Review - Posterity

Last month, I was very fortunate to get to see the final dress rehearsal of Doug Wright's new play Posterity at the Atlantic Theater Company.  I knew I wanted to go back, both to see the play again but also to see how the play had deepened over the last month.  I'm extremely glad I did.  You all already know I have a predisposition to work about art and artists, but it's always good to throw that up front...

Posterity is a smart, funny, ultimately moving play about how artists see themselves, their work and their legacy.  Do they want to be seen as they are?  Or as the ideal version of themselves?  And one artist will see things differently than another, so where does perception come into play?  All of these ideas are put into motion in a story about playwright Henrik Ibsen and the sculptor Gustav Viegeland.

Vigeland did indeed sculpt a bust of Ibsen very late in the playwright's life, but since little is know of the real-life encounter, Wright has imagined the circumstances around the art.  When the play opens, we see Vigeland in his small studio, sculpting a nude couple - his solicitor barges in and sees that the nude woman model is his maid.  There is squabbling, humor and dignity, all at once.  Quickly, we get a sense of the man as a man and as an artist.  The solicitor brings the news that Vigeland has been commissioned to do a bust of Ibsen, but the sculptor balks.  He wants to be free to work on his new piece, a fountain for the town, but is forced to submit to an interview with Ibsen for the money.  When Ibsen, who doesn't want the sculpture done, arrives, of course sparks fly.

photo credit: Doug Hamilton

The acting, especially Hamish Linklater as Vigeland and John Noble as Ibsen, is spectacular.  Well, there was one performer who wasn't quite up to snuff, in my opinion, but everyone else was very good.  Besides, when the meatiest scenes were between Linklater and Noble, the electricity in the air crackled.  When the two of them stood toe to toe, whether arguing, commiserating, appreciating or condemning each other, they were stellar.  I loved the ebbs and flows of their scenes together, with whip-smart changes of direction that kept setting off light bulbs in my head.  I thought these two were terrific at the final dress rehearsal, but I really relished the way the two performers, as actors and as characters, enjoyed each other and the fight.  It was really something to see.

I loved how Wright took a real-life encounter and made it into something universal - the idea of how you're remembered after you're gone.  You think you know how these famous artists would behave and what they would say, but Wright humanizes them.  We see the ego and the hubris, but also the fear and the longing.  The dialogue was so smart; throughout there were also surprising and touching reveals, especially in that last scene.  I think the last scene is spectacular stuff; I can see it entering actors' scene study classes for years to come.

The physical production was also terrific, with lovely lighting that really sets the time and place beautifully.  The Atlantic isn't a huge space, but it always feels big thanks to great designers.  I'm not quite sure I enjoyed the original music - at one point I honestly didn't know if it was underscoring or someone's cell phone.  On occasion, the music got just a little too 'much' for my tastes, but that's a quibble.  I'm ever so glad TDF made it possible for me to see Posterity again.  You should see it, too.

I'm off on some travels for a bit, so there may not be any blogging coming up.  But there might be, you never know.  I"ll have my tablet and keyboard with me on my travels, so...we'll see!  :)

Review - The Liquid Plain

While I've been gathering my thoughts on last night's viewing of The Liquid Plain at Signature Theatre, I went back and looked at my review of playwright Naomi Wallace's last play at Signature, And I And Silence.  It's rather amazing how similar my feelings are to last night's play as they were to that play (you can read the review HERE).  Here's the meat of my feelings:  "...I'm not sure I entirely enjoyed myself, but I am glad I saw it."

Winner of the 2012 Horton Foote Prize for promising new American play, The Liquid Plain tells the story of two runaway slaves and their desire to find a ship and sail away to start a new life together in Africa.  The play takes place on the docks of Bristol, Rhode Island, in the late eighteenth century, but deals with painful memories of the past and how that past impacts the future.  There is a lot of plot, so I won't go into all of it here.  The play tackles many subjects, such as slavery, racism, gender identity, revenge and justice.  There are a lot of weighty topics discussed throughout and at times, it becomes a little talky and unwieldy, but at times, the heightened lyrical dialogue by Wallace is quite glorious.

I greatly enjoyed the massive scope of what Wallace was trying to do and, again, she's telling a story I didn't know and that interested me greatly.  As you may remember, I love a big-scale play telling big-scale stories.  I thought the acting was spectacular, most especially by our lead couple.  I thought their performances were two of the best I've seen in awhile.  Most especially the actress who played Dembi, Ito Aghayere.  Dembi lives her life as a man, but we see at the beginning of the play that she's female and that her partner knows she's female.  The rest of the characters know her as a man and treat her as a man.  The gender politics are quite fascinating and to hear a character say (I'm paraphrasing here): "...being is not about what you're born, who you are is what you carry."  I thought this character was fascinating and how she kept paying for the sins of the past was heartbreaking.  LisaGay Hamilton was also wonderful as the second generation trying to find her place in the story and in the world.

There were some gorgeous monologues, both painful and poetic, especially the story about Dembi's partner Adjua (beautifully played by Kristolyn Lloyd) and the death of Adjua's sister aboard another ship.  The details of that woman's death are real, the rest of the play is Wallace's imagination about what happened around that death.  There's a character in the play listed as Shadow; she turns out to be the spirit/form/symbol of that dead sister.  The way she's lit and costumed is really wonderful, though I have to admit it took me until the second act to figure out who she was.  I felt like a dope for not recognizing her from the start...  I also enjoyed the spiritual and magical moments in the play, such as when the ghost of poet William Blake appeared - that scene was really light and enjoyable, yet poignant and very meaningful.

photo credit: Sara Krulwich

I thought the set, lights and costumes were also first rate, as were the projections.  It's amazing to me how differently the theaters at the Signature can be configured; I swear, it's like I'm in the spaces for the first time because they're never the same twice.  I also stayed for the talkback afterwards, which was almost as interesting as the play...

