Everything I Know I Learned From Musicals

Review - Aladdin on Broadway

The Walt Disney Company continues to comb its catalog for stage-musical candidates. You can hardly blame them: The Lion King has become a license to print money, Newsies is still going strong after two years, and New York audiences continue to demonstrate that they will indeed pay top dollar (or at least discounted dollar) to take their kids to the theater.

Of course, Disney has fumbled in the past. The Little Mermaid was a bloated disappointment, and the less said about Tarzan, the better, really. But hopes were high, and word from out-of-town tryouts was decent, for Aladdin, the latest Disney property hoping to capture the minds of the young and the wallets of their parents.

From where I sat, Aladdin was diverting, to be sure, but ultimately uninspired. Say what you will about the book and the songs to The Lion King, the production itself is dazzling, thanks to Julie Taymor's jaw-dropping visuals. (Hmm, whatever happened to Taymor?)

Aladdin feels like a passable summer-stock production with a Broadway budget. The look is lush and colorful, but the production itself is sluggish and pedestrian. At least Disney has learned from The Little Mermaid not to overwhelm the show with lumbering and expensive set pieces. With Mermaid, the glitz overwhelmed what is in fact a strong score, at least with respect to the original movie songs. 

The big disappointment with Aladdin is director/choreographer Casey Nicholaw, who until now was looking like the Next Big Thing. Nicholaw did a masterful job with The Drowsy Chaperone, imbuing the production with an infectious sense of fun and a ton of imaginative staging. And The Book of Mormon surely owes no small debt to Nicholaw for its non-stop hilarity and inventiveness. Nicholaw even made Anyone Can Whistle whiz along joyously during its recent stint at Encores, no small feat with the that show's preachy, fragmented book.

Nicholaw's work on Aladdin feels utterly ordinary, with production numbers lumbering along with no apparent point or sense of build. "One Jump Ahead" felt particularly plodding and artificial. (You could tell the bad guys were deliberately holding back in order to not catch Aladdin.) Nicholaw manages to whip up the occasional show-stopper, as he does with "Friend Like Me." Even so, that number felt poorly paced, not giving the otherwise masterful James Monroe Iglehart as the Genie a chance to stop and catch his breath. (C'mon, Casey, even Victor/Victoria knew when to bring on the chorus and give Julie a rest.)

As is usually the case with these stage adaptations, Aladdin features an array of new songs and a revamped book. The new script is by Chad Beguelin, one of the authors of the fun and underrated The Wedding Singer, but Beguelin's attempts to punch up the proceedings with hoary humor more often than not fall flat. Particularly tiresome is a series of labored puns about Middle Eastern food, including hummus, baba ganoush, and falafel. (As in "Oh, I falafel about it...")

For some reason, someone thought it necessary to add a bunch of irrelevant nonsense about Aladdin's three buddies, the newly minted Omar, Babkak and Kassim. These sidekick wannabes usually only take up stage time, serving to populate pointless production numbers that only seem to move the story from one venue to the next. 

The original songs with music by Alan Menken and lyrics by Howard Ashman and Tim Rice are supplemented here by new songs by Menken nd Beguelin, but none of these new songs makes a lasting impression. It was nice to hear the song "Proud of Your Boy," which was written for the 1992 movie but cut during the development process. Aladdin sings the song to his now-deceased parents, but the song fails to provide the intended emotional resonance, at least as presented here.

One thing I will say for Aladdin: the magic carpet is sensational. I'll be damned if I can figure out how they did it. I couldn't see any wires and there didn't seem to be a cherry picker in evidence. Genuinely magical. If only that sense of magic had pervaded the rest of the production, Aladdin might have been one for the ages. Instead, it's pleasant but forgettable.

Review - The Jungle Book at Boston's Huntington Theatre

The Huntington Theatre Company in Boston announced today that its current production of The Jungle Book is now the highest-grossing production in the company's history, with three weeks still left in the show's twice-extended run.

Yet again, I find myself at odds with public opinion, as I did with the current Broadway productions Pippin and Kinky Boots, neither of which I personally found compelling, but which the general public seems to be devouring voraciously. Likewise, The Jungle Book, based on the 1967 Disney movie, has become a pretty hot ticket in Boston, and I'll be damned if I can see what other people are seeing in this production, which I found eminently resistible, instantly forgettable, and overall kind of a yawn.

I'm sure this is a case of unreasonably high expectations on my part, because I was so genuinely amazed by director Mary Zimmerman's recent reinvention of the musical Candide, which played the Huntington a few seasons back. That production was bursting with inventiveness, and I was sort of hoping that The Jungle Book would reflect a similar sense of innovative stagecraft and dynamic storytelling. No such luck. To be sure, The Jungle Book has many dazzling moments and sequences. What it doesn't have is a compelling story to tell, or even real, heartfelt characterizations, with some notable exceptions. 

Zimmerman also provides the libretto, as she did with her reimagined Candide, but her book here is detrimentally episodic and narratively diffuse. What's more, Zimmerman as director has failed to give the production any sense of momentum. The show simply flows from episode to episode, without fully taking advantage of a number of potentially compelling devices. Whatever narrative tension exists comes from how the man-cub Mowgli wants to stay in the jungle, while his animal friends think he's better off with his own kind. There's also the specter of the tiger who shadows Mowgli throughout the show. But these elements get lost in a series of seemingly random encounters and fail to build, or even coalesce.

