Everything I Know I Learned From Musicals

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."

The Norman Conquests - Table Manners

I finally got a chance to see at least one of the three plays that comprise The Norman Conquests. Last night I caught Table Manners, and based on that experience, I'm really hoping to see Living Together and Round and Round the Garden as well. I get the feeling that part of the fun of this comic trilogy is seeing the connections among the three. All of the plays feature the same characters over one weekend in July. Each play is set in a different area of the same house: the dining room, the garden, and the parlor. As I laughed heartily at the comic goings on in Table Manners, I could already get a sense of what was happening in the other locations, and I really can't wait to see the other two plays.

The Norman Conquests features a prodigiously talented cast of six actors who each craft distinct and rich characterizations. It's a shame to single out any one performer, because the ensemble work here is just so strong, but I was particularly taken with Ben Miles as the awkward and clueless Tom. But there's also superb work here from Amanda Root as uptight harridan Sarah, and Jessica Hynes as the dowdy but burgeoning Annie. No less distinct were the delightfully dorky Paul Ritter and Amelia Bullmore as the acid-tongued and near-sighted Ruth. And at the center of it all is the eponymous Norman, played with charming eccentricity by Stephen Magnan.

But the real star of these three shows is director Matthew Warchus. After spinning comic gold from literary dross with Boeing-Boeing, then turning God of Carnage into the biggest hit play in decades, and a laugh riot to boot, and now shaping the comedic masterpiece that is The Norman Conquests (with more than a little help from playwright Alan Ayckbourn), Warchus has established himself as a masterful director. His work reflects not only a solid flair comedy, but also a deft touch at pathos. Both God of Carnage and Norman Conquests are achingly funny, but they also reveal the pain and loneliness beneath the bluster that make the productions, and the people in them, that much more compelling to watch.

The Norman Conquests run at Broadway's Circle in the Square Theatre until July 26th. Catch it if you can. You might just see me there.

Ragtime and Night Music Find Theaters

An article on Bloomberg.com yesterday painted a rather gloomy portrait of the summer Broadway scene: come August, some 19 of Broadway's 39 theaters will be dark. Yeah, that sounds pretty depressing. But on the very same day, Variety ran an article that had more of a glass-half-full tone to it, pointing out that many, if not all, of those theaters already have bookings for the fall.

Case in point: the upcoming revivals of A Little Night Music and Ragtime have tentatively found their respective Broadway homes. Night Music will likely play the Walter Kerr, soon to be vacated by Irena's Vow. And Ragtime will probably land at the Neil Simon, which has been lying fallow since Hairspray closed in January.

Of course, the productions as well as the theater bookings are subject to change. But I recently heard that a few of my Boston Conservatory students attended the open-call audition for Ragtime, so we at least know that show is in the active process of working out. One of the students even got a callback for Sarah. (Break a leg, Lori!)

Details about the Night Music revival are still sketchy. The New York Times reported a few weeks back that the show was likely to play a Jujamcyn theater (which the Walter Kerr is), but there hasn't been any specific info about dates or casting as yet. Reports about the Trevor Nunn-directed London production have been glowing, including a rave from my friend and fellow blogger Steve on Broadway.

Other musicals currently booked for next season include Memphis at the Shubert, Fela at the Eugene O'Neill, Finian's Rainbow at the St. James, and Spider Man at the Hilton. As for non-musicals, there's Superior Donuts at the Music Box, A Steady Rain (with...HELLO...Hugh Jackman and Daniel Craig...woof and double woof) at the Schoenfeld, Brighton Beach Memoirs/Broadway Bound at the Nederlander, Race at the Barrymore. And all that doesn't even count the non-profit companies and their seasons.

Sure, there are likely to be some vacancies in the foreseeable future: the Circle in the Square, Lyceum, Belasco, and Cort theaters don't seem to have anything booked for next season as of yet. Then there's the Broadhurst, but that highly-desirable theater is never empty for very long. (UPDATE: My sources tell me the Broadhurst will likely house Jude Law in Hamlet. So there.) The Longacre will likely go dark again after the limited engagement of Burn the Floor. But given that we're in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, I'd say that's a pretty strong season we're looking at, and least in terms of the number of shows.

Chess in Concert With Josh Groban

Let me get this out of the way up front: as a musical, Chess doesn't work. It didn't work in London, it didn't work on Broadway, and it hasn't worked in any of the innumerable versions that have cropped up since. And it certainly doesn't work in the recently released concert version, a mostly tasteless affair partly redeemed by the music of Björn Ulvaeus and Benny Andersson, and the presence of Josh Groban.

I pay virtually no attention to popular music, so although I was aware of Josh Groban, I had never heard any of his work. I may need to seek out some of his other stuff, because I really liked what I heard. Groban has a rich, sonorous voice and terrific stage presence. And he shows admirable restraint amid the crass production (one word: choral-ography) and histrionic cast mates surrounding him.

Leading the charge toward excess is Idina Menzel as Florence. Oh, she can scream with the best of 'em, but her style has no subtlety, and her acting skills are rudimentary at best. Close on Menzel's overwrought heels is Adam Pascal, who exhibits here the same cloying vocal catches, scoops, slurs, and growls evident in the cast recording of Rent, as well as the same cardboard acting style. Although I do have to say that there seemed to be some genuine pathos in evidence during "Pity the Child."

The appeal of Chess has always been the gorgeous, chill-inducing music by Björn Ulvaeus and Benny Andersson, combined with Tim Rice's often-inspired but sometimes-clunky lyrics. The stripped-down book of the concert version renders the relevance of many of the songs opaque, if not incomprehensible. But even if Chess the show doesn't work, the songs do, particularly the soaring "Anthem" and the thrilling duet "You and I," both of which feature Groban to positively stirring effect.

The concert version of Chess reverts back to the structure and song list of the concept album and the London version of the show, restoring a number of admittedly fun songs that don't belong in the show, including "Embassy Lament," and "The Merchandisers," the levity of which throws off the show's tone. And "One Night in Bangkok" remains, as always, an irrelevant cheese-fest.