Quite a few people from the audience stayed - one of the theater's literary associates moderated the chat.  The playwright, was unfortunately not there, but we did get to hear from most of the actors, who were incredibly articulate about their feelings about the play and the subject matter.  They were all very generous and thoughtful in their answers.  There was one uncomfortable moment, though - a woman of a certain age commented that she didn't think one of the characters was actually raped, that she desired the man and that the sex was consensual.  Well, that started a flurry of commenting.  I mean, I can't imagine how someone would've seen that act of sexual violence as consensual, but ok.  I actually felt so sorry for the actress, who seemed to feel as if she'd failed the play if someone didn't understand that moment.  And it seemed as if the actress was incredibly depressed for the rest of the talkback.  I felt so bad for her and probably should've raised my hand and said that woman stood alone in her opinion.  But, there's no accounting for how people see and register drama.  Still.  There was definitely an elephant in the room for the rest of the talkback; in fact, the moderator had to stop the woman from continuing to comment and make her point (maybe she felt defensive when the rest of the audience sort of radiated a stunned disbelief) and moved on to another question.  It was definitely a charged atmosphere, which I guess makes sense because the play tackles ugly subjects and is rather charged in places as well.  I wonder how differently it all would've gone if the playwright had been there as well.  I guess we'll never know.

So, after seeing two plays by Naomi Wallace this year, I'm still intrigued but not quite completely taken with her style of writing.  I will look forward to checking out her next piece in the fall, though.  She has a distinctive style, which is nothing to be sneezed at whether I find it theatrical fulfilling or not, and she has stories to tell that interest me.  I'll try to keep an open mind and if I still don't love her work, at least I'll have again learned something new.  That is always worthwhile...

Happy Birthday, Mr. S.!!

photo credit: Douglas Gorenstein

Can you believe Stephen Sondheim is 85 years old?!  I can't.  To me, he's forever the young turk, writing musicals to change the world.  So much of his work has brought me to tears, made me gasp with wonder, cheer with excitement or just plain marvel at his genius.  Let's celebrate his birthday together, shall we?  Here are some random musings on the birthday gent...

I once wrote a blog post about my very favorite plays and musicals - you can relive it HERE.  Because Sondheim's work dominated my favorite musicals list, I decided to make him his own separate category.  On that day, I chose Sweeney Todd, Sunday in the Park with George, Assassins, Pacific Overtures, Passion and Follies.  That's a good list.  Though, if I were remaking that list today, I might replace one of those pieces with Merrily We Roll Along, which I've only come to recently and adore more and more each time I listen.  I love it.  Of course, I don't know which one off my list I'd remove.  :)

I'm not as familiar with Saturday Night, Anyone Can Whistle, Do I Hear a Waltz and The Frogs as I should be, I will fix that.  I love Into the Woods, laugh heartily at Forum and am still trying to unlock Company for myself.  I am forever quoting his lyrics - there are very few questions in life that can't be answered with a quote from Mr. S.  A current favorite? "If you have no expectations, you can never have a disappointment."

I remember that one of the first shows I saw when I moved to New York was the revival at Circle in the Square of Sweeney Todd.  Loved it, obviously.  I also loved the revival with Michael Cerveris.  Well, let me be a little more explicit.  I saw it once and was confused by the conceit.  I saw it again and thought, this is pretty cool.  I saw it a third time (thank you generous Tony voter friends!) and felt like I was on the most delicious theatrical roller coaster of all time.  Loved.

I remember standing in line outside Playwrights Horizons every day for a week (I lived in Ohio at the time, so I was in NY for a vacation), trying to get in to see the original production of Assassins.  I didn't get in.  I bought the cast album and listened to it obsessively, completely gobsmacked by its audacity. The stinging truth in the songs and then his generosity as a collaborator, allowing a massive (and genius) book scene to take up residence as the centerpiece of the musical's ending.  Fantastic.

I remember finally seeing Pacific Overtures.  I saw it twice at Roundabout.  The first time, I was up in the balcony and just got shivers when the flags were unfurled over my head at the same time as "Please Hello" was tickling my brain.  The second time, I was at a table seat up front and started uncontrollably weeping during "Someone in a Tree," which could be the most perfect song yet written.

I remember seeing the Broadway production of Passion twice in one day because I couldn't let all that rapturous beauty go after the matinee, I had to experience it again right away.

I remember watching the documentary of the Follies concert and wishing for a time machine so I could go back and see the original cast, and so I could also go back and see that concert.  When I finally saw the show (the Roundabout revival), I cried so much during "Beautiful Girls" that my gentleman friend was embarrassed.  He was not my gentleman friend for long.  I actually had trouble breathing the second time I saw the most recent revival at the Marquis, it was so thrilling for me.

I remember seeing the revival of Sunday in the Park with George and starting to sob at the top of the second act and not stopping until I fell asleep at home.

I remember using "Epiphany" as my subject matter for my undergraduate lighting course final exam and the teacher asking me what the heck was going through my mind?  I said, hello, could any song be more dramatic and open for interpretation in all design?  Lighting design - not my strong suit.  But I got an A.

I remember sitting behind Sondheim and Weidman at the recent version of Road Show at the Public.  I loved how they were taking notes, still trying to make their show better.

