Everything I Know I Learned From Musicals

Review - Rent Revival Off Broadway at New World Stages

Lots of people seem to have their nose out of joint over the new Off-Broadway production of Rent, which opened last night at the New World Stages. (Well, those who aren't complaining about Porgy and Bess.) It's only been three years since the Broadway production of Rent ended its twelve-year run, and here the producers go, trying to bring the show back to New York. "They're just trying to make money!" seems to be the rallying cry of these naysayers.

Um...what's wrong with that?

I think sometimes people forget that commercial theater is a business. Producers put up shows based, to a large extent, on whether those shows will make money. Why bring back Rent? Because the producers thought that people would pay to see it. It's really that simple.

I must admit, however, I wasn't champing at the bit to see Rent again, having taken in the original production, three different touring productions, the filmed live version, a recent production at the Boston Conservatory, and what can only charitably be called the "movie version." Each time I see Rent anew, I'm struck by the raw power of the show, but also by its manifold flaws. And yet, somehow Rent works, despite the imperfections. Somehow they make the show all the more endearing, partly I suppose because they serve to remind me of the stolen promise of the late Jonathan Larson, and how much he could have accomplished had he lived.

As for the current production of Rent, it seems as though the creative staff consciously set about justifying the lack of time between the original production and the present one by bringing giving the show a fresh coat of paint: a new design staff, new choreography, and a fresh-faced cast of relative newcomers who were very likely prepubescent when the show first premiered.

Is this a Rent re-invented? Not quite. At its core, the show remains the same, and I, for one, have no problem with that. The most significant holdover from the original production is director Michael Greif, but there didn't really seem to be anything new that he brought to the production. I did notice that the blocking for the "Halloween" was a lot more physical and aggressive than it was in the original production. This helped downplay the weakness of the scene itself, easily the most awkwardly written sequence in the show.

I was distracted by how much Greif seemed to feel compelled to take full advantage of set designer Mark Wendlan dense framework of girders, stairs, and movable platforms. On the one hand, the set gave Greif a chance to make full use of the height of the playing space. However, it also gave a sort of inevitability to the staging, with each scene seemingly forced into a new space simply for the sake of variety, as opposed to what was actually going to work for that scene. The set also tended to obscure certain moments in the show. When Collins says "Nice tree" to Angel, it wasn't entirely clear what he was referring to, because the Christmas paraphernalia are mostly obscured by the compressed grid of the set.

The new stage design also includes what have now become obligatory in professional productions in New York and beyond: projections, designed here by Peter Nigrini. (Did someone pass a law and I wasn't informed?) Admittedly, some of it works quite well, but somehow digital projections don't seem very '90s. They did, however, provide a really stunning effect during "What You Own." Initially, the projections during this song are isolated on a couple of screens, but when the song modulates, the projections suddenly wash the entire set. It was a really nice touch, and added greatly to the power of the song, and the moment. 

The performance that I saw started off a bit indistinct and fragmented. Each cast member came off individually strong, but they weren't cohering into a larger whole, at least not at the beginning of the first act. It seemed more like a series of individual performances rather than an ensemble. The proceedings were professional, to be sure, but uninspired, at least until MJ Rodriguez made his entrance as Angel. Rodriguez is quite a find, a dynamic ball of energy and attitude. He lights up the stage whenever he's on, and his energy seemed infectious, as the rest of the cast seemed to come to life after his first few numbers. 

Adding to this momentum was Annaleigh Ashford, giving an edgy and nuanced performance as Maureen. Her quirky, personalized touches during "Over the Moon" were especially effective, nicely emphasizing Maureen's enthusiastic amateurism. It made the song, which can be a real chore in the wrong hands, refreshingly sharp and funny. Matt Shingledecker as Roger seemed a bit bland at first, as though the casting director had taken the "pretty-boy front man" line from the show a bit too literally. But Shingledecker's performance built into a satisfying, if not quite overwhelming, crescendo, and he was especially affecting at the very end of the show, particularly due to the strength and timbre of his of rock-tenor voice.