But the concert also includes "Someone Else's Story," which was written for the Broadway version, to be sung by Florence. However, in the concert version the song goes to Svetlana, Anatoly's wife. This makes no sense at all. Here is a song about someone deciding whether to stay or leave, but this character is not in that position; Anatoly has already left her. This change was probably made to accommodate one Kerry Ellis, who is currently playing Elphaba in the London Wicked. Which makes sense, because Ellis here has all the vocal restraint and acting talent of Idina Menzel. Which is to say, not much. 

So, there are two reasons to be interested in this concert: Josh Groban and the music. I say skip the DVD and buy the CD. Better yet, just buy the songs that have Groban on them. The folks at iTunes seem to understand this, and have priced the separate cuts accordingly: any track that features Groban costs $1.29, while the rest are 99 cents. (Heads up: All the songs are $0.99 at Amazon)

Chess has always been a show that's very close to my heart, ever since I bought the concept album in college. But I've long since given up hope that it will ever work as a show. It's probably time that the show's creators do the same.

Blithe Spirit Still a Joy

I was invited to attend a press preview of the Public's star-studded production of Twelfth Night in Central Park over the weekend. Alas, Mother Nature conspired otherwise, and the Sunday night performance was canceled due to rain. Never mind that I had planned an overnight to NYC for the express purpose of seeing the show. Harrumph.

But the day was hardly a total...wait for it...washout [CUE: rimshot], as it gave me the chance to meet up with some of my wonderful blogger friends, including Steve at Steve on Broadway, Mondschein at Third Row Mezzanine, and Sarah at Adventures in the Endless Pursuit of Entertainment. I also got to meet two new blogger friends, Vance at Tapeworthy and Byrne at Stage Buzz.

In addition, the trip gave me the chance to meet up with my dear friend Ann, and to take in another performance of Blithe Spirit, which I enjoyed so much when I saw it in April. (Read my review.) It's certainly not the deepest play ever written, but Noel Coward's droll -- if a bit stilted -- dialog is a delight, even upon repeated exposure. The performances seem to have morphed a bit. Rupert Everett appeared to be much more concerned with mugging and getting a laugh than embodying a credible character this time around. The same can be said for Christine Ebersole. But Jayne Atkinson, whom I found overly abrasive the first time, seems to have added a richness and a solidity to her performance that was previously lacking.

Of course, the real reason to see this show is to witness Angela Lansbury's now Tony-winning performance, and I'm happy to say that she remains a delight. Angela has always had this adorable, sparkling quality to her, at least on stage and in musicals. Even when she's playing Mama Rose or Mrs. Lovett, two rather despicable characters, Angela somehow makes you fall in love with her. There were a few more fumbled lines this time around, but somehow for me it added to the delicious dotty nature of her portrayal of Madame Arcati.

Blithe Spirit plays at the Shubert Theater in New York until July 19th. If you haven't seen it (or even if you have, right, SarahB?), I recommend it highly. It's not the tightest production, and again there are some ham-bone tendencies on the part of some of the performers to contend with. But how many times are you going to get to see the wonderful Angela Lansbury again? I mean, she's 83 years old. What are you waiting for?

The Most Produced High School Musicals 2008

I'm always fascinated by the shows that live on after Broadway. And by live on, I mean catch on in regional and community productions. Of course, high school shows are a subset unto themselves. Some shows, no matter how artistically strong or financially successful, just won't catch on in high schools. The Producers will likely fall into this category; the subject matter, and all that. And then there are other shows that catch on in schools despite their lack of quality: Footloose and Fame come to mind.

Each year, the Educational Theater Association surveys high schools around the the country asking them what plays and musicals they've performed. (But we only care about the musicals, right, dear reader? For the full list, see here. For my take on last year's list, see here.) This year, 830 schools responded, and here are the results:

1. Beauty and the Beast
2. Little Shop of Horrors
3. Guys and Dolls
4. (tie) Seussical
4. (tie) Thoroughly Modern Millie
6. (tie) Bye Bye Birdie
6. (tie) Into the Woods
8. (tie) High School Musical
8. (tie) Once Upon a Mattress

The thing that struck me was that four of these shows have had recent, financially under-performing revivals: Guys and Dolls, Little Shop of Horrors, Once Upon a Mattress, and Into the Woods. Could it be that a major factor in the lack of success for these revivals is that everyone has already seen or done these shows again and again? I mean, why pay $100+ for something you could see at your local senior high? Of course, one data point in the other direction is the current smash-hit revival of West Side Story. That show is done all over the place, and that doesn't seem to be stopping people from shelling out an average of $100 at the Palace.

Which brings me to Bye Bye Birdie, which the Roundabout will be mounting in the fall. Pro: This will be the show's first-ever Broadway revival. Con: Frickin' everybody has done this show. Pro: Talented director/choreographer Robert Longbottom is due for a hit. Con: The book is creaky as hell. Pro: The score is charming, with lots of memorable tunes. Con: The book is creaky as hell. Pro: They've amassed a cast replete with Hollywood beauties (Gina Gershon, John Stamos) and Broadway stalwarts (Bill Irwin, Jayne Houdyshell, Dee Hoty). Con: The book...you get the idea. 

The Roundabout will run Birdie at the newly renovated Henry Miller, rather than the Studio 54, which is where they typically house their musicals. Perhaps this is because they've realized the Studio 54 is a cold, heartless barn of a venue, and that Birdie will do much better in a warmer, more intimate space. It could also be that they have high hopes for Birdie, and plan on running it for a while, while using the 54 for their rotating slate of shows.

Another indication that the Roundabout has grand plans for Birdie is the show's recently announced top ticket price of $136.50, which Roundabout managing director Harold Wolpert defends by pointing out that subscribers comprise half of the Roundabout's ticket sales, and pay about half the face value on the ticket. Well, all I can say is, after the Roundabout's lackluster 2008-2009 season (cf. Pal Joey, The Philanthropist, A Man for All Seasons, Waiting for Godot) you'd think that they'd be lowering their ticket prices. I'll definitely be seeing Bye Bye Birdie, but I'll have to take the rest of their 2009-2010 season on a case-by-case basis.