There are many more thoughts, but maybe I should save some for Mr. S. and his 86th birthday!  I think that's what I'll do.  And I'll end with a quote that many many people use when talking about this lovely man and wonderful writer:  "give us more to see."

he's telling me to call him Steve.  I'm telling him I can't. :)

Review - Bright Half Life

I've been trying to see as many new plays written by female playwrights as possible lately.  I just feel as if the more support they receive, the more theater companies realize these are plays people want to see.  I've been supporting the Lilly Awards reading series, which has been interesting, and I'm constantly on the lookout for more to see.  When I noticed press about the new production produced by the Womens Project, Tanya Barfield's Bright Half Life, I immediately picked up a discounted ticket.  Last night was my night.

I've only seen one other play by Tanya, Blue Door at Playwrights Horizons about eight or nine years ago.  I remember enjoying the production well enough, but I wasn't sure if the piece should've been a play or a short story.  The ideas were interesting, but it didn't seem theatrical enough to me. I didn't have any such reservations about Bright Half Life last night - this was a PLAY and its inherent theatricality was terrific.

photo credit: Joan Marcus

Bright Half Life is a story of a couple, told in a nonlinear style, in scenes both short and long, that illuminate the relationship in interesting ways.  Long story short - they were together for many years and then they broke up.  We see the couple in various stages of their lives, in courtship, in parenthood, in divorce, with flashes of memory that lead to other flashes of memory.  The use of memory to conjure emotion is beautifully realized here.  The use of memory as a distancing thing is also wonderfully done - what if one half of a couple doesn't remember a moment in the same way?  Does that somehow negate the moment?  I was especially taken with scenes that were replayed from a slightly different angle, where you learned more (or did you?) when the perceptions were slightly changed.  The scenes that took place on the ferris wheel the couple rode on their third date were especially wonderfully done.

The couple has love throughout their lives, whether they're still together or not, and seeing the scenes played out in a nonchronological way only emphasizes the permanence of love, even while one character laments that (and I paraphrase) that once you say "I love you," the words aren't big enough to sustain the emotion.  There's also a lot of talk about soulmates, which I enjoyed because I certainly believe in soulmates.  The fact that the couple was made up of two women added another layer of interest for me.  There just aren't that many plays with lesbian couples at the center who are just written as real people, not symbols of anything else.  So I liked that.  I liked their very realistic dialogue which filled in many details with just a few words.   I thought the actresses were fantastic and believably played these women across many years.  They had a lot of charm and connection and made the journey that much more enjoyable.

Unlike Constellations, another non-linear love story produced this season, Bright Half Life doesn't really show the scenes as 'what might happen if we made another choice.'  There is a choice that's made in the play, and we see it from different angles, but the different angles only illuminate how the choice slowly but surely destroyed the relationship.  There really could be no other outcome, given these two people and their personalities.

I really enjoyed Bright Half Life and was sorry that the house was only about half full last night.  Though the audience members who were sitting on the far sides were probably grateful because they got to move to center seats right before curtain.  The audience was very responsive - I could hear gasps throughout when some line or another particularly touched someone.  I really related to the ferris wheel scenes myself.  There's a lot in the play for people to attach themselves to, since this is an ordinary couple living an ordinary life.  How they respond to their own, and their partner's, ordinary lives makes the play more than ordinary.  At least that's what I think.  Go see the show and check it out for yourself.  But hurry, I think it's closing soon...

Review - On the Twentieth Century

When I moved back for my second go-round in New York, I worked for a pager company and made pretty good money with excellent bonuses.  You'll be shocked, I'm sure, to hear that I spent my bonuses on theater.  I bought subscriptions to most of the not-for-profit companies around town.  One of those companies was Roundabout.  In 1997, I was excited to see Bill Irwin in a new adaptation (written by Irwin) of Moliere's Scapin.  I love Bill Irwin.  Anyway, I don't remember much of that production - I have vague memories of enjoying Irwin and seeing Christopher Evan Welch on stage for the first time and finding him fantastic.  And I have a memory of a cute little blonde girl who was very quirky and funny. 

I saw Steel Pier later that season and hey, there was that cute little blonde girl again!  And she was again very funny.  But when I saw Kristin Chenoweth for the third time, as Sally in the revival of You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown, I said to my gentleman friend, 'that girl is a STAR and is going to win the Tony!'  I'm not often right, but that time...I was.

Every time I see Kristin Chenoweth on stage, I'm freshly amazed at how superhumanly gifted a performer she is.  She can seemingly do it all - comedy, emotion, dance, and oh, that heavenly singing voice.  When she was announced as the lead in Roundabout's new revival of On the Twentieth Century, I knew I wanted to check it out.  And with Peter Gallagher as her leading man, I was doubly in.  Happily, my boss needed a Tony seat guest this afternoon and off we went.

I am familiar with the legend of the original production of On the Twentieth Century, and I've seen the 1934 film on which this musical is based many times, but I didn't know the score at all.  I have one song on my iPhone, but only because it was a duet between John Collum and Kevin Kline.  So I was going into the American Airlines Theater today as a pretty blank slate.

