A Steady Rain (Schoenfeld Theatre)

By Dan

5 POINTS OR LESS
the hot ticket of the season • Daniel Craig and Hugh Jackman • pulpy cop drama-not for kids • almost every show will be sold out • don’t feel bad if you miss it

BOTTOM LINE: Contrary to all the hype, you don't need to see this; it is fine, but you’ve probably seen it before.

Every so often there seems to be a Broadway play that quickly becomes “event theatre”- a show that sells out every show, draws huge crowds, and soon becomes the hot ticket of the season. Julia Roberts in Three Days of Rain, the pairing of Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick in The Odd Couple - these shows had no trouble selling tickets, even though the productions themselves weren't really all that great.

And now we have A Steady Rain, with Daniel Craig and Hugh Jackman. In its first full week of previews, it grossed more money than any straight play in Broadway history. It is likely it's mostly sold out for its entire 12-week run. Seats in the rear orchestra are being sold for premium prices ($276-$376 per ticket) and once it opens on September 29th, tickets may be extremely hard to come by, at any price. At this point, it appears as if spending $125 on a ticket (which is already expensive for most people) won’t even get you a good seat, it will just get you in the theatre. So…is it worth it? Should you pay premium prices to see this play? No. And if your dates are flexible, or you are a student, or you’re willing to stand, you may not need to. More on that in a bit. First, the play.

In A Steady Rain, Craig and Jackman are Chicago beat cops. The play opens with the men sitting in chairs on a bare stage with two lights hanging over them, as if they are in an interrogation room. They tell a story that begins innocuously enough: the two men are partners and best friends. But the tale quickly turns dark and violent. You may have heard that the play is a series of monologues, or that each cop tells their own (different) perspective of what happened. Neither is exactly true; the two men share the storytelling, as if they are both in the same room telling a listener/interrogator what happened. They occasionally interact with each other, but for the most part, each contributes to the joint story.

Throughout the story, the two men deal with various elements of the Chicago underworld. The tone of A Steady Rain recalls movies like Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone. As with these movies, in which the turns of plot are so integral to one’s experience, it is best to see the A Steady Rain knowing as little as possible about the story.

The writing is decent, and certainly evokes the intended atmosphere. Whenever the cops venture out into the seedier areas of the city, a backdrop appears. While these backdrops look great, they aren’t necessary; I couldn’t help thinking that their main purpose was to fill the large stage and justify the high ticket prices. Jackman and Craig are both good. I didn’t love either performance, because I think both characters have the potential to be more complex and layered.

A Steady Rain was produced in Chicago last year, with no stars and in a much smaller theatre. Frankly, I wish I had seen that production. Broadway is a business, and this production of A Steady Rain will make pots of money for everyone involved. But let’s not kid ourselves: Craig and Jackman are both fine, but there are many actors in New York who could play these roles just as well, if not better. To be fair, my seat was in the rear mezzanine, so I missed the more subtle aspects of their performances. So if you can easily afford spending $125 and can find a decent orchestra ticket, it might be worth it. With only two actors on stage, this play is really all about intimate storytelling, something that you won’t get by sitting in the last row of the Schoenfeld Theatre.

But unless money is no object, don’t get swept up by all the hype and feel the need to drop $300 on a ticket. If you’re a student, there are $31.50 student rush tickets available at the box office (see below). I’ve heard that $29.50 standing room tickets will also be available once the show opens (technically, standing room is only sold when the show is sold out, but that won’t be an issue here). Just know that lots of other non-students will also be angling for these standing room tickets, so the competition may be fierce. But at 90 minutes, it isn’t a bad show to stand for. And both student tickets and standing room are sold the day of the show, which means there will always be a few tickets to be had.

Just don’t feel too bad if you miss the show. A Steady Rain is a decent night of theatre, but it isn’t “must see” theatre. While I was never bored, I also wasn’t excited. This is a pretty standard cop drama: pulpy, seedy, dark, and violent. You’ve seen it before. Maybe not with Daniel Craig and Hugh Jackman live on stage, but trust me, you’ve seen it before.

