Goeth to Seeith 'The Iceman Cometh' -- If You Caneth -- but Taketh a Nap Beforeth

Theater Review

The Iceman Cometh
a play by Eugene O'Neill
directed by Robert Falls
Goodman Theatre, Chicago
Thru June 17
@@@@1/2

With seats scarce and pricey throughout its extension until June 17, The Iceman Cometh seems to be the hottest ticket the Goodman Theatre has had in many a season.

It deserves to be. Qualitatively and quantitatively.

Iceman is a classic play by one of America's most legendary playwrights, and it is rarely staged. In Chicago, it is being directed by the Goodman's superstar Artistic Director, Robert Falls, and features a stellar cast of 18, including two of the finest theater actors ever, Nathan Lane and Brian Dennehy.

The set design by Kevin Depinet--inspired by a design by John Conklin for a Goodman production Falls did with Dennehy in 1990--is quite impressive, as are the 1912 period costumes by Merrily Murray-Walsh.

And including four acts and three intermissions, the play runs nearly 5 hours.

So if you can snag a ticket for any price you can afford, do so. You'll get your money's worth. Perhaps even more than you need.

I certainly feel fortunate that my Sunday night subscription ticket for $20 was nearly $100 less than most of the few remaining tickets are going for through GoodmanTheatre.org (the Goodman offers some nice discount programs, but there's probably slim pickings for this show; shame the four seats next to me were empty last night).

While my previous exposure to Eugene O'Neill--Long Day's Journey Into Night, Hughie, Desire Under the Elms, The Hairy Ape; all at the Goodman, most Falls/Dennehy collaborations--ranks him behind Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams in the way I regard "America's greatest playwrights," I do appreciate his stature and was very much looking forward to The Iceman Cometh.

But until I read a plot synopsis on Wikipedia the other day, I really had no knowledge what the play was about, nor even that the title really is a suggestive double entendre about the guy who home delivers ice (and has relations with one's wife). All I knew was that as Max Bialystock in The Producers--my favorite musical in which he delivered one of the best performances of any sort that I've ever seen--Lane uttered the title as a punchline: "Just make it out to cash!" "It's a funny sort of name for a play, Cash...." "Yeah, so is The Iceman Cometh!"

What I now can tell you, without wanting to give much away in case you are able to get a ticket to see it here or elsewhere, is that The Iceman Cometh, written in 1939, takes place in the bar room of a Greenwich Village rooming house in 1912. Along with the proprietor, two bartenders and three prostitutes, nine down-on-their-luck drunks hang out hypothesizing about a return to their past glories while awaiting a periodic visit from 'Hickey,' a life-of-the-party (at least previously) salesman, played here by Lane.

Dennehy is typically great as Larry Slade, a former anarchist, and is matched by the excellent young Chicago actor, Patrick Andrews, who I've previously seen be terrific in Cabaret, American Buffalo and Red. All the performers are first-rate and it was fun to see local stalwarts like John Reeger, James Harms and Steppenwolf's luminous Kate Arrington do such fine work here. Noted Shakespearean Stephen Ouimette is also superb as Harry Hope.

But the true star, in all regards, is Nathan Lane. Though more renowned for musicals and/or comedies, he demonstrates in a challenging dramatic role that--at least IMHO--there is no better stage actor working today. Dennehy, Andrews and O'Neill's gift for dialogue allowed the Laneless bulk of an 80-minute first act to flow effectively, but the show lit up--literally and figurative--when Hickey arrived in the form of Lane. And while I can imagine other gifted actors, including Dennehy in 1990, playing the role, I can't perceive liking anyone else as much.

With no disrespect meant to O'Neill, Falls or any of the other cast members, The Iceman Cometh was considerably less riveting when Lane wasn't on stage.

And without wanting to sound like the clueless emperor in Amadeus telling Mozart to take out some notes-- "which ones do you have in mind?"-- the only criticism I have of an otherwise outstanding evening of enriching entertainment is just how long it was.

Having napped beforehand, I stayed awake throughout and there are no parts I can judiciously cite as unnecessary. But should any play really have you sitting in your seat longer than a transcontinental flight?

It was excellent, but I can't deny that it was arduous as well. So even if you can find a ticket, keep the duration in mind before planning to attend on a work night.

While I followed the story pretty well, and think I might get the general gist of what O'Neill was trying to say and explore, I don't know that I completely grasped the motivations of Hickey nor perhaps some of the play's gestalt.

Also, for any O'Neillites who know this play well: Wikipedia and IBDB list a character named Pat McGloin, a former police lieutenant, who is seemingly omitted from this production. If you know why Falls might have made this choice or what it may have affected, please comment.

Noting the difficulty of finding a ticket to The Iceman Cometh at this point, it might be moot for me to offer a recommendation unless he stayeth just a little bit longer. But even without a frame of reference, I envision this is as good a production of this play one could hope to see. Unless Lane has other commitments, the Goodman staging can conceivably transfer to Broadway, where he--and perhaps Dennehy and Falls as well--should win yet another Tony.

So even if you have to go through StubHub to see a play that's longer than some mini-series, you may nonetheless--especially without necessitating a New York flight or hotel--find this Iceman too stone cold good to misseth.

In the Spirit of Critical Congruency, Noting the Negativity about 'Ghost the Musical' on Broadway

(Note: This is not a review; I have not seen Ghost in New York, though I did see it in London)

As I hopefully make rather evident in my writings on this blog, I have tremendous regard and respect for the arts--and anyone who participates in them at any level.

So although I enjoy giving an honest appraisal of shows I see--and as I am not a professional critic, I actually pay to see them and am not compensated in any way for my reviews--I don't revel in being negative, nor nasty, about shows I don't like.

Even at the low level of reach and influence that Seth Saith enjoys, writing something unkind about a performance, and especially performers, would be to insult people who are far more theatrically, or musically, etc., talented than I'll ever be.

And bad professional reviews, particularly by New York theater critics about new Broadway shows, have caused many a show to close much earlier than planned. While this can be seen as a public service in saving audiences considerable money and time in seeing dreck, it also can cost many an actor, musician, stagehand, souvenir seller and ticket taker their source of income.

So I'm not hoping that Ghost the Musical closes quickly on Broadway in the wake of mostly scathing reviews after opening last night at the Lunt-Fontanne Theatre in New York. But based on having found the show quite lousy when I saw it in London in late November with the same lead actors, I didn't feel it merited a Broadway production (unless the producers tremendously improved it).

Though I accept that my opinion of musicals, plays, concerts, movies, etc. may often differ from those offered by professional critics, I respect the judgments of theater writers like Chris Jones of the Chicago Tribune and Hedy Weiss of the Chicago Sun-Times enough to really wonder why they might have loved something I didn't (such as with Camino Real at the Goodman Theater; I found it almost unwatchable--as did many audience members who left early--yet Jones raved about it).

Thus, even as the half-assed critic that I pretend to be, or even just as an avid theater lover, I'm often quite curious about how Chicago and New York critics will review a show, particularly one I really loved or hated. I still recall how, after catching a pre-Broadway production of Hairspray in Seattle in 2003, I told my mom that it would win the Tony for Best Musical. And I felt appraisingly validated when it did (after garnering great reviews upon opening on Broadway).

Now, as proof that critical reviews don't always matter much to audiences, when in London last November with my friend Paolo, we opted to see Ghost--with half-price TKTS, mind you--despite it getting middling notices from the London critics. The show, based on the popular 1990 movie, had opened in July 2011 and is still running in London, so a cherished title can supersede negative reviews, and did so even in my case.