I had a very fun time at On the Twentieth Century - I thought it was frothy, goofy, silly fun, performed with brio and a lot of joie de vivre.  I could hear the singular voices of Comden and Green in the delicious lyrics and lines in the script and Cy Coleman's score was a terrific pastiche of operetta and light comedy.  

photo credit: Joan Marcus

The show is a screwball comedy, with down-on-his-luck empresario Oscar Jaffee (fantastically played by Peter Gallagher, who had missed a bunch of previews because of a lingering illness; he sounded [and looked] terrific to me today) taking the train from Chicago to New York because he heard his former lover, and now silver-screen goddess, Lily Garland would also be on the train.  The train from Chicago to New York takes sixteen hours to arrive and Oscar was planning to use those sixteen hours to get Lily to agree to appear in his next play.  And the, of course...hey, finally a show where 'wacky hijinks ensue' is actually true!

Chenowith as Lily really pulls out all the stops - she's terrifically funny without mugging, she sings like a dream (a lot of the music utilizes the upper reaches of her voice and she trills thrillingly), she even dances AND makes you care about Lily as a person.  You can see the frustration she has with her life alongside the overwhelming ego she also has.  Everyone knows Oscar and Lily belong together and the fun is waiting for them to realize it too.

photo credit: Joan Marcus

Andy Karl, who was really good in last year's Rocky, plays Lily's current boyfriend, the rather dim but magnificently brawny Bruce.  He's very good here, too, but perhaps a little light in the vaingloriousness the role requires.  But when he's practically bench-pressing Chenowith to show off his muscles, he's pretty goshdarn funny.  Mark Linn-Baker and Michael McGrath are very drolly funny as Oscar's henchmen and Mary Louise Wilson is a riot as Mrs. Primrose.  At first you wonder why she seems to be underplaying so much, but hello, when her inner crazy comes out in the second act, watch out!  She was hyterical!

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the four gentlemen who play the Porters - terrific tap dancers and singers all, who guide the audience through the show beautifully.  And their second act tap number to "Life is Like a Train" is truly grand.  They may have gotten the biggest hand at the curtain call, though the matinee audience was eating the show up throughout.  I had a couple of celebrities in front of me, Kathie Lee Gifford and Hank Azaria (not together).  Azaria was the first one on his feet for curtain call.  I also had a toddler next to me, god love her.  Why her parents brought her to a two-and-a-half hour musical that's rather all about the clever wordplay is beyond me.  She was pretty good, though, and finally fell asleep in the middle of the second act.

The show is maybe twenty minutes too long (there are sometimes too many verses inside individual songs for my tastes) and the small-ish orchestra did sound small-ish when a larger sound would be better.  I also read that there are seven fewer performers in the revival than there were in the origianl company - that was an issue, too.  A lot of these ensemble performers had very distinct faces and they were playing lots of different characters in a short amount of time, which got to be a tad confusing now and then.  But these are quibbles when there's so much laughter and fun going on in the show as a whole.  The set and costumes are great and the cast is having a swell time, which helps everyone else have a swell time, too.  You should get over to the American Airlines Theater to see Kristin Chenoweth add another theatrical notch to her belt - you won't be sorry you did...

Flashing Friday

I don't seem to have much of a pattern with my flashing back on Fridays, if I even remember to do it at all.  But it did occur to me this week to check what I could reprint.  When I scrolled through old reviews, I found two from shows that I saw on or around this date in 2008.  What was interesting to me was that both shows reflect on some upcoming Broadway theater.   Your interest level may vary.

First is my review from the Broadway musical In the Heights.  Since Lin-Manuel Miranda's new musical Hamilton is all the rage at the moment (I am DYING to see it, but I just can't seem to win the ticket lottery!), I found it interesting to go back to see what I wrote seven years ago after I saw him on stage for the first time...

3/10/08:  I had a great time at In the Heights Friday night!  Well, except for my seat neighbors again.  I must be turning into a seating curmudgeon.  The gals who sat next to me are forgiven—they were apparently from Washington Heights and had never seen a show before.  Even though they were texting throughout the show, they were texting ABOUT the show to their other friends (if I can believe their chatter at intermission) and were very enthusiastic about the show.  I hope they see more theater! The foursome in front of me, however, almost got clubbed in the back of their heads by me.  They were just obnoxious, with their continual reaching into crinkly bags for more snack bags of noisy food.  And they kept leaning forward to lean on the railing and putting their big heads right in the middle of my sightlines.  They HAVE been to the theater before (if their inane intermission chatter is to be trusted), so they were just rude and dumb.  In my hopefully-humbly snobby opinion.  

Anyway, back to the show - it is totally charming and delightful!  Lin-Manuel Miranda is a CHARMER!  He is just a delight to watch onstage.  Plus, he wrote the music and lyrics!  He is really a special talent to keep our eyes on.  It’s so great to see a show that’s this exuberant.  The Latin music, along with the uses of rap within it, is really great.  And Lin’s lyrics are terrific. 

When you walk in, the set is a neighborhood in Washington Heights, complete with view of the George Washington Bridge and the 181st Street subway station.  It’s a very realistic, yet romanticized version of a gritty area of town.  The whole show is realistic yet romanticized, now that I think of it.  That’s one of the things I particularly enjoyed.

The whole cast, from lead charmer Miranda on down, is wonderful.  It’s a real ensemble effort.  It’s really hard to single anyone out, because they’re all so good, but I think the actor who moved me most was Carlos Gomez as the owner of the car service and the father of the gal who’s gotten out of the neighborhood (or has she?)  He was really heartbreaking as a father who wants so much more for his family.  Even though these stories are ostensibly about the Latin community, it’s also a universal story of where do you fit in and how can you make your life and the life of your children better.  (After typing that, I was reminded of a scene with Harvey Fierstein from The Celluloid Closet.  He would probably say to me right now, “no, In the Heights IS about the Latin community.  How nice for you that you found something to relate to in it.”)