(A Steady Rain plays a limited engagement at the Schoenfeld Theatre, 236 W. 45th St, through December 6th. Performances are Tuesday at 7pm, Wednesday through Saturday at 8pm, with matinees on Wednesday and Saturday at 2pm, and Sunday at 3pm. Running time is 90 minutes with no intermission. Regular price tickets are $66.50- $140, and premium tickets are $276.50- $376.50. $29.50 standing room tickets are available at the box office if the performance is sold out (it will be)- they will probably go on sale a few hours before the performance, but lines will form earlier. Student rush tickets (generally last row of the mezzanine) are $31.50; these are either 1 or 2 per ID (depending on availability), and are available the day of the show when the box office opens. IMPORTANT: the box office will sell you a student ticket, but will hold it until 30 minutes before the show, and you will need to show your student ID to pick it up then. Visit telecharge.com to buy tickets and asteadyrainonbroadway.com for more information.)

9 to 5: The Musical (Marquis Theatre)

By Molly

5 POINTS OR LESS
music and lyrics by Dolly Parton • who doesn't love Allison Janney? • new musical based on the movie • optimistic and energetic

Stephanie J. Block, Megan Hilty and Allison Janney plot their boss's demise in 9 to 5.

BOTTOM LINE: Check your theatre pretension at the door.

Dolly Parton's sassy new musical, 9 to 5 (based on the 1980 movie of the same name), is about three ballsy ladies sticking it to their chauvinistic boss, Mr. Hart. Parton starred in the movie as Doralee, the big-boobed Texan with a brain. The other two women, Violet and Judy, were played by Lily Tomlin and Jane Fonda, respectively. Though not a particularly challenging story, 9 to 5 is an uplifting tale of girl-power and ultimately women's rights. And due to its cheery, happy-ending nature, it translates pretty effectively to the stage.

For what it's worth, 9 to 5 is an enjoyable musical theatre experience. Directed by the Joe Mantello (Wicked, Assassins) and choreographed by Andy Blankenbuehler (In the Heights, The Wiz at Encores!), the show is as schnazzy as you would expect from a theatre extravaganza with Parton at the helm. It delivers glitzy Broadway pizazz and still maintains that down-home, inside-jokey, fun-loving spirit that Parton is all about.

The three leading ladies, Allison Janney as Violet, Megan Hilty as Doralee and Stephanie J. Block as Judy, are all incredible performers perfectly suited to be playing these roles. Janney gets the humor in Violet, and Hilty and Block have Broadway-diva voices. They certainly make a solid threesome. Marc Kudish as Mr. Hart is also well-cast; he is a despicable caricature whom the audience loves to hate.

9 to 5 has been relatively snubbed by the theatre community since it opened in the spring. Both in reviews and at the Tony Awards, this show hasn't received much positive attention considering it's a big, expensive production with big, impressive names attached. It has, however, received a great audience response and when I saw the show on a Tuesday, the house was packed and the audience was having a blast. 9 to 5 is very silly, pretty low-brow, and certainly not a theatrical challenge...but that doesn't mean it's not a good time. Despite feeling underdeveloped and overproduced, 9 to 5 delivers an entertaining evening for any audience member looking for an uplifting night out. And sometimes that's all you need. I can easily put on my critic pants and tell you everything that I feel is wrong with 9 to 5, but it feels unnecessary to go there with this show.

Parton's music and lyrics are exuberantly sincere and the score itself is pretty decent on the whole. "9 to 5," the title track from the movie, is also the opening number in the musical and plays throughout the production between scenes. And 9 to 5 is all about the music. Sure, it's musical theatre, but this show provides a consistent barrage of production numbers, power ballad solos and hamonic trios. And the entire cast is talented, capable and fun to watch.