But by intermission, Paolo and I were in accordance that what we were watching just wasn't very good. Despite being written by Bruce Joel Rubin, who also wrote the movie that we both recalled favorably, the story and dialogue were hokey and shallow. And even with music by Dave Stewart (of the Eurythmics) and successful pop songwriter Glen Ballard, few of the songs could even be termed tuneful, let alone memorable.

It took me awhile to post a review here, but within a recap of my London/Paris trip, I gave it @@ out of 5. I called it "pretty darn awful," but didn't waste a lot of space ragging on it. Especially as much of what made it subpar was in its tone, and thus difficult to expound upon. I also didn't expect many Americans to have a chance to see it anytime soon; though in theory the Hollywood-to-Broadway (via London) transfer seemed a natural, the show itself just seemed too slight to survive the New York press.

So when I noted shortly thereafter that Ghost the Musical would open on Broadway in April, I was rather shocked. Yes, popular movies turned into musicals have long sold tickets on name alone, but usually it takes their being rather good to really have legs (and thus recoup the investment): The Producers and Hairspray being prime examples, High Fidelity and 9-to-5 the opposite and Young Frankenstein and Shrek having fairly good but not fantastic runs despite mediocre reviews.

While the creative team of Ghost may have been pleased with the box office take in London, the lukewarm press had to be concerning.

The leads in London, Caissie Levy (Molly) and Richard Fleeshman (Sam)--who have reprised their roles on Broadway--were attractive and not completely unappealing, and noting above the trickle-down economics of a Broadway show, I wish the enterprise well. But I'm not eagerly anticipating the day, about three years from now, when Ghost shows up on my Broadway in Chicago subscription series.

And thus, when I awoke this morning and saw reviews that said things such as:

"[Ghost] may not be the very worst musical ever made from a movie. ... But it is just as flavorless and lacking in dramatic vitality as many that have come before."
-- Charles Isherwood, New York Times

"This musical suffers from a jerky tone and by putting a premium on high-tech over heart."
-- Joe Dziemianowicz, New York Daily News

"The turgid score doesn’t boast a single decent hook."
-- Elizabeth Vincentelli, New York Post

"There is so much wrong with "Ghost," it's hard to know where to start."
-- Chris Jones, Chicago Tribune

...well, I can't say that I was surprised.

Still, box office receipts for Ghost on Broadway have looked solid during its preview weeks--although anyone so inclined in or heading to NYC should be able to find discounts at the TKTS booth or ahead of time through Broadway Box--so perhaps it will have a long and spirited run, after all.

Oh, What A Night: 'Jersey Boys' Still In Perfect Harmony -- Chicago Theater Review

Theater Review

Jersey Boys
Bank of America Theatre, Chicago
Thru June 3, 2012
@@@@@

Jersey Boys, the jukebox musical that tells the story of Frankie Valli & the Four Seasons, opened on Broadway in the fall of 2005. It went on to win the Tony Award, is still running quite successfully in New York--last week it played to over 90% capacity--and proved its appeal stretched throughout another tri-state area when it ran in Chicago from October 2007 to January 2010.

I saw it twice during that long Chicago stay and liked it very much. More so even, odd as it may sound, than the band the show is about.

Not that I don't like the Four Seasons; they had a number of true pop gems that provide the intrinsic appeal of Jersey Boys, but I rarely opt to listen to them outside of the show.

I wonder in a way if that's part of the secret of satisfying jukebox musicals (i.e. those using existing songs, often of a singular artist). I've found Jersey Boys and Mamma Mia eminently enjoyable, well-beyond any pre-existing reverence for the Four Seasons or ABBA. But even if they hadn't flopped on Broadway, I don't think I'd want to see shows like Lennon and Ring of Fire for fear they'd undermine my vast affinity for John Lennon and Johnny Cash. And though other factors were involved besides just the music, it might surprise some--including myself--that just this year I've liked Fela! far more than Green Day's American Idiot.

Anyway, the Jersey Boys are back in town--at the Bank of America (née Shubert) Theatre, the same venue the show played previously. But with another show booked from June 12, this time faux-Frankie and friends presumably won't be sticking around for years on end. Still, even a 9-week run is pretty impressive, though it helps that Broadway in Chicago included the show in its subscriber package for the second time in five years.
 

Photo credit: Joan Marcus

But in being given the chance to once again see a superb touring production (with a different cast) of a superlative show for just $10--as part of my bargain Balcony Club subscription--I'm not complaining.

Especially given that just 3 years since the last time I saw it, I was struck by how fresh Jersey Boys felt.

Perhaps that says more about my eroding memory than the show itself, but this really is a first-rate piece of entertainment that holds up well to repeat engagements.

While I don't often think to play the many hits of Frankie Valli & the Four Seasons--and honestly don't often think of them in the same vein as the Beatles, Stones, Who, Kinks, Creedence, Cream or even the Beach Boys, Supremes, Hollies, Mamas & Papas, etc., as a defining group of the '60s--Jersey Boys certainly serves to remind that this is an oversight on my part.

Although the songs don't come as much of a surprise (particularly on my third viewing), the opening strains of any of the mega-hits--"Sherry," "Big Girls Don't Cry," "Walk Like a Man," "December, 1963 (Oh, What A Night)," "Big Man in Town," "Can't Take My Eyes Off Of You," "Rag Doll" and "Who Loves You?" just to name a few--always bring an anticipatory smile of excitement.

But what makes Jersey Boys a wonderful musical and not just a collection of great songs is its truly masterful book crafted by Marshall Brickman and Rick Elice, with direction by Des McAnuff.

I've always held this show in high regard--from hearing of its Broadway bow to rave reviews, to watching a production number on the Tony's, to seeing it in Chicago in 2007 and 2009--but there has also been something of an asterisk in my mind.

"Jersey Boys is great...for a jukebox musical," I've thought, "but even though it's wonderfully entertaining, because of the ready-made songs, it's not a work of artistic brilliance on par with The Producers, Avenue Q, Hairspray or Wicked" to name a few shows that topped my list of Favorite Musicals of the '00s, where I bestowed this one with Honorable Mention.

I still wouldn't leapfrog Jersey Boys to the top of that list, but it belongs in the Top 10 and I now realize that any mental asterisk is absurd. Especially after many lesser jukebox musicals have amplified that this is not only the best biographical rock musical yet created, but also works surprisingly well as a resonant piece of narrative theater.

Maybe, although specific comparisons fail me, the current Chicago cast is particularly stellar--Joseph Leo Bwarie is especially amazing as Frankie Valli, hitting the falsettos about as well as one could imagine--but I think the shortcomings of similar-type shows have helped me appreciate just how good the source material is here, well beyond the cascade of catchy songs.

I now more acutely recognize that in telling the story of Frankie Valli & the Four Seasons, Jersey Boys--like any good work of drama, whether fiction or non--tells a much more universal tale. Sure, just at face value, the biography of Valli, Tommy DeVito, Bob Gaudio and Nick Massi would also serve a compelling Behind the Music episode, and the smart, funny script quite compellingly gives each of the four 'Seasons' their turn to narrate personal, shared and at times divisive recollections.

But even if one doesn't much care about this particular band hailing from Belleville, NJ, more than many other works of stage and screen I've seen, Jersey Boys emotionally engages as a story of friendship, of a time and place gone by, of struggle and triumph, of love, loyalty and loss, of the creative process and of much, much more.

If you've seen Jersey Boys before and liked it enough to see it again, the production and cast in Chicago is every bit as good as you'd hope (Preston Truman Boyd, John Gardiner and Michael Lomenda star alongside the aformentioned Bwarie).

And if you've never seen this show, but love well-written story-based Broadway musicals and/or the jukebox variety featuring glorious pop harmonies--like a friend who just saw it for the first time and is already planning a return visit with others--you won't want to miss it.