The choreography was some of the best I’ve seen in years.  Andy Blankenbuehler deserves a big round of applause.  I could quibble with some directing choices (really, does everyone need to come downstage center in a bright spot to sing their power ballad?  probably not), but it really would be quibbling.  I give this show a great big thumbs-up and want to see it again soon.  Preferably not from behind people who need to eat Doritos every two or three minutes…  I just loved the heart and soul and abundant charm of this show, performed with marvelous exuberance and joie de vivre.  You don't see that every day.



A few nights later, I saw the Broadway revival of South Pacific.  It was in previews and it makes me laugh to read my quibbles, since the show was a HUGE success.  Considering that the same team is starting previews of another R & H masterpiece, The King and I, this week (which I am also DYING to see), I thought it also timely to reprint my thoughts on South Pacific...

3/14/08:  Now on to South Pacific.  Gosh, it’s a romantic show.  I love romantic shows.  And this production is really lovely:  the sets, costumes, lights, orchestra; everything is first-rate.  There are a couple of real catch-your-breath moments of beauty.  Having said that though, in my opinion, it’s not a GREAT production.  It’s really good and I had a grand time, but I think it could be much more, given the talent they have to work with.  It doesn't open for another week or so, so maybe they're still working...

But, to start, the overture kicks butt!  It’s so gorgeous and there’s a nice big orchestra and one of the catch-your-breath moments actually happens during the overture!  I won’t say anything else so you can experience it yourself.  I think my main issue with this production is that perhaps they’re being a little bit too reverential to the piece.  It moves in a stately manner, with a lack of urgency or oomph.  But we’re in a war here, people!  Let’s have at least a little oomph!  Sing with a little less beauty and a little more oomph (I’m looking at you, Matthew Morrison).  Oh, and I’m still not quite sure about the surprise reprise of a certain song towards the end of the show as the soldiers are pulling out (don’t want to spoil it for you).  I don’t think I liked it, but I’m still mulling about how it fit in with the rest of the show.

Kelli O’Hara is just wonderful as Nellie.  She’s beautiful, funny, touching and a wonderful singer.  Her “I’m in Love with a Wonderful Guy” was really kind of a revelation to me.  Coming off “Wash that Man,” which was performed at a really, um, stately tempo, I was a little worried when “Wonderful Guy” started off a little slowly, as well.  But the choices she makes here are terrific and none I’ve ever seen before, but they’re all supported by lyrics I’ve heard a million times before but never interpreted in that way (sorry, does that sentence even make sense?).  Her Nellie really takes a journey.  Anyway, I really loved her. 

Matthew Morrison is in a bit of a muddle at the moment.  I don’t think he knows who/what he’s playing yet.  There’s no real character there, he’s just kinda crabby or something.  He is handsome and charming (as an actor, not a character) and sings beautifully, but I didn’t get a sense of Joe Cable.  I have heard that he and the director were trying something really different and it wasn’t working and now he’s having to re-think, so I’ll cut him a little slack.  Though, omg, the backstage scenes where he listens to “Happy Talk” and “This Nearly Was Mine” were almost comical (in a bad way) because suddenly the scenes became about him and his malaria.  Uh, no.  These songs?  Not about you.  Sit down and stop it.  You would think he was dying, the way he was clutching his stomach and stumbling around the stage.  I mean, if he was that sick, how did he even get out of bed?  It was way too much.  It’s as if he was underplaying too much when he was talking and overplaying too much when he was listening (thanks for the image, handsome theater companion!), which didn’t really work at all.  Having said that, he looks nice without his shirt and sang very prettily.  I could do with a little less pretty during “Carefully Taught,” but ok.

I liked the gal playing Bloody Mary very much, though her singing wasn’t as special or unique as you might want Bloody Mary’s to be.  It’s a nice voice, and she presents her songs well, but she didn’t really weave any magic during “Bali Ha’i.”  I loved her acting, though, especially her scenes with Cable.  Danny Burstein played Billis and I just wasn’t into his performance.  I don’t know what it was.  Maybe more lack of oomph?  I really don’t know.  It was most likely my problem.  There was a definite lack of humor overall in the show, though, and I think that might stem from lackluster portrayals.  It’s not that everyone wasn’t working hard and giving us something, but that they were maybe also underplaying too much and being too respectful of the material.  Maybe?  I honestly don’t know.

I think the soldiers, from seabees on up, could’ve had more military comportment.  There was a very contemporary lack of posture and body awareness that did not seem 1940s military.  I don’t mean they had to be ramrod straight and at attention at all times, but more body awareness would’ve gone a long way.  The guy playing Captain Harbison was slouching his way around stage and it frankly drove me insane.  Perhaps again that’s just me.

I have saved Mr. Dreamy for last.  Yes, Paolo Szot, our Emile DeBecque, is DREAMY.  Really dreamy.  Did you get that?  He’s dreamy.  He’s a tad stilted in his first scene, but it kinda works for the character.  As the show goes on though, he grows into the character and he really plays his scenes like gangbusters.  I was very impressed by him.  His singing?  Divine.  And did I mention he’s dreamy?  Wow.  “This Nearly Was Mine”?  I was a puddle, even with the Camille death scene that Matthew Morrison was doing out of the spotlight.  Paolo and Kelli have a delightful rapport—their last scene in the first act before she meets the kids and has to be a racist is terrific.  They play off each other very well.  Plus, he’s dreamy!  OMG, when he comes out in the jodhpurs and riding boots?  Woof! 

