Everything I Know I Learned From Musicals

Review - Leap of Faith on Broadway

The recently ended Broadway season certainly saw its share of musical flops, notably Lysistrata Jones and Bonnie & Clyde. Although each of those shows had its champions, I was not among them, and wasn't all that sorry to see them close.

Now comes Leap of Faith, the biggest flop of the year, at least in financial terms. And this one kind of breaks my heart, because the show really won me over, despite its considerable flaws. Yes, Leap of Faith essentially has the same plot as both The Music Man and 110 in the Shade: charming conman comes to town. The townspeople buy into his flimflam, except for the local single lady. Predictably, the conman and the single lady fall in love. Well, how many original stories did Shakespeare tell? For me, it's always about the quality of the execution.

In the case of Leap of Faith, I found the execution to be very professional and often inspired. The show starts with an ambitious and energetic opening sequence that neatly introduces the characters, sets the scenario, and establishes a tone of joyous celebration that the rest of the show ably delivers upon.

No, Leap of Faith is no masterpiece, but it is an honest attempt at crafting a musical that's about people, as opposed to spectacle or effects. (cough, cough...Ghost...cough, cough...) As I sat watching Leap of Faith, I marveled at how much more real and appealing the characters seemed here than in those other two movie-to-musical mediocrities still limping along from last season: Sister Act or Priscilla Queen of the Desert.

The show's credits list Janus Cercone, who wrote the screenplay to the 1992 Steve Martin movie upon which the show is based, as co-author of the libretto, but I attribute the depth of characterization here to the presence of Tony-Award-winning playwright Warren Leight (Side Man), who demonstrates a knack for realistic dialog and for depicting believable and sympathetic people. Leight only has one other musical to his credit -- the 1985 Ed Koch bio-tuner Mayor -- and yet there's something skillful here in the way the book and the songs are woven together. Of course, this is also the work of composer Alan Menken and lyricist Glenn Slater, whose work here is miles above their score for the aforementioned Sister Act.

Most of the flop musicals this season have had outstanding performances, and Leap of Faith is no exception. Yeah, there's Raul Esparza, who has some genuinely stunning moments throughout the show, including his showstopping 11 o'clock number, "Jonas' Soliloquy." But throughout the show, his diction came in and out, and I couldn't understand what he was saying in many of his songs. (And I was seated in the fourth row of the orchestra, directly in front of the Al Jolson "Swanee" ramp that juts out of the stage.)

The real standout in the cast was Jessica Phillips, who replaced the poorly received Brooke Shields as the town sheriff and Jonas' love interest. Phillips reminded me of Jessie Mueller, Tony nominee for another of this season's musical disasters, On a Clear Day You Can See Forever, which coincidentally was the previous tenant at the St. James Theatre before Leap of Faith. Like Mueller, Phillips is a remarkably appealing performer, warm and animated, with a kick-ass belt and a glisten in her eye. Jessie Mueller was recently cast as Cinderella in the upcoming Public Theatre production of Into the Woods. (Which rumor has it has its eye on Broadway.) I'm hoping that Phillips will likewise land on her feet after Leap closes tomorrow.

According to the New York Times, the producers of Leap of Faith decided to bring the show to Broadway this season, as opposed to waiting for the fall, because the St. James suddenly became available after the early closure of On a Clear Day. Rather than risk losing one of the most desirable Broadway houses, they decided to take the chance. It's tempting to speculate what might have happened if the producers had decided to wait and take the summer to get the show into more presentable shape. Would the changes have made any difference? Would a less-crowded season have given the show more of a chance to get noticed and build an audience? Or would the show simply have met the same unfortunate fate?

Review - Lysistrata Jones on Broadway

As you may know, the terminally perky little musical Lysistrata Jones closed this past weekend on Broadway after only 30 performances, despite a near-rave from Ben Brantley of the New York Times. The show moved to Broadway in December after a critically lauded run downtown at The Gym at Judson, only to discover that many of the same critics who loved the show Off-Broadway were far less enthusiastic when the show opened on the main stem.

Was it the change in venue that made the difference? Did the show work better in the funky gymnasium atmosphere than it did in the gilt-edged opulence of the Walter Kerr? 

Not for me. This may come off as smug, but I was one of the critics whose opinion didn't change between the two productions. I found the Off Broadway version of Lysistrata Jones inconsistent and unengaging (read my review), and my opinion of the Broadway production remains virtually the same. The only improvement that I noticed was the new logo, which is miles above the hideous, garish, amateurish logo from the downtown production. (Click through to my review to see the OB logo.)

Sure, there were changes to the show, but they were mostly superficial. The set design is far more lavish, and book writer Douglas Carter Beane seems to have updated a few of the glib topical references, but these added nothing to the effectiveness of the piece itself. With the Off-Broadway production, one of my key problems with the piece was that the score didn't match the witty tone of the book. But upon second viewing, the book isn't so much witty as jokey, replete with one-liners but lacking in any larger cohesion or significance.

In his book for Xanadu, Beane deftly maintained the unifying themes of playfulness and self-conscious irony. Here, the characters merely spout interchangeable quips. At one point, one character says, "The best theater is always a movie first. That way the audience doesn't have to worry about being surprised." It's telling that I can recall the line, but I can't for the life of me remember which character said it.

In this sense, Beane's book represents a throwback to about a century ago, when musicals were stuffed with topical references, irrespective of whether they had any relevance to the show. Off Broadway, one of the characters made a quip about Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Perhaps you can recall the name, but can you remember why he would have been topical during the Off Broadway run? No? Well, in its place, we have a line in which the title character taunts her boyfriend about the new uniforms for the cheer-leading squad, which she promises will make the boys "stiffer than Kim Jong-il." Both references are ephemeral, tangential, and indicative of the superficial nature of the humor as a whole. (Some of the jokes are already way past their sell-by date, including one reference to someone receiving Greek lessons from Kitty Dukakis. Really?)

That said, Beane's book is a damn sight more enjoyable than the show's score, by Lewis Flinn. Sure, Beane renders the anti-war message of Aristophanes' original Lysistrata meaningless by changing the motivation for the women withholding sex from their men. In the original, it's to stop an interminable war. Now, it's to get them to break the thirty-year losing streak of the college basketball game. But there are at least a significant number of laughs to be had.

Flinn's songs start on the fun-but-unmemorable side, but they eventually bog the show down as they veer away from the comic sensibility of the book and become increasingly earnest. I only recall laughing once during one of the songs: in "Lay Low," the basketball captain exhorts his teammates to rise to the challenge that their girlfriends have set before them by riding it out. "That's why God invented porn," he sings. Yeah, not brilliant, or particularly original, but it gave me a chuckle.

Worse, Flinn's lyrics are typically either generic or meaningless. During the song "Hold On," Lysistrata's burgeoning new love interest Xander encourages her not to abandon her chosen path: "Hold on. Don't let go. In the morning when the lights are low." Um, why would lights be low in the morning? Why would they be on at all? And, more to the point, what does this have to do with what's going on in the scene at hand? I must admit that the tune to "Hold On" was kind of catchy, and it remained the only song to stick with me beyond the final curtain, but I attribute this more to the bouncy nature of the song's musical hook than to its inherent meaningfulness. 

