Fantasy Musical: Book, Music and Lyrics By???

Over the past year, two books have made the rounds in my office: The Help and No Rest for the Dead.  I'm sure you've probably heard of the former, it being a made into a hit film and all.  The latter is novel written by twenty-six (you read that right) different writers.  It is a suspense/mystery novel written by the most popular writers of that genre.  With the help of one editor, each chapter is woven together into one coherent story, but each chapter bears the unmistakable style of each author.

Well, you know me.  I'm always thinking "theater, theater, theatre."  And I got to wondering: Could Broadway's greatest composers, lyricists and book writers come together and create one scene each and make a coherent, interesting musical?

Well, of course, Broadway is full of writing teams like Rodgers and Hammerstein and Kander and Ebb, and "soloists" like Sondheim and Herman, who many times go it alone.  So that wouldn't be any fun to think about, right?  So the only "rule" of this fantasy musical is that no existing teams or soloists can go it alone.

Today, I briefly posed this question on Twitter: "If you could pair any Broadway composer with any Broadway lyricist, living or dead, to write a song, who would you pick?  Who would write the scene?"

I got some interesting responses right away, plus I added my own:

• kdogg: "Stephen Sondehim - lyrics; Andrew Lloyd Webber - music.  It would be through-composed!"
• mrtylermartins had two: "Stephen Sondheim - music; Sheldon Harnick - lyrics; James Goldman - book"; "Burton Lane - music; Stephen Sondheim - lyrics"
• itsdlevy: "Jule Styne - music; Dorothy Fields - lyrics; Wendy Wasserstein - book"
• Elder_Greene: "George Gershwin - music; Alan Jay Lerner - lyricist; J.M. Barrie - book"
• And I was thinking: "Michael John LaChuisa - music; Jerry Herman - lyrics; Douglas Carter Beane - book"

(And I am pretty sure I'd like the Gershwins and Leonard Bernstein to do the overture, with Arthur Laurents as director - if anyone could pull a hodgepodge together it would be him!)

And so, I leave it to you!  Write in with your ideas - 1 composer, 1 lyricist, 1 book writer! 

I'll post them all in a new blog in a week or so!


Leave your suggestions her, email them to jkstheatrescene@yahoo.com, or Tweet me!
3.015
Jeff

LOGOS: Follies (2011 Revival)

The Follies logo in practice

Perhaps the wisest thing the producers/company of this 2011 revival of Follies did was NOT repeat - or even really attempt - any more than a suggestion of the iconic logo from the original 1972 production.  That version, cracked statue and dynamic lettering in primarily bright orange is widely regarded as one of the greatest Broadway art logos ever created.  The current revival resembles it only in composition: the largest single figure is the face of a woman, crowned bu the word "Follies" in dynamic lettering.

The Title Lettering

And what about that lettering?  It speaks volumes about the show's story, themes and setting.  First, each letter is rimmed in gold, certainly a not to the rich, sumptuousness of follies shows in general, and the elegance of a by gone era in this history of theatre.  Notice, too that each letter is filled with an almost sparkly blend of a soft blue, rising to an elegant pink.  The combination itself is both strong and softly feminine, like a showgirl, and colored in that fabulous blend of two colors and sparkling like so many follies-styled gowns might have been at the hey-day of that style of theatre.  Yes, the logo's lettering does suggest a bygone elegance that is certainly featured in its still talented, but fading fast company of players who have returned to celebrate their past only to find the decay of the present taking over the theater they are in and the lives they are leading.

The collage of images below the title, as well as the way in which the credits are arranged on the larger poster version definitely suggest a passage of time, as one might have seen on the paper posters that used to adorn Shubert Alley.  Today, large plastic and vinyl painted posters hawk the latest Broadway hits.  Back in the day, those same images were conveyed on glued sheets of colorful paper, that were literally torn down (and apart) in order for a new poster to take its place.  The glue was such that it was nearly impossible to cleanly remove one poster before gluing up another.  Over the years, layers of these things would build up, and eventually, bits and pieces of logos and photos from shows past would peek out from under the more modern posters glued over top.  And sometimes, a lighter image, once glued, would become almost translucent such that that image would be superimposed over hints of what came before.

