Re: 2015 Tony Nominations
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 4:52 pm
I spent some time in NY a couple weeks ago, and naturally caught up with many of the current Broadway tickets. Here are my takes:
Every once in a while, a show comes along that makes you rethink the idea of what a Broadway musical can be. Next to Normal was such a show. So was In the Heights. And, going further back to eras I wasn't watching in real time, so were many of the shows Mister Tee discussed in his post. I think Fun Home deserves to be mentioned in that company. It's such a confident piece of work in every respect -- the book is a dazzlingly structured mix of time hopping throughout memories, the lyrics are full of clever craft and great insight, the score is full of music you're eager to hear again, and the inventive staging places numerous characters in different settings (and time periods) on stage all at once so the audience can essentially choose who to watch at any given point. And the cast is excellent, with a powerful Michael Cerveris as the repressed father, Judy Kuhn as the mother who sacrificed so much for a life that doesn't truly make her happy, an adorable Emily Skeggs as the college student finding the thrill of first love, and the preternaturally gifted Sydney Lucas in one of the most commanding child performances I've ever seen onstage. As for my girl Beth Malone, she's more the solid center of the show than a tour de force -- it's easy to see why, despite being attached to an award-magnet show, she was never really in the conversation to win her Tony category -- but after seeing her in mostly musical comedienne parts over the years, it was great to watch her show a completely different side of her dramatic range in this show. One of the things I liked most about Fun Home was how much joy and humor there is throughout much of it -- you really sense the happiness in the bond between Alison and her father over the years -- so that when tragedy comes, it's just brutally painful. I can't ever remember sobbing as much in a musical as I did during the last number of this show. A beautiful piece of work, and highly recommended.
Something Rotten! is, of course, a musical of a very different type, and while I'm very glad something like Fun Home dominated the Tonys, I wouldn't want to demean Something Rotten! simply for being an entertainment. I found it pretty laugh-out-loud funny throughout, and quite well executed -- I thought it had some of the same cleverness of Shakespeare in Love. The show is essentially comprised of two big in-jokes -- Shakespeare references, and musical theater references, and while I have often groaned at the self-congratulatory nature of material like this, I was surprised by how organically incorporated these were into the storyline here. Brian d'Arcy James is an actor I associate more with musical drama than big laughs, but I found him very funny throughout. And flipp, your friend Brad Oscar was hysterical -- I thought his big number, "A Musical" was the highlight of the show. I'm not the biggest Christian Borle fan, but I acknowledge his typical smugness was used to perfectly appropriate effect as a self-absorbed version of the Bard this go-round. This is frivolous stuff, but perfectly delightful frivolity.
An American in Paris excels in one area above all -- perhaps unsurprisingly, it's spectacularly choreographed and danced. At pretty much any point when Robbie Fairchild and (especially) Leanne Cope are dancing, the show is utterly captivating. But I thought the book fell far short. I'm a fan of the movie, but even I would admit that the plot there is pretty thin -- it's mostly an excuse to get from one musical number to another. On stage, the creators made a decision to expand the size of the roles of all the non-Gene Kelly characters, but there just wasn't much to those characters to begin with, and I felt book writer Craig Lucas didn't deepen them in any way to justify the extra stage time. I honestly felt a lot of the dramatic portions of the show just sort of sat there. And then there are the completely unnecessary Gerswhin numbers added to the show just to full the necessary song quotient. This was probably my biggest disappointment, given expectations, of the week.
On the revival side, I had a somewhat similar reaction to On the Town. There's some high-spirited dancing throughout, but the rest of the show left quite a bit to be desired. I'd only ever seen the movie before, which is enjoyable enough, but mostly because the cast are the kind of performers you'd want to watch in a movie musical. The actual story is pretty hokey -- with a really ridiculous "I saw this girl's picture, I have to find her because now I'm in love with her" set-up -- and the score, outside of "New York, New York" and "I Can Cook, Too" is quite weak. And a little thing -- Tony Yazbeck, while certainly gifted in the dance department, looks way too old for his female costar. It's amazing this show has actually lasted as long as it has, and unsurprising it'll finally be closing the curtains soon.