On the plus side, director/choreographer Dan Knechtges consistently found ways to make the numbers interesting, engaging, even exciting at times. Knechtges has a wonderfully dynamic sense of how to dress a stage, as well as how to find movements that exist within the idiom of the show. Particularly impressive was how he found ways to make the basketball moments seem believable without making them literal. I never got the sense that these were dancers who were trying to act like ball players, but rather that they were ball players who were also really strong dancers. (It would be interesting to see what Knechtges could do with West Side Story. Maybe, for once, we'd actually have some masculine, menacing Jets.)

Also, my heart goes out to the game and fresh-faced cast of Lysistrata Jones. Although I really wasn't a fan of the piece itself, it was great to see talented and energetic performers get a chance to show what they can do. Patti Murin in particularly was sweet and appealing as Lysistrata, as she was Off Broadway. Josh Segarra really seemed to have grown into his role as Mick, Lyssie's boyfriend, bringing a much stronger comedic sensibility and confidence to the role. Hopefully, we'll see these bright young performers, not to mention their equally talented castmates, on the stage again sometime very soon.

Review - Bonnie and Clyde on Broadway

I've heard a lot of apologists for Bonnie & Clyde say that it was surprisingly good. You know, for a Frank Wildhorn show. Well, saying that Bonnie & Clyde is Wildhorn's least awful musical is sort of like saying leukemia is the most survivable form of cancer, or that Mitt Romney is the most electable Republican. They're still bad.

And Bonnie & Clyde is bad. True, the show, which closed on Broadway last week after only 36 performances, represents a vast improvement over such unmitigated dreck as Jekyll & Hyde and Dracula, but Bonnie & Clyde is nonetheless still well within the realm of the awful, and thus a perversely appropriate addition to the Wildhorn oeuvre.

Much like Wonderland, Wilhorn's most recent Broadway disaster, Bonnie & Clyde starts relatively strong. After a brief prologue that illustrates in graphic detail where our story will be heading, we get a dual character number, "This World Will Remember Me," which succinctly sets up the base motivations of both Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow.

But then, book writer Ivan Menchell seems hell-bent on making us feel sympathy for these sociopaths. Now, there's nothing wrong with an antihero in a musical, but for the treatment to be successful, you either need to have a larger, perhaps satirical, point that you're trying to make (as in Chicago) or you need to draw a clear line between understanding and approval (as in Sweeney Todd). In Menchell's book, there's a disturbing tendency to try to justify the horrific actions of Clyde Barrow in particular. While in prison, Clyde is shown at the mercy of menacing guards who take leering pleasure in pimping Clyde out to his fellow inmates. We also see the Ted Hinton character, a rival for Bonnie's affections, cause unprovoked physical harm to Clyde while he's in Hinton's custody. Aw, poor Clyde. It kind of felt like the beginning of "Gladiator" or "Death Wish" or "Robocop," or another of those reprehensible revenge-porn fantasies that try to justify violent acts with, "Well, he started it."

As for Wildhorn's music, well, he certainly has a way with a pleasant melody, but once again he falls victim to the Andrew Lloyd Webber ailment of choosing lyricists who debase rather than ennoble his music. Wildhorn fittingly partners here with lyricist Don Black, a frequent Lloyd Webber collaborator (Aspects of Love, Sunset Boulevard, Song and Dance), and the results are every bit as uninspired as in any of Black's Lloyd Webber shows.

Usually, the point at which Wildhorn loses me is the first bland power ballad, but in Bonnie & Clyde, my departure point was "When I Drive," in which Clyde and his brother Buck regale us about their love of cars. Yup, cars. I suppose this number was meant to show the bond between the brothers, and to establish their desire for material comforts, but for me it was the first in a series of questionable song motivations. Perhaps the most questionable was "Dyin' Ain't So Bad," a real howler of an 11 o'clock number in which Bonnie seems to cast off the strictures of dramatic irony and sings with impassioned resignation as to her inexorable fate.

Another point that the Bonnie & Clyde apologists seemed to harp on is the cast, and here they certainly have a point. As the despicable duo themselves, we have Laura Osnes and Jeremy Jordan, and they were indeed sensational in their respective roles. In the supporting cast, Claybourne Elder and Melissa Van Der Schyff were vivid and memorable in their portrayals of Clyde's brother Buck and his long-suffering wife. But, frankly, I've never been one to say that a show is worth seeing simply because of the cast. To me, that's kind of like saying that the sets and the costumes were cool, even if the show itself was wanting. I hope to see all four performers again very soon, perhaps in a piece more worthy of their talents.

On a final note, I just can't let the opportunity pass to ask one burning question: Who are these people that keep funding these Wildhorn musicals? Beyond the subjective quality of the shows at hand, it really seems that, as investors, they don't seem to be doing much in the way of due diligence. I mean, take a look at Wildhorn's Broadway track record:

Jekyll & Hyde
1543 performances
Closed at a loss

The Scarlet Pimpernel
772 performances
Closed at a loss

The Civil War
61 performances
Closed at a loss

Dracula
157 performances
Closed at a loss

Wonderland
33 performances
Closed at a loss

Bonnie & Clyde
36 performances
Closed at a loss

Talk about your diminishing returns. Now, Bonnie and Clyde reportedly only cost a relatively thrifty $6 million. That's about half of what you'd expect a typical Broadway musical to cost these days. Even so, I would respectfully submit to these fine people that their money would serve a far greater use in the long run if they, I don't know, maybe donated it to the Boston Conservatory. Think of it as an investment in the future of the musical theater. I can virtually guarantee a far more favorable return on your investment.

Commentary - The Broadway "Bloodbath"

On Twitter yesterday, you'd think someone had died. Or lots of people. Or perhaps there had been a bloody massacre of unprecedented proportions.

But what really happened was that nine shows closed on Broadway, all on the same day: Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, Elf, The Pee-wee Herman Show, Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, Promises, Promises, Brief Encounter, Fela, West Side Story, and Donny & Marie: A Broadway Christmas.

Yeah, that list looks pretty scary when you look at the sheer volume, and contemplate the number of currently empty theaters on Broadway.

But, upon closer inspection, the situation isn't nearly as depressing as it might seem. Two of those shows were specific to the holiday season (Elf, Donnie & Marie). Two were intended as limited runs and ran out their full engagements (The Pee-wee Herman Show, Brief Encounter). Two were shows that are going to be taped for broadcast (The Pee-wee Herman Show, Fela). And, yes, two of these shows were limited engagements that closed earlier than originally planned (Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown). But this particular production of West Side Story had the longest continuous run of any Broadway version of that show, including the original production. 