Gnashville, Tennessee: Williams' 'Camino Real' a Surreal Grind -- Theater Review

Theater Review

Camino Real
a play by Tennessee Williams
New version by Calixto Bieito and Marc Rosich
Goodman Theatre, Chicago
Thru April 8
@

I tried.

I really tried to prepare myself to appreciate the Goodman Theatre's staging of Tennessee Williams' 1953 play, Camino Real, which its own Playbill describes as "a fiendishly difficult piece."

I read much of the Goodman's typically stellar supporting material--about the play, Williams' motivations in giving audiences "my own sense of something wild and unrestricted like water in the mountains, or clouds changing shape in a gale," and about Artistic Director Robert Falls' reasoning in bringing Calixto Bieito (a "bad boy of Europe") to Chicago to direct this rarely produced piece.

I read press previews and reviews, including a rather positive one by the Chicago Tribune's Chris Jones, which the paper somewhat strangely billboarded on the front page by saying "3-1/2 stars for 'Camino Real,' but some audience members are leaving early." [Note: The Tribune rating scale is out of 4]

I tried to tell myself that stories of patrons exiting mid-show and very poor word-of-mouth, including an aunt's recommendation to waste the ticket and not bother going, could perhaps be chalked up to their missing something that I might enjoy.

I attended an informative pre-show discussion at the Goodman conducted by the show's casting director, Adam Belcuore, and asked his advice for best approaching a challenging piece of theater perhaps further jigsawed by a daring director. I appreciated Adam's advice to not worry if things seemed strange and obtuse at the beginning; just to go with the flow and let the weirdness wash over me.

I also liked the suggestion that coming after the successes of The Glass Menagerie and A Streetcar Named Desire, Williams was eager to try something different, and perhaps was inspired by other non-linear artistic trends of the early 1950s--bebop, Beat poetry, abstract expressionism, surrealism, etc.

I tried to remind myself how much I've liked not only the two aforementioned masterpieces by Tennessee Williams, but also Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Sweet Bird of Youth and Night of the Iguana.

As I checked the Playbill and noticed a few familiar names--Matt DeCaro, Barbara Robertson, David Darlow--I tried to settle into my seat and focus on enjoying a unique work by a great writer interpreted by an inventive director and starring first-rate actors.

I tried.

And I failed.

I failed to see almost any artistic merits in a 110-minute haphazard "dream play" that felt more like a nightmare.

If I tried to convey what Camino Real is about, I would fail. I have absolutely no idea what was going on on-stage, nor what I was supposed to derive from it. I know there was an ex-boxer named Kilroy, a guy named Gutman (after the Sidney Greenstreet character in The Maltese Falcon, but I had read about this), and history-derived characters such as Lord Byron, Casanova, Don Quixote and Esmerelda.

All I can really say, and I apologize for being so non-specific, was that I didn't like anything about it. I believe this is the lowest rating I've ever given any performance, and if I didn't feel somewhat obliged to stick it out before sharing my opinion, I would have joined the other 18 people that left the balcony early last night (I counted, and am sure that if there had been an intermission many more would have ducked out, including quite possibly me).

Funny thing is, from reading about the play and the Catalonian Bieito in pieces by Robert Falls and the Tribune's Chris Jones, the implication was that some patrons may be offended, disturbed and/or disgusted by the happenings on-stage.

I'm not offended by much of an artistic nature, and unfortunately wasn't here. Offended, disturbed and disgusted would have been an improvement. Instead I was just confused, bewildered and bored.

I'm always willing to consider the possibility that I missed something, or failed to try hard enough, but if the metaphorical Emperor really was wearing clothes in this case, it clearly wasn't apparent through my binoculars from the ever-emptying balcony.

Perhaps what I needed to try, in order to derive any enjoyment from Camino Real, was taking acid. Or at least Ambien.

(The audience politely applauded at the play's end and it's possible some of the remaining patrons may have liked it, but all I heard were negative comments. Especially after two excellent, crowd-pleasing plays--Red and Race--as part of my subscription series, I won't revile Falls for scheduling something a bit daring (even if I am considering not re-upping next season). But in nearly 10 seasons as a subscriber, this is the first Williams play Goodman has served up. Would it have been so hard to slate a stellar rendition of Streetcar instead? Though I am glad to see they will be doing Sweet Bird of Youth, directed by David Cromer, in the fall.)

Skilled Creators, Spirited Effort Fail To Spell S-U-C-C-E-S-S For Cheerful 'Bring It On' -- Theater Review

Theater Review

Bring It On: The Musical
Cadillac Palace Theatre, Chicago
Thru March 25
@@1/2

When I first heard about Bring It On: The Musical upon it being included in my Broadway in Chicago subscription series--prior to having run on Broadway or even officially being slated to--my initial instinct was not one of great, pyramid-topping expectations.

Though the cinematic cheerleading opus from 2000 had a fair amount of cheesy charm, Bring It On never struck me as begging for a stage version. Even if it played well to the youth crowd in the vein of High School Musical--and I applaud shows that aim to indoctrinate new audiences, but want them to entertain me too--I was skeptical of the mass appeal such a show might offer.

But Hairspray, Billy Elliot, Legally Blonde, A Christmas Story, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, The Wedding Singer and Shrek are just a few recent examples of movies that, perhaps unsuspectingly, were transitioned into soundly enjoyable or even terrific musicals with sufficient cross-generational appeal.

Heck, if I were told in 1966--forgetting that I had yet to be conceived--that there was a new musical based on Fellini's Nights of Cabiria, would I have anticipated a sublime song and dance sensation? But Cy Coleman, Dorothy Fields, Neil Simon, Bob Fosse and Gwen Verdon deliciously morphed it into Sweet Charity.

And several of the creatives behind Bring It On: The Musical--Jeff Whitty, Tom Kitt, Lin-Manuel Miranda and Andy Blankenbuehler--were (separately) responsible for three of the very best, and most distinctive, musicals of the past decade: Avenue Q, In the Heights and Next To Normal. Though it's notable that these were all rare recent stage works not based on a movie or existing property.

So although I didn't head into the Cadillac Palace on Wednesday doing backflips (as if), especially as Chris Jones' Tribune preview cited poor reviews of the tour in Los Angeles & San Francisco and considerable pre-Chicago retooling, I looked forward to seeing what the talented crew had molded and evolved.

Unfortunately, Bring It On still feels very much like a work in progress. There were a few nice numbers and lots of impressive acrobatics by the attractive young cast, but the narrative felt rather schizophrenic and the whole thing just failed to congeal properly.

I don't know if this was the plan all along--though per the California reviews the basic storyline has seemingly stayed constant since the tour began last fall--but the musical deviates almost completely from what happened in the movie. This doesn't matter, as it's not like the movie was The Producers and should be held sacred, nor did I fully recall what happened in the film until reviewing the plot summary on Wikipedia.

So I won't bother to detail the digressions, but will give a brief synopsis in trying to explain, in part, what didn't work for me. (SPOILER ALERT, I guess)

Rather than Kirsten Dunst's Torrance, the lead character here is named Campbell (played by Taylor Louderman). She is the popular head cheerleader at whitebread Truman High, but has a heart and, albeit ineffectually, rebukes her stereotypically bitchy squadmate, Skylar (Kate Rockwell). But partway through Act I, Campbell is"redistricted" to the multicultural Jackson High. The song that accompanies this transition is among the best in the show--there is no song list in the program so I don't know the title--and it was interesting seeing how Campbell copes with being ostracized, now even less popular than the heavyset Bridget (Ryann Redmond), who also transferred schools. But amidst Campbell dealing with her new surroundings rather gracefully while growing as a person, the show introduces an All About Eve scenario involving a Machiavellian Truman High sophomore named Eva (Elle McLemore). Almost out of nowhere, Campbell instantly becomes more snarky, soulless and vengeful than she was to begin with.