The Color Purple National Tour

I finally got around to seeing The Color Purple last night, and in retrospect I can't really understand why it took me so long. I wasn't initially interested in seeing it on Broadway, probably because I'm really not a fan of Stephen Spielberg's cartoonish movie version.

When I did get a ticket to see the show, I got stuck in traffic and missed the performance. By the time I got around to taking advantage of the Broadway Theater's past dating procedures, the show had closed. So, I as glad to see that national tour would be making a stop at Boston's cavernous Wang Theater. (OK, Joseph, that's your cue to giggle.) 

The key strength of the show lies in its book, by Marsha Norman (The Secret Garden, 'night, Mother). The show starts off with a slightly muddled opening sequence involving a church service, soloist, and chatty church ladies singing "Mysterious Ways," a gospel number of questionable relevance. Interspersed throughout the song are little scene-letts that introduce the main characters, but if you hadn't read the book, or seen the movie, you might be confused at this point as to whom the show is really about.

But the book eventually settles into a vibrant telling of a compelling story. Norman crafts some masterful sequences, including one that juxtaposes a raid on an African village with the beating of one of the main characters, emphasizing the ubiquity of black suffering at the hands of callous whites in the early 20th century. 

My chief complaint with the show lies in its bland, unmemorable score, with music and lyrics by Brenda Russell, Allee Willis and Stephen Bray. Among the three of them, the only person who has any other Broadway credits is Willis, who provided additional lyrics for the disastrous Hot Feet. The lack of theatrical experience shows. Most of the songs never rise above serviceable, although some are pleasant enough, particularly the touching "Too Beautiful for Words." But somehow the show still works with an unremarkable score, which is a credit to the power of Alice Walker's original novel, as well as the skill of book-writer Norman and her able director, Gary Griffin.

I did have some quibbles with the show. There are some awkward scene tags, some sequences that go on too long, and a second act that loses momentum toward the end. But the emotional ending is a real tearjerker, and I for one was tremendously moved. And props to Norman and company for addressing the lesbian love story head-on, rather than wussing out, as Spielberg did with the movie. 

Although I would really have loved to have seen Tony-winning LaChanze play the role of Celie, the delightful Kenita Miller does a bang-up job with the role, spanning forty years of Celie's growth and blossoming with passionate aplomb. Also on hand from the original cast were the sassy Felicia Fields as Sofia and charming Brandon Victor Dixon as Harpo. (Click on Dixon's name to get a look at his somewhat overly dynamic Web site. It's a trip.)

I was disheartened to see that the orchestra of the Wang was less than half full last night. If you're in the Boston area, I highly recommend the show, which runs here until June 28th. You can get discount tickets at Theatermania for $39.50. (You have to be a member, but it's free to join.) Or you could just wait for the movie version of the musical, which is currently in development. But I would suggest seeing it live. The Color Purple has an infectious energy, and despite the hardships that the story portrays, is ultimately a joyous and affirming experience.

UPDATE: I've been listening to the cast album for The Color Purple over the past two days, and I must say that the score is growing on me, particularly "Our Prayer," "Big Dog," "Brown Betty" and "Any Little Thing." Overall I still find the score somewhat bland, but theatrically effective. Most of the songs have an undifferentiated feel about them, at least upon first listening, and are a bit too adult contemporary and watered-down R&B for my taste.

Forever Plaid at a Theater Near You

Last year, we saw the first "cinecast" of a Broadway musical. The final performances of Rent were filmed and subsequently broadcast to movie theaters in September. The film was later released on DVD, and those of us who were deeply disappointed in the 2005 film version of Rent were thrilled to have this vastly superior version (read my review) to replace Chris Columbus's torpid document of this landmark show.

However, the cinecasts of Rent didn't do well in some geographic markets -- although the showing I saw in Boston was packed -- so there was a question as to whether other shows would receive the cinecast treatment.

But it looks as though the theatrical cinecast is still alive, at least for now. On July 9th, NCM Fathom will present a one-night-only 20th anniversary showing of Forever Plaid. The event will apparently include a pre-taped performance of the show, a live segment featuring original cast members, as well as a follow-the-bouncing-ball sing-along.

Um, really? Forever Plaid? That's the show that the movie-going public is crying out to see?

As you may know, Forever Plaid ran Off Broadway over four years in the early '90s, amassing a total of 1,811 performances. It's the story of a close-harmony men's singing group that dies in a car crash only to come back from the great beyond for one final shot at glory. The show doesn't have an original score, but instead features such song standards as "Three Coins in the Fountain" and "Love is a Many Splendored Thing." Since its Off Broadway run, Forever Plaid has become a regional and community-theater staple, and has been performed all over the world.

Which is one of the reasons that I'm skeptical as to the economic prospects of the cinecast event. Rent was an event. Sure, the show had toured extensively, but this was a chance to see the final performance of an important and popular show. I just don't see enough people getting excited enough about Forever Plaid to make it economically viable, but perhaps the producers know something that I don't about the show's appeal. I'll certainly see it, and buy the video should it come out on DVD. But I'm a musical-theater fanatic. In order to succeed, this event is going to have to appeal to a broader audience, and I'm sorry but I just don't see that happening.

UPDATE: The producers of the Forever Plaid event contacted me hoping to change my mind about the cinecast. I told the woman I spoke with that I was certainly open to the possibility that the show might actually be a fun time, but that I remained skeptical as to its economic prospects. She said I might be surprised at how many Plaid heads there are out there. Yes, that would certainly surprise me. But she promised to send me some press passes so that I could decide for myself. Hey, I'm an open-minded guy, and I have certainly changed my mind, or at least revised my views, on a number of shows that I've reviewed. Billy Elliot, Next to Normal, and In the Heights come to mind. But will the same happen for Forever Plaid? The cinecast takes place July 9th. Watch this space shortly thereafter to see if it will.

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.

Threepenny Opera on DVD

Now that school is out for the summer, I can finally start making my way through a stack of DVDs that I've been collecting over the past few years. (See my recent review of the Hair documentary.)