True, there are still more closings to come in the month of January: La Bête, A Free Man of Color, In the Heights, A Little Night Music, Next To Normal, and Time Stands Still. But what a lot of the boo-hoo-ers fail to point out is that some 23 new shows are scheduled for Broadway in 2011, 21 for the spring alone. What's more, currently only four Broadway theaters out of 40 have no confirmed bookings for the spring. Here's a list of what's coming, or hasn't yet officially opened:

NEW MUSICALS:
Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark
Sister Act
Wonderland
The Book of Mormon
Catch Me if You Can
Priscilla: Queen of the Desert
The People in the Picture

MUSICAL REVIVALS:
Anything Goes
How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying
Godspell

NEW PLAYS:
Ghetto Klown
Jerusalem
Good People
War Horse
The Motherfucker With the Hat
Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo

PLAY REVIVALS:
The Importance of Being Earnest
That Championship Season
House of Blue Leaves
Master Class
Arcadia

FALL PLAYS:
Death of a Salesman
Old Masters

I'm certainly sympathetic to the actors and other folks who are losing their jobs. But that's how theater works. And that's how it's always worked. To paraphrase Curtains, it's a business, folks. Some of those people will be cast in some of those new shows. Some won't. To paraphrase A Chorus Line, nobody gets into theater because they're looking for a steady job.

From the audience perspective, you'd think that Broadway stalwarts would, to a certain extent, actually appreciate when shows that have moved past their sell-by date make room for fresher shows. Remember, turnover means we have more shows to see. Wouldn't Broadway be dull if *every* show ran for 20 years?

Review - Elling on Broadway

Wow. It wasn't that bad.

Before I even had time to post my review for the new play Elling on Broadway, the producers have announced that the show will close this Sunday, after only 9 regular performances. I honestly didn't think it was a very good play, but I certainly didn't think it would close four months early.

The show has a dynamite cast, to be sure. Denis O'Hare is always a dynamic and quirky presence on stage, and he clearly delivers in that respect here playing the title character. Jennifer Coolidge is comedy incarnate, particularly in such Christopher Guest films as "Best in Show" and "A Mighty Wind." And they don't come much more classy and august than Richard Easton.

So what happened? Two things: the script and Brendan Fraser.

Elling is neither fish nor fowl: it's not funny enough to be a comedy, and it isn't weighty enough for drama. The play is based on some novels by Ingvar Ambjørnsen, with a stage adaptation by Axel Hellstenius, and an English adaptation by Simon Bent. And it's the very definition of the word "slight." I'm sure there's some inherent drama in the scenario of two mental patients trying to find their way in the real world after being released from the "insane asylum," but the aforementioned committee hasn't found a way to bring that drama to the stage. 

There are numerous elements throughout the play that the authors could have developed into something a bit more compelling. The Brendan Fraser character, called Kjell Bjarne, builds a matchstick model of the new house that he and Elling have moved into, and he presents it to Elling upon their first Christmas together. But when Kjell Bjarne becomes involved with the woman who lives upstairs, Elling destroys the model in a jealous fit, an act that provides the tension for the first act curtain. The play sets the character of Kjell Bjarne up as a potentially explosive character, not unlike Lenny from Of Mice and Men, but when he discovers that the house is destroyed, he shrugs it off.

Later, the Richard Easton character, a famous poet who hasn't produced any work in decades, comes across Elling's precious notebook of poetry, and we see him contemplate appropriating the material to make his comeback. But Easton simply returns the notebook in a subsequent scene without incident.

Perhaps the script's greatest crime is creating a slate of interesting characters and then not really giving them anything interesting to do. The Elling character, particularly as embodied by O'Hare, is a fascinating morass of neuroses and rationalizations. And Kjell Bjarne has some potential as a compelling character, but unfortunately Brendan Fraser hasn't found a way to make him real. Granted, it's no small feat to play someone who's simply stupid, hungry, and horny, but Fraser doesn't convincingly portray any of these characteristics. He's all surface bluster, with no apparent internal motivation.

If you happen to be in New York between now and Sunday, and you were thinking of catching Elling before it closes on Sunday, there's really only one reason to see it: Denis O'Hare. Otherwise, Elling is forgettable at best.

NOTE: New Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations require bloggers to disclose when they accept anything of material value related to their blog posts. I received complimentary press tickets to this performance of Elling.

Fela Closing. But First, Patti LaBelle

The producers of the Broadway production of Fela recently announced that the show will close on January 2nd, 2011. At that point, the show will have run 463 regular performances and 34 previews.

That's certainly a decent run, and nothing to be ashamed of, but at about 14 months, it's probably not enough of a run to turn a profit. Granted, Wicked went into the black in that amount of time, but Wicked was running at full-price capacity. Fela has been running at a thoroughly respectable capacity of 85%, but at an average ticket of about $75.

So, all those A-list producers (Will Smith, Jada Pinkett Smith, and Jay-Z) most likely did have a positive effect on the show's box office, but not enough to push things into the profitability column.

But before the show folds up, the producers hope to go out with a diva-fueled bang. The fabulous Patti LaBelle will replace Tony winner Lillias White as Funmilayo, Fela's beloved mother, beginning September 14th and through the end of the show's Broadway run. LaBelle was originally only supposed to step in for White during her vacation, but LaBelle has since extended her run with the show.

Now, before you go booking your tickets expecting to see Patti LaBelle take over the stage of the Eugene O'Neill Theater, be forewarned: Funmilayo is a relatively minor role in the show. In fact, nearly every role other than the title role is minor. The story of Fela is told and sung almost entirely from Fela's point of view, which was one of the main problems I had with the show when I first saw at the now-moribund 37 Arts. (Read my review of the Off Broadway run.) I was pleased to see that the Broadway version actually gave some speaking lines to someone besides Fela, but I still found the storytelling rather inert. (Read my review of the Broadway production.)

To be sure, Funmilayo is an important role in the show, and she does sing on five of the show's 26 numbers. And a few of those songs are pivotal to the story. Just don't go expecting to see a Patti LaBelle concert. 'Sall I'm sayin'.

But, like the eponymous Fela Anikulapo Kuti, the show based upon his life will not fade quietly into the dark. The show is set to transfer to London, where it will enjoy a run at the storied National Theater, during which the show will be broadcast live to movie theaters around the world. One hopes that a DVD release will soon follow.

Yeah, I know. "Gee, Chris, I thought you didn't like the show." Actually, I genuinely appreciated what Fela was trying to do, even if I occasionally found fault with the execution. I fully support all efforts to stretch the musical theater form, and Fela's is definitely a story worth telling and retelling. Bill T. Jones has created some of his most vibrant and energetic choreography. And Sahr Ngaujah is unforgettable as Fela: dynamic, sexy, and passionate. So, I'll certainly be in a theater near me for the live cinecast. And I might even catch Fela again before it closes to see how La LaBelle fares on the Broadway stage.

Come Fly Away to Close September 5th

 
This past Broadway season was unusual in at least one respect: there wasn't a flurry of closing notices immediately following the Tony Awards, at least with respect to musicals. Which was pretty surprising considering the middling quality of the new-musical offerings this year, as well as the disappointing sales most of those shows have been experiencing.

But the first shoe has officially dropped. The Tony-less Come Fly Away will end its run at the Marquis Theater on September 5th. At that time the show will have played 187 performances and 26 previews.

Regular readers may recall that I virtually loathed the Come Fly Away when I saw it in March. (Read my review here.) I found the show beyond tedious, and not because it was a jukebox musical, nor because there was not one word spoken throughout the show. (Apart from some Spanish extemporizing from one of the dancers.)