The Artwork for Follies by FRAVER

All of this happens in the colorful, thought-provoking imagery of the Follies logo presented here.

Notice that each "layer" is "torn" to expose parts of what came before it:  smiles on youthful faces, both male and female, headless chorines in colorful costumes.  There is one eye, staring out at us in the upper right corner.  Are these tears, stains or phantoms of dancers in the bottom corners?  And surrounding the face of the said, plaintive main image are young, supple lips and wisps of feathers.  She is not smiling, her heavily made up eyes looking up and off in the distance as the memories of what was swirl around her.  Snatches of memories, torn from a full life, some focused on some youthful details, others colorful, if incomplete memories.

The Complete Logo and Credits
on the Follies Windowcard

And the poster's most vibrant, present colors, are reserved for the most current "tears" of a poster, the cast members, authorship credits and critical quote.  Their presentation is both very now and very then.

Eye-catching, hinting at past beauty, and haunting.  That is the world of Follies in a feathered, bugle-beaded nutshell. 

Grade: A



Rate this blog below and leave your comments here, or by email at jkstheatrescene@yahoo.com or Tweet me.
Jeff
3.014

Remembering 9.11.01

My mother can remember exactly where she was when President Kennedy was assassinated.  I can remember exactly where I was on September 11, 2001 when news came that the first tower of the World Trade Center had been hit by American Airlines flight 11.  We both can.  Having that kind of knowledge is something my mother is something she had always hoped her own children would not have to bear.  It is one thing in common that we both are not happy about.

But, as she always says, something good always comes out of the worst situations.  And it was just over a month later, in late October 2001, that my mother and I found our "good."

That I have a passion for Broadway and New York City is something everyone I know finds out, usually within minutes.  So when this tragedy happened, people I know immediately thought of me.  And every day for weeks, I am questioned:  "Are you ever going back to New York?"  "Aren't you afraid to go to Broadway again?"  "I bet you'll never go there again."  Remember that those days were filled with grief and sorrow, and also a lot of rumor, innuendo and fear mongering by the media; people asking me that was a natural thing.

But soon my fear - I'll admit I was scared like just about everyone else - was replaced by anger.  How dare my life, my freedom, my passion be ruined by terrorists?  And how could I let them win?  So many people died that day, and didn't we all owe it to their memory, to their sacrifice, to go on even better than before?

And so, plans were made to go to New York City.  I was determined to support the city and the Broadway community which were struggling now, just as they had supported me every time I went there.  My mother refused to let me go alone.  Off we went. 

Anne Frank famously said, ""In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart."    She was right.  And nowhere on Earth was it more evident than that October weekend in New York City.  Good was definitely coming from bad, as New Yorkers struggled to regain normalcy.  The looks of gratitude that greeted us - returning tourists - everywhere we went was heart-warming and unifying. 

We saw that look on the face of the man who held the door open for us at Penn Station, who said to my mother, "Good morning, ma'am.  Welcome to New York!"  We saw it on the faces of the desk clerks - all three of them - who gathered at the desk of the Milford Plaza to greet us.  It was Saturday morning and the lobby was completely empty.  It was very eerie, but the staff surrounded us with appreciation and gratitude and mom turned to me and said, "I am so glad we are doing this."  "So are we, miss," said the desk clerk.  We were upgraded to a suite and given vouchers for meals.  We tried to say it wasn't necessary, but it was so clear by the looks on their faces that this was more than a gesture mandated by management, and we quietly accepted.

What were we going to see was my mom's first question.  "What do you want to see? "  " I really want to see The Lion King." "I am sure it is sold out, but let's go see about when tickets are available and we'll get them for as soon as we can."  Off we went to 42nd Street and the New Amsterdam Theatre.  "When do you have orchestra seats for a Saturday matinee?"  "Well, we have Center Row G this afternoon."  I was sure we heard wrong.  "What date was that?"  "Today, sir.  2PM."  My mother, always quick to recover says, "Aren't those the expensive seats?"  "Normally, ma'am.  But these are available at the regular price."  We looked at each other, all three of us.  The lobby was empty.  The man's face said it all.  "I don't care how much they are.  We will take them!" my mother announced.  The box office guy looked strange - part disbelief, part relief. 