So, all in all, this is a beautifully sung, well-acted (mainly) and beautifully designed production.  I’m so glad I saw it.  And I had a grand evening with my handsome friends!  But I honestly think the show could’ve really dug deeper and given us something very vital and powerful.  Maybe last night was just a tired night, and they're ramping up during previews.  In my opinion, all they need is a little more oomph and they’re good to go.
 

World Tennis Day at MSG

I held out as long as I could, but I finally bought tickets a few weeks ago for last night's event at Madison Square Garden celebrating World Tennis Day.  I don't know why I even bother to wait - we all knew I would be buying tickets since Roger Federer would be playing.  Especially since he was playing an up-and-comer people used to refer to as "Baby Fed."  I had decided awhile ago that if Roger ever retires (which I hope he doesn't, let's be honest), I would probably join the Grigor Dimitrov bandwagon.  He's an attractive kid with an attractive game.  I won't obsess about him or come thisclose to stalking him, as I have with Roger, but I'll at least have someone to root for week in and week out.  I do have other players I root for, even now, but it's not the same as my Roger fandom.  I don't think anything will be again.  Want a reminder of my Roger love?  Check out this post:  HERE.

I had to work late last night so I ran to the Garden at the last minute, hoping to at least be there for the pre-match match between Monica Seles and Gabriela Sabatini.  But when I got to the Garden, it was MOBBED.  They didn't plan their crowd control very well.  First, there was mayhem trying to get to the table where all bags were being checked.  Mayhem.  And then, once your bag was checked, you had to go get scanned by the wand-thing like they use at airports.  I'm telling you, it was crazy.  I don't remember it being so bad last time (I've gone to this event in 2008, 2009 and 2012.  You can find my musings on the 2012 event HERE.) 

Once I finally got inside, it took forever to get to my seat.  I'll have to remember next time not to buy tickets in the section I chose, it was clear on the other side of the entrance.  But at least it led me past a vendor selling soft pretzels and bottled water.  That set me back $10, which is crazy.  What is crazier is that the kid tried to charge me $19.  I said, uh, no, try again.  I mean, $10 is bad enough...

My seat was pretty good, though a little to the side and behind all the action when the photographers came out.  When the presentations and interviews were happening, I got pictures of people's backs, which was a drag.  Two of my very favorite former players were there, Todd Martin and James Blake, presenting pieces about the tennis hall of fame and one of the USTA's philanthropic organizations, but all I saw was their backs.  Except for when I glanced up at the Jumbotron.

Seles and Sabatini played a pretty good match, considering that neither has really played tennis seriously for at least five years.  Seles still has unerring ball control and placement, and her once-demonized grunt is nothing compared to the players of today.  Sabatini still had some power on her serve and really good forward movement.  It was a nice lively match, though once Sabatini broke, I figured that was all she wrote.  Monica seemed a little tired and not really up for fighting back, though she did get one of the two service breaks back.  I'd seen Monica play once before, years ago, but I'd never seen Sabatini play live, so it was nice to relive some old memories.  It was a thoroughly enjoyable opening match.

Then, the main event.  The lights went low, spotlights came on, smoke started flowing from the entryways.  Time for the stars to enter!  Roger came in first, from the top of the stadium, heading down the stairs, highfiving his fans on the way down.  Because his jacket was white, it was hard for me to get a good shot because of the glare.  Oh, again, who are we kidding?!  I rarely get good photos indoors.  I really need to either get a new camera or a new phone with a BETTER camera.  I wish I had gotten more good shots, though I guess a few are better than none.

Both gents were playing with spirit and good humor, though Dimitrov came out on fire.  All of his shots were flashy and landing inside the lines.  He quickly broke Roger a couple of times and took the first set in something like seventeen minutes.  I was worried for a moment.  Roger looked a step slow and his serve wasn't very effective.  I thought, yikes, we're finally seeing what it should look like when a 30-something plays a 20-something (which it rarely does in Roger's case, he's ageless during a match).  But, happily, in the second set, Roger's feet started moving better, his serve was better and Dimitrov started missing a bit.  Thankfully, the match went to three sets.

For an exhibition match, there was a lot of top-quality tennis.  They were both hitting shots that made the crowd gasp.  There were screaming winners, beautiful one-handed backhands, drop shots and aces.  There were the matching tweeners, the shots into the Jumbotron, the mock-anger at the lack of challenges.  Dimitrov even brought a little kid from the crowd onto the court and let him play a point with Roger.  And, delightfully, the kid won the point by lobbing over Roger's head.  It was adorable, both the joy of the kid and the bashful look on Roger's face when he saw the ball landed in.  Very fun stuff.

got this off the internet

Roger was up a break in the third set but couldn't hang onto it.  He ended up losing, 7-5 in the third.  I wanted him to win, of course, but I was happy to see him play well and enjoy himself.  And I enjoyed getting a better look at Dimitrov live - I've only ever watched him on tv before, except for a few moments of practice at the US Open last year before it started to rain.  I think my inclination to root for Dimitrov moving forward was a good one.

Audience report:  I was actually alone in my row for much of the evening, which was very nice.  Finally, a couple came over and sat to my right and they were very pleasant.  The kids behind me were very cute and not obnoxious at all (for once).  I'm pretty sure that someone took their shoes off in my section at one point - ew.  Please.  In a public place, leave your shoes on.  Moving on: the crowd was very pro-Roger, which pretend-ticked Dimitrov off at one point - he just stood there and started waving his arms as if to tell the crowd, hey, root for me too!  It was pretty cute.  And Roger egged on the crowd, too.  At one point, he would fist pump, put his hand on his ear for more cheers, then fist pump again.  It was also pretty cute.  As with the last time I was at the Garden, the crowd got really quiet at the end when it appeared Roger would lose, but I think Dimitrov won himself some new fans.  All in all, I had a great time, enjoyed some lovely tennis and got some terrible photos.  I'm glad I went.  Here's to more years of Roger at the Garden!  :)

also from the internet - adorableness!