I just didn't see any differentiation among the faceless dancers on stage, which made it hard for me to care about what happened to them on the seemingly endless night at a dance club that the show depicts. I'm normally a huge modern-dance enthusiast, and I've enjoyed much of Twyla Tharp's work in the past, but here even her energetic eclecticism wasn't doing it for me. Perhaps if I were a bigger fan of Frank Sinatra and his music, I might have been more predisposed to enjoying the proceedings, but in truth I really shouldn't need to be a fan to appreciate a well-crafted show. And, in my most humble opinion, Come Fly Away was anything but.

The closing notices for Come Fly Away promise (as these notices always do) that the show will have a national tour, which I suppose could actually materialize given the respective fan bases for Sinatra and, to a far lesser extent, Twyla Tharp. Lately, we've been witnessing a succession of tours from shows that didn't succeed on Broadway, but have enough of a built-in brand to fill touring houses, at least for a week or two. Young Frankenstein and Shrek are currently making their mediocre way across the country, and word has started to leak out about casting for a 9 to 5 tour.

Will these tours tip the financial scales for these shows toward profitability? For Young Frankenstein and Shrek, it's highly doubtful, given the profuse amounts of money the producers poured into the them. For 9 to 5 and Come Fly Away, finishing in the black may be slightly more attainable, but certainly not a guarantee.

Review - Enron at the Broadhurst Theatre

Never doubt the power of the Tonys, at least when it comes to marketing a show. No sooner had the Tony nominations come out than the producers of the new play Enron announced that the struggling show, which opened April 27th to decidedly mixed reviews and weak grosses, would be closing Sunday, May 9th after only 12 days of regular performances. The producers were likely hoping for more than just the four nominations that the show received, but alas, the all-important nod for Best Play was not among the four.

I have to say that I'd feel a lot worse for the Enron folks if the play itself were any good. But, in my humble estimation, it is not. I saw the show last weekend, before the closure announcement, and it wasn't anywhere near the electrifying experience I had been led to expect.

Enron was the one play of the season that I was actively looking forward to. That's probably because I had heard that it was sort of a play/musical hybrid, with ample amounts of dance, music, and stylistic touches. Plus, I had heard that the cast would feature Broadway musical stalwarts Norbert Leo Butz and Marin Mazzie. The New York Times even referred to the show as a musical in one of its Arts, Briefly notes. (The Gray Lady later appended that article with a note that, despite the songs and dancing, author Lucy Prebble considers it a play.)

After the reviews for Enron came out, I heard some speculation that the New York production wasn't well received because Americans don't like to see themselves criticized. Sorry, I don't buy that. You'd be hard pressed to find an American who would defend Enron, or to take any attack on Enron personally. No, it comes down to the effectiveness of the play itself. Despite an acclaimed London run, Enron seems to have lost something in translation. Rumor has it that director Rupert Goold was only able to spend two weeks rehearsing with the cast because of his schedule. But it's not clear to me that more rehearsal would have made much difference. It wasn't the presentation that was lacking, but rather the substance of the play itself.

Enron is certainly well-presented, but the dramaturgy is pedestrian. I'll say one thing for Prebble: she made the abstruse financial machinations almost comprehensible. But the play has no point of view, other than "Gee, weren't these guys greedy and evil?" Theatre thrives on ambiguity and nuance, and there's precious little of either in Prebble's play. There were a few times when I thought I was getting a glimpse of the people behind the disaster, particularly in the final monologue of Jeff Skilling (played here with characteristic aplomb by Butz):

You wanna hold a mirror up to nature? [A projection reveals a graph of the Dow Jones Index over the last century.] There's your mirror. Every dip, every crash, every bubble that's burst, that's you...This one gave us the railroads. This one the Internet. This one the slave trade. And if you wanna do anything about saving the environment or getting to other worlds, you'll need a bubble for that, too.

That's a fairly interesting insight, but that's really all we get, and it comes after a lot of unconvincing drama and plodding dialog. In one of the first scenes, the Andy Fastow character (played rather broadly by Stephen Kunken) is at an Enron party, and says (to no one in particular) "Look, even Ken Lay is here." In a later scene, Fastow is being bullied by some of the energy traders, and says "I'll remember this when I'm CFO." That kind of ham-handed indication should have been edited out after the first draft.

Prebble also traffics in facile and obvious metaphors: the arcane financial instruments become corporeal "raptors," in a reference to "Jurassic Park." And the energy traders take on the countenance of Jedi knights, complete with a light-saber-laden dance number. Now it's entirely likely that Prebble took those cultural references directly from the Enron folk themselves, but accuracy doesn't necessarily translate into inspiration.

I will admit that it was illuminating to see the extent to which the Bush family, George W. in particular, was in bed with the Enron folk, and relied heavily on financial contributions from same. It was also eye-opening to see how soon-to-be governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger was involved, with particular regard to the disastrous deregulation of electricity in California, which led to the rolling blackouts in 2000 and 2001. The implication was that Enron helped get The Terminator into office, specifically with the goal of bringing about deregulation. But all that info is readily available elsewhere. If you're looking for some insight into the Enron fiasco, you're better off reading The Smartest Guys in the Room or renting the 2005 movie version.

Despite the play's flaws, it's possible that Enron could have found a receptive audience. I find it really hard to believe that, with this many producers (IBDB lists a whopping 34), there weren't sufficient cash reserves to allow the show time to catch on. But they probably saw the show's gross go down one week after the reviews came out and just panicked. (I'm sure there's an incisive parallel in there somewhere with the investor panic involved in the collapse of Enron, but I really can't be bothered.)

GRADE: B minus (Not nearly as insightful or thrilling as it thinks it ought to be) 

Review - Finian's Rainbow Revisit

Earlier today, the revival of Finian's Rainbow played its final performance at the St. James Theater, and I must admit that I'm experiencing mixed feelings about this. I'm certainly sad to see the show go, but after seeing the production again last weekend, I think I have a clearer understanding of why it didn't catch on.

Some history: When I saw the show during its Encores stint, I found it tuneful but creaky. (Read my review) But when I saw the show on Broadway during previews, I was pretty darned charmed by the whole thing. (Read my review of the Broadway production.)

But, in retrospect, I think that's why Finian's Rainbow is closing at a loss. It's charming, it's sweet, it's tuneful. But it doesn't provide the emotional impact of South Pacific, the sweeping romance and spectacle of The Phantom of the Opera, or the fun and, well, razzle dazzle of Chicago.

Of course, Finian's Rainbow does have that glorious Burton Lane music, which is more than matched by the alternately heartfelt and clever lyrics of Yip Harburg. I was continually, almost in spite of myself, drawn in by the sheer magic of Lane's sweeping melodies. Numerous songs sent a chill up my spine as the luscious chords swelled from the orchestra pit, including "Look to the Rainbow" and "Come and Get It Day"

I still think that Finian's Rainbow is one of the best of the old-style musicals, but as I watched the show last week, I was lot more aware of the choppy nature of the book. There's something about Finian's Rainbow that just doesn't build. The show feels overly episodic, with the resolutions coming very shortly after their precipitating complications. So, although the show certainly provides its share of charms, they don't coalesce into a larger sense of catharsis.