9 to 5 is a giddy theatrical spectacular and great escapist entertainment. It's a good pick for out-of-towners who want to experience Broadway but aren't theatrically inclined. Anyone with a penchant for classical theatre or anyone who watches theatre with an analytic eye should be warned that this show is a fun romp and not much more. You won't enjoy yourself if you give it too much thought. But if you're looking for an upbeat evening out, 9 to 5 is worth experiencing.

(9 to 5 plays at the Marriot Marquis Theatre, 1535 Broadway between 45th and 46th Streets. Performances are Tuesday at 7pm, Wednesday at 2pm and 8pm, Thursday and Friday at 8pm, Saturday at 2pm and 8pm and Sunday at 3pm. Tickets are $75-$125 and can be purchased at ticketmaster.com or by calling 1800.982.2787. Win tickets for $36 by entering the lottery held at the 9 to 5 box office. Click here for lottery info. Visit 9to5themusical.com for more show info.)

God of Carnage- Bernard B. Jacobs Theatre

By Dan

5 POINTS OR LESS
mediocre play • excellent performances by 4 “names” • theatrical cotton candy...you may enjoy it, but it probably won’t stay with you • probably not worth the money • likely winner for the Best Play Tony Award (unfortunately)

BOTTOM LINE: The performances don’t make up for an insubstantial play that only pretends to be insightful; given the high price of tickets, I’d skip this one.

Every so often a play comes to Broadway that everyone agrees is not really all that great, but because of the specific circumstances, somehow manages to be a runaway hit at the box office. God of Carnage by Yasmina Reza fits that description to a tee. It seems to be popular with audiences; the Wednesday matinee crowd (a sold-out house) laughed loudly throughout. But I constantly had the feeling that I was watching a very expensive sitcom about rich people. A well-acted sitcom, but a sitcom nonetheless.

Many critics commented that the script is mediocre at best, and I wholeheartedly agree. I found the play contrived, and not at all thought-provoking. Married couple Alan and Annette (Jeff Daniels and Hope Davis) have come to the house of Michael and Veronica (James Gandolfini and Marcia Gay Harden) to discuss an incident: Alan and Annette’s son has hit Michael and Veronica’s son in the face with a stick, breaking two of his teeth. What is initially a civil discussion turns ugly, and we quickly see how four seemingly mature adults can turn into children, or rather, into uncivilized adults. The trouble with all this is, so what? Adults can misbehave? Men and women are different? Cell phones are annoying? Yawn.

I had a big problem with the circumstances of the play. I kept asking myself, why don’t these people leave? Alan and Annette come close to walking out several times, but the fact that they don’t just feels contrived. I couldn’t help but think “no one would ever do that,” and while I realize this is fiction, I found the unbelievability of the play to be a constant distraction. This never really becomes absurdist theatre, or even farce, because God of Carnage is always strongly connected to “real life.” The fact that it is far-fetched was, for me at least, a problem.

The four actors (who all received Tony nominations) do an excellent job however, and this is why some may wish to see the play anyway. I thought Marcia Gay Harden was far and away the best; she was the only one who made me laugh out loud, making me forget (momentarily) how bland the whole play was. Jeff Daniels was also good as the cell-phone addicted lawyer (I’m not sure if Reza intended this, but I was most sympathetic to his character, in spite of or perhaps because of the fact that Alan is obnoxious and cynical). And director Matthew Warchus (who also directed The Norman Conquests and was Tony-nominated for both) does what he can here, alternating bursts of intense fighting with periods of quiet lulls.

I’ll admit, I was sitting in the back of the mezzanine, and I might have enjoyed it more if I was sitting much closer, so I could better enjoy the subtleties of the four performances. But ultimately, I didn’t like the play very much at all, and certainly not what I’d expect of a “Best Play” Tony nominee. (I won’t be surprised if it wins either, since this has been such a lackluster year for new plays on Broadway. Of the four nominated plays, I think the best is Horton Foote’s Dividing the Estate, which has already closed).