I realize a narrative twist was needed to set up the final competition in Act II--and as you might suspect, our heroine eventually sees the superficial light--but it seemed to me Skylar was a more ready-made and natural rival.

Yes, I feel a bit silly delving this deep into analyzing the storyline of Bring It On: The Musical--which I should point out was given a standing ovation by the mostly youngish crowd in the balcony, so I'm not here to dissuade those who expect to like it--but although there was genuinely a good amount of "spirited" effort, I was never really engrossed nor wowed.

There were a few enjoyable songs, especially those that tapped the hip-hop tableau employed so masterfully by Lin-Manuel Miranda in "In The Heights." Though it was a bit saccharine, the "cheer up" ballad sung by Campbell's rather sporadic love interest, Randall (Jason Gotay)--I believe it may be called "Enjoy The Trip"--had just enough inspired lyrics and good intentions to work.

But with the caveat that, unlike most musicals I see, I was completely unfamiliar with the score heading in, very few of the songs felt particularly distinctive or special, and I can't say I recall any of the melodies a day later.

The cheerleading routines were well done, but seemingly not infused with the same degree of street vitality as those in the movie, even though Adrienne Warren is demonstrably good as Danielle, the Jackson High leader who battles and befriends the transplanted Campbell.

As one might expect given its subject matter, Bring It On: The Musical has a nice "can-do" vibe and perhaps with enough tinkering, those involved can still spell H-I-T by the time the show winds up somersaulting along The Great White Way. (An obvious fix-up may not really be a pre-requisite as Ghost: The Musical, a stinker in London, is soon to bow on Broadway).

But while I was happy to see the ovation others bestowed upon it--and even joined in out of respect--at this point I cannot figuratively stand and cheer for Bring It On, nor if I had any, wave my pom poms. And I didn't even mention the dancing Leprechaun number, which though more oddball than awful, spurred me to think, "Toto, I don't think we're in South Pacific anymore."

'Show Boat' Rolls Along Splendidly in Opera Voyage -- Opera / Theater Review

Photo Credit: Alex Garcia / Chicago Tribune

Opera / Theater Review

Show Boat
Lyric Opera of Chicago
Thru March 17
@@@@1/2

Originally produced on Broadway in 1927 and oft cited as the show that redefined musical theater, Show Boat is the oldest of the great musicals I feel I should see--excluding the Gilbert & Sullivan works more commonly classified as light opera--and likely the most celebrated of those that, until Wednesday night, I never had.

Even without a point of comparison, the glorious new production by the Lyric Opera of Chicago, under the direction of renowned director Francesca Zambello, provided an undoubtedy robust introduction to the watershed work composed by Jerome Kern with book & lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein II (based on a novel by Edna Ferber).

In the Director's Note in the program, Zambello states that without Show Boat, which she dubs "the beginning of our musical theater history," we could not have "found a bridge from opera to our own American art form." She goes on to explain that she considers this production innovative for the way it marries "the worlds of opera singers, musical theater performers and dramatic actors."

Noted opera baritone Nathan Gunn plays the male lead, Gaylord Ravenal, bass Morris Robinson is Joe--he does a fabulous rendition of "Old Man River"--soprano Alyson Cambridge is Julie and another soprano, Angela Renee Simpson plays Queenie. The female lead, Magnolia Hawks, is played by Ashley Brown, best known for playing Mary Poppins on Broadway (and in Chicago on the first national tour). She is joined by a number of performers I've often seen on Chicago theatrical stages, including Ross Lehman (Captain Andy), Cindy Gold (Parthy), Bernie Yvon (Frank) and Ericka Mac (Ellie May).

As I've explained in reviews of more traditional operas I've seen--such as this one; I've attended over 40--I very much appreciate and admire the art form, but have never come to love it or "feel it" the way I do with Broadway (or rock, for that matter). Thus, while respecting longtime Lyric patrons who may wonder why one of the world's most esteemed opera companies is presenting a "musical," I am far from a purist who disdains the notion and instead very much endorse it.

This was my first trip to the Civic Opera House this season and while realizing that there are many other venues around town where one can see musicals, yet only a very few that present opera, in the name of marketing the operatic form to a wider--and younger--audience, I would fully be in favor of expanding what gets presented as an "opera production."

It's hard to believe that it's been 10 years since I saw a wonderful production of Sondheim's Sweeney Todd at the Lyric and that Show Boat is the first true musical they've done since. (They did do Gilbert & Sullivan's Pirates of Penzance some years back.) Having just seen South Pacific last week as a touring Broadway production, that's just one of the obvious musicals ready for an opera production; I'd also strongly suggest the Lyric do Les Miserables.

That said, while it was largely inconsequential to my enjoyment of a well-staged (though the sets weren't quite astonishing), exquisitely costumed and wonderfully sung performance, it seemed slightly strange for many of the songs to be sung in operatic voices yet for others not to be--most notably Magnolia's numbers sung by Brown, who has a great voice but isn't an opera singer.

There's traditionally a difference between "opera singing" and "Broadway singing" and there's an argument to be made for either one holding forth when an opera company stages a Broadway show. But the hybrid, while never really unpleasant, just seemed a bit curious.

Nonetheless, unless you're an opera lover who only loves the classics by Mozart, Verdi, Puccini and the like, there's no reason not to take in this ebullient production of a legendary American creation--dealing with racial issues, including miscegenation, but also offering much literal and figurative bi-racial harmony, Show Boat was decades ahead of its time in many regards--and certainly shouldn't be missed if you're a musical theater lover.

I was going to say that tickets start at just $34 for weeknight performances, but the Lyric may be utilizing a dynamic pricing model as in checking on tickets for next Tuesday night, seats at the back of the upper balcony (for which I paid $34) now seem to be $54. (You can check tickets here; scroll to the bottom)

Photo Credit: Dan Rest

According to Wikipedia, Show Boat was last revived on Broadway in 1994, followed by a tour that landed at Chicago's Auditorium Theatre for an extended run in 1996. I wasn't as keyed into musicals at that point and didn't attend, but since becoming an ardent theatergoer in 2000, I haven't heretofore noticed any local opportunities to see the show, at any level. With a huge cast, lush orchestral score and the requirement of something approximating a riverboat, this can't be an easy or inexpensive show to produce.

All the more reason this unique production--with a full opera orchestra conducted by John DeMain and dozens of performers on stage combining to delight on the show's buoyant chorus numbers as well as beautiful ballads such as "Make Believe," "Can't Help Lovin' That Man" and "Bill"--shouldn't be missed as it rolls alongside the Chicago River. (Act II takes place mostly in Chicago and ends in 1927, which only adds to the charm of seeing Show Boat in the opera house, which was built just 2 years later.)

'Spring Awakening' Adapts Quite Nicely to College

Theater Overview

Spring Awakening
Ethel M. Barber Theater
at Northwestern University
Thru Feb. 26
Recommended

I tend not to review--or especially rate--non-professional theater productions. Even given my very limited sphere of influence, it seems silly for me to essentially grade students (or community theater participants), particularly in cases when giving my honest assessment would appear to be critical of performers still primarily in a learning mode.

Thus, I'm not labeling this a review, didn't award a rating on my @@@@@ scale and wasn't even intending to write it. This despite the truth that I found Northwestern's production of Spring Awakening to be rather strong and well worth recommending, especially to those who haven't seen this musical--one of the very best theatrical creations of the past decade--elsewhere.

But in reviewing at my review from last May of a non-Equity touring production of the same show, I was reminded of my saying that I was looking forward to seeing Spring Awakening as it moved away from its splendid Broadway origins and somewhat devolving national tours to high energy--and perhaps, appropriately, a bit scruffy--renditions at small local theaters and upon college stages.