Fortunately, we have the upcoming release of the Finian's Rainbow cast recording from PS Classics to look forward. Even if you didn't get a chance to see the show in New York, rest assured that most of the best that the production had to offer is on that CD. This may well prove to be the definitive recording of the show. You certainly couldn't ask for a better cast, particularly Kate Baldwin, Cheyenne Jackson, Jim Norton, Christopher Fitzgerald, and Terri White. But, honestly, there's not a weak link in the cast, at least not vocally. I get the feeling that this will be a recording to savor for years to come.

Review - Revisiting Ragtime

I am so over Michael Riedel:

Last Friday, the New York Post published a pointlessly cruel  column by Riedel, in which he practically snickered with glee over the closure this past weekend of the Ragtime revival. Ordinarily I'd include a link to the column, but I don't want to justify his mean-spirited screed with extra traffic.

Amid the snark, Riedel dismissively referred to the Ragtime cast as a bunch of "regional" performers. (As though that would be something to be ashamed of.) Reidel is, however, quite wrong on this score. As Ragtime star Bobby Steggart pointed out on Twitter, "Funny how people who call themselves reporters don't check their facts. I've lived and worked in New York for 10 years." What's more, Christiane Noll made her Broadway debut in 1997 with Jekyll & Hyde. And Ron Bohmer has been performing in New York since 1985.

I really don't understand Riedel's apparent need to kick a such a fine bunch of people when they're down. The producers of Ragtime took a gamble when they decided to move the critically acclaimed Kennedy Center production to Broadway's Neil Simon Theater, and unfortunately that gamble didn't pay off. So why does Riedel take so much joy from this? ("What is your damage, Heather?")

Whatever, I had a chance to see Ragtime again over the weekend, and while I still had some reservations, I remain an ardent admirer of the show, and of this particular production. What's more, I'll take Ragtime over Riedel's little pet, Fela, any day.

As I said in my initial review, this Ragtime didn't completely gel for me the first time I saw it. I found it very professional, but it seemed to be missing an emotional center. Seeing the show a second time, I had the same reaction, and the key problem was the end of act one, which failed to reach the shattering climax that the story deserves. The primary motor for the plot at this point is the destruction of Coalhouse's car, and the subsequent scenes should ideally build with a sense of righteous indignation, but here Coalhouse comes off as merely petty. This makes the finaletto seem anticlimactic.

The problem with this sequence would seem to stem from a combination of the writing, the direction, and the performance of Quentin Earl Darrington as Coalhouse. Composer Stephen Flaherty and lyricist Lynn Ahrens have certainly provided effective music here, particularly "'Til We Reach That Day," but the entire sequence happens so quickly, it's hard to really get a sense of the gravity of the proceedings. Librettist Terrence McNally shoulders some of the blame here, but director Marcia Milgrom Dodge also seems to have given this sequence short shrift, staging it in a way that robs it of the proper weight. And Darrington, while an admittedly talented performer, simply doesn't wrench the heart in quite the way the situation requires. The failure of this crucial sequence upsets the balance of the show, creating less interest in and sympathy for Coalhouse and Sarah, and leaving the other characters to pick up the slack.

I must admit Darrington became far more affecting at the very end of act 2, at which point the was a more palpable sense of fire in his performance, but this ultimately served to emphasize what he was missing throughout the rest of the show. Newcomer Stephanie Umoh, while quite beautiful and possessing a powerhouse of a voice, was even less effective as Sarah than the first time I saw the show. Her performance reflected surface grief and studied mannerisms; there really didn't seem to be anything behind her eyes to indicate she was genuinely feeling the role. (Full disclosure: Stephanie is a former student of mine, but I feel I owe it to my readers, and ultimately to Stephanie, not to pull any punches. I look forward to watching her grow as a performer.) 

Unfortunately for Umoh and Darrington, but fortunately for the audience, the remainder of the principle cast was superlative. The marvelous Bobby Steggert had even more fire and intensity, some of which might have come from the indignation and grief of his last weekend as Younger Brother. Ron Bohmer exuded a childlike energy as Father, creating a remarkably sympathetic portrayal, while still portraying the man's flaws. And the delightful Christiane Noll remained a revelation as Mother. After so many years of sub-par material, Noll finally found a role commensurate with her talents. Noll was such a natural on stage, bringing such humor and nuance to her portrayal.

Despite the flaws of this production, I love me some Ragtime. If you didn't have a chance to see it, fear not: the performance that I saw was filmed for the Lincoln Center archive. So you can see and judge for yourself whether Riedel was right in saying that the production had no business coming to Broadway. I think you'll find Missy Riedel was wrong.

Oh, Yeah. Shrek Is Closing, Too

It suddenly occurred to me that Shrek is closing today and that I hadn't really made much mention of it, other than a Twitter post when the closure announcement first came. Kinda tells you something about the lasting impression that the show has made on my consciousness.

As I said I my review, I actually sort of enjoyed Shrek, particularly the talented cast of Broadway stalwarts, including Brian d'Arcy James, Christopher Sieber, Sutton Foster, and relative newcomer Daniel Breaker. The show was reasonably entertaining, although there were some rather poorly staged sequences when I saw the show early in previews.

The main problem for me was, and remains, the lackluster songs by Jeanine Tesori and David Lindsay-Abaire. Other than "I Know It's Today," there really isn't any song in the show that has stuck, for me at least. I think if the score had been more overtly tuneful and memorable, Shrek might have been a winner. The story is certainly very strong, the cast was exemplary, and most of the production elements were solidly in place. "Family" shows really live or die based on the appeal of the actual songs in the show, and Shrek just didn't have the "wow" factor in the score department. 

I'll be very interested to see if David Lindsay-Abaire continues to get offers to write musicals. Both Dreamworks and Disney have had mixed results in bringing on the pedigree playwrights to work on their would-be blockbusters. Experience seems to have shown that writing a mass-appeal musical (Shrek) is quite different from crafting a Pulitzer-Prize-winning drama (Rabbit Hole). Doug Wright (I Am My Own Wife) had similar challenges with The Little Mermaid, although he did fare much better with Grey Gardens. And David Henry Hwang (M. Butterfly) has likewise met with both relative success (Aida) and a decided lack thereof (Tarzan). So, I don't think we're going to see these guys disappear entirely from musical creative rosters, but producers will likely think more carefully before they blithely assume that the skill sets for crafting effective plays and winning librettos are necessarily transferable.

Next up at the Broadway Theater was supposed to be the upcoming revival of Promise, Promises, directed and choreographed by Rob Ashford, with Sean Hayes as Chuck, Kristin Chenoweth as Fran, Brooks Ashmanskas as Dobitch, Katie Finneran as Marge MacDougall, and Tony Goldwyn as Sheldrake. But I've heard (totally unsubstantiated) rumors that the producers are looking for a different venue. Perhaps, now that more theaters are starting to open up -- including the Neil Simon, the St. James, the Marquis, and the Golden -- the producers are looking for something a bit more intimate than the barn that is the Broadway. Andrew Lloyd Webber is said to have his eye on the Neil Simon for Love Never Dies, and the Golden is probably way too small. But the St. James and the Marquis are certainly possibilities.