I’m all for plays being silly, not everything needs to be thought-provoking. So why did I find the lightness of God of Carnage so annoying? I think because it doesn’t claim to be simply silly. It pretends to be insightful and profound. I constantly got the feeling that God of Carnage was trying to tell me about “the human condition” or some other similarly lofty goal. And it was this pseudo-intellectualism that really bothered me. Reza won many awards for her play Art, and this is a play in a similar vein: an initially humdrum circumstance progresses until things devolve and the characters show their true selves. But whereas Art gave us three well-developed characters, God of Carnage is much more primitive...we get “man” and “woman” rather than fully developed people. And this isn’t the fault of the actors, but of the writing. Perhaps this primitiveness is intentional. After all, if God of Carnage says anything, it is that all of us have the capability of losing control and becoming less civilized. But in my opinion, it doesn’t make a satisfying play.

Why is this play doing so well? First, there is the all-star cast, and while there are many plays this season with one or two "names", none have four. And all four give strong performances. But ultimately, while we often give passes to musicals that are just silly fun, God of Carnage makes it clear that many are just as willing to do so with plays. It is selling extremely well, and I regret not seeing the play during previews (when a good seat would have been cheaper). Now, even the worst seat is $67. (However, if you do find yourself in the rear mezz, you won’t have trouble hearing anything. The sound design was excellent, and I could even hear Alan’s phone vibrating whenever it rang). While I didn’t take advantage of it, if you want to see the show and money is tight, I would suggest trying for standing room. The play is only 90 minutes, and at $26.50, you might actually feel you got your money’s worth. But ultimately, I’d recommend many other plays over this one. And don’t get me wrong, if you go you will likely laugh and you may even enjoy yourself. But I think you can get a similar experience by staying home and watching 30 Rock or The Office (or whatever TV show makes you laugh). When I go to the theatre I want something more, and God of Carnage certainly didn’t give it to me.

(God of Carnage plays at the Bernard B. Jacobs Theatre, 242 W. 45th St, through August 2nd. Performances are Tue at 7 PM, Wed through Sat at 8 PM, with matinees on Wed and Sat at 2 PM, and Sun at 3 PM. Running time is approximately 90 minutes, with no intermission. Tickets are $66.50- $116.50, and $26.50 standing room tickets are available if the performance is sold out. Visit telecharge.com to buy tickets and godofcarnage.com for more information.)

Hair (Al Hirschfeld Theatre)

By Dan

5 POINTS OR LESS:

one of the best musical ensembles on Broadway • cast members run throughout the house, bringing even those in cheap seats into the action • story is minor, but it doesn’t matter • there is nudity (for those who care), but it is artfully done • probably the best musical revival currently playing on Broadway

BOTTOM LINE: An excellent revival, full of energy and poignancy, which may well make you see Hair in a new light.

Even the casual theatre-goer is probably at least somewhat familiar with Hair. If you haven’t seen it on stage, you’ve likely seen the movie, and you’ve certainly heard some of the music... “Aquarius” and “Let the Sun Shine In” are two of the best-known songs. Many call it the first rock musical (although the music, even by the standards of the late 1960s when it was written, is not really rock). You may also know that Hair is essentially a collection of songs sung by a group of hippies called “The Tribe," and while there is a loose story that threads the songs together, Hair is traditionally more about the music and less about the story and characters.

This revival of Hair, a re-tooling of the version that played in Central Park last summer, is both everything you might expect Hair to be, and also much more than you might possibly imagine. Yes, the story is still minor, but somehow here that doesn’t really matter. This revival makes clear that Hair, if done well, is really about a group of people. They experience, they grow, they change, and most importantly, they lose their innocence while trying to hold on to their hope. Director Diane Paulus has done amazing work with her ensemble; I often felt as if this was a group of kids playing around, and when one person started doing something, the rest would join in. Each actor manages to create a character, but no one character takes over the Tribe. Don’t go see Hair expecting a typical linear narrative; a story does exist, but if you focus on it, you will miss what is most important.

