Friday night, I went with a grad school chum to see End of the Rainbow (thanks, grad school chum!). I was curious about seeing this, since much has been written about Tracie Bennett and her performance as Judy Garland. I don’t remember hearing much about the play itself, which purports to be a dramatization about Judy preparing for concerts in London months before her death.
Well, I think the buzz on Tracie Bennett is certainly justified. She’s giving an incredible performance, not just an impersonation. She sounds uncannily like Garland (of course she doesn’t have the ineffable specialness of Judy, but who does? you suspend disbelief on that and move on) and just tears into this icon, making her all-too human. I’ll admit to thinking a couple of times, “oh, sister, dial it down,” but then she would do something so breathtakingly interesting, that I was back on board. Though I’m firmly in the “Nina Arianda for the Tony” bandwagon, I wouldn’t quibble with Bennett taking the award.
Michael Cumpsty is his usually wonderful self as Anthony, Judy’s gay accompanist. So much is going on behind that placidly kind face. And the look on his face when Judy makes her choice at the end is heartbreaking. Tom Pelphrey as Mickey Deans is less successful, but the playwright has also done him no favors. I found his performance very shallow and surface-y. I realize the character is probably shallow and surface-y, but it seemed to me an actor issue. The set is gorgeous, the on-stage band is terrific. The costumes are nice and seem appropriate to the period and the characters.
BUT, I think this play is kinda terrible. It’s trying to be too many things – a docudrama, a lurid tabloid exploitation, a concert-within-a-play… and it fails at all things, I think. Who wants to see Judy Garland crawling around on the floor as a dog, lifting her leg to pee? Who wants to see Mickey Deans stuffing pills down Judy’s throat? Who wants to hear more arguments about who loves Judy more – gay men or straight men? Then there were the monologues with all the exposition we didn’t really need. Judy’s children were not mentioned once (for legal reasons, I’m certain). I didn’t find any of the dialogue to be dramatic or interesting, though Bennett and Cumpsty delivered so well (Bennett is especially good at the bitchy comeback) that I was caught up in the characterizations while simultaneously being repulsed by the dialogue.
I guess, on the whole, I’d say the show is worth seeing (via a discount only) for Bennett and Cumpsty, but if you will be offended by the disrespect (and bad writing) shown to Judy, stay away.
Moving on. When my other out-of-town friend was asking me which shows I’d like to see with him, he said something like, “well, I have tickets for Newsies, ugh, which you probably don’t want to see.” I’m like, uh, YEAH I want to see Newsies! Hello! I’m one of those crazy gals who love the movie! And, double hello, I’m a single woman of a certain age, of COURSE I want to see dancing newsboys! Please. ;)
I did feel the most successful songs were the ones from the movie. Alan Menken's music and Jack Feldman's lyrics are quite exciting in those group numbers for the newsboys. The newer songs seemed of a different style (which I guess makes sense, since they were written more than twenty years past the original impulse), plus they seemed to slow whatever dramatic build there is in the story. I did, however, like the love song added in the second act, and the new love-interest’s character song. Harvey Fierstein’s book seemed a bit subdued, though the waiter in the newsboys’ favorite deli had some choice zingers.
Jeremy Jordan is a charming leading man. Though the script doesn’t ask much more of him than to be charming, he nevertheless holds the stage and commands attention. Poor John Dossett has terrible scenes and an even worse song as Joseph Pulitzer. Which he has to sing twice. Blech. Capathia Jenkins is also saddled with a terrible song as the music hall hostess with a heart of gold, and she must’ve been under-the-weather, because she delivered the song most underwhelmingly. I've seen and enjoyed her before, so I can only assume it’s a big number that she just couldn’t do because of her illness. Kara Lindsay as the love-interest (this is a new character, and I’m a tad conflicted on her – she’s a newspaper reporter yet has a relationship with a seventeen-year-old newsboy?) looks like a Disney princess come to life and sang nicely.
The other stars of the show are the ensemble, though, and their rough-and-tumble athletic choreography (by Christopher Gatelli) is really engaging. There’s leaping and somersaulting and backflipping (and a tap number! hurrah!), with enough energy to lift the spirits of even the biggest curmudgeon. If some of the more balletic choreography looked out of place (as did the tallest newsboy who just couldn’t un-classical himself enough), those moments were few and far between. Their group numbers were really terrific – their voices blended nicely in the songs and their dance chemistry was excellent.
I didn’t love the scaffolding/rolling set, though it was effective in one number in the second act, and the projections were used maybe too sparingly. They just looked like accidents rather than part of the set, and I’m sure they weren’t visible to many parts of the audience at any given time. The costumes were good and the lighting was especially fine.
No comments:
Post a Comment