As for Shrek, Dreamworks has been very tight-lipped about the total cost for the production, but it's very likely to be well north of $20 million, perhaps even $25 million, given the weekly operating losses the show has reportedly been incurring. There's no way the show recouped on Broadway, but a national tour will embark this summer. Might Shrek eke out a profit in the provinces, much as Disney is (realistically?) hoping to do with The Little Mermaid and Mel Brooks is (laughably?) hoping to do with Young Frankenstein? If I find out, you, dear reader, will be the first to know.

Finian's Rainbow Revival Will Close January 17th

Another one bites the dust. No sooner had Ragtime posted its closing notice than Finian's Rainbow almost immediately followed suit. The show will end its run at the St. James Theater on January 17th, having played 92 regular performances and 22 previews. With a run that short, it's very unlikely that the show was able to make back its investment.

I must confess that, as big a fan as I am of Ragtime, I'm just a bit sadder to see Finian's Rainbow shutter. I wasn't all that taken with the show during its Encores run at City Center (read my review). As is often the case with Encores shows, the book was significantly truncated, which had a deleterious effect on my enjoyment of the show.

But when I saw the show on Broadway (read my review), I was captivated by its many charms, including the sensational score by Burton Lane and E.Y. "Yip" Harburg, and a dynamite cast, headed by  the dazzling Kate Baldwin, the sexy Cheyenne Jackson, as well as Jim Norton and Christopher Fitzgerald in delightful supporting roles. Director/choreographer Warren Carlyle whipped the production up into a charming, frothy, good-time of a show, one that I found much more artistically satisfying than the current production of Ragtime. Sure, they're radically different shows, and the comparison is a bit unfair, but that's my gut response to their relative closure announcements.

The producers of Finian's Rainbow blame the show's demise on the "economic realities of Broadway today." Closure announcements are always full of bluster and grandstanding: no one ever comes out and says the truth. But as I see it, the producers made an unwise decision in bringing the show to Broadway. As much as I enjoyed this production, and hope to see it again before it closes, it just wasn't a show that the ticket-buying public was crying out to see, economic vicissitudes notwithstanding.

It's probably good that I don't have the money to invest in shows, because I'm pretty sure I'd be terrible at deciding which shows the public is going to respond to. If I had had the opportunity to invest in either Ragtime or Finian's Rainbow, I'd have backed Ragtime, no contest. Yeah, I know, that seems to contradict what I just said above about which production I enjoyed more. But here I'm talking about what my prospective take would have been on which production would have had the greater chance of success, before I had had a chance to see either. Because that's when producers write their checks: before the show goes up, not after it becomes a success. Of course, I would have lost it all no matter which show I had chosen. But I really thought that Ragtime had a chance, and I genuinely believe it didn't get a fair shake the first time around. Ergo, it's a good thing I'm not an investor.

I'm headed down to New York next weekend to see A Little Night Music and Ernest in Love. When Ragtime announced it was closing, I also grabbed a discount ticket to see the show again that weekend, to see if perhaps it had coalesced into a stronger production since I saw it early in previews. Perhaps I'll also have to get a ticket to Finian's Rainbow to see if the brimming effervescence remains.

Ragtime Revival to Close Sunday

That's the thing about rumors. Sometimes, they're actually true.

Word came over the weekend that the financially ailing Broadway revival of Ragtime will close this coming Sunday. At that point, the show will have played 57 regular performances and 28 previews, and will very likely lose its entire $8-million investment.

Michael Riedel of the New York Post had reported earlier this month that such an announcement was imminent, but the show's producers asserted that, although closure had been discussed, there were no concrete plans to do so. As if to prove the show's viability, there was even a weekend-long TV blitz from December 18th to the 21st, during which Ragtime cast members appeared on both local and national TV shows. In addition, cast member Bobby Steggert announced on Twitter that rumors of the show's closure were unfounded, which prompted an article in the New York Times about how the Internet rumor mill was doing Ragtime wrong. 

Alas, the publicity efforts were too little too late, and over the weekend, Ragtime cast members heard that the show would indeed be closing on January 3rd, as had been rumored. On Monday, the producers issued the official closing announcement to the press.

So, what happened? The show's reviews were certainly strong, if not unqualified raves. Ragtime has long been a sentimental favorite with the "in" theater crowd, but as the [title of show] folks learned, that's not enough to keep a show running. Did the show simply come back to Broadway too soon? It's never too soon to bring a show back if there's a genuine audience for it. (e.g. Les Miserables, A Chorus Line, Grease.) Was Ragtime poorly marketed? Well, as I've said, the show's logo is washed-out and indistinct, but although good logos can certainly help a show establish a public presence, it's unlikely that a visual identity can make or break a show by itself.

Perhaps Ragtime simply got lost amid the blockbusters. There's been a growing tendency among casual theater goers to patronize only the biggest hits (e.g. Billy Elliot, Wicked, Jersey Boys). Although there may be room on Broadway right now for smaller shows to find a way to survive (e.g. Next To Normal, Rock of Ages), even a scaled-down Ragtime had a cast of 34 and some 30 people in the orchestra. Perhaps Ragtime is simply too big to ever succeed on Broadway.

Or maybe -- just maybe -- this Ragtime failed because the word of mouth just wasn't there. Sure, there are plenty of musical queens and theater mavens who've been talking the show up big time on Twitter and Facebook and the [shudder] theater chat rooms. But big shows rise and fall based on the pass-along "wow" factor. Maybe this production just wasn't getting the all-important man/woman on the street to go home and say, "Hey, you really gotta see this." As I said in my review, I'm a huge Flaherty and Ahrens fan, and an ardent admirer of Ragtime as a show. But I wasn't really blown away by this particular production. There seemed to be something missing, a lack of an emotional center. There was no questioning the talent on stage, but for me there just wasn't anything outstanding about the production itself.

The current production notwithstanding, Ragtime remains, in my humble estimation, a musical for the ages. It has a strong book and an amazing score, and I've been very gratified by how it has caught on in the provinces, despite the need for a large number of African Americans in the cast. (African Americans haven't always been interested in musical theater, although thankfully that seems to be changing.) If you have a chance to see the show before it closes, I recommend taking it in. But I remain quite confident that this isn't the last we've seen of Ragtime.

ADDENDUM: The producers of Ragtime have announced that the show will play an extra week of performances, and will now close on January 10th. At that point, the show will have played 65 regular performances. Could this be the start of a trend? Or will the week amount to little more than a dead-cat bounce? I just got a ticket to see the show again on Friday, January 8th. Stay tuned for my re-review.

Million Dollar Quartet Will Play the Nederlander

No sooner had the revival of Brighton Beach Memoirs died what many consider to be a premature death at the Nederlander Theater then a new show announced its tenancy. Million Dollar Quartet, which has been playing for more than a year in Chicago, will begin performances on 41st Street in March of 2010.

Million Dollar Quartet relates the story of one day in 1956 when Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, and Carl Perkins all jammed together "for the first and only time," according to the show's Web site. The show features a book by Floyd Mutrux and Colin Escott, and interpolates popular period songs, including "Great Balls of Fire," "See You Later Alligator," "Fever," and "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On."