Even the two well-known songs from the movie, "Bare Necessities" and "Be Like You," fail to leave a lasting impression because Zimmerman has miscalculated what could make these numbers compelling. The former loses any sense of build because of an enervating series of solos that Zimmerman provides for each of the itinerant musicians who wander through the show. And the latter is simply too loud and too long, trying unsuccessfully to leave a lasting impression by dint of sheer force. There's also an incredibly clumsy tap number, for which someone made the rather quizzical choice of placing taps on the hands of the dancers as well as their feet. In an effort to make use of this awkward device, choreographer Christopher Gattelli saps the number of any residual energy that may have been in the process of building up.

The only marginally memorable aspects of this Jungle Book were the admittedly sumptuous visual design by Daniel Ostling (scenic design) and Mara Blumenfeld (costumes), and two indelible performances from Kevin Carolan as Balloo and the magical Andre de Shields as Akela and King Louie, both of whom veritably shine in their respective moments in the sun. Otherwise, The Jungle Book is a show that I actually need to keep reminding myself that I saw.

Review - Newsies on Broadway

I hated the movie "Newsies." Hated hated hated it. I found it plodding, forced, cloying, and resolutely earthbound. My roommate at the time, Todd, has a father who's an actor, and his father appeared in "Newsies" as Robert Duvall's assistant or something. Todd and I went to see the movie together, and when we exited the theater, I turned to him and said, "If that movie kills movie musicals, I'm going to blame your dad. You know that, right?"

Well, "Newsies" did kill movie musicals, at least for a while, but I was big enough not to blame Todd's dad. (At least not entirely.) And, for me, "Newsies" has always been a sort of short-hand reference for bad movie musicals.

So, when I heard that Disney Theatricals was planning a stage version of the movie, I was understandably nonplussed. But the word from Paper Mill Playhouse was good. Really good. So good, in fact, that although the production was initially intended as a kick-start for a licensing property, Disney found itself with an unexpected hit on its hands.

A Broadway transfer became inevitable, and the show has become a smash, even garnering eight Tony nominations in the process. Does the show deserve its smash-hit status? Well, there's no question that the stage version of Newsies represents a huge improvement over the movie. (How could it not be?) In fact, if you separate the show itself from the hype -- and the squealing fangirls -- Newsies represents a reasonably entertaining, if somewhat overblown production.

On the plus side, this might just be Disney's best stage show ever, mainly because it focuses mostly on the story and not on visual effects or spectacle. Also, director Jeff Calhoun has whipped the cast into an energetic froth of high spirits and vivid characterization. And the cast members themselves are pretty darned appealing, led by the strikingly charismatic Jeremy Jordan as the central newsie, Jack Kelly. Jordan, who almost made Bonnie & Clyde worth sitting through, gives a similarly memorable performance here, imbuing the role with so much more personality and vibrancy than the young Christian Bale did in the movie. And Jordan's singing is far superior to Bale's.

In terms of the score, the songs were never really the problem with the movie. They were just presented very poorly, both in terms of the singing voices of the cast and Kenny Ortega's leaden choreography. The songs actually represent Alan Menken at his most tuneful and some genuinely interesting lyrics by Jack Feldman. Among the new songs written for the stage show is an ambitious and engaging character number called "Watch What Happens" for Katherine, a new character, the female reporter who takes up the cause of the newsies and becomes Jack Kelly's love interest. But then there's "Something to Believe in," a ballad that's every bit as bland and uninteresting as its title.

Overall, Newsies is a charmer, but there are some considerable flaws. The abundant and strenuous choreography by Christopher Gattelli becomes a bit relentless. The dance numbers are so copious, and so in-your-face energetic, that it starts to feel like a competition for who can leap the highest, twirl the fastest, or do the most amazing series of leaps. Most of the numbers feature showboating acrobatics, and as a result the scrappy crew of supporting players eventually comes off a bit self-satisfied.

That said, the show certainly has its share of showstoppers, including the act-two crowd-pleaser "King of New York," a joyous tap dance for the ensemble. And the dance is, for the most part, thematically linked to the needs of the story line (i.e. not merely decorative), including the angry dance when the newsies go on strike and show their displeasure by stomping on their newspapers, a rousing moment that is nonetheless brazenly stolen from "Summer Stock" with Gene Kelly. (Watch the original number.)

(Oh, and a special shout-out to Boston Conservatory sophomore Jack Scott making his Broadway debut as a swing on this production. Because Gattelli's choreography is so physically demanding -- i.e. injury-inducing -- Jack has seen plenty of stage time, including the night that I saw the show. You go, Jack.)

The new libretto by Harvey Fierstein is full of good humor, but it's also full of holes. At least three of the show's significant characters disappear for huge stretches of time. At first, Fierstein seems to be setting up Medda, a female African-American vaudeville performer, as a significant presence in the show, but she basically sings one song in the middle of act one and never does anything else. Joseph Pulitzer, the show's antagonist, has one number at the top of act one, and then disappears until Act 2.