One DVD set that has really been intriguing me is the 1931 film version of The Threepenny Opera (AKA "Die 3 Groschen-Oper"), which was released in 2007 in a sumptuous two-disc edition by the Criterion Collection. The set includes the German- and French-language versions of the film, both directed by Georg Wilhelm Pabst. Apparently it was a common practice at the time to shoot different versions of the same film simultaneously, and the result is a fascinating shot-by-shot recreation with separate casts.

Die Dreigroschenoper was a huge European theatrical success in the late '20s for playwright Bertolt Brecht and composer Kurt Weill. It would be another 25 years before the show would see comparable acclaim in the U.S. The original Broadway run of The Threepenny Opera in 1933 lasted only 12 performances, whereas the 1954 Off-Broadway revival ran for a total of 2,707. The show has since attained classic status, and has seen four subsequent Broadway revivals.

But, anyway, back to the '20s/'30s. Shortly after the show's successful European premiere, German film director Georg Pabst approached Brecht and Weill about bringing Threepenny Opera to the screen. The DVD set also includes some wonderfully informative documentary footage revealing the often tempestuous story behind the film's creation. Brecht saw the film as an opportunity to remake the show in light of his burgeoning Communist sensibilities, and crafted a screenplay that was an even harsher indictment of the bourgeoisie and even more sympathetic towards the proletariat. Problem was, Pabst wanted to film the stage show as it was, so he brought in a number of European writers to finish the screenplay. Brecht sued, and lost.

As for the film itself, some of the cinematic techniques are pretty primitive. This is 1931, after all. But there's also a strong sense of German expressionism present, and a sharp and brooding visual style. And the performances, while stylized, are deeply affecting. Plus, it's pretty darned funny at times. The put me in mind of not only "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" but also a Keystone Cops short, all set to Kurt Weill's glorious music. I'm exaggerating a bit here, but I was genuinely surprised at the wit in evidence. I went in expecting to be academically intrigued, but wound up being thoroughly entertained.

Brecht and Weill purists will undoubtedly balk at the major changes that the film makes to the original piece. The film cuts quite a few characters, including Lucy Brown, as well as about 50% of Weill's score. Among the numbers cut are two of my personal favorites, the "Jealousy Duet" and the "Tango-Ballad," although the latter is used as underscoring during Macheath's trip to the whorehouse. The movie is certainly no replacement for the show, but it stands as a compelling complement.

Ironically, Pabst and company wound up retaining in the film quite a bit of Brecht's ideas from his original screenplay, including a brilliant new ending involving an unholy alliance among the show's main characters: Macheath, Tiger Brown, Polly Peachum, and her father. Plus, it's a genuine treat to see the fabulous Lotte Lenya play the role that she originated, that of Jenny the prostitute, a role she would later recreate, and win a Tony for, in the Off-Broadway revival. (What's that, you say? A Tony for an Off-Broadway performance? Well, it was the first, and last, time that an Off-Broadway performance was so honored.)

One of the refreshing things about watching the movie in German and French was not having to worry about the quality of the English translation. Anyone familiar with Threepenny knows that there are nearly as many translations as there have been productions. And anyone familiar with me knows that I'm a stickler for scansion and lyrical elegance, which the English translations of Threepenny often lack. I tend to be a fan of the 1954 Marc Blitzstein version, probably because it's the one I'm most familiar with, but also because the words seem to actually fit the music better. In his recent review of the CD release of the 1976 Broadway version of Threepenny, Steven Suskin puts it quite well:

Blitzstein, unlike various others who have tried to translate Threepenny into English, was an accomplished lyricist; the words have been adapted to fit the music and the language, rather than slavishly retaining the Brechtian images...Thus, in Blitzstein's adaptation, the songs sound like songs.

In other words, Blitzstein did it best, but everyone else seems to think they can do better, so whenever we see another Threepenny, it usually "boasts" a new translation. Each makes claims of being "truer to Brecht's intent" or "closer to the original German" or whatever. Most fail, because they're written by translators, not by lyricists. But comparing the different versions does offer a fascinating opportunity to see how different people interpret Brecht's original words. The differences are often jarring, and the chance to compare them is unprecedented: there really isn't any other major work in the musical theater canon that affords such an opportunity. Opera, yes. Musical theater, no.

What Are Critics Good For?

What is the job of the critic?

That's the question that I've been pondering since coming across a few posts and discussion threads on the sites of my fellow bloggers Aaron Riccio of That Sounds Cool and Isaac Butler of Parabasis. It was humbling that my blogging colleagues had to call attention to something that was happening in my own backyard, but I'm nonetheless grateful to them for the tip off.

It seems that after Louise Kennedy of the Boston Globe gave the Huntington Theater's production of Pirates a bad review, Huntington Managing Director Michael Maso put up a post on the theater's blog taking Kennedy to task, and asking readers to speak out against her. Quoth Maso:

In over three decades of producing plays, I have never felt such a disconnect between the experience in the theatre and the reflection of a critic. Louise's first line displays her anger at the fact that the audience was responding with cheers and laughter throughout the evening, and her condescension to the audience and artists alike is breathtaking.

Maso goes on:

I have no theory about what is behind this review. I only know that the destructive power of one person, when that person is given the imprimatur of the region's largest newspaper, needs to be balanced by the voices of the thousands who have already let us know about the joy they have found in the laughter, the music, the wit, and the sheer artistry displayed by those involved in this production.

Um, Michael, how's this for a theory: she didn't like the show. And she has every right to say so. Maso and his minions seem to be of the mind that critics should somehow factor the audience response into their reviews. Well, guess what, people: Audiences stood and cheered at the end of Lestat, The Pirate Queen, and Frankenstein. I know, because I was there. And those shows were all unmitigated dreck. And I have it on good authority that they were cheering in the aisles at the end of Carrie, too.

Kennedy's review wasn't particularly vitriolic, but it was honest. Maso appears to be trying to save face with what is in fact a popular but artistically disappointing show. (Read my review.) What Maso intended to be a rallying of the troops turned out merely to call unfortunate attention to the bad review (which I hadn't even read until the advent of this little tempest in a teapot), and give the theater a black eye in the blogosphere. Plus, fomenting ad hominem attacks against a critic may not be the best way to curry favor in the eyes of the critical community. But here's something that should please Maso: with the decline of daily newspapers, theater bloggers are becoming increasingly influential voices, in effect decentralizing the force of critical opinion away from the previously powerful papers.