Will Million Dollar Quartet be the next Jersey Boys or the next All Shook Up? To be honest, I'm finding it really hard to care. I can't imagine a musical I'd be less interested in seeing, except perhaps Pure Country. Yeah, I'm not that big on rock 'n roll, country music, or their derivatives. Of course, I'll see the show. I like to see everything. But, to paraphrase Frank N. Furter, I'm not exactly shivering with anticipation.

Plus, the commercial resume for the show's co-director, one Eric Schaeffer, isn't particularly encouraging. Yes, Schaeffer is the artistic director of the respected Signature Theater. But his Broadway outings thus far have comprised Putting it Together and Glory Days . "Ick" and "Youch," respectively. He also directed the first national tour of Big, and the London premier of The Witches of Eastwick. So you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical.

But, getting back to the topic of Brighton Beach Memoirs, I've been lying pretty low on this topic, partly because my interests lie primarily in musical theater, but also because so many of my blogger peeps seemed to be in mourning, and I didn't want to salt their wounds. But I have been bristling at all the journalistic hand-wringing, particularly by Howard Kissel of the New York Daily News. Kissel uses the failure of BBM to bemoan the death of "the Broadway Audience," whatever that means.

I'm sorry, but I really don't see any larger implications for the closure of BBM, beyond the fact that the producers chose to do a show that few people apparently wanted to see. Yes, I'm sure poor marketing and insufficient finance had something to do with it. But all the sturm und drang I keep hearing about the death of straight plays (at least those without stars above the title) and the growing irrelevance of Neil Simon and whatnot is pretty much crap.

I see dozens of shows each season, and even I wasn't all that interested in seeing BBM. Many of my blogger cohorts were thrilled with the production, and on that basis I might have taken it in, had it run longer. But, again, I see the demise of BBM as the result of bad producing, in particular faulty (or nonexistent) market research.

Is the non-star straight play dead? August: Osage County anyone? If the play is good, people will come. Sure, the producers resorted to bringing in Estelle Parsons and Phylicia Raschad toward the end of the run, but only after the show had captivated New York audiences without a single well-known name. Is Neil Simon a relic? That remains to be seen. Recent productions of his shows have certainly been disappointing, but there's no such thing in theater as a "never" or an "always." Methinks the pundits are looking for higher meaning where it's entirely possible that none exists.

My $0.02.

Avenue Q Will Move Off-Broadway

Avenue Q, the scrappy little musical that broke the rules, will break them once again. With so many musicals these days making the transfer from Off-Broadway to the Great White Way, Avenue Q has decided to travel against the tide.

As you may know, Avenue Q played its last Broadway performance last night. Well, apparently, the producers made a closing-night announcement that the show will reopen Off-Broadway in October. Puppets and humans alike will take up residence at the New World Stages, long-time home of Altar Boyz, Naked Boys Singing, and now The Toxic Avenger Musical.

It's an unusual move, to say the least, but not entirely unprecedented. The little-known tuner Billy Bishop Goes to War made a similar Broadway-to-Off-Broadway transfer, albeit under far less auspicious circumstances. The show played the late and lamented Morosco Theatre for a scant 12 performances in 1980, then moved to the Lucille Lortel for another 78. 

It is, nonetheless, a ballsy move on the part of Avenue Q's already gonad-laden producers. It makes me wonder whether the move was planned, or if the show's post-closing-announcement demand precipitated the thought of a crosstown transplant. The Off-Broadway move will certainly lower the show's running costs, as Off-Broadway houses have different and less expensive agreements with the various unions.

Will other musicals follow suit? It's certainly possible. Perhaps Spring Awakening or The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee might have benefited from a similar move. Both shows turned a profit, but perhaps the brand recognition from their Broadway runs could have propelled them into an even more profitable afterlife. Perhaps Next to Normal or Rock of Ages could move back to their Off-Broadway roots once their respective Broadway runs wind down. 

We'll have to wait and see. Meanwhile, Avenue Q begins performances at the New World Stages on October 9th.

9 to 5 Will Close September 6th

Today's New York Post ran a pointlessly snarky column by Michael Riedel announcing the imminent closure of the Broadway musical 9 to 5, probably around Labor Day. Of course, this was before the producers had a chance to break the news to the cast before today's matinee, but that didn't seem to matter to Miss Riedel.

Then, later in the day, came the official announcement, which ran on Playbill.com and other online sites, that 9 to 5 would indeed be closing, specifically on September 6th. At that time, the show will have played 148 performances and 24 previews, which makes it likely that the producers will have lost their entire investment, which is rumored to have been about $14 million.

I must admit that it's a bit two-faced of me to admonish La Riedel for dumping on 9 to 5. For weeks, as I've pored through the Broadway grosses, I've been predicting in my Twitter updates that the show would be shuttering soon. After all, 9 to 5 has been playing to about 70% capacity with and average ticket of around $70. And this is during the summer, when New York is teeming with pleasure-seeking tourists. Plus, 9 to 5 has been grossing around $700,000 a week at a time when no fewer than ten Broadway productions are bringing in $1-million plus. And even if $700k is enough to meet the show's weekly nut, that amount would likely plummet come fall, much like what happened to Legally Blonde last year, precipitating the show's October 2008 demise.

Now, I didn't much care for 9 to 5 when I saw it in April. (Read my review.) I found it to be a middling entry in the movies-into-musicals genre, ranking somewhere below Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and The Wedding Singer. But I know a number of people who enjoyed 9 to 5, including my esteemed blogger buddies Esther and Steve. (Click on their names for their respective takes on 9 to 5.) And there was much to appreciate in the show's central trio of performers: Allison Janney, Stephanie J. Block, and Megan Hilty. So I take no great pleasure in seeing 9 to 5 close, although I genuinely wish that the show had been better.

As always, with the closure announcement for 9 to 5, came word that the show will launch a tour. I definitely see this happening; the movie has a sufficient fan base that the musical version will likely attract decent crowds in the provinces, although I can't really seeing it making more than one nationwide sweep. Those who aren't able to catch the show before it closes, or won't get to see the tour, will have to make do with the 9 to 5 cast recording, which came out yesterday. I haven't received my copy yet, but I'm hoping the Dolly Parton songs hold up better than they did in the theater. After all, she's the person who turned a so-so song ("I Will Always Love You") from a pretty bad movie ("The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas") into a veritable goldmine. The self-described "Backwoods Barbie" will rise again.

The Little Mermaid Will Close August 30th

In a bit of a surprise move, Disney has announced that it will close down the Broadway production of The Little Mermaid on August 30th. (This is a particular bummer for Boston Conservatory folk, since BoCo alum Chelsea Morgan Stock just took over the lead after understudying the part, and performing in the chorus, since the show opened.) When the The Little Mermaid closes, it will have played 50 previews and 685 performances. That admittedly disappointing run will at least put it past Tarzan, which closed after 486 performances.

Why is this surprising? To be sure, The Little Mermaid opened to some pretty dismal reviews, and was completely shut out at the 2007 Tony Awards. But the show really hasn't been doing that badly at the box office. The weekly grosses have been consistently over $600,000 since March, and lately have been coming in at about $800,000. If that level of weekly income isn't covering the show's nut, then that's just bad producing on Disney's part. What's more, Mary Poppins hasn't been doing all that much better at the box office. Perhaps we'll hear another closing announcement from Disney sometime soon?