One major hole in the cast is Arianda Fernandez as Mimi, who seems to have been cast based on her startling cat-girl appearance. But her voice was showing a significant amount of strain: she cracked three times during "Out Tonight" alone. Was it poor technique? A role that inevitably takes its vocal toll? A combination of both? Whatever it was, she overcompensated with mannerisms and line readings that brought more melodrama to the role than seemed necessary, and it made it hard at times to feel the full drama of Mimi's plight.

As Collins, Nicholas Christopher (Benny in the In the Heights tour) was a charming, silver-toned smoothie, although he seemed at first to be needlessly underplaying the romance with Angel. He eventually acquitted himself quite nicely, particularly during the reprise of "I'll Cover You," which still gets my vote for the most dramatically effective reprise ever. (Full disclosure: Nick is a former student of mine at the Boston Conservatory. But I try to make it clear to my students that, once they're out in the real world, the gloves are off.)

So, is it too soon for Rent to come back to New York? Not if you've never seen it. And even if you have, the current production seems to prove that Rent as a piece genuinely works, despite its flaws. Sure, some of the characters are a bit thinly sketched (particularly Mark). There are plentiful holes in the plot. (Why would the priest get angry when Collins can't pay the undertaker? They're not in business together.) There are some rather unbelievable coincidences. (The whole Evita the Akita nonsense.) And some of the character transformations seem to come out of nowhere. (Benny's a bad guy, then a good guy, then a bad guy at the end again.) But the show succeeds, and devastatingly so, mostly on the basis of its powerful score and moving story.

Hey, maybe someday Diane Paulus and Suzan-Lori Parks can renovate Rent, too.

Review - Spider-Man 2.0 on Broadway

I don't know about you, but I'm definitely bored with the whole Spider-Man thing. Last week, the show finally opened after a record-breaking 183 previews, but I had long since given up paying attention. Yeah, it was great that Julie Taymor came to the opening, and yeah it was kind of condescending for Bono to say that she was looking "hot," and blah blah blah. But I'm ready to put this whole sorry mess behind me and focus on real musical theater.

As much as I've grown tired of the story surrounding Spider-Man, that doesn't even come close to the tedium of sitting through the new and "improved" version of the show. Spider-Man 1.0 was many things, but it was rarely dull, probably because you had to stay alert just to follow the wildly fractured story. Sure, Julie Taymor's vision for Spidey was bloated and pretentious, but it was at least ambitious. (Read my review of Spider-Man 1.0)

The new production team - i.e. "creative consultant" Philip William McKinley and book doctor Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa - seemed to take much of the criticism of Taymor's version of the show to heart, and set to work revamping, streamlining, and clarifying. The resulting show makes a lot more sense than it did under Taymor's ministrations. But, perversely, cutting the stuff that wasn't working only served to emphasize the mediocre-to-miserable quality of what remains.

Essentially, McKinley and Aguirre-Sacasa cut the original second act almost entirely and fleshed out the story of the first act. The much-maligned "Geek Chorus" is thankfully gone, and the bored on-stage band members have moved to the orchestra pit. The Arachne character (T.V. Carpio), Taymor's mythical and inscrutable muse for Spider-Man, and the apparent spiritual source of his power, has been trimmed to the point where it's not really clear why she's there at all. (I must admit I did sort of miss "Getting Furious," the unintentionally laugh-out-loud act-two set piece for Arachne and her bizarrely clad Furies.) The part of Uncle Ben (Ken Marks) has been beefed up in an apparent effort to make his ultimate fate more moving, but Aguirre-Sacasa seems to have confused "back-story" with "more lines." Uncle Ben appears more frequently, but he merely repeats what he's said to Peter in previous scenes.

In general, the new dialog is banal and uninspired. Mary Jane (Jennifer Damiano) and Peter Parker (Reeve Carney) bandy back and forth about wanting Peter to be her "best friend" as well as her "boyfriend." At other times, the new dialog seems taken directly from a cartoon thought balloon. (Mary Jane: "But Spider-Man would never abandon New York City.") Yes, this is based on a comic book, but what works on the page doesn't always work on stage.