As I said in my review, I didn't really like Pirates, either, and I had my own little Maso moment when I received an angry email from the actor playing the Pirate King, Steve Kazee. I had said that it was beginning to look as though his "charisma-deprived" performance as Starbuck opposite Audra MacDonald in the recent Broadway revival of 110 in the Shade "wasn't a fluke." Kazee took great issue with my appraisal, and said so in strong, borderline threatening terms. (He dared me to come down to the Huntington and say these "hurtful" words to his face.) Kazee and I had a spirited conversation back and forth, and we eventually parted on cordial terms. I basically said that I reserved the right to call 'em as I see 'em, and he exorted me to remember that there are real people with feelings on the receiving end of my reviews. Fair enough.

So, dear reader, what is the job of the critic? I would submit that it's *not* the same as the job of the reporter: to dispassionately relay the facts and give equal voice to all sides. As the title implies, a "critic" is charged with weighing the merits of a particular show against his or her own set of aesthetic and artistic criteria. How could it possibly be otherwise?

Why File Sharing is Bad

Recently, I was reading a Washington Post article by theater critic Peter Marks about the state of the Broadway cast-album business. As regular readers may know, I have far more cast recordings than is probably wise, so I have a vested interest in this topic. Marks does a great job of setting the historical context and laying out the economic difficulties that labels face when they record and issue cast albums. It used to be that Broadway music and popular music were the same, but it's been a long time -- decades, in fact -- since that was true. 

Lately, most of the major releases we've seen have come from the likes of Kurt Deutsch at Ghostlight Records (whose recent releases include Next to Normal, In the Heights, and Hair) and Tommy Krasker at PS Classics (Xanadu, The Story of My Life, and the upcoming release of Sondheim's Road Show). Every once in a while, we get West Side Story from Sony Masterworks Broadway, or Shrek from Decca Broadway, but for the most part Broadway cast recordings of late have come from the small boutique shops above.

Which brings me to my main point: file sharing is bad. It's bad for these small, struggling companies, and it's ultimately bad for the people who love musical theater. Because, here's the bottom line: if we're not willing to buy cast albums, then we're not going to be able to buy cast albums. I hear the excuses all the time: CDs are too expensive, and how can I possibly get all the music I want if I can't pay for it. Well, you know what? Maybe that means you don't get to listen to all the music you want. We all have to live within a budget, and make purchasing choices.

I'll admit, this diatribe is purely selfish on my part. I want to continue to be able to buy cast albums and if everyone keeps sharing files, then the few remaining companies that actually do produce cast albums will either stop doing so or simply go out of business. I know that file sharing is something that's hard to stop, and that it's very tempting to join certain password-protected blogs, or online trading communities, which allow you to download music free of charge. I've been on these sites myself, and I've downloaded stuff, but only things that weren't commercially available, like demos and stuff that's been long out of print.

Human nature is what it is, and to a certain extent the music companies are fighting a losing battle: because it's so easy to download and share music, it's going to continue, and ultimately there's not a lot that the recording business can do about it. But I don't really care about pop stars and rappers. For all I care, you can share their music to your heart's content. But when it comes to musical theater, I would respectfully ask my readers (and my students) to do the right and honest thing and abstain from file sharing. In the long run, you'll thank yourself.

Babes in Arms With Rosie O'Donnell

It's funny, I was just thinking about Babes in Arms and how we haven't seen a revival in a while. (Yes, that's the sort of thing that spontaneously crosses my mind. Blessing? Curse? You be the judge.) And then I checked Internet Broadway Database and it turns out there has never been a Broadway revival of Babes in Arms, although there have been numerous studio recordings and concert versions of the show, such as the 1989 version with Judy Blazer and Gregg Edelman, and the 1999 Encores cast with David Campbell and Erin Dilly.

Now, Variety is reporting that next season we could see a revival of the Rodgers and Hart musical Babes in Arms featuring Rosie O'Donnell. The production is slated to be directed and choreographed by Randy Skinner, a recent Tony nominee for White Christmas. The show will sport a new book by the very busy Joe DiPietro, author of the long-running I Love You You're Perfect Now Change, the somewhat forgettable All Shook Up, the currently running The Toxic Avenger, and the upcoming Memphis. 

It's kind of amazing that we haven't seen a Broadway revival of the show since its 1937 premiere, given that the score is chockablock with Rodgers and Hart standards, including, "Johnny One-Note," "I Wish I Were in Love Again," "The Lady is a Tramp," "Where or When," and what just might be the most beautiful song of all time, "My Funny Valentine." (Arguable, yes. But you have to admit it's a fantastic song, with a dynamite melody and one of Larry Hart's best lyrics.) Of course, the reason we don't see revivals of a lot of shows from the '30s is that the books are creaky and dated. So when we do see them (Anything Goes, Girl Crazy/Crazy for You, The Boys From Syracuse, On Your Toes) they usually involve reworked or completely new books, or suffer from the lack.

The plot of Babes in Arms involves a chorine (O'Donnell, believe it or not) who helps a group of kids whose parents are out-of-work vaudevillians "put on" the proverbial "show" to help them raise money so they won't be sent to a work farm. The show flops, but later a transatlantic aviator lands nearby and they're able to parlay the publicity into a successful subsequent run of the show. The original show had modest sets and no stars, so it was able to make a profit. The new production will reportedly feature a cast of 15 and a single, unit set, which means it will probably fill one of Broadway's lesser-used, smaller houses. 

Bear in mind, though, that at this point last year we were also anticipating revivals of Brigadoon, for colored girls..., and a reworked version of Oh, Kay, AKA Nice Work if You Can Get it. So don't go planning your trips to NYC just yet. As I type this, I'm looking at my unused ticket to the aborted revival of Godspell.

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.

Another La Cage Revival?