A few characters are somewhat developed, most notably Claude (Gavin Creel) and Berger (Will Swenson), both Tony nominees. Swenson was probably my favorite. He bounds around the stage and captures the silliness of someone who might be both incredibly naïve and surprisingly astute. Woof (Bryce Ryness) and Sheila (Caissie Levy) are also briefly sketched in; we see them change briefly during the evening, mostly in their interactions with Claude and Berger. But most of the characters, even supporting ones like Dionne (Sasha Allen) and Crissy (Allison Case), are little more than people who sing a few solos during the evening. This is not to take anything away from their performances, Allen is fierce during the opening number “Aquarius” and Crissy does a lovely “Frank Mills." But do we really care if Crissy ever finds Frank? No. It is enough to see that one of The Tribe is “in love” with a man she will never find. And I guess that is one way to see this production of Hair, as a collection of views of The Tribe, both seen through its individual members, and through The Tribe as a whole.

As the evening progresses, The Tribe somehow changes. It is difficult to pin down exactly how this happens, but what was light and playful and innocent in Act I melds into something darker. While The Tribe does not necessarily grow up, they do begin to realize that the world outside is real and can hurt them. Their youthful vigor and the desire to fool around all day does not go away, but it loses its willful innocence. The Tribe seems to go from a group of teenagers who simply want to rebel against something to a group of young adults who have found that just rebelling may not be enough, but are not sure what else to do. This all leads to an ending that is extraordinarily simple yet extremely profound, which is then followed by a group curtain call after which the entire audience is invited on stage to dance. It sounds hokey, but I found the last 20 minutes (including the audience going on stage) to be truly extraordinary.

I’ll admit, I had doubts when I heard Hair was transferring to Broadway. Although I didn’t see it in Central Park, I wondered if we really needed another revival of Hair (in the last few years it has been produced both at City Center Encores and as a concert to benefit the Actors Fund, not to mention the countless regional productions across the country). The cynic in me thought that while Hair might have seemed special outside in Central Park, it would lose this magic in a commercial Broadway theatre. I’m so glad I was wrong. This is a terrific production, one that works extremely well in the Al Hirschfeld Theatre. Cast members scamper throughout the entire house...they quickly leap up to the Mezzanine and run to the very back of the theatre. The entire audience is brought into The Tribe, so don’t worry if you are sitting in cheaper seats, this is one musical that somehow feels intimate wherever you sit.

Hair is not suddenly my favorite musical. As wonderful as this production is, Hair is still a collection of songs loosely strung together and will always take second place (in my opinion) to musicals with stronger books. But what makes this production special is that it isn’t content simply to portray a group of hippies. Indeed, the fact that these are 1967 counter-culture youth (or at least, youth playing at being part of the counter-culture) is almost immaterial. This production of Hair made me realize that this show does not really need to be about hippies at all. Some critics of the original production claimed that Hair was a sanitized portrayal of youth counter-culture, cleaned up for a commercial audience. And while this may be true, it misses the point that at its best, Hair is really about youth and uncertainty and hope.

(Hair plays at the Al Hirschfeld Theatre, 302 W. 45th St. Performances are Tuesday at 7pm, Wednesday through Friday at 8pm, Saturday at 2pm and 8pm, and Sunday at 2pm and 7:30pm. Beginning June 8th, performances are Tuesday at 7pm, Wednesday through Saturday at 8pm, with matinees Wednesday and Saturday at 2pm, and Sunday at 3pm. Running time is approximately 2 hours 30 minutes. Tickets are $37- $122, and there is a lottery for $25 box seats (cash only). The lotto drawing is 2 hours before curtain, and they start taking names 30 minutes before that. Visit telecharge.com to buy tickets and hairbroadway.com for more information.)

Irena's Vow (Walter Kerr Theatre)

By Le-Anne

5 POINTS OR LESS
Holocaust play • surprisingly lighthearted and also maintains reverence • you will leave feeling uplifted • based on real-life story • a must-see

BOTTOM LINE: This is a gripping story, told through the eyes of one woman, that explores the lives of a group of people in Poland during the Holocaust by including feelings of hope, peace, and ultimately humanity.