We literally skipped out of the theatre and walked up a practically empty Broadway toward our favorite breakfast/lunch cheap eatery, the Edison Cafe.  Like everywhere else, this place, usually crowded and bustling, was empty.  The service was terrific, the portions enormous.  We returned to our room to freshen up, and I flipped on the news.  A few minutes in came the news that surprised and scared me - Disney was the latest target rumored to be in the sights of the terrorists.  Disneyland, Disney World, and yes, Disney on Broadway were primary targets in the latest threats.  The picture was very clear.  "We are going anyway, Jeffrey," my mother announced firmly.  And we did.

Now the scene outside the theatre wasn't like it is today.  No huge crowds, no construction.  But there was a small line of people, who just like us, were defying the threats and going to see a Disney show no matter what.  It wasn't sold out, and the line to be thoroughly checked - wanded and complete-take-everything-out-of-your-bags bag checks was long.  Instead of complaining and being rude to one another, we were all resigned to this intrusion and kind of grateful that so much was being done to keep us safe.  The show was great.

With that high as a kite feeling you get after seeing a great show, we left the theatre and went up 8th Avenue to find a place to eat before returning to our suite.  A few blocks past the Milford Plaza, we walked past the fire station, doors up, firemen sitting on alert waiting for the next call.  One of the stalls was empty of any sort of truck.  Just before the corner was a make shift memorial of pictures of the men from that station who didn't make it back from the World Trade Center.  There were some drying flowers on the sidewalk.  It looked as sad and beaten down as the men still manning the station.  Mom abruptly stopped.  Then she turned around, a look of resolve set on her face.  I knew not to say a word and to follow quietly.  I stayed behind just a bit, unsure of what was happening.  She spoke to one of the men, who called for another guy who came out of the office.  They chatted briefly, and my mother reached into her purse, took out her check book and wrote out a check, handing it to the fireman from the office.  He looked down.  Looked up.  Pinched his nose and started to cry.  I don't really know what happened, but the next thing I know, my mother and I are in the middle of a crushing group hug given by weeping men much bigger and stronger than either of us.  You couldn't help but be swept up by the emotion, as if that burst of tears was a relief of pent up feeling now some 6 weeks old.

Mom never told me how much the check was for, but I know it was substantial.  The fireman from the office said, "Are you sure about this donation?  I mean, you don't even live here."  And she looked him in the eye and said, "This is my son.  He comes here a lot.  And knowing that you are here in case he needs you is all the reason I need to give you that.  I wish I had more.  You've protected me and my whole family for years and I'll never be able to thank you enough for that.  Let's go, Jeffrey." 

As we left, I looked back at their faces, full of gratitude.  Just like the guy at Penn Station, the clerks at the Milford Plaza, and the Box Office guy at the New Amsterdam Theatre.  Then, I looked down at the makeshift memorial at the smiling faces of those who would never return to their station or their families.  And I hugged my mom the whole way to dinner.



Jeff
3.013

BLOG JACK: Brantley on the Empty Stage

Today, I read September 8th's Theater Talkback by The New York Times' Ben Brantley with some interest.  It is called "When a Bare Stage Fills the Theatre."  I was particularly drawn to this article because, as any of my theatre-going friends will tell you, my mantra for theatre is "Always remember that the Greeks did it on a stone slab with a mask, the sun and a toga!"

I say this very thing when we can't agree on the quality of a new show.  Would this show ultimately be as good if it were stripped down to the actors on the stage and nothing else?  Are the words and performances enough to engage the audience and entertain them? 

• This discussion happened several times this past Broadway season.  Needless to say, it was shows like Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark, both of which I saw early in previews, and before the ensuing onslaught of press for both shows.  And we agreed that as it was, The Scottsboro Boys - devoid of fancy costumes and scenery, but full of theatrical ingenuity - proved my point exactly.

I say this when we wonder if the show is a triumph of staging and spectacle over story.  Does too much of the meaning rely on the visual created by the designers, the choreographer and the director?  Or has the director and choreographer done enough, that if stripped of lights, scenery and costumes, and only the script to rely on, to still give us a full show?

• My mantra reared its sage head once again when we discussed Wonderland - the answer? No.  In fact, it was so over produced that it all but obscured the story and characters.  And again with The Book of Mormon - the answer? Absolutely.  That show would still be as funny, poignant and entertaining if the Eugene O'Neill Theatre had a blackout and all the costumes and scenery were stolen.