The one thing that wasn't fixed, and probably could never have been in the time allotted, is the painfully dull (and piercingly loud) score by Bono and his band mate The Edge. The songs are so tedious that by the middle of Act 2, I started to dread the next song cue. ("Really, Chris? That late in the show?") The Act 1 duet for Peter and Mary Jane, "No More," is about as close as the score comes to a genuinely integrated character number, but it's still a dull song.

When will these Broadway dilettantes learn (and I'm talking to you, Duncan Sheik, Phil Collins, Elton John, etc.) that there's a huge difference between a pop song and a theater song? For musical theater, you have to write with the needs of the story in mind. The songs need to propel the action of the show, not stop it dead. They also need to be memorable, which is admittedly a far more nebulous concept, and one that Bono and The Edge seem to have lost touch with since the days of their bigger arena-rock radio hits.

The overall reaction to "If the World Should End," the song that Carney and Damiano performed on the Tony Awards (see the clip here), seems to have been, "Really? That's the best song they could come up with from the show?" Well, trust me, any of the show's numbers would have had the same soporific effect. They all just kinda sit there. What the producers should have done for the Tonys was prerecord one of the flying sequences, because that's really the only thing that almost makes this turkey worth sitting through.

Almost.

Review - Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson on Broadway

When I first saw the new musical Bloody, Bloody Andrew Jackson during its well-received engagement at The Public Theater, the Wednesday evening audience didn't seem to be buying it. While I was certainly appreciating the snarky tone and smart parallels with our modern political scene, the sharp and energetic production was falling flat with the rest of the crowd. (Read my review of the Off Broadway Production.)

The one feature that I personally wasn't responding to was Michael Friedman's emo-rock score, which for me descended into an unremarkable and undifferentiated morass amid the rest of the smart goings-on.

Well, what a difference an audience makes. I recently took in the Broadway production of Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, and am happy to report that I and the rest of the audience were having a grand old time en masse.

I still find the score to Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson serviceable at best, but in truth the show's success lies in its libretto and direction by Alex Timbers. (Timbers is also directing the upcoming Broadway premiere of The Pee Wee Herman Show. I'm so excited, I can't tell you.) Much like Urinetown, Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson enjoys a remarkably united vision of direction, story, and performance, which coalesce into an entertaining package with surprising parallels to our modern political environment.

Of course, the show focuses on the eponymous Andrew Jackson, a politically polarizing figure who not only doubled the size of the United States and helped found the Democratic party, but also oversaw the systematic decimation of the Native American population. So, where's the modern resonance? Well, Jackson was also apparently a bit of a demagogue, deft at rousing the common man and woman into forceful political action with exhortations to "take this country back" and angry rhetoric against the "wealthy New England college fucks." (I'm thinking, however, that this latter remark is probably a fanciful product of Timbers' imagination rather than a direct quote from Congressional Quarterly.) Throw in some references to "maverick, egalitarian democracy" and the Faustian appeal of consolidated executive power, and what you essentially have is a chilling combination of the regrettable Tea Party movement and George W. Bush's political wet dream.

Also key to the show's effectiveness are the appealing cast members with a wicked and (nearly) unified approach to the sardonic material. Thankfully, the electrifying Benjamin Walker turned down a role in the upcoming X-Men movie prequel, and thus gets to repeat his dynamic portrayal of AJ himself. Walker is aided by a remarkable supporting cast, including Kristine Nielsen as the beleaguered narrator, Lucas Near-Verbrugghe as a delightfully fey Martin Van Buren, and an alternately daffy and intense Bryce Pinkham as Henry Clay/Black Fox. The one note of discord in the overall cast unity was Darren Goldstein, a seemingly talented performer whose relatively realistic line readings seemed out of sync with the style of the show.

Although I appreciated Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson far more upon second viewing, the show's main liability remains its energy arc. The show starts with a burst of activity and at first keeps that dynamic level going forward full steam. But around the two-thirds mark, the show's energy takes a decided turn downward. This is perhaps a deliberate choice: Jackson's grand vision is starting to blur, and it becomes clear that his historic legacy will remain controversial and divided. Although the gravity of the events certainly call for a more deliberate tone, the effect is rather like a roller coaster that starts off exhilarating, but toward the end of the ride requires its passengers to get out and push the car to the finish.