The current London production of La Cage aux Folles may be headed for Broadway next season. According to Playbill.com, after producer Sonia Friedman accepted the Tony for best revival of a play for The Norman Conquests last night, she told the Tony press that her next Broadway outing will be a transfer of the well-received West End production of La Cage aux Folles, a "strictly limited" engagement that somehow keeps getting extended. Friedman said that the production would open in New York next spring, and feature its Olivier-winning star Douglas Hodge.

This announcement comes despite the decided lack of success for the 2004 revival of La Cage, which closed after 229 performances, shortly after winning the Tony for best revival of a musical.

I can't claim to have the same depth of knowledge about the London theater scene as I do about Broadway, but haven't the producers of La Cage in London been engaging in some pretty high-profile stunt casting? British TV show host Graham Norton played Zaza for three months earlier this year. And London hottie, and star of the BBC's "Torchwood," John Barrowman is set to join the cast in September. Is this desperation or shrewd producing on Friedman's part? London readers: what's the word on the street? Is the London La Cage a bona fide hit, or a manufactured one?

Even if the London La Cage is the genuine article, there's still a huge question as to whether new York is ready for Georges and Albin to return, no matter how good the production. Perhaps we're dealing with a little post-award bluster or production myopia here: sometimes people intimately involved in a production fail to see accurately how the ticket-buying public will react because they're too in love with the production to be objective. But, then, I don't have a great track record when it comes to predicting the economic success of Broadway revivals.

Whaddya think, readers? Are you ready for another La Cage?

Post-Tony Handicapping - Who's Gonna Close?

The first official post-Tony casualty will be Neil LaBute's Reasons to Be Pretty, which will close June 14th after about 80 regular performances. But that's a play, right, dear reader? We wanna know which musical will close first, don't we?

My money is on the Guys and Dolls revival, which last week played to 61% capacity, with an average ticket of about $70. The show's grosses have been heading steadily downward since hitting a high of about $750,000 in April, and have lately been around $400,000. And the lackluster Guys and Dolls production number on the Tony broadcast, combined with a grand total of zero Tonys earned, probably won't help to turn that trend around. 

On the "original" musical front, the show that would seem to be in the most immediate danger is 9 to 5, which played to about 75% percent last week, with an average ticket of $75. The show's recent weekly grosses of around $750,000 might be enough to keep it alive, if it can sustain that level of performance. I have a feeling that the show may last through the summer, buoyed by the strong tourist trade in New York, but will probably close come fall.

Then there's Next to Normal. Although the show has recently seen its attendance rise to more than 90%, its average ticket has been about $65. The show's grosses have peaked at around $350,000, although since the show has a cast of six and a modest band, that may be enough to keep the show afloat. Will the show's three Tonys (best score, best actress, and a shared Tony for best orchestrations) give it a much-needed lift in its grosses? N2N does seem to be building a significant following, but then so did [title of show].

As for the musicals that have legs, clearly Billy Elliot and West Side Story are in no danger of closing any time soon. Both are doing spectacularly at the box office. (Click on the show titles for historical grosses.) And Hair, after a slow start, has been growing steadily in ticket sales and grosses, and I see that growing even stronger after its Tony win for best revival and the national exposure from the show's terrific title number.

What's your take, dear reader? Did the Tony broadcast make you more or less likely to see the shows listed above? Which do you think will last, and which are not long for this world? 

P.S. When I originally posted on this topic, I completely forgot about Shrek. Kinda tells you something, doesn't it? Well, Shrek is a real wild card, and rather tough to predict, because rumor has it that the show has pretty much been running in the red since it opened. The show's average ticket price has been about $70, its attendance at about 70%, and its grosses around $650,000. Many other musicals would be able to make a profit at that level, but Shrek has a huge cast and presumably a pretty big weekly nut to meet. But but since Dreamworks has really deep pockets, and a tremendous amount to prove, there's no telling how long they're going to be willing to run the show at a loss before taking it on tour and cleaning up in the provinces. 

P.P.S. Where is my head today? I also forgot about Rock of Ages. Mea culpa, dear reader. Well, ROA has also been seeing its grosses increase steadily since it opened. Lately it's been pulling in about $450,000 a week, and it very well could be making a profit at that level. The average ticket has risen slowly from about $40 to around $64, which is OK, but could be better. But what's interesting is that the attendance percentage has stayed roughly the same, about 90%. Which means that the audience size has been relatively constant, but the amount that people are paying to see the show is rising. If that continues, the show might just return its investment and settle in for a profitable run.

The Tony Awards - Not as Crass as Expected

With all the pre-show hullabaloo about the Tony Awards broadcast, I went in expecting it to be one big crass-fest. Maybe that's why I came out feeling that it was the best Tony show in a number of years. Admittedly, the bar's not very high here.

I wasn't able to watch the show live and provide play-by-play on Twitter. (If you'd like to follow my random theater musings on an ongoing basis, I'm @ccaggiano.) So here are the impressions that I would have been posting, based on watching the show last night on TiVo delay.

The opening number: Was busy and frantic, and had some major sound problems. Actually, the show in general had significant sound issues, but it was most notable in the opening number, as well as during the Guys and Dolls performance. Oddest pairing: Stockard Channing and Aaron Tveit. Um, why?

Shrek number: I was pleased to see that the folks at Dreamworks decided to do an entire number from the show and not a greatest-hits montage, as so many shows have done in the past. The cast from Shrek performed "What's Up, Duloc?," featuring Tony nominee Christopher Sieber. Yeah, it's not the best number, from an admittedly lackluster score, but I give them props for not cutting and pasting bits and pieces from each of the nominees' best numbers.

Neil Patrick Harris: I thought NPH as the show's host was terrific: charming, confident, and self-effacing. I particularly liked the number with which he ended the show -- "Tonight" from West Side Story, with rewritten lyrics -- my favorite line from which was "The show could not be any gayer, if Liza was named mayor, and Elton John took flight." And I loved the sushi joke, at Jeremy Piven's well-deserved expense.