Goodbye (for now) to Restaurant Week

Yesterday was my last Restaurant Week lunch for the winter.  And much sadness ensues.  But, as always, I enjoyed trying new restaurants around town!  I shan't be returning to one of them, but the rest will definitely stay on my 'special occasion spot' list.

A co-worker and I went to db Bistro Moderne is midtown, another wonderful Daniel Boulud restaurant (I went to Boulud Sud a couple of years ago and really enjoyed it).  We chose it because it was close to the office and also because it was a French bistro.  I really can't enough of French food - I never cook it for myself and it's alway sooooooo tasty.

The restaurant was lovely - very cozy, but not cramped, with lots of natural light and photographs on the walls.  The bar was very striking and seemed the focal point of the room.  The servers were quite charming and the pace of the meal was just right.  We ordered iced teas, which were very good and served with a pitcher of simple syrup.  The bread service was also good, with two pieces of olive bread and two crusty rolls.  Very nice. 

Since I decided I wanted the lamb for my main course, I decided to go light with my appetizer and dessert.  For my first course, I had the arugula salad with pears, fennel, pecorino cheese and a red wine vinaigrette.  This was really delicious - the vinaigrette was so bracing and acidic, it woke up my palate for the rest of the meal.  The pears were sweet and soft, and the fennel was sweet and savory at the same time, but crunchy.  I am not really a salad person, but this was very tasty.

My main course was the braised lamb, served with creamy polenta, confit cherry tomatoes, a broccoli rabe pistou and a rosemary jus.  YUM.  The lamb was perfectly cooked, so soft and succulent.  The tomatoes were a burst of tomato deliciousness, almost like candy.  And the polenta was a nice salty base on which the lamb rested.  Loved this dish.

For dessert, I chose the brown sugar roasted pineapple with coconut mousse, pina colada sorbet and a lime sauce.  There was also some kind of sugar cookie or biscuit underneath the sorbet which was very tasty.  This dessert was SO yummy, with a lot of textures and levels of sweetness.  The mousse was more like a marshmallow and was very coconut-y.  There could maybe have been something savory on the plate, a little salt might've cut all that sweetness.  Not that all that sweetness wasn't incredible, it was, but I was craving pretzels or potato chips when I got back into the office after lunch.  :)

So goodbye until the summer, dear Restaurant Week.  I do love you so.

Review - Honeymoon in Vegas

I have no idea why it has taken me so long to get to the new musical Honeymoon in Vegas.  I remember seeing the movie and finding it enjoyable enough and I'm a huge fan of Jason Robert Brown.  I guess it took awhile for my schedule and TDF discounts to match up.  But I finally caught up with the show last night.

I was initally a tad annoyed to be sitting in the mezzanine (I'm so spoiled), but I actually think it's a better place to sit to see all the silly wackiness unfold.  The show is quite well directed and choreographed and the mezz was the perfect spot to check it all out.  I had a great time at Honeymoon in Vegas - it's a fun, silly, old-fashioned musical comedy that wants nothing more than to entertain.  And entertain it does.  I'll just mention that my seat neighbors, tourists from Austria who wanted to see The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time but were priced out, had more fun than two people should.  They were just so genuinely tickled throughout the show that they raised my level of enjoyment, too.  And I was already having a really fun time.  :)

Following the movie plot, Honeymoon in Vegas tells the story of Jack and Betsy, a couple who have been dating for over five years.  Betsy is ready for a ring and commitment, but Jack is still haunted by the spectre of his dead mother who demanded a promise on her deathbed (Nancy Opel is an absolute riot as the late mom, who keeps popping up throughout the show to remind Jack of his promise; even though I knew that she'd be turning up now and again, the way it was done was a surprise each time).  Jack decides to throw caution to the wind and takes Betsy to Vegas to get married.  When they're checking in, card shark Tommy Korman sees Betsy, who looks exactly like Tommy's late wife, and decides he has to have her.  Wacky hijinks ensue.  (I just like saying wacky hijinks ensue.  I need to learn a new catchphrase.)

photo credit: Sara Krulwich

Tony Danza, of tv fame, plays Tommy Korman and he has charm to spare.  You all know how I love me some charm.  I've been crushing on Danza since Taxi aired oh too many years ago and he still has all of that appeal.  In spades.  He makes a very appealing third option in this love triangle and even though he tries some underhanded dealing to get Betsy to marry him, he's still a powerful rival that you can see her ending up with.  Plus, the audience just adores him AND you can tell he's having the time of his life on that stage.  All that adds up to fun.  All of the performers were great, though.  They were all good singers, dancers and actors, who made you care about these characters' situations.  Everyone seems to be on the same page, walking a fine line between being silly/goofy and having fun versus overplaying and being a little too much.

photo credit: Sara Krulwich

The best part of the show is definitely Jason Robert Brown's score.  The songs are all so tuneful and interesting, and his lyrics are just first-rate.  I often enjoyed the song lyrics much more than the libretto - the songs were wonderful character pieces that had to be well-acted to land.  The ballads were touching and the comic songs were terrifically funny; I really marvel at what a chameleon Brown is.  I love all of his scores and no two sound alike.  Oh, and hello, he wrote a number for skydiving Elvis impersonators.  Riotous.  I can't resist an Elvis impersonator, lol.  I'm still humming 'jump jump jumpity jump' and I immediately downloaded the cast album this morning.