Even so, anyone who cares about the dramatic and polemic possibilities of musical theater will want to catch Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson. And while you're there, check out The Scottsboro Boys as well, which has lost none of its power to shock and move in its Broadway transfer. Check out my review of the Off-Broadway production, and look for my review of the Broadway version when the show opens next week.

Review - American Idiot at the St. Jimmy...er...St. James Theatre

I realize that this review is a little late to the party, but I encountered a bit of a perfect storm of work over the few weeks since American Idiot opened at the St. James Theatre in New York. The final flurry of Broadway show openings happened to coincide the the end of the semester here at the Boston Conservatory, and I had quite a few final exams to correct and whatnot. Plus, I got a last-minute assignment to write the liner notes for an upcoming cast-recording release. Watch this space for more news on that front.

In a way, it's a good thing that some time has passed since American Idiot opened, as it has helped me put the show into perspective, particularly with respect to the relative merits of all the new musicals this season. As I've said here previously, it's been a pretty lean season, at least with respect to the actual quality of the new musicals on Broadway. Unfortunately, American Idiot isn't much of an exception, at least in my estimation.

During the out-of-town tryout of American Idiot at the Berkley Repertory Theatre, the advanced word was that there wasn't much of a book to the show. Faced with this feedback, director/co-librettist Michael Mayer and Green Day front man Billie Joe Armstrong decided to cut back on what little dialog there was. (Um...what?) Apparently, their goal was to focus the show more on the songs. (Um...OK...) The result is an expressionistic rock concert, which is admittedly stunning, both visually and auditorily. I was particularly impressed with Steven Hoggett's idiomatic dance and movement. But what it all amounts to is a tale of sound and fury, signifying nothing. 

I must say, I found the score to American Idiot surprisingly tuneful. "Surprising" because I'm really not all that well versed in current popular music. I hadn't been overly familiar with the band Green Day prior to seeing the show, although I'm sure I've heard a few of those songs somewhere in my travels. But I had never heard the full album America Idiot, upon which the show is based. I had been worried that the music might turn me off, as the music to Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson did. But overall, I found the score to American Idiot pleasant and energetic.

[SPOILERS BELOW]

As for the plot of the show, yeah, not so much. It's not that the story isn't clear; it's that it's not very interesting. There are too few developments in each of the stories. The show centers around three restless teenagers: Johnny (John Gallagher Jr.), Tunny (Stark Sands), and Will (Michael Esper). Across the ninety-five intermission-less minutes of the show, each character only really deals with one plot development. Johnny gets hooked on drugs and alienates Whatshername, the girl he met along the way. Will gets Heather pregnant, but winds up rather inexplicably driving her away. Tunny goes to war, loses a leg, but manages to meet an "Extraordinary Girl." And that's it. So, basically, what we have here is Come Fly Away set to a rock score, although I will say that American Idiot is considerably better than Twyla Tharp's exercise in tedium that's currently running at the Marquis.

The cast is strong, as are their singing voices. I was particularly impressed with the dynamic Tony Vincent as St. Jimmy (Johnny's drug-induced muse, and the reason for the bad pun in the title of this post) and the electric Rebecca Naomi Jones, woefully underused here as Whatshername. But the Tony nominating committee seemed to have a definitive hair across its ass when it came to American Idiot, as not a single cast member garnered a nomination. The show got a nod for Best Musical, but the only other nominations it received were in scenic and lighting design. Despite the show's relatively poor showing with the Tonys, the show may nonetheless prove to be a hit. It has seen fairly steady grosses of about $700,000 a week, with an average ticket climbing from $50 to about $80. 

So, hey, Tonys be damned, huh?

GRADE: B (A visual and auditory assault, but ultimately lacking in impact or meaning)

Passing Strange on DVD

In the very last session of my musical-theater history course, we do three things: my students hand in their take-home finals, we talk about what makes bad musicals bad, and then we launch into what I've come to call our "showtune games." In one of these games, I put my 30G iPod on shuffle, play ten random songs (out of about 8,000, all theater music, natch), and challenge my students to name the song and show. 