In their announcement about closing The Little Mermaid, the folks at Disney acknowledge that the show has been having, and will likely to continue to have, a good summer. But then there's the fall:

We are tremendously proud of the show and are confident we'll have an excellent summer but it would be fiscally irresponsible to our shareholders to risk operating losses with such a big show in the historically challenging fall months. We are closing the Broadway production to concentrate on the long future life of this title...

That's actually some remarkably frank language from a company not known for its glasnost. As for the "future" of The Little Mermaid, the show will launch a national tour in 2010. The show is likely to do well in the provinces, where people don't necessarily read Broadway reviews, and will be attracted to both the Disney brand and the name-recognition from the original movie. And there will probably be international productions as well. Tarzan, it turns out, has become quite a popular show in the Netherlands and Germany.

The closure of The Little Mermaid frees up the hideously decorated but conveniently located Lunt-Fontanne Theater. Playbill.com reports that there are rumors that the theater's next tenant will be the upcoming musical version of The Addams Family. (The cast of which is looking pretty darned fabulous: Nathan Lane, Bebe Neuwirth, Kevin Chamberlin, Jackie Hoffman, Terrence Mann, Carolee Carmello, and Wesley Taylor.) Watch this space for more details.

Avenue Q to Close September 13th

I was in New York City over the weekend, seeing some shows. (The Norman Conquests: Table Manners, The Wiz, and Knickerbocker Holiday. See my review of NC:TM below. Look for my reviews of the remaining two later in the week. In short: yay, feh, and meh, in that order.)

I had every intention of leaving the city Sunday morning and heading north to Hillsdale to help my dear friend Ann celebrate her birthday. But then Ann called me on Saturday and said, "Stay in the city. I want to come down and see a show."

Twist my arm.

Since it was her birthday, I gave her free reign as to the show we would see. (Although I was dying to suggest that we take in The Norman Conquests: Living Together, I made it a point of honor not to influence her decision.)  She had never seen Avenue Q, and although I had seen it twice already, I found a discount code and ordered up a pair of tickets.

I had heard a rumor that the Broadway production of Avenue Q might be closing in September, and asked one of the staff members at the theater whether that might be true. He said that no official announcement had yet appeared, but that they weren't selling tickets beyond September 13th. Then, this morning, that announcement came: Avenue Q will indeed be closing in September. The show will have played 2,534 regular performances and 22 previews. I'm happy to say that I was at one of those previews, and instantly fell in love with this charming, funny, sweet, and profane show. When it closes, the show will be the 20th longest-running show in Broadway history, putting it past The Producers, Annie, and the recent revival of Cabaret.

Avenue Q holds a special place in Broadway history. First, it pulled off one of the biggest upsets in Tony history by snatching the best-musical award from the hands of Wicked. But, more important, it demonstrated that small shows could make money on Broadway: that you didn't have to have falling chandeliers, or rising tires, or landing helicopters to lure in crowds, make a profit, and provide an entertaining evening out. Subsequent modest shows that became money makers, such as The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee, The Drowsy Chaperone, Spring Awakening, and the recent revival of Sweeney Todd, all have Avenue Q to thank for proving to a skeptical producing community that it was possible.

I'm happy to report that the current Broadway cast more than does this delightful little show justice. Particularly good is Howie Michael Smith as Princeton/Rod, who crafts a performance that's thoroughly distinct from that of John Tartaglia, who originated the role. Equally good, and just as individual in his interpretation, is Christian Anderson as Nicky/Trekkie Monster. Overall the show remained tight and fresh: even six years into its run, Avenue Q has retained its ability to charm, to shock, and to entertain. 

If you haven't seen Avenue Q yet, or even if you have, I can't recommend it highly enough. As an added incentive, original cast member Ann Harada will be rejoining the show as part of its final cast. Harada was an absolute riot as Christmas Eve, and no one else I've seen in the part has quite measured up to Harada's masterful portrayal. 

To quote one of the best songs from the show, "Everything in life is only for now."

August Osage County to Close June 28th

Regular readers will recall that, despite the title of my blog, I do make occasional forays into non-musical theater. By recent count, in fact, my musicals-to-plays ratio for Broadway theater was about 3 to 1.

One recent play that I found particularly captivating was Tracy Letts' multiple award-winning August: Osage County. Despite the play's formidable length (3 hours and 20 minutes), I was so taken by the show that I went back to see it again. Twice. Once to see Tony winner Deanna Dunagan, who was out the first time I saw the play, and again to see Estelle Parsons. Despite knowing all the show's many surprises ahead of time, I still found the play stunning, and appreciated the many differences among the equally masterful performances from Dunagan, Parsons, and understudy Susanne Marley.

Now comes news that the Broadway production of August, alas, is closing. The show, which currently stars Phylicia Rashad, will play its last performance at New York's Music Box Theater on Sunday, June 28th. The show will have played 648 performances and 18 previews, putting it past other such successful plays as Doubt, Master Class, and Six Degrees of Separation. August has long since recouped its $2.5 million initial investment, a year ago, in fact. The show's grosses have been declining pretty steadily since peaking at about $600,000 in early 2008, and lately have been coming in a bit closer to $200,000. Even so, it's likely that the investors have made a tidy profit for themselves. That's quite a feat when you're talking about a three-hour-plus, star-less drama.

What's more, the movie version of August: Osage County is currently under development towards a projected 2011 opening. And the national tour, which will star Estelle Parsons, launches later this year, with a stop at Boston's Colonial Theater in May 2010. You can bet that I'll be seeing it again.

Guys and Dolls Revival Closing

The first post-Tony musical has fallen, folks.

The producers of the current revival of Guys and Dolls have announced that the show will play its final performance this Sunday, June 14th. The show will have played 113 performances and 28 previews.

One of my readers informs me that the running cost (i.e. "nut") for Guys and Dolls is about $520,000 a week, and I count only nine weeks during the show's run in which the grosses exceeded that amount. Based on my calculations, as of last week the show had brought in total of $926,000 over its running costs. Since the typical musical of that size usually costs upwards of $10 million to mount, that would put Guys and Dolls at least $9 million in the hole. Youch. Yeah, there are a lot of assumptions in that calculation, but it gives you a sense of the magnitude of the loss.

I was one of the few people who genuinely enjoyed this production of Guys and Dolls. (Read my review) The show wasn't particularly memorable, but it represented a reasonably entertaining night at the theater. I was especially fond of Lauren Graham as Adelaide and Kate Jennings Grant as Sarah. Yeah, the show couldn't hold a candle to the 1992 Guys and Dolls revival, but few shows could. As usual, the producers have announced that there will be a national tour. Yeah, whatever. That's part of the drill: acknowledge the exceptional nature of the cast and crew, blame it on the economy or the sheer number of competing shows, hint at a national tour, etc. But I would actually be surprised if that tour actually materialized.

My blogger friend Esther quipped on Twitter earlier today "I guess I'll have to wait until the next Guys and Dolls revival." Well, Esther, love, if history is any indication, you won't have to wait very long.