I’m all for a spectacle-filled musical or a celebrity-laden comedy but if there is one Broadway show to move to the top of your “to-do” list, let it be Irena’s Vow. What’s that you say? A Holocaust play is too serious for you? When you spend a night out on the town you want to laugh and leave the theatre happy and feeling uplifted? Then I say again, see Irena’s Vow (although I can’t guarantee that you won’t cry a little too). This play, based on real life events, not only entertains but educates.

Playwright Dan Gordon adapted for the stage the life of unsung hero, Irena Gut Opdyke (Tovah Feldshuh) who saved the lives of 12 Jews by hiding them under the nose of German officer, Major Rugemer (Thomas Ryan), for whom she was a live-in maid. It's a little known story but one that represents the many unknown silent heroes who sheltered Jews during Hitler’s rule and the German occupation. In Opdyke’s case, her heroism was unknown to even her own family until one day when she received a telephone call from a student taking a survey about how he believed the Holocaust was a hoax.

The play begins with Irena sharing her story of the telephone call with an invisible group of young students (represented by the audience). She shares with the students how she was determined to leave that part of her life behind when she came to America until the shock of hearing this young man deny its existence sent her on a new-found mission. Then, in flashback fashion, Feldshuh transforms from an older woman, who is older than she cares to admit, back to that beautiful, young, 17-year-old Catholic girl in Poland. She tells of her rape by nine Russian soldiers and of a traumatic incident where she witnessed a Nazi soldier brutally murder a Jewish baby right before her eyes. It was in that moment that she vowed to never let another Jewish child die if she could help it. The story continues with Irena frequently breaking the fourth wall to address the audience directly, which is where many of Gordon’s welcome moments of levity are found. Director Michael Parva guides these moments of transition seamlessly and with specificity.

Feldshuh is riveting as Irena. She captures the youth and innocence of a 17-year-old girl with a wisdom beyond her years. She embodies her physically as well as emotionally. With a keen awareness of the human spirit and perfect timing, she switches back and forth between weighty moments of tension and honest moments of wit and humor with precision. At the moment when you think you might sob out loud she turns on a dime and, with utmost sincerity, delivers a line in such a way that you laugh out loud instead. Ryan’s portrayal of the German Major is surprisingly sympathetic. Other standouts include Steven Hauck as the dutiful butler but even more dutiful friend Herr Shultz, John Stanisci as the cocky Rokita, and Scott Klavan who is magnetic as The Visitor before he even opens his mouth.

Irena’s Vow is a play of courage, fear, humor, tears and most of all hope. Though my friend and I were in tears during curtain call we both walked out of the theatre with smiles on our faces and laughter in our hearts. When asked what he thought about the play by a reporter outside the theatre, my friend emphatically replied “It was so funny!” then quickly added, “Oh, that probably sounds really strange to say about a play about the Holocaust.” Well, maybe, except that is what makes Irena’s Vow so unique, engaging and so true to the human spirit. Until now, most tales of this horrific time in history were very heavy, melancholy, and required a stiff drink and a good night’s sleep to get over. They are often stories that are so sad that one doesn’t want to think too much about it again, much like how Opdyke at one time yearned to forget her own story. The tremendous achievement of playwright Dan Gordon is that he creates a story that you don’t want to get over or forget but rather one that you want to remember over and over again. And that is what will help ensure that we, and future generations, will never forget.

(Irena’s Vow plays at The Walter Kerr Theatre, 219 West 48th Street through September 6th. Performance times are Tuesday at 7pm, Wednesday through Saturday at 8pm, Wednesday and Saturday at 2pm and Sunday at 3pm. Tickets are $41 - $98. Student Rush: $25 tickets (cash only) available at the box office on the day of each performance, beginning when the box office opens, 2 per valid student ID. The show runs 90 minutes with no intermission. Go to www.telecharge.com or visit www.irenasvow.com for tickets and info.)