• I recall the oddest experience of my theatre-going life.  In 2002, the Box Office Union was on strike at a theater that hosts national tours.  I don't remember the exact politics of it, but it boiled down to this:  an agreement was struck, but too late for everything to be loaded into the theatre for that week's first show.  Actors Equity allowed the performers to go on, while the ITASE unions told its workers to do as much as they could to help, but and not unload the sets, lights or costumes until that evening.  The show was 42nd Street, a show that definitely relies on the visual spectacle of lavish sets, lights and costumes.  Dying to see how it would play out, and with nothing to lose (I could not exchange my tickets for another performance that week), I stayed and watched the show on the very bare stage, on/off lights and street clothes of the performers that my mantra speaks of.  Imagine the opening number or "We're In the Money" without tap shoes, or "The Shadow Waltz" without shadows!  And yet, watching the whole thing play out was absolutely mesmerizing.  And the story, now the focus, was actually much more interesting than I had ever remembered it being.  It is also the only show I have ever attended where the act one finale got a full audience standing ovation, and, until Patti LuPone's "Rose's Turn," the only time a mid-show number got a standing ovation, which happened after the title number.  It was exciting and an event I will never forget it.  And it was nice to have my saying validated. 

And I say this to friends who attend local, necessarily low budget, and lift their noses in their as they go in, expecting the least.  I always take great pleasure in their shock and awe when such a show is success.  Clearly, a silk purse has been made from a sow's ear.

Ben Brantley discusses several shows that benefit and thrive from a bare stage in his blog - Our Town, all of the original Globe Theatre productions of William Shakespeare's plays among them.  And he brings up Chicago's current staging by Walter Bobbie and Ann Reinking.  Boy, is he ever right!  Less is so much more in this case.  And it brought immediately to my mind the other great American musical in the long-run gallery, A Chorus Line, a show that, except for the last 3 or 4 minutes, not only thrives on a bare stage, but requires it.  For all of their spectacle and excess, would the three longest-running shows - Les Miserables, Cats and The Phantom of the Opera really have been as successful without "stuff"?  Brantley and I agree: probably not.  But it would be interesting to see Cats under the same circumstances as when I saw 42nd Street.

I disagree with Mr. Brantley more often than I agree.  But he and I see eye to eye on this point:  good acting and thoughtful staging coupled with a good script can be as magical as a stage full of scenery and actors flying right over our heads.



Rate this blog below, leaving your comments here, by email at jkstheatrescene@yahoo.com, or Tweet me!
Jeff
3.012

By THE BOOK: The Spread OF MORMON-ism

It really is a phenomenon.  At least on paper and implementation, Broadway, at long last has an American hit of national proportions!  No, not the web slinger.  Those humble, cute and wearers of black ties and name tags are slowly, but surely, taking over the nation's theatres.  I am speaking, of course, of The Book of Mormon.

I think you'd have to go back as far as A Chorus Line and Annie for an American musical to take this country by storm.  Those shows hit Broadway and they were EVERYWHERE.  Magazine covers, variety shows, the news... people who knew nothing about Broadway or theatre knew the songs "One" and "Tomorrow."  Very shortly after both of those shows swept the Tonys, National Tours sprang up and brought the phenomenon to the people.

Now remember, those shows became a huge deal when most of the country was just getting cable television, the Internet didn't exist, and neither did any form of social media.  Heck, you could only get tickets by mail, by phone or at the box office!

So, maybe the "power" of Mormon isn't actually quite as huge.  I mean it is easier for those of us in the sticks to find out about shows, see clips on YouTube, go to show websites and Tweet our fingers off.

You might be thinking, "Well, Cats, Les Miz and Phantom all became national sensations."  Sure they did.  But they also came with the momentum of big success in London.  And all three rewrote the book on advertising, merchandising and iconography.  They also were in the forefront of all the new media age, every step of the way. Personal computers, the Internet, DVD - you name it, if it was new and a way to get the word out to the masses they did it.  And all Broadway shows owe them a debt of gratitude for their pioneering work.