This past semester, one of the songs that came up on the old iPod was "What's Inside Is Just a Lie" from Passing Strange. Now, I realize that the show didn't run very long, but not a single one of my students was able to name the show. Some guessed the song title, as it's repeated so frequently, but even when we went over the answers, and I told them the name of the show, a lot of my students had never even heard of Passing Strange.

I'm not trying to dump on my students here. When the show was running, most of them were juniors in high school, many nowhere near New York City. I see this more as a testament to the fleeting nature of the theatrical consciousness. Passing Strange, while stunning and innovative, is yesterday's news. The show ran a mere 165 performances and 20 previews at the venerable Belasco Theater. And it is highly unlikely that the show will catch on in regional or community theater, mostly because the story is so specific to Stew, the show's writer and central performer. 

Fortunately, before the show closed, filmmaker Spike Lee brought in more than a dozen cameras and taped three of the show's final performances. The resulting film played the Sundance Film Festival, and has now been released on DVD. And it's a real stunner.

When I saw Passing Strange on Broadway, I was so impressed with the freshness and raw energy of the show (read my original review) that I decided to take in the show again (read my re-review). Well, I'm not really sure how or why, but in some respects the movie is even more compelling than the stage play was. This is probably a testament to Lee's dynamic, almost invasive, camera angles. As in the best documentaries and concert films, Lee has taken us where the theater cannot: backstage, up close, behind, beside, below the performers. Lee has even placed cameras in the four hydraulic pits that house the on-stage band, making the players an even more integral part of the action.

Such an approach would likely not work with most theatrical presentations, but with the already anarchic Passing Strange, it significantly enhances and complements the themes, techniques, and movement employed by stage director Annie Dorsen and choreographer Karole Armitage. The cinematographic intimacy also puts into stunning relief the terrific work by the show's talented cast, including the dynamic Rebecca Naomi Jones, the sensational Daniel Breaker, and the electrifying Colman Domingo.

We're unlikely to see the likes of Passing Strange back on Broadway anytime soon. Oh sure, we'll see more rock shows, and we may even see more staged concerts, but none with the singularity of vision and execution that Passing Strange reflects. And we're fortunate to have this permanent record of a show that can genuinely be called unique.

A final note to my students: Yeah, you're not in my course anymore, but I'm giving you one final piece of homework. See this film.

American Idiot Will Play the St. James

Even in this economy, most Broadway theaters don't remain vacant for very long. (That's either a testament to the reinvigorated status of the Broadway musical, or the sheer idiocy on the part of producers and investors. Perhaps both.) The current revival of Finian's Rainbow will play its last performance on January 17th, but the venerable St. James Theater has already signed on its next tenant: America Idiot, the new rock musical based on the eponymous recording by the popular band Green Day. The show is scheduled to begin previews on March 24th and open on April 20th.

American Idiot features a number of Spring Awakening alumni, including producer Tom Hulce and director Michael Mayer, and during its recent two-month run at Berkeley Repertory Theater, it starred Tony-Award winner John Gallagher Jr. Mayer is collaborating with iconic Green Day front man Billie Joe Armstrong on the show's book. Although the Berkeley run sold out, and the run was extended twice, the reviews were rather mixed.

The Sacramento Bee deemed American Idiot "worthy," but said that, while the characters "do eventually grow, the production's weakness lies in their lack of compelling development." Robert Hurwitt of The San Francisco Chronicle wrote that the show "doesn't deliver much in the way of character or story" but said that it "packs plenty of excitement and entertainment into a remarkably theatrical rock concert." Leslie Katz of the San Francisco Examiner concurred that the book for the show "remains thin," but Karen D'Souza of the San Jose Mercury News called the show as "compelling as it is abstract," adding that the show reflected "the grungy spirit of punk while also plucking at the heartstrings."

So the consensus seems to be that there are the makings of a pretty powerful show here, but the book and characterizations could both use some fleshing out. Will Mayer and Armstrong be making any significant changes to the show before it hits New York? We shall see. In the meantime, anyone interested in getting a sense of how the show will sound can download the cut "21 Guns," recorded by the Berkley Rep cast and available on Amazon and iTunes.