The Norman Conquests (Circle in the Square)

By Dan

5 POINTS OR LESS
trilogy of plays performed in rep • each play stands on its own, and you can see them in any order • often funny, sometimes hilarious, and always poignant • theatre in the round–all seats are good • six member ensemble cast is excellent

BOTTOM LINE: A thoughtful, well-written trilogy, The Norman Conquests gets funnier, and more profound, the more you see.

The Norman Conquestsis a trilogy by British playwright Alan Ayckbourn; written in 1973, this production is a transfer of the revival at London’s Old Vic theatre last year. The three plays all take place in one Victorian house in England over the course of a July weekend. Each play is set in a different room: Round and Round the Garden takes place in the garden, Table Manners takes place in the dining room, and Living Together takes place in the sitting room. While the plays show different times during this weekend, there are chronological overlaps, which means that sometimes, when a character leaves one room in one play, he or she appears in another room in another play. (I actually checked my watch on occasion, to see if, according to the times given for each scene, the exits and entrances actually match up in real time. They don’t- sometimes there is a delay of 10 or 20 minutes. But it is close enough so that you don’t notice unless you’re as anal as I am).

Each play deals with the same six characters. Annie lives in the house, and takes care of her mother upstairs (who we never see). Tom lives next door, and may or may not be in love with Annie. Annie’s two siblings are Reg and Ruth. Annie has asked Reg and his wife Sarah to come take care of their mother for the weekend so that Annie can go on holiday; the secret (soon revealed to everyone) is that the holiday is with Norman, who is married to Annie’s sister Ruth. There isn’t much more to the set-up; the three plays are basically concerned with the complex relationships between these six people; much of the focus centers around Norman, who just wants to be loved- by all three women.

I’ll admit- this premise sounded hokey and way-too played out when I first heard it. And I haven’t been a huge fan of Ayckbourn’s plays in the past- I thought The Norman Conquests might be all just a big conceit (wow- three plays that overlap- how clever!). But fortunately, there is a lot of substance here- the six characters are all incredibly complex, and the trilogy is not so much about finding out what happens (you know at the end of the first play you see), but about watching how it happens, and realizing how what at first seems complete is, on second (and third) glance just a small part of the picture.

Director Matthew Warchus (who also directed God of Carnage this season, and Boeing Boeing last season) is largely responsible for the hilarity that ensues- he paces each play extremely well, balancing spurts of quick comedy with moments of quiet contemplation and tension. Warchus gets a lot out of physical movement; the six actors use their bodies in interesting ways, and a lot of the character development is communicated by posture and gesture. While not exactly slapstick, this is nevertheless very physical comedy at times, and all the more hilarious for that reason. But Warchus is also not afraid of silence, which makes The Norman Conquests more than just an uproarious laugh fest. These six characters are all profoundly unhappy, and the entire trilogy might be summarized as their search for happiness.

If there is a leading role, it is Norman; played by Stephen Mangan, Norman is incredibly normal-looking for a man-whore, and he often borders on downright unappealing. He is not well-dressed, not in good shape, and needs a shave- all of which makes his seductive powers that much more interesting to watch. Amelia Bullmore plays Ruth, Norman’s wife, a woman who hates wearing her glasses- her attempts to set up her chair in the garden are a high point in Round and Round the Garden. Paul Ritter is Reg, who fights constantly with his wife Sarah, played by Amanda Root. Jessica Hynes is Annie, who is clearly exhausted and looks like she hasn’t brushed her hair in months. My favorite actor was Ben Miles, who plays Tom, a rather dim vet who often seems more concerned with Annie’s cat than he is with Annie herself. All six actors are excellent, and their ensemble work together is as good as their individual performances. Each character is strengthened by comparisons with the others; for example, as we learn more about the insufficiencies of Tom and Reg, we understand more why Norman, despite his physical appearance, is such a tempting alternative for Annie and Sarah.