Maybe the closest we've come between Annie  and Mormon is The Producers, certainly a Broadway juggernaut, winning the most Tonys ever, and starting the whole Premium seat thing (not really a positive in my mind).  But, as we have since learned, perhaps it was really the superb original cast that made that show work, let alone be "great."  There were a couple of tours, and a healthy Broadway run.  But it surely didn't meet predictions.  It didn't even come close.

Which brings me back to those Mormon boys... so far they are doing everything they can to rewrite the success handbook.  They capitalize on their South Park roots, but without ever alienating those of us who aren't fans of that TV show.  They give away theatres full of free tickets, recognizing their biggest fans in the process.  They gave away the cast recording by having NPR play it and have it available to hear for free.  Then, they gave it away for a mere 99 cents on Amazon.com.  And they are doing the TV circuit, but doling it out slowly.  No stink of desperation here...

Now comes news that the First National Tour will start 4 months early.  Yes, early.  And that Chicago will get its own Mormon company.  I have a feeling a third company isn't so far behind, either. 

OK, maybe the whole country can't hum "I Believe" like they could "One" or "Tomorrow."  And maybe they aren't based on a Disney film or a hit from London with a snazzy logo.  But it is one Broadway show that has hit the big time by the truest measure I know.

If my sports fanatic dad in Florida has heard about it and can speak knowledgeably about any aspect of it, then it is a national Broadway hit.  And just the other day, my dad asked me, "Have you seen that Mormon show?  I hear it is pretty funny.  Is it true Darth Vader is in it?"  Welcome to the big time, Elders Cunningham and Price.


Rate this blog below and leave your comments here, by email at jkstheatrescene@yahoo.com or Tweet me!
Jeff
3.011

Broadway on YouTube: Celebrating The Phantom of the Opera

OK, I'm the first to admit that, long run or not, The Phantom of the Opera is just not one of my favorites.  I was decidedly underwhelmed when I saw the show the first time in the late 80's.  I tried it again with the National Tour, and finally found a Phantom I liked in Howard McGillin.  He was, and is the only Phantom I feared, and the only one I felt even a tinge sorry for. 

I have always felt that the "love story" angle has been way over emphasized, while the thriller/horror angle of the story seems to get short shrift, especially some of the really cheesy staging that always seems to get giggles instead of gasps.  I mean, let's face it, his first murder is so out of nowhere and so clearly unreal (the dummy swinging from a noose always - all 6 times I've seen it - gets a noticeable laugh).  And there is that clunky chandelier more scary when it explodes before it ascends into the rafters than when it is supposedly "crashing" to the stage.  I mean just how tense is it when the cast has time to 1. notice it is unsteady, 2. gather across the stage, 3. ooh and ahh then scream that it is falling, 4. clear the stage completely, and 5. have stage hands in costume come out and catch it.  Even the conductor doesn't bother to feign fear by ducking.

Then there is the score, monotonous mostly with second rate opera numbers that I have always (even after listening to the CD) find to be mostly unintelligible.  For me there are three interesting numbers: "The Phantom of the Opera," "Masquerade," and "Music of the Night."  Beyond that...wake me up when it is over.

Still, there must be something to it.  I mean people have seen it hundreds of times.  It has played the world over, and is universally popular if not critically acclaimed.  A quarter of a century in two major cities is nothing to ignore, either.  I am, it seems, in the minority on this one.  And I am OK with that.

But I have to say that if I had only the three commercials circulating about the show to go by, I can definitely see the appeal.  It is amazing what some great photography and superb editing can make the show look fresh, exciting, tension-filled, romantic and lush.  In short, in just 30 seconds or 1  minute, the people who put these ads together make even me want to buy the DVD or get a ticket and see it again.

I love how mostly the same scenes can be rearranged to fit an ad emphasizing "The Greatest Love Story Ever" (sorry Romeo and Juliet), AND for an ad emphasizing "The Spectacle."  Interesting, too that the love story appeals to the female audience, while the spectacle (including a touch of violence) would appeal to male audience members.

The Phantom of the Opera - The Love Story





The Phantom of the Opera - The Spectacle




And here is a longer ad for the forthcoming DVD of the 25th Anniversary concert staging at Royal Albert Hall.  That production, which will feature Sierra Boggess and Ramin Karimloo, will happen early in October, and the DVD will be released November 14th.