A couple months back, the show was done at a local level by Griffin Theater, but I wasn't all that ready to see it again and the review by the Tribune's Chris Jones wasn't insistent that I must.

For a variety of reasons--proximity to my home, a cheap ticket through HotTix, the track record of Northwestern's Theatre Program in spawning Broadway talent and curiosity as to how Duncan Sheik's (music) and Steven Sater's (lyrics) rock musical based on a 1892 German play (by Frank Wedekind) about repressed teens would work at the collegiate level--NU's production intrigued me enough that I couldn't resist taking a look.

As Spring Awakening is truly a dramatic work set to music, much of its glory can only be experienced on a first viewing (or after one's recollection has sufficiently diminished). So in seeing it for the 4th time in 5 years, I wasn't surprised by the story, intense onstage occurrences (including of an overtly sexual and tragic nature), teen angst driven choreography or the edgy lyrics. Thus it wasn't only because of the college cast that this production couldn't match the first one I saw, on Broadway in early 2007.

But without wanting to edge into a "review," I was genuinely impressed by the quality of the singing throughout all the main roles, and appreciated how director Geoff Button handled the "adult roles" in an unusual way (a single man and woman typically embody a variety of adult characters, but here they did so entirely offstage).

So albeit short on specifics and devoid of Seth Saith rating, you can consider this a recommendation. If you've never seen Spring Awakening, this rendition will provide a rather solid representation, and if you've liked the show in an earlier production, there's no reason you won't here. It may not be the very best version imaginable, but in giving it the old college try, the cast and crew at Northwestern succeed admirably.

---
You can check HotTix here or the box office here.

Finely Sung 'South Pacific' Makes for "Some Enchanted Evening" -- Theater Review

Theater Review

South Pacific
a Rodgers & Hammerstein Muscial
Cadillac Palace Theatre, Chicago
Thru February 26
@@@@1/2

Like Picasso for painting, Chaplin for early cinema, Hitchcock for suspense films, Mozart for classical music and Houdini for magic, Rodgers & Hammerstein stands as a de facto synonym for musical theater.

In some ways, at least in my (admittedly askew) mind, this undermines their legacy. The stage works (and film adaptations) of composer Richard Rodgers and lyricist Oscar Hammerstein II, including Oklahoma, Carousel, South Pacific, The King & I and The Sound of Music, are such standards that I tend not to think of them--the shows or the creators--as particularly innovative or daring.

Though as a fan of the Broadway genre, I can't help but hold Rodgers & Hammerstein's music and musicals in high regard, somehow they haven't rung quite as cool as Stephen Sondheim, Leonard Bernstein, Kander & Ebb (Chicago, Cabaret), Bock & Harnick (Fiddler on the Roof, Fiorello), Lerner & Loewe (My Fair Lady, Camelot) or Boublil & Schönberg (Les Miserables, Miss Saigon), among others. 

A year ago, when I published this piece citing my 22 all-time favorite musicals, no Rodgers & Hammerstein shows made the cut. At the time, I had never witnessed a stage production of The Sound of Music, but even after seeing two excellent renditions in 2011 it would only sneak in near the bottom.

Likewise, I still wouldn't cite South Pacific among my very favorite musicals, but on my third live voyage, Tuesday night at the Cadillac Palace, I was again reminded of just how brilliant--and plenty daring--Mssrs. Rodgers & Hammerstein were.

A musical that this openly condemns racial prejudice might seem a bit dated in 2012--though sadly, perhaps not all that universally--but when it first bowed on Broadway in 1949, the Arkansas from which the Nellie Forbush character hails still would have segregated restrooms for several more years. Central High School in Little Rock notably resisted desegregation until it was legally enforced in 1957 and the lunch counter at Woolworth's in Little Rock wouldn't be desegregated until 1963. So in penning a song like "You've Got to Be Carefully Taught" (to hate and fear), Dick and Oscar weren't exactly abstaining from boldly commenting on divisive topics.

And while modern day musicals might be lucky to offer one song that can be hummed on the way home, "A Cockeyed Optimist," "There is Nothing Like a Dame," "I'm Gonna Wash That Man Right Out of My Hair," "A Wonderful Guy" and "Honey Bun" are among the most tuneful showtunes ever written. And along with "The Impossible Dream" from Man of La Mancha, "Some Enchanted Evening" may be the most emotively enthralling solo number ever written for a man to belt out on a theatrical stage.

Fortunately, on the first night of the two-week tour stop in Chicago, these wonderful songs were done proper justice. Derived from the highly acclaimed 2008 Broadway revival from which I'd already seen a tour that played Rosemont in late 2009, this is a non-Equity tour for which Bartlett Sher's original direction has been recreated by Sarna Lapine.

Theoretically, I tend to agree with Chicago Tribune theater critic Chris Jones in his oft-made assertion that non-Equity touring shows should be openly billed as such or priced lower than shows adhering to Actors' Equity union pay standards for performers (and thus, costing their producers more). I've seen enough Equity and non-Equity tours to generally perceive the Equity productions to feature better (or at least more clearly experienced) talent.

But no one's going to put you onstage, let alone on tour, if you can't sing/dance/act and I'd be lying if I said that I could distinguish--especially from the upper balcony, but likely anywhere--the singing in this South Pacific as being lesser than what I'd expect from an Equity cast, or even on Broadway.

Yes, through my handy binoculars, Marcelo Guzzo looked a little young and ungrizzled as Emile de Becque, but as a seasoned opera singer, he belted "Some Enchanted Evening" and "This Nearly Was Mine" as well as I could have hoped.

There seemed to be a smidgen of a screech in Katie Reed's speaking and singing voice as Ensign Nellie Forbush, but not to the point of distraction, and the key supporting roles of John Cable, Luther Billis and Bloody Mary were well handled by Shane Donovan, Christian Marriner and Cathy Foy-Mahi, respectively.

Even the most illustrious musicals of old tend to have a different tonality and pacing than more recent ones--even if Rodgers & Hammerstein's works largely represented an advancement in narrative cohesion--and South Pacific (at nearly 3 hours) is a bit long and talky in parts for me to label the source material or this production as absolute perfection.

But as was once again evidenced--and in truth, I've never been disappointed by any of their classics, more just took them for granted--Rodgers & Hammerstein aren't regarded as masters of the musical art form for no good reason. And with a non-Equity cast proving that first-rate talent need not always hold a union card, this production provided far more than a somewhat enchanted evening.

---
Based on the undersold balcony on Tuesday, and Wednesday's listings, tickets may be had for as low as $15 in the upper balcony (plus fees if bought through Ticketmaster, but without at the box office) or at half-price in the orchestra section through HotTix.

Don't Wanna Be An 'American Idiot,' But I Just Didn't Get It -- Theater Review

Theater Review

American Idiot
a musical with music by Green Day
Oriental Theatre, Chicago
Thru February 19
@@1/2

I love Green Day.

I have been a big fan and devoted follower of the Bay Area punk trio ever since their phenomenal 1994 album Dookie broke big.

I own all their albums--even those that preceded Dookie and the one they released as Foxboro Hot Tubs--as well as a couple of DVDs.

Considering them to be one of the very best live acts I've ever seen, I feel fortunate to have attended several Green Day concerts over the past 18 years and look forward to my next opportunity.

I stuck with the band even as their popularity ebbed around the turn of the century, but was nonetheless delighted to see them reclaim mass stardom with their excellent 2004 concept album, American Idiot. It stands as one of my favorite records of the 2000s, though to be honest, I appreciate it more as a collection of thematic songs rather than ever truly embracing its rock opera "plotline."