The touring-show numbers: The numbers from the touring productions of Mamma Mia, Legally Blonde and Jersey Boys were pointless. Bend over, Tony: the Broadway League wants a free commercial. The only number I didn't fast-forward through was Jersey Boys, because I found the gimmick of bringing in the five different Frankie Valli actors at least momentarily intriguing. (Be honest: by the end, you had chosen a favorite, right?) Yeah, I know: the Tony Awards in general are just one big commercial. But at least showcasing numbers from the nominated shows has a shred of credibility.

Best score: Yeah, Billy Elliot proved to be the juggernaut of the evening, but plucky little Next to Normal stopped Billy from sweeping up every award in sight. Congrats to Brian Yorkey and Tom Kitt for snatching the Tony from the undeserving hands of Elton John and Dolly Parton. And props to the Tony voters for seeing beyond the stars in their eyes.

West Side Story number: "The Dance at the Gym" was a good choice for the show. It showcased the terrific playfulness between Matt Cavenaugh and Josephina Scaglione, as well as Jerome Robbins' kick-ass choreography. I wasn't so hot on the way they ended it, with a snatch from the "Tonight" duet, but again I was glad not to see a montage/commercial.

Rock of Ages number: Speaking of montages, I was rather unimpressed by the custom-made production number from Rock of Ages. Despite the effort, the number really didn't do the show justice, and failed to capture what is actually appealing about this show. If I hadn't already seen the show (twice) this number would not have induced me.

Liza: Is Liza Minnelli falling apart before our very eyes, or what? Did they have paramedics standing by in case she imploded?

Guys and Dolls number: "Sit Down You're Rocking the Boat" was an unfortunate choice for Guys and Dolls, since that was the number that the 1992 cast performed on the Tonys, and it created an unfortunate reminder of what the present revival is lacking. Plus, it put the miscasting of the otherwise talented Tituss Burgess into unflattering relief. And then there was the microphone trouble: we could hear the backstage folk panicking, but we couldn't hear Burgess sing until a stagehand ran on stage with a hand mike. What is this, 1950? Haven't we mastered the challenges of live TV by now? And how many people are greeting their Monday morning to the sight of a pink slip?

Best supporting actor: One of the genuine surprises of the night was when Greg Jbara won for Billy Elliot. I would have put good money on Will Swenson from Hair. But the voters were probably recognizing Jbara for admittedly strong performances past and present, and were likely caught up in the Billy Elliot tidal wave.

Next to Normal number: Alice Ripley seemed to be having some tempo problems in this number, although it might have been more sound issues with the TV production. But performing "You Don't Know/I Am the One" was a super choice, showing this moving show to its best advantage. Oh, and Alice, lovey, I applaud your winning best actress for Next to Normal, but WHY WERE YOU YELLING DURING YOUR ACCEPTANCE SPEECH?!

In Memoriam: Was anyone else annoyed by the relentless camera pans during the tribute to theater folks who died in the past year? I could barely read Marilyn Cooper's name.

The Billy Elliot monolith: Best sound design? Best SET!? Did the Tony voters actually see the Billy Elliot set? It's hideous and awkward. You might say, "Well it's supposed to be ugly. These people are living in squalor." Granted. But does that mean we have to throw an award at urban blight? Again, we're probably just witnessing the Billy momentum here. 

Frank Langella: I applaud Frank Langella for what some might consider a self-aggrandizing speech. Perhaps it was. But he did serve as a reminder to the Tony nominating committee that, um, there were a bunch of shows that opened in the fall, many of which (The Seagull, anyone?) were entirely shut out. 

Harriet Walter and Janet McTeer: "Hiss!" and "Boo!" to the TV crew for mixing up Janet McTeer and Harriet Walter. And props to the classy Marcia Gay Harden for pointing the gaffe out in her acceptance speech. 

The Hair number: Performing the title song from Hair was a very good choice, nicely capturing the exuberance of the show, which thankfully went on to win Best Revival. I loved it when Oskar Eustis said "Peace now! Freedom now! Equality now!," emphasizing the last one by pointing to his wedding ring, a clear and welcome reference to gay marriage.

Billy Elliot number: On the one hand, I was glad to see that they chose only one Billy Elliot to showcase in the "Angry Dance." (It was Trent Kowalik.) On the other hand, the number, which was one of the moments in the show that I found genuinely compelling, came off as loud, tuneless, and harsh, and was also poorly shot. Oh, and BTW, would that the Tony nominating committee and voters had shown the same strength of character and actually chosen *one* Billy as best actor. But that would hurt somebody's feelings, now wouldn't it? We can't have an awards show hurt someone's feelings, can we? (Yeah, well, talk to Frank Dolce, the poor kid who shares the part of Michael with Tony nominee David Bologna, about that one.) I didn't see David Alvarez, but I heard he's very good. I got Kiril Kulish, who is a terrific dancer, but the heavy acting scenes were a bit of a stretch for him. And now, all three of them have a Tony. Oh, isn't that just adorable?

Best Musical: As for the Billy Elliot sweep, well, all I can say is, I hated the show in London (read my review), but I was moderately engaged by the Broadway production (read my re-review). It's a great big crowd-pleaser, and there's some really solid stagecraft in evidence. But the score is awful, and the dance is IMHO overrated. Is it a classic for the ages? Will it become a stalwart part of the musical theater canon? Will community theaters and high school drama societies be performing Billy Elliot fifty years from now? Oh, sister, I have such doubts.

Review - West Side Story Revival CD

I was reasonably pleased with the current Broadway revival of West Side Story when I saw it at the National Theater in Washington, DC. (Read my review.) Not overwhelmed, but engaged. I didn't think director Arthur Laurents had achieved his announced objectives for the show (i.e. make the gang violence credible, make the sexual passion more palpable, and successfully translate much of the show into Spanish).

But I did appreciate the essential quality of the piece, Leonard Bernstein's sensational score, and Jerome Robbins' dynamic choreography, recreated by Joey McKneely. I actually think that Hair is the best revival of the current Broadway season, and fully expect the Tony voters to agree on Sunday night. But now that the CD for the West Side Story revival has come out, I've come to the opinion that West Side Story might just have the single greatest musical score of all time.