As for the biggest pleasant surprise, I have to say that I mostly went dutifully to The King and I, and was completely taken aback by how beautifully mounted a production this is. From the opening moment, when Anna's boat docks on stage in a breathtaking bit of stage craft, to the dazzlingly designed and choreographed Uncle Tom's Cabin number, the show is just a classy production from top to bottom. And, as with the previous Rodgers & Hammerstein musical mounted by this theater/director/choreographer/leading lady, South Pacific, it manages to make the dramatic conflicts feel fresh and urgent rather than stale and musty. (I think that last scene is pretty much a guaranteed emotional knockout in any production, but this cast and creative team really did a terrific job with it nonetheless.) As I've said before here, Kelli O'Hara has never been an obsession of mine -- while I've never doubted her merits as an actress and (even more) as a vocalist, I don't think of her as an especially singular performer. And while The King and I didn't exactly make me change my mind, I still found her about as lovely and perfect an Anna as I could have expected. Put another way, this part is exactly in her wheelhouse, and she performs it splendidly, and I have no objection to her finally being honored for doing what she does so well. (As for the show's other Tony-winning actress, Ruthie Ann Miles, she was out sick both times I saw the show, so I unfortunately missed her.) As for an odd side note, I saw the show sitting not that far from Donna Murphy, who of course was the last actress to win a Tony for playing Anna in the '90's revival of The King and I.
On the play side, I found Hand to God quite funny -- with the extended puppet sex sequence near uproarious -- and terrifically acted by the cast, though I didn't think, in the end, it amounted to all that much. The show essentially follows the terror caused by the protagonist after a demon puppet/split personality (?) takes over his hand, and while these actions grow increasingly more outrageous (and gruesome), I didn't think it had much more on its mind. It definitely flirts with some interesting ideas -- regarding religion, grief -- but for me it was more successful simply as comedy rather than anything profound.
Last, and certainly not least, an entry from NEXT season: Hamilton. Since seeing it, most of the questions I've gotten from people have been less "How was it?" and more "Is it as brilliant as everyone says it is?" And here, I must dissent slightly from the overall critical reaction. I say "slightly" because I do think Hamilton is a strong piece -- it's very ambitious, often quite interesting, and full of some impeccable craft (particularly lyrically). But I can't say that I LOVED it, certainly not the way I expect to when I'm told I'm seeing a landmark piece of theater that is a virtual lock for the Pulitzer Prize. (Full disclosure: creator-star Lin Manuel-Miranda was out of the performance I saw with a neck injury, so I saw his understudy, which I imagine could make the show a different experience.)
But...maybe not, because none of my issues were performance-based. For starters, I didn't feel much emotional connection to the material. I felt like a lot of history was presented to me, sometimes in very inventive ways, but portions of it made me feel like I was eating my vegetables. A number of characters die throughout the course of the show, and in each case, I thought, I'm not moved by this moment at all, partly because there's just so much material packed into the show it's hard to become deeply invested in most of the characters' stories. Another issue is just that I think it's way too long -- at a full three hours, I'm not sure that every moment is completely earned, and by the middle of act two I was really desperate for that duel to come.
I also found that there was a lot of monotony in the show, and here's where I have to wave my old fogey flag and admit that I'm not really such a big fan of rap. So many of the songs here just sounded the same to me, and when they were all choreographed in a similar manner, and lit in a similar manner...well...I started to long for some variety. (One reason why I think the King George sequences work so well -- aside from the fact that Jonathan Groff plays the part with such impish glee -- is that musically they sound so DIFFERENT from everything else we're hearing, and that change of pace is nice.) I also got kind of frustrated with how much Miranda recycled from his own In the Heights -- I acknowledge that the average theatergoer won't be able to make this distinction, but he virtually refashions entire songs musically, rhythmically, and lyrically from his earlier show, even putting them in the same spots in the show. And so, while many have characterized the show as a groundbreaking musical, I found it difficult to do so, simply because I felt like I had seen and heard large portions of it before. As for the part that IS definitely groundbreaking -- the casting of all non-white actors as the founding fathers -- I certainly tip my hat to that choice as an exciting casting decision, but I also have to acknowledge that that doesn't make the show significantly deeper than some critics have made it out to be because of said casting.
The really interesting thing for me, actually, has been talking with the half dozen or so friends I know who have also seen the show. And with every person, the conversation is essentially them asking me, "Did you see Hamilton?" "Yes." "What did you think?" "I liked it." "Me too...But...did you LOVE it?" "No, not really." "Oh thank GOD, I thought I was the only one." One friend of mine even argued it's basically a case of the emperor's new clothes. I definitely wouldn't go that far -- I think the emperor here is wearing something, and it's actually something quite interesting, something that a lot of craft went into. And I'm looking forward to seeing it again, just to get a better handle on all of it. But did I want it to start all over again the second it ended, the way I did with Fun Home? Not remotely.