But when the American Idiot stage musical--directed by Michael Mayer, who helmed the sensational Spring Awakening--arrived on Broadway in 2010, I championed the notion of a punk rock musical and noted its generally stellar reviews. The show wasn't a big box office hit in New York--Green Day singer/guitarist Billie Joe Armstrong often took the stage to pump up sales--and I never got a chance to see it, but wished I had.

So I was happy to see the Oriental Theatre full on the national tour's first night in Chicago and coinciding with Charles Dickens' 200th birthday, I went in with great expectations.

Unfortunately, I didn't love American Idiot as a theatrical experience. 

Also coinciding with the 48th anniversary of the Beatles' arrival in America, this Green Day's night was not a 'welcome to paradise.'

Yes, even without Billie Joe, Mike Dirnt and Tre Cool, the music rocked. Enough so that I was sufficiently entertained to warrant my subscription-series nosebleed seat that cost just $10.

But even in offering inherent appeal to Green Day fans, as the Chicago Tribune's Chris Jones notes in his much more positive review, seeing American Idiot is nowhere near as good as seeing the band itself. (They are said to be working on a new album that will undoubtedly by followed by a tour.) And given my failure to discern any characters or comprehend the storyline--despite knowing almost all the lyrics--I imagine catching a decent rendition of "Longview" at a karaoke bar would be comparably enjoyable.

I won't dissuade ardent Green Day fans from seeing this--and to be fair, my friend Paolo loved it--but any other musical theater fans are likely to be disappointed. A few even walked out during the show. And while not every show can offer the same appeal to everyone, American Idiot failed to offer any discernible degree of universality

Photo Credit: Doug Hamilton

My mom is no great fan of Green Day or hard rock, but has seen and enjoyed Rent, Avenue Q, Billy Elliot and other rock-infused and young-skewing musicals. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend that she see Spring Awakening, Next to Normal or The Who's Tommy. But if I was utterly befuddled by what was happening onstage during American Idiot, I imagine she would be a 'basket case' (not that the show includes that Dookie classic, though its songbook expands forward from the namesake album).

In my recent review of Come Fly Away, the Twyla Tharp "musical" featuring Frank Sinatra songs that felt too much like a dance recital, I acknowledged that I have never been big on interpretive theater. Even in appreciating the originality of form-breaking musicals, I prefer something approximating a traditional book structure.

Perhaps this is a deficiency on my part, but it's important for me to have some inkling of what's going on, rather than having to make sense of a mystifying jumble. And because American Idiot has hints of a narrative that never cogently develops, it's actually more frustrating than Come Fly Away, and not even as satisfying as Thriller: Live, the Michael Jackson musical that is more explicitly just a revue.

Respectful as I am of Green Day as a band that actually has something to say, I really wanted to grasp the profundity of their rock opera. But it far too obliquely seemed to touch the same tentpoles as Movin' Out, another Tharp interpretive dance show using Billy Joel songs, as well as Hair, which is also far too unstructured for my tastes. Namely: youth, friendship, angst, love, pregnancy, war, protest, rebellion, death, resilience and most centrally, music.

Photo Credit: Doug Hamilton

In trying to offer a fair critical assessment for any fan of the theater or even just Green Day, I am probably being too harsh in portraying my disaffection.

I like the music more than enough to have enjoyed the evening on that level. Though I can't cite any cast or band members as being particularly distinguishable, no one was notably bad either.

But if attending American Idiot wasn't as good as seeing the band, listening to their albums or seeing Spring Awakening, Tommy, Rent, Come Fly Away or even Thriller, well...

Let's just say I didn't have the time of my life.

'Black Pearl Sings' Worth Seeing, Especially For Just A Song -- Theater Review

Theater Review

Black Pearl Sings
a play by Frank Higgins
Northlight Theatre, Skokie, IL
Thru February 18
@@@1/2

Black Pearl Sings won't be the best piece of theater I see this year.

Hopefully it won't even wind up being the best show I see in February. 

For though it is an interesting, informative and enjoyable play--with substantial a cappella singing but not technically a musical--it was not riveting enough throughout for me to bestow my strongest raves.

But it is a prime example of the kind of quality  entertainment that can be readily seen upon Chicagoland stages for much less than what many people might envision "live theater" costs.

Although compared to many other shows I've seen, Black Pearl Sings warrants attracting larger crowds than turned out on Wednesday night, even among theater fans willing to pay $40-$45 for a regular weeknight ticket, I was happily able to walk up to the box office, just 10 minutes before showtime, and purchase a "Day Of" discount ticket for just $20.

I live nearby, so I didn't mind taking my chances, but could've bought a $20 ticket any time that day by calling the box office (a small "phone charge"--perhaps $3.50--would have been added). Information on Northlight discounts can be found here.

Discount tickets for Black Pearl Sings also seem to be commonly available on HotTix and Goldstar, two great online services that are free to utilize, except for the per ticket fees added to the discounted (typically half price) tickets they offer, often a few days ahead of a given performance.

On HotTix today, one could buy discount tickets for over 50 shows in the Chicago area this weekend, most for under $20 (before fees), many for under $10. Goldstar currently has 64 theater listings, plus comedy, music, sports and other events.

My point isn't that productions such as Black Pearl Sings--which features two excellent actresses/singers, E. Faye Butler and Susie McMonagle, who I've seen in many shows--only warrant being seen on the cheap. Rather, that for those of use who love live theater, and lots of it, it's particularly nice to be able to go for a more affordable price. (Besides "day of" discounts offered by many theaters, whether through their box offices and/or HotTix and/or Goldstar, subscription series are a great way to keep costs down. I pay less than $25 per ticket for Broadway in Chicago and Goodman Theatre shows.)

While I wouldn't deem Black Pearl Sings to be fantastic, its merits were recommended by a Northlight subscriber and for the $20 I paid, it was well worth seeing.

Written by Frank Higgins, the play is inspired by the story of famed folk singer Lead Belly being discovered in a prison camp by a Library of Congress "song collector." Here the two characters--whose tales Higgins has fictionalized--are women, with McMonagle playing the prim, New York-bred song collector Susannah and Butler a gifted singer named Pearl who has been imprisoned in a Texas camp for 10 years.

With the first act taking place in the office of the Texas prison camp and act two moving to Manhattan a year later, the differences between Susannah and Pearl drive the narrative. Yet certain commonalities help make their evolving friendship believable, even if often tempestuous.

I felt Susannah betrays herself a bit in the second act and there is something about the whole affair that keeps it from ever being truly mesmerizing, but the topic is appreciable and the performances quite good. 

A couple of "Pearl in performance" crowd sing-a-longs by Butler were great fun and probably the high point of the evening. This may not be a "must see" show--though the audience seemed to enjoy it plenty--but for just $20, there's no reason not to. 

---
This video will give you a taste, including a snippet of a song with which I was already familiar, thanks to Moby. There are a few more videos on the same page.

Mamet Molds a Vivid Discourse In Black and White -- Theater Review: 'Race' at Goodman Theatre

Theater Review

Race
a play by David Mamet
Goodman Theatre, Chicago
Thru February 19
@@@@

Based on his best work--plays Glengarry Glen Ross, American Buffalo, Speed The Plow, Oleanna; movies House of Games, Spanish Prisoner, Heist, The Verdict, Wag the Dog--I consider David Mamet not only high among my favorite playwrights and an inspired movie director and screenwriter, but one of the most important creative provocateurs of the past 50 years.

Offering biting social and interpersonal insight with a mastery of language all his own, Mamet's work has been both brilliantly commentative and highly transformative. I often cite him in the same vein as The Clash, Martin Scorsese, Richard Pryor and Norman Lear as one of the (now exceedingly) rare artists who combined cultural unrest and creative brilliance to simultaneously reflect their times and reinvigorate--or even reinvent--an art form.

There is too little of that angst-inspired ingenuity arising now, or at least invading the zeitgeist.

