theatre, and they came away utterly obsessed. What you get out of it seems to be what you bring into it as far as age and life experience, so much moreso than with other plays.
I've seen it twice. Patina Miller is a force of nature in this one. Terrence Mann was brilliant, spinning his lines and reactions from night to night, keeping his co-stars on their toes. His comedy was well tempered by the monastery scene which took a quiet, earnest turn; damned if he didn't break a few hearts with it. There are reasons he has made a living at this for so long.