Just a couple of quibbles - I'm honestly a tiny bit puzzled as to why they set the show in the current day; the music swings like 50s/60s tunes and some of the decidedly sexist notions seemed more a part of the past (I know a few people who were offended by the sexism, for some reason it didn't really bother me, maybe because the show is just so silly, you can't take any of it seriously).  I'm of two minds about Tony Danza's ballad about his wife's skin cancer, I appreciated the sheer nerve of it, but also found it distastetful (same for the song "Friki-Friki" in the second act).  I also wish the bookwriter had fleshed out Betsy's character a little more, but these are quibbles.  On the whole, the show is goofy fun.  I enjoyed myself a great deal and I hope the show can find its audience.  I would love to take my mom when she comes to visit this summer, but for some reason, the show isn't selling.  The mezzanine was sadly pretty empty last night (except for my row, which was weird, but ok).  Everyone in the audience last night seemed to be having a great time, and most of the audience stayed to listen to the band play us out, so the music is hitting.  I don't know what the answer is to getting butts in the seats.  As I often say, if I could figure that out, I'd be the richest girl in NYC.  Maybe someday it will come to me in a dream (last night's dream involved the Beekman Boys and the Harvard Club, so random ideas are definitely in my subconscious wheelhouse) - I'll keep you posted on that...

Review - Big Love

I will admit, right off the bat, that I'm not a huge fan of Charles Mee.  It's not a comment on his talent, it's just that his type of collage/multimedia/presentational pieces just aren't my cup of tea.  My brain generally doesn't work in that way.  I can appreciate the craft involved and often enjoy some of the ideas or the spectacle, but, on the whole, I don't really like his shows after the curtain comes down.  I went back and looked at two reviews of previous Mee plays I've seen - one review said "...this type of conceptual collage-type piece is rather beyond me..." and one said "...I didn't enjoy this piece in the extreme.  I also admit I didn't get it.  At all.  I had no idea what the play was trying to say or do.  I also could feel my will to live seeping out of me as the play went on..."

That second review is a bit extreme, even for me, but I can remember hating that experience from top to bottom.  I probably wouldn't have purchased a ticket for Big Love at the Signature Theatre if two writers I greatly admire hadn't recommend I see it.  After seeing it, I can still say Charles Mee must just be above my head.  Again, I appreciated the craft, I enjoyed the look and spectacle, and my ear perked up at some delicious lines here and there, but on the whole, I didn't really 'like' it.

That's just me.  The rest of the audience had a grand time.  Well, except for my seat neighbors on the right.  I'll describe my seat neighbor experience later because perhaps, and just perhaps, they also affected my enjoyment of the show.

photo credit: T Charles Erickson

Big Love is sort of adapted-ish from an ancient Greek play, The Danaids, by Aeschylus.  The plots deals with 50 brides who escape from their arranged marriages to 50 grooms by sailing a boat from Greece to Italy.  They land at an Italian villa where they ask for sanctuary.  Of course the grooms come to reclaim their brides.  And wacky hijinks ensue.  As it were.

The masses of brides and grooms are shrunk onstage to three of each, with projections of the rest shown on the side screens at times in the play.  The three couples are pretty distinct and shown to be relatively 'right' for each other, but their major philosophical differences about arranged marriage keeps them apart.  The war between the sexes becomes all-out war by the frenetic reception scene.

photo credit: T Charles Erickson

There are monologues (I found Lynn Cohen's monologues to be quite touching and the most effective, and the speech by the villa owner's nephew was also quite lovely, though seemed to be from a different play), musical interludes (Bobby Steggart, an especial favorite of mine, beautifully sang a love song to his intended), tightly choreographed gymnastic and acrobatic scenes that interestingly show the characters' conflicting feelings about their lives.  There are wonderful projections (the helicopters bringing the grooms to the island is terrifically theatrical) and nice underscoring.  There is always something to see and hear going on in Big Love.

So, with all these compliments, I guess it's surprising I didn't really like the play.  I liked some elements, but they didn't seem to add up to anything for me.  I didn't see the big picutre or the 'big love' as described in the title.  I saw a lot of loud passion (more like rage passion than love passion) and blabbity blah, but not really love.  Except in the two monologues I referenced earlier.  Maybe I just have a mind block on the whole love thing, who knows?  Or the whole Charles Mee thing...

wedding gifts in the lobby

As for my seat neighbors, I'm sorry to report that the gent on my left had SEVERELY questionable hygiene, ugh, and on my right was a group of maybe ten German kids who it seemed had no interest in being there at all.  Except for when there was nudity.  Then they were quite loudly engaged with what was happening on stage.  Sigh.  The rest of the play was spent digging through their souvenir bags and looking at their phones.  And ridiculing the smelly guy, that happened a lot, too.  I hissed "no" at one point, to try to get them to sit still, but I was fighting a losing battle.  So, admittedly, it was hard to concentrate fully on Big Love when there were such distractions to my immediate left and right.

All in all, I guess I'm not sorry to have seen it because I liked Lynn Cohen, I always enjoy Bobby Steggart and because the entire physical production was quite magical and striking.  But that doesn't mean I 'liked' the play.  I'm just going to have to accept the fact that I don't 'get' Charles Mee, I probably never will, and never the twain shall meet.  Or something like that.  Your mileage may vary.