And sadly, it appeared that Mamet may have lost his mojo awhile back. Recent plays like Romance and November were disappointing at best and his 2008 martial arts movie, Redbelt, didn't measure up to prior directorial efforts. In 2011, he also released a book documenting his conversion from a "brain-dead liberal" to a "newly-minted conservative."

I respect his right to identify with any ideology he likes, but have missed the emblematic observations of American Buffalo, the razor sharp invective of Glengarry Glen Ross, the thought-provoking dichotomies set up in Speed The Plow and Oleanna and the con man "sting" of House of Games and Spanish Prisoner.

Fortunately, though his 2009 play, Race--now in a regional production at Chicago's Goodman Theatre--isn't quite on par with his very best work, it offers enough intelligence and insight to remind why Mamet is such a gifted and important writer.

Here he sets up a scenario where a wealthy, married white man named Charles (played by Patrick Clear) has been accused of raping a significantly younger black woman. (It's unclear if he has already been arrested and is out on bail, but Mamet seemingly takes a few dramatic liberties.) His alleged victim is not a character in the 95-minute (including intermission) 2-act play, which takes place entirely within the law office of Jack Lawson (Marc Grapey), who is white, and Henry Brown (Geoffrey Owens), who, like their newest associate, Susan, (Tamberla Perry) is an African American.

Photo Credit: Charles Osgood

While asking Charles about the allegations against him, the law partners learn that he has already left counsel of another defense lawyer. Dubious due to the racial connotations they openly discuss, the firm nonetheless winds up becoming his attorneys of record due to certain actions I won't reveal here. But the charged discussions between Jack, Henry and Susan are what largely drive the drama, far more than the question of Charles' guilt.

As with Oleanna, which concerns a college professor and a female student who alleges he raped her, in Race Mamet deftly creates a multiangular discourse certain to prompt post-show debate and disagreement among audience members.

Although pointed questions are raised through dialogue that is intriguing and occasionally humorous and/or profane--as per Mamet's trademark--and the acting under Chuck Smith's direction is stellar throughout, in sum Race just feels more like an excellent (@@@@) play, rather than a truly phenomenal (@@@@@) one. As artful as his setup is, it seems that Mamet unnecessarily tips his hand toward and against a couple of characters; ironically, the resonance could have been even sharper if things were left with a bit more ambiguous.

Also, though questions of race and our relationship to it will always be topical, the ones Mamet raises here don't seem all that novel (if you ever have a chance, see Thomas Gibbons' Permanent Collection). So while tickling our own degree of discomfort on the matter, any newly profound societal statement Race is trying to make was lost on me.

Still, even if Mamet isn't revolutionizing our world the way he once did--if you think that's an overstatement, consider the language used onstage and in film before & after he came to prominence in the mid-'70s--it was certainly quite welcome to see a new work of his be even this good. Unless it grows on me in subsequent explorations, Race may not stand, like it's author, as an all-time great, but--at the very least as a night of enjoyable entertainment--it is a winner.

With a Kick of Authenticity, This 'Chorus Line' is One Singular Sensation -- Theater Review

Theater Review

A Chorus Line
produced by and presented at the
Paramount Theatre, Aurora, IL
Thru February 5
@@@@1/2

A Chorus Line must be a tricky show to cast. For while it would seem obvious to select performers who can sing, dance and act wonderfully--and look great in  leotards or men's dance uniforms--those with the polish, poise and vocal panache that often defines Broadway-caliber talent may inherently bring an air at odds with the story of aspirants auditioning to primarily dance in (for most) their first Broadway show. And one set in the mid-1970s at that.

Although I don't pretend to have a clear barometer of what qualifies someone to work literally on Broadway--as anyone who can sing in tune impresses the hell out of me--I've seen enough shows in New York to think I can perceive what distinguishes practitioners at that level from talented people who participate in community theater (for example and in general).

I've also seen enough shows at various levels around Chicagoland to confidently suggest that troupes/venues such as Marriott Lincolnshire, Drury Lane Oakbrook, Light Opera Works, Chicago Shakespeare Theatre, Northlight Theatre and others often produce top-quality musicals with performers clearly capable of working on Broadway (and/or those who already have).

While the Paramount Theatre--a large, ornate Art Deco venue designed by Rapp & Rapp in 1931--has been presenting short runs of touring musicals for years, last fall they joined the ranks of regional theaters producing their own slate of subscription-series shows. Reviews of My Fair Lady there were phenomenal, but Aurora is a good hike from Skokie, so A Chorus Line is the first such show I've seen under Artistic Director Jim Corti.

I got a walk-up ticket more than covered by the $45 I won at the Hollywood Casino across the way and except for the 19-piece orchestra sounding a bit too soft even in the 6th row--it might be my hearing, but I doubt it could be that much worse than the numerous octogenarians around me--I thoroughly enjoyed the show from beginning to end. Even more so than the Broadway tour edition I'd seen in Chicago in 2009.

Early on, perhaps because I had read that some cast members had performed in the most recent Chorus Line revival on Broadway and/or the national tour, I tried to gauge how the ensemble might compare to what I'd expect to see on the Great White Way. And my first thought was that while no one was obviously deficient, the cast as a whole just didn't seem "Broadway caliber."

But then, the thought that I tried to convey in the first paragraph dawned on me. I wasn't supposed to see the people onstage as obvious Broadway stars; I was supposed to believe--while being thoroughly entertained--that they were upstarts, portraying the insecurities one might expect as they are called upon to offer autobiographical exposition.

I realize this may sound like a backhanded compliment, but I don't mean it to be belittling, as all the singing was strong and the dancing excellent. Nicole Hren made for an endearing Val, Pegah Kadkhodaian, as Diana Morales, delivered excellent renditions of "Nothing" and "What I Did For Love," Broadway cast vet Jessica Lee Goldyn dazzled in her dance solo on "The Music and The Mirror" and Kristina Larson-Hauk, a real Rockette, imbued the sexy Sheila with the right amount of sass and vulnerability.

And though he didn't have a vocal solo, Jay Reynolds Jr. as Paul probably did the most to instill this production with the sort of inherent believability that made it stand out.

A Chorus Line was one of the first musicals I ever saw, in an early touring production when I wasn't yet 10. (If you think songs about "tits and ass" might not be appropriate for someone so young, well, I was also taken to The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.) So I have long thought the material--conceived by Michael Bennett with music by Marvin Hamlisch and lyrics by James Kleban--was first-rate, but have never been completely wowed by local productions nor the 2009 tour.

Without a lead character, it can be a challenging show to calibrate correctly, as it is so dependent on the ensemble, deceptively rag-tag at first but needed to congeal perfectly by the time the show-stopping finale of "One" rolls around. Under the direction of Mitzi Hamilton, who inspired the character of Val, performed in London and on Broadway and has helmed 35+ productions, this production might not quite be the equal of Broadway's best, but of those I've seen, it was a Paramount rendition.

Here's a video to give you a taste:

B-Roll for "A Chorus Line" from Shiloh Studio on Vimeo.

---
As a corollary, I recently watched the pilot episode of NBC's Smash (on Comcast On-Demand, as the broadcast premiere isn't until Feb. 6). Being a big Broadway fan and interested in backstage stories, I found it worth exploring and there were some nice songs from the composers of Hairspray. But most of the characters--with the caveat that pilots have to introduce them all, quickly--came off as clichés. In watching it, I couldn't help but think how much realistic A Chorus Line seems in terms of a glimpse behind the curtain. Smash, whose pilot I'd give @@@, will need to get considerably better to live up to its title.