Every once in a while, a show comes along that makes you rethink the idea of what a Broadway musical can be. Next to Normal was such a show. So was In the Heights. And, going further back to eras I wasn't watching in real time, so were many of the shows Mister Tee discussed in his post. I think Fun Home deserves to be mentioned in that company. It's such a confident piece of work in every respect -- the book is a dazzlingly structured mix of time hopping throughout memories, the lyrics are full of clever craft and great insight, the score is full of music you're eager to hear again, and the inventive staging places numerous characters in different settings (and time periods) on stage all at once so the audience can essentially choose who to watch at any given point. And the cast is excellent, with a powerful Michael Cerveris as the repressed father, Judy Kuhn as the mother who sacrificed so much for a life that doesn't truly make her happy, an adorable Emily Skeggs as the college student finding the thrill of first love, and the preternaturally gifted Sydney Lucas in one of the most commanding child performances I've ever seen onstage. As for my girl Beth Malone, she's more the solid center of the show than a tour de force -- it's easy to see why, despite being attached to an award-magnet show, she was never really in the conversation to win her Tony category -- but after seeing her in mostly musical comedienne parts over the years, it was great to watch her show a completely different side of her dramatic range in this show. One of the things I liked most about Fun Home was how much joy and humor there is throughout much of it -- you really sense the happiness in the bond between Alison and her father over the years -- so that when tragedy comes, it's just brutally painful. I can't ever remember sobbing as much in a musical as I did during the last number of this show. A beautiful piece of work, and highly recommended.
Something Rotten! is, of course, a musical of a very different type, and while I'm very glad something like Fun Home dominated the Tonys, I wouldn't want to demean Something Rotten! simply for being an entertainment. I found it pretty laugh-out-loud funny throughout, and quite well executed -- I thought it had some of the same cleverness of Shakespeare in Love. The show is essentially comprised of two big in-jokes -- Shakespeare references, and musical theater references, and while I have often groaned at the self-congratulatory nature of material like this, I was surprised by how organically incorporated these were into the storyline here. Brian d'Arcy James is an actor I associate more with musical drama than big laughs, but I found him very funny throughout. And flipp, your friend Brad Oscar was hysterical -- I thought his big number, "A Musical" was the highlight of the show. I'm not the biggest Christian Borle fan, but I acknowledge his typical smugness was used to perfectly appropriate effect as a self-absorbed version of the Bard this go-round. This is frivolous stuff, but perfectly delightful frivolity.
An American in Paris excels in one area above all -- perhaps unsurprisingly, it's spectacularly choreographed and danced. At pretty much any point when Robbie Fairchild and (especially) Leanne Cope are dancing, the show is utterly captivating. But I thought the book fell far short. I'm a fan of the movie, but even I would admit that the plot there is pretty thin -- it's mostly an excuse to get from one musical number to another. On stage, the creators made a decision to expand the size of the roles of all the non-Gene Kelly characters, but there just wasn't much to those characters to begin with, and I felt book writer Craig Lucas didn't deepen them in any way to justify the extra stage time. I honestly felt a lot of the dramatic portions of the show just sort of sat there. And then there are the completely unnecessary Gerswhin numbers added to the show just to full the necessary song quotient. This was probably my biggest disappointment, given expectations, of the week.
On the revival side, I had a somewhat similar reaction to On the Town. There's some high-spirited dancing throughout, but the rest of the show left quite a bit to be desired. I'd only ever seen the movie before, which is enjoyable enough, but mostly because the cast are the kind of performers you'd want to watch in a movie musical. The actual story is pretty hokey -- with a really ridiculous "I saw this girl's picture, I have to find her because now I'm in love with her" set-up -- and the score, outside of "New York, New York" and "I Can Cook, Too" is quite weak. And a little thing -- Tony Yazbeck, while certainly gifted in the dance department, looks way too old for his female costar. It's amazing this show has actually lasted as long as it has, and unsurprising it'll finally be closing the curtains soon.