The Phantom of the Opera - The 25th Anniversary Concert/DVD



It should be noted that all three videos feature, primarily, the 2009 London Cast, despite the ads being for the Broadway and Albert Hall engagements.

And, yes, I'm sure this DVD will be on my Christmas list!  Who can resist it?


Rate this blog below, add your comments here, by email at jkstheatrescene@yahoo.com, or Tweet me!
Jeff
3.010

RANT and RAVE: The Replacements

This week, two high profile cast replacements were named for two hit Broadway shows.  One of them was so high profile, it was on the news!  When was the last time THAT happened (Spider-Man, not withstanding)?

The first, though, came the announcement that Adam Pascal would be replacing Tony-nominee Chad Kimball at the end of October in 2010's Best Musical, Memphis.  My first thought was, "really??"  I mean, there is no doubt that Pascal is talented and is a near expert in conveying chemistry.  Look at him and Daphne Ruben-Vega in RENT (or with Anthony Rapp) for that matter.  Or he and his AIDA co-star, Heather Headley - smoking hot and romantic, too!  That look in the final scene...mmmmm.  Yes. Mr. Pascal should have no trouble with the smouldering sexy chemistry with equally sexy and smouldering Montego Glover.

I guess I'm having trouble picturing the quirky, vulnerable, innocent-yet-worldly-wise Huey Calhoun in Adam Pascal.  Of course, he is an actor, a very good one, even if his prior roles have a certain similarity that is not really in this new character.  I guess I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.  Just as I did with Kristin Chenoweth when she departed from her "norm" and tackled (beautifully, in my opinion) a challenging out of the box role.  Instead, maybe I should wish him well and warn him that as much as critics (and some fans) bemoan the fact that actors rarely venture beyond the expected, they rarely embrace the brave ones that do.  Good luck!

The really high profile replacement announcement came today at a press conference live from Sardi's.  Looks like Nick Jonas will be Daniel Radcliffe's permanent replacement in How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying.  It is also now clear that producers are looking to fill the seats at the Hirschfeld with Tweens and their parents.

Let's not forget that the first replacement is actually Glee's Darren Criss, who will also appeal to the tween set, just as Radcliffe did before, and Jonas will after.  But there is a bit of an error in thinking here, and it has nothing whatsoever to do how well all three of them do or will do in the role.  I adored Mr. Radcliffe in the role, and have no doubt that both Mr. Criss and Mr. Jonas will do just fine, finding their own way with the role.

The error in thinking, I think, is that tweens and their parents will embrace these newcomers in the same magnitude, i.e. SRO crowds.  Radcliffe has something neither Criss nor Jonas has: international stardom cultivated by over a decade of growing up before our very eyes in the most successful movie franchise, based on the most popular book series of all time.  He played a character on film that kids and their parents read in those books.  Arguably as many adults kept up with Harry Potter as their kids did.  The appeal of Daniel Radcliffe is multi-generational, backed up by a star turn performance.

A pair of Finches: Darren Criss and Nick Jonas

Criss, with just a three week run, should draw the hordes of Glee-Kurt/Blaine fans, keeping interest and numbers high.  And, to some extent, Glee fans are multi-generational just as Potter fans are.  I bring this up because IF tweens are the target audience, someone has to BRING them to the theatre.  Radcliffe and Criss give parents as much reason to come to the show.  Now, I admit I know the least about the current appeal of Nick Jonas.  How much appeal does he have without his other brothers?  How much will his performance in Les Miserables, which divided fans and critics alike, effect the B.O. for H2$?  Will parents want to sit through the show just to keep their kids happy?  And does Jonas have the same appeal/acceptance by tween boys AND girls as Radcliffe?

Since Mr. Jonas has the most Broadway experience of the three  - he's been on the boards in Annie Get Your Gun, Beauty and the Beast and Les Miserables - I don't think his ability onstage is even a question.  But I do wonder about his ability to draw news-making crowds.

All bets are off if they can find a nostalgic appeal for the parents when the recast John Larroquette.
Do you plan to see Adam, Darren and/or Nick?  Write in and let us know!


Rate this blog below and leave your comments here, by email at jkstheatrescene@yahoo.com or Tweet me!
Jeff
3.009