Also, having recently seen Sondheim's Follies, for which Michael Bennett was the original choreographer, I newly considered the connection between that "backstage show" and A Chorus Line. While it might seem interesting to do a Chorus Line "whatever happened to" sequel, it dawned on me that Follies already covers similar ground, perhaps not so coincidentally.

To Be Frank, 'Come Fly Away' Entertains, But Not In My Way

Theater Review

Come Fly Away
a new musical featuring Frank Sinatra songs
conceived, choreographed and directed by Twyla Tharp
Bank of America Theatre, Chicago
Thru January 22
@@@1/2

Theatrical productions have historically been classified as either plays or musicals, as per the major Tony Award categories. But there are a number of stage shows that, not necessarily as a negative, don't neatly conform to the common characteristics of either genre.

As a subscriber to Broadway in Chicago for over a decade--primarily due to my fondness for musicals--I have seen several such shows included in my season series. These have included circus-type productions such as Traces and Fuerza Bruta, talent showcases such as the percussion-based Stomp and ballroom dancing revue Burn the Floor and what I would call scripted monologues, whether delivered by one person (Carrie Fisher's Wishful Drinking) or several (Love, Loss and What I Wore).

Some of these shows were better than others and in small doses, I appreciate my exposure to them. But as a general rule, I need a story to derive emotional connection--and maximum enjoyment--when I am sitting in a theater. Call me a philistine if you must, or just a dullard, but I am not big on the interpretive, nor the overly obtuse. Even Beckett is a bit much for me.

Which brings me to Come Fly Away, the show I saw last night at Chicago's Bank of America Theatre as part of my Broadway in Chicago series. In the Playbill, it presents itself as "A New Musical," conceived, choreographed and directed by Twyla Tharp (who also gets credited for the "book") with "Vocals by Frank Sinatra."

But in my parlance, the 70-minute performance was a dance program set to Sinatra, not a musical. Nothing wrong with that in itself, as I know Hubbard Street Dance and other such companies regularly earn raves, but there's a difference between appreciating virtuosity and being emotionally and/or mentally captivated. And on that level, Come Fly Away failed to soar, at least for me. 

Tharp's fame is as a choreographer and as one might expect, the dancing here is excellent. (Despite the verbiage of the marquee, Tharp is not in the show and a "resident director"  is listed.) But there is no discernible story or cohesive theme.

In fact, although the program lists character names such as Hank and Kate and Sid, it could simply have said "Woman in Red Dress" and "African-American Guy with Shirt Off," for there was no dialogue to serve as any form of introduction (nor were there cast photos in the Playbill). The same dance partners seemed to stick together, so it wasn't simply a random recital, but any implied narrative was lost on me.

At least in Tharp's Movin' Out, which used Billy Joel songs, famous lyrics begat characters such as Brenda and Eddie and let you know when someone shipped out to Saigon.

Though I'm sure Twarp had her reasons for the chosen selections from the Sinatra songbook, obvious lyrical strains were self-contained in each song and didn't drive a clear storyline or overall arc. To my way of thinking, the "everyone take a bow" show-closing rendition of "New York, New York," could easily have been replaced by "My Kind of Town" for the Chicago production, even if different choreography was needed. For there was nothing that had necessarily led us to the Big Apple.

It was cool hearing Sinatra's vocals backed by a live band onstage--though it seems a string section was beyond the tour budget, as those parts were pre-recorded--and seeing a bunch of attractive people dancing beautifully wasn't unpleasant.

Certainly I realize, and appreciate, that musicals have morphed quite a bit over the last 10 years, not just in terms of "jukebox musicals" (Mamma Mia, Jersey Boys and myriad others) but in utilizing different types of music (In the Heights) or having a more dramatic foundation (Spring Awakening, Next to Normal). "Breaking form" and creative brilliance often go hand in hand, and I'm sure there are great works I don't appreciate because I just don't "get" them. This very well can apply to dance as an art form.

But I recall when 2000 Tony winner Contact effectively utilized pre-recorded music and dance routines, and though Movin' Out wasn't fantastic, especially in its pre-Broadway Chicago tryout, it eventually became more pleasing, in part because the narrative was clarified.

Many in the less-than-full first night audience seemed to appreciate Come Fly Away, and there was no reason not to be impressed by the wonderful dancers and fine musicians, including a particularly good saxophonist. Given my introduction above, I think I enjoyed this show more than most non-traditional theatrical performances I've seen. But as "A New Musical," I'm still waiting for the acting, dialogue, narrative and second act for this show to "Fly Me to the Moon."


Here's a link to the official Come Fly Away website if you want to learn more.

The Best of 2011: The Best Musicals I Saw (i.e. the musical theater productions I enjoyed most)

Over the past 12 months, I have seen 34 musical theater productions, of 31 different titles.

These have been across a full spectrum of levels and venues, including high school, college, community theater, local non-Equity, local full Equity (actors union) and national tour productions in the Chicago area, plus shows on Broadway and in London's West End.

I found the vast majority of these shows to be quite enjoyable, with some at the supposed "lower levels" more so than ones at the most prestigious levels.

For instance, the high school version of Les Miserables I saw at New Trier  and a community theater rendition of Rent at Skokie's Devonshire Playhouse were more tangibly enjoyable than some musicals I recently saw in London.

Of course, that's largely because the source material is superior--Les Miz and Rent are among my top 10 all-time favorite musicals--but in both cases cited above, the productions and performances were surprisingly robust.

Also, while I enjoyed the reworked touring version of Les Miserables I saw at the Cadillac Palace in February, it wasn't as good as on past tours, and thus won't make my top 10 for 2011 below.

So although source material and production quality obviously blend together in providing an enjoyable evening of entertainment--or not--in ranking the best musicals I saw in 2011, I am more heavily considering the productions, rather than just the works themselves.

Sometimes the distillation isn't so clear, but I guess basically I'm ranking how much I enjoyed each performance, with whatever factors go into that.

Thus, rather than being a list of:

The Best Musicals I Saw in 2011

this should more be considered

The Musical Theater Productions I Enjoyed Most in 2011

1. West Side Story - Cadillac Palace, Chicago (Broadway in Chicago) (my review)

2. The Book of Mormon - Eugene O'Neill Theatre, New York (my review in longer post)

3. Follies - Chicago Shakespeare Theatre (my review)

4. The Sound of Music - Drury Lane Oakbrook (my review) 

5. Brigadoon - Light Opera Works, Evanston (my review) 

6. Anything Goes - Steven Sondheim Theatre, New York (my review in longer post) 

7. Sweeney Todd - Drury Lane Oakbrook (my review)

8. Next To Normal - Bank of America Theatre (Broadway in Chicago) (my review) 

9. A Christmas Story: The Musical - Chicago Theatre (my review)

10. Working - Broadway Playhouse, Chicago (Broadway in Chicago) (my review)


Honorable Mention (in order of preference)

Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark - Foxwoods Theatre, New York (my review in longer post)

Mary Poppins - Cadillac Palace, Chicago (Broadway in Chicago) (my review)

The Sound of Music - Chamber Opera Chicago (my review)

Les Miserables - Cadillac Palace, Chicago (Broadway in Chicago) (my review)

Snapshots - Northlight Theatre, Skokie (my review)

Follies - Marquis Theatre, New York (my review in longer post)
 
Merrily We Roll Along - The Music Theatre Company, Highland Park (my review)

Rent - Devonshire Playhouse, Skokie (my review)

La Cage Aux Folles - Bank of America Theatre (Broadway in Chicago) (my review)

42nd Street - Marriott Theatre Lincolnshire (my review)

Spring Awakening - Oriental Theatre, Chicago (my review)

The Doyle & Debbie Show - Royal George Theatre, Chicago

Priscilla Queen of the Desert - Palace Theatre, London 

Memphis - Cadillac Palace, Chicago (Broadway in Chicago) (my review)