The seemingly major character with the shudder-inducing name Crutchie is missing for most of the second act, even though we're supposed to feel outrage and sympathy because he's been thrown into a home for wayward boys. Also, most of the newsies don't emerge as individual characters, but rather as a monolith of back-flipping urchins. Also, Jack Kelly has so many changes of heart in act 2, I got a bit of character whiplash. In standing up to Pulitzer, Jack caves and then finds his backbone twice in rapid succession.

As for the plot, the strike happens so quickly, and is resolved so easily, it kinda gave me the feeling that the creators were trying to leave as much room for the dancing as possible. Nevermind believable complications or a satisfying denouement: it's grand jetés and back-flips people want. As if to drive this point home, the show ends with a sort of dance megamix, recapitulating moves from many of the night's showstoppers. I guess that's fine, but the reprise of the tap number "King of New York" seemed kind of silly: at this point in the show, the boys haven't had time to change into their tap shoes, so we get a sort of muffled choreographic callback.

So Newsies is certainly not perfect, but it's undeniably infectious and entertaining. As of this writing, the show's limited run has been extended to August 19th. If the show scoops up a bunch of Tonys, you can be damn sure that date will change. One thing Disney has learned from its limited DVD releases: limit the supply and you increase the demand. But I get the feeling that Newsies will be hanging around on Broadway for a long time to come.

The Most Underrated Musical - Spring 2010

I hope my readers will forgive that I haven't been posting as regularly of late, but I've been pretty gosh darn busy with classes and grading papers and otherwise being academical. Fortunately, there is a blogging upside to all the paper grading, as I've just received this semester's fresh crop of papers on The Most Underrated Musical™.

As always, the list of shows is illuminating, featuring choices that warm the cockles of my grizzled heart, as well as the proverbial things that make you go "Hmm..."

Here are the shows that more than one student wrote about:

2 Aida
2 Once on This Island
2 Parade
2 Wicked

And here are the shows that received one "vote" each:

Annie, The Apple Tree , Assassins, Carnival, City of Angels, Dessa Rose, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, The Drowsy Chaperone, Grey Gardens, The Last Five Years, Little Shop of Horrors, Phantom (Maury Yeston), The Secret Garden, Smile, The Sound of Music , Sunday in the Park With George, Titanic, [title of show], Violet, The Wedding Singer, A Year With Frog and Toad

Keep in mind that the concept of "underrated" means different things to different people, and that the ultimate goal here is just to get them thinking critically about the shows they see and perform in. But I encourage my students to think about who's underrating the show: is it the general public or perhaps theater insiders? Technically there are no wrong answers, but I do tell my students that some shows are much easier to defend than others.

Case in point: Little Shop of Horrors. I haven't graded that particular paper yet, so I'm not sure what that student's justification is. But Little Shop ran more than 2,200 performances Off Broadway in the '80s and has gone on to become one of the most performed shows in schools and community theaters. Sure, the 2003 Broadway production was a bit of a bust, lasting less than a year, but my take on that is that people had already seen or done Little Shop a gajillion times and didn't feel compelled to pay top dollar to repeat the privilege. 

Now, Annie is a choice that I can understand. Sure, it's one of the most successful shows of all time, but there are quite a few people who dismiss the show as sentimental fluff. To which I would respond, what's wrong with sentimental fluff? As long as it's executed in an entertaining and professional manner. I happen to be very fond of Annie, partly because I played Oliver Warbucks in my ever more distant youth, but also because it's very good at doing what it was designed to do: charm. It's certainly one of Charles Strouse's better scores, and there is much pleasure to be had in Thomas Meehan's often clever book. 

Similarly, I can certainly understand why two people chose to write about Wicked. I myself have received numerous incredulous, dismissive looks when I tell people that I think it's a very well crafted show. There's a strong tendency on the part of theater aficionados to automatically disdain the popular. But Wicked is the kind of show that you can enjoy purely on an entertainment level, whereas if you really want to listen, you also just might learn something.

And then there's Aida. It's possible that these two students were responding to the fact that I listed Aida at #8 on my list of The Most Overrated Musicals of the 2000s. Here's an excerpt from my explanation as to why I included it on the list:

Call it "The Case of the Disappearing Hit." Aida ran for 1,852 performances, which is about four and a half years. And yet today the show is virtually forgotten...Despite its long and presumably profitable run, Aida has become a virtual nonentity.

It's possible that my dismissal of the show sent these students rushing to its defense, but I haven't seen hide nor hair of the show since it closed in 2004. Does it get many local productions these days? Possibly in other parts of the country the show has caught on, but I haven't noticed any local productions here in Boston. I actually sort of liked Aida, although I do find many of the musical numbers either pointless ("Like Father, Like Son") or tedious ("Another Pyramid"). But both "Easy as Life" and "Elaborate Lives" are pretty kick-ass. 

As I said, the point is to get them thinking critically, and it's ultimately not about the shows that they choose but rather how well they defend their case. And now, if you'll excuse me, I have a whole lot of papers to grade.

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.