As for the biggest pleasant surprise, I have to say that I mostly went dutifully to The King and I, and was completely taken aback by how beautifully mounted a production this is. From the opening moment, when Anna's boat docks on stage in a breathtaking bit of stage craft, to the dazzlingly designed and choreographed Uncle Tom's Cabin number, the show is just a classy production from top to bottom. And, as with the previous Rodgers & Hammerstein musical mounted by this theater/director/choreographer/leading lady, South Pacific, it manages to make the dramatic conflicts feel fresh and urgent rather than stale and musty. (I think that last scene is pretty much a guaranteed emotional knockout in any production, but this cast and creative team really did a terrific job with it nonetheless.) As I've said before here, Kelli O'Hara has never been an obsession of mine -- while I've never doubted her merits as an actress and (even more) as a vocalist, I don't think of her as an especially singular performer. And while The King and I didn't exactly make me change my mind, I still found her about as lovely and perfect an Anna as I could have expected. Put another way, this part is exactly in her wheelhouse, and she performs it splendidly, and I have no objection to her finally being honored for doing what she does so well. (As for the show's other Tony-winning actress, Ruthie Ann Miles, she was out sick both times I saw the show, so I unfortunately missed her.) As for an odd side note, I saw the show sitting not that far from Donna Murphy, who of course was the last actress to win a Tony for playing Anna in the '90's revival of The King and I.
On the play side, I found Hand to God quite funny -- with the extended puppet sex sequence near uproarious -- and terrifically acted by the cast, though I didn't think, in the end, it amounted to all that much. The show essentially follows the terror caused by the protagonist after a demon puppet/split personality (?) takes over his hand, and while these actions grow increasingly more outrageous (and gruesome), I didn't think it had much more on its mind. It definitely flirts with some interesting ideas -- regarding religion, grief -- but for me it was more successful simply as comedy rather than anything profound.
Last, and certainly not least, an entry from NEXT season: Hamilton. Since seeing it, most of the questions I've gotten from people have been less "How was it?" and more "Is it as brilliant as everyone says it is?" And here, I must dissent slightly from the overall critical reaction. I say "slightly" because I do think Hamilton is a strong piece -- it's very ambitious, often quite interesting, and full of some impeccable craft (particularly lyrically). But I can't say that I LOVED it, certainly not the way I expect to when I'm told I'm seeing a landmark piece of theater that is a virtual lock for the Pulitzer Prize. (Full disclosure: creator-star Lin Manuel-Miranda was out of the performance I saw with a neck injury, so I saw his understudy, which I imagine could make the show a different experience.)
But...maybe not, because none of my issues were performance-based. For starters, I didn't feel much emotional connection to the material. I felt like a lot of history was presented to me, sometimes in very inventive ways, but portions of it made me feel like I was eating my vegetables. A number of characters die throughout the course of the show, and in each case, I thought, I'm not moved by this moment at all, partly because there's just so much material packed into the show it's hard to become deeply invested in most of the characters' stories. Another issue is just that I think it's way too long -- at a full three hours, I'm not sure that every moment is completely earned, and by the middle of act two I was really desperate for that duel to come.
I also found that there was a lot of monotony in the show, and here's where I have to wave my old fogey flag and admit that I'm not really such a big fan of rap. So many of the songs here just sounded the same to me, and when they were all choreographed in a similar manner, and lit in a similar manner...well...I started to long for some variety. (One reason why I think the King George sequences work so well -- aside from the fact that Jonathan Groff plays the part with such impish glee -- is that musically they sound so DIFFERENT from everything else we're hearing, and that change of pace is nice.) I also got kind of frustrated with how much Miranda recycled from his own In the Heights -- I acknowledge that the average theatergoer won't be able to make this distinction, but he virtually refashions entire songs musically, rhythmically, and lyrically from his earlier show, even putting them in the same spots in the show. And so, while many have characterized the show as a groundbreaking musical, I found it difficult to do so, simply because I felt like I had seen and heard large portions of it before. As for the part that IS definitely groundbreaking -- the casting of all non-white actors as the founding fathers -- I certainly tip my hat to that choice as an exciting casting decision, but I also have to acknowledge that that doesn't make the show significantly deeper than some critics have made it out to be because of said casting.
The really interesting thing for me, actually, has been talking with the half dozen or so friends I know who have also seen the show. And with every person, the conversation is essentially them asking me, "Did you see Hamilton?" "Yes." "What did you think?" "I liked it." "Me too...But...did you LOVE it?" "No, not really." "Oh thank GOD, I thought I was the only one." One friend of mine even argued it's basically a case of the emperor's new clothes. I definitely wouldn't go that far -- I think the emperor here is wearing something, and it's actually something quite interesting, something that a lot of craft went into. And I'm looking forward to seeing it again, just to get a better handle on all of it. But did I want it to start all over again the second it ended, the way I did with Fun Home? Not remotely.