Bernstein's music is flawless, deft, and surprising, even after repeated listenings. And Stephen Sondheim's lyrics are remarkable given that he was only twenty seven when he wrote them. There's not a bad number in the bunch. Every song is, in its own way, a masterpiece. Some of Sondheim's lyrics aren't quite character-appropriate (an uneducated Puerto Rican girl in the '50s would never say "it's alarming how charming I feel"), and some of them don't quite fit the music (the phrase "wire-spoke wheel" in "America" is nearly impossible to sing clearly). By the way, these are two criticisms that Sondheim himself has made of his own work. But, on the whole, the score to West Side Story is about as good as it gets. Which is interesting when you contemplate that many people thought the score "weird" and "dissonant" when the show premiered. 

Most of the performers translate quite well to the recording, particularly Matt Cavenaugh as Tony, and Karen Olivo as Anita. Both demonstrate the strong vocal abilities that Bernstein's score deserves. Considerably less effective on the recording is Josefina Scaglione as Maria. In the theater, I found her voice sweet but thin, and the recording makes this vocal attenuation more pronounced. It's not a deal-killer, but it is a disappointment. Cody Green as Riff is every bit as indistinct as he was on stage, but Curtis Holbrook as Action manages to create a distinctive characterization that comes across well. 

Of course, the elephant in the room for this recording is the Spanish. As you may know, director Arthur Laurents brought in Lin-Manuel Miranda (In the Heights) to provide Spanish translations for significant portions of the show, including the "Tonight" quintet, "I Feel Pretty," and "A Boy Like That/I Have a Love." In my review, I decided that I thought this was a mistake, and the recording hasn't changed my opinion. Sure, speaking in foreign languages is a standard practice in opera, but it's alienating in a musical. I found myself tuning out during most of the Spanish, my three years of high-school study insufficient to help me along.

My biggest problem with the Spanish is that Miranda's new lyrics don't match the integrity of the Sondheim originals. I have to say that I was wrong when I said that Miranda's lyrics don't scan. They do scan, for the most part. But they rely rather heavily on elision, specifically the gliding of two vowel sounds together. For example, the beginning of the second stanza of the song "I Feel Pretty," which in the original Sondheim lyric goes "I feel charming, oh so charming," now has the following Spanish lyric:

Hoy me siento encantadora ("Today I feel lovely")

But to make the lyric fit the melody, Miranda has required Scaglione to elide the "-to" of "siento" and the "en-" of "encantadora," which comes off sounding like "hoy me sien-TONE-cantadora." I've sung a few Spanish pieces with various choruses over the years, and I understand that elision is an acceptable practice in Spanish music. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. And Miranda uses it nearly every stanza of the song. Plus, he uses grace notes to cram extra syllables into a line. For example:

Atrayente, atractiva sin par ("Attractive, attractive unparalleled")

This corresponds to "It's alarming how charming I feel," and it needs to be sung with an extra note ("Atrayente ah-tractiva sin par"), or with the first syllable of "atractiva" left out, to fit the meter. From where I sit, that's cheating; write a lyric that actually fits the meter of the line. Sondheim did.

Which brings me to the bonus tracks. Those of you who, like me, prefer the songs with their original Sondheim lyrics have a number of options. On iTunes, you can get "A Boy Like That/I Have a Love" in English, as well as a cut called "Jump," which is part of the "Dance at the Gym" suite. The annoying part here is that you can only get the bonus cuts when you buy the entire album. Then, over at Barnes and Noble, you can purchase a BN-only edition of the CD with the English version of "I Feel Pretty," along with instrumental tracks of "Somewhere" and "Tonight." So, to get all the tracks, at the very least you need to buy the entire recording twice. (At least if you want to do things legally. Wink.) As much as I hate to be forced to make an additional purchase, I must confess that I got both the iTunes and Barnes and Noble versions.

Obsessive, out-of-control, show-tune queen? Yeah, I can live with that.

Let the Sun Shine In - Hair Documentary

Coinciding with the successful Broadway revival of Hair comes the DVD release of the 2007 documentary Hair: Let the Sun Shine In. The film was created by Wolfgang Held and Pola Rapaport, and it represents an attempt to examine the cultural phenomenon that was Hair in the 1960s as well as the social context that surrounded and gave rise to the show. 

Such a powerful and important musical really deserves a better testament than Held and Rapaport provide. The 55-minute film spends about 45 minutes heaping blind and unrestrained praise on the show's creators and producers. Included in the film are interviews with librettist/lyricist James Rado, composer Galt MacDermot, and director Tom O'Horgan, who passed away earlier this year. Rado's writing partner Gerome Ragni died in 1991, before the making of the film. Also on hand are various cast members, including Ben Vereen, Keith Carradine, and Melba Moore.

The film includes a lot of vague hippie speak about creating a new kind of theater and reflecting the zeitgeist and whatnot, but there really isn't any compelling social or critical analysis. To be sure, there's some interesting footage here of the original Broadway cast of Hair, as well as various international productions. And there's some illustrative stock footage of the Vietnam War and the Kent State massacre, which does help bring put the social setting in relief. But Held and Rapaport seem to have mistaken juxtaposition for synthesis. There's really no effort here to provide a coherent thesis. 

The most annoying footage involves the cast of some New York production of Hair involving Rado and O'Horgan, but it's really not clear which production this is. The footage features a lot of self-satisfied young performers showing off for the camera, very pleased with themselves to be involved in such a worthy and important show, but not reflecting for a second that they understood anything about the show.

In the last ten minutes, Held and Rapaport throw in some interesting but undeveloped references to drug use during the Broadway run, tensions between Rado and Ragni, and a sad but irrelevant mention of cast members that later died of AIDS. The one truly compelling sequence involved an actor who played Woof on the show's national tour. The show had been receiving bomb threats from various conservative groups. One night, the stage manager came up to the actor during a performance and said that they had to leave. The hotel where their respective families were staying had been fire bombed. Ultimately both men lost their wives, and the actor lost two young daughters, to the blaze. According to the film, the perpetrators were never caught.

The DVD is available at Amazon, but you can also catch it on the Sundance Channel starting in July. It's worth a watch, but it's certainly not of lasting quality. Fortunately, the shows that inspired the film is.