The plays are staged in the round, so any seat in the house is fine. I’d suggest seats on the “sides” of the oval (the 200 sections) or else near the stage. I saw each of the play’s first NY preview performance, so the sound may improve, but there were times when the audience was laughing so loud that I couldn’t hear a few lines. But judging by the laughter, I’d say The Norman Conquests will appeal to many people- it is very definitely a series of three comedies, albeit comedies with some serious, poignant moments.

So now for the important questions: do you need to see all three plays? If you only see one, which one should you see? And if you’re seeing all three, does it help to see them in a certain order?

I saw Round and Round the Garden first, then Table Manners, and then Living Together. You don’t need to see all three plays- each stands well on its own. However, I appreciated Round and Round the Garden more once I saw Table Manners, and while I probably enjoyed Table Manners the best, this may not mean everyone will. It is just as likely that I liked Table Manners so much because I already knew these characters from Round and Round the Garden, but the characters still had more surprises than they had for me in Living Together. Which means, someone who sees all three might like the second play the best, whichever one that is. Or not. So if you just want to see one because you want to have some idea of what people are talking about, I’d say it is a toss-up- see whichever one fits your schedule the best, or whichever one you can get the best seat for.

That said, if you’re interested enough to see one, I’d suggest that you consider seeing all three. Although you might expect the three plays to become repetitive, since they all cover the same characters in the same situations, they are anything but repetitive. In fact, the plays somehow become better, and even funnier, as you see more. For example, once you see Ruth squinting around in one play, you start laughing the minute she walks on stage in the next play. If you decide to see all three, one option is the “Trilogy Day”- Table Manners at 11 AM, Living Together at 3 PM, and Round and Round the Garden at 8 PM. This might suggest that this is the “preferred order”- since this is also the order they are listed in the playbill. However, this probably has as much to do with the set demands (the garden set has a different floor than do the sitting and dining rooms) as it does with anything else.

Of course, the publicity will tell you that the plays can be seen in any order, but is this really true? For what it is worth, Round and Round the Garden both “starts” and “ends” the play- its first scene happens first in time (5:30 PM on a Saturday), and its last scene happens last (Monday at 9 AM). So I guess an argument could be made for seeing this one either first or last. But ultimately, I don’t think it matters too much. Each play tells you enough about what is going on so that any play can be seen first. I’d say it is more important to try to see all three fairly close together- if all three in one day sounds too exhausting, then maybe try to see one a night for three nights. (For those who saw Tom Stoppard’s The Coast of Utopia trilogy, this is a much less daunting prospect- The Norman Conquests is not only funnier, but shorter- by about 2-3 hours.) Because the three plays that make up The Norman Conquests work by building on each other, if you see one too far apart from the other, you might forget some of the ways in which they overlap. And while this isn’t necessary for the enjoyment of any one play, it is what makes the trilogy so enjoyable. In other words, if you are going to see the trilogy, treat it as a trilogy to get the best bang for your buck.

For those who aren’t sure, there is a discount offer in the playbill; once you see one play, you can go back to the box office and buy tickets to the other two (the box office is conveniently open during intermission and after the show). So unless this discount (when I went it was $49) goes away after the trilogy opens officially on April 23rd, it would seem as if buying a ticket to one play to see if you like it doesn’t mean you will necessarily spend more money on all three than those who buy the trilogy all at once (indeed, at $49, this would seem to actually save you money). One final note- when I left Round and Round the Garden, I was somewhat ambivalent- I would have been perfectly fine just seeing that play. It was only after seeing the second play (in my case Table Manners) that I understood what I missed in the first play- so much so that I wanted to go back and see Round and Round the Garden again after I finished the trilogy. So a note of warning- you may not love the first play you see, at least, not at first.

Ultimately, The Norman Conquests is to some extent an event- there are those (myself included) who will go if only to say that we saw all three plays. But for everyone else, The Norman Conquests is still worth seeing. Yes, some on a tight budget, or in New York for a short time, might understandably prefer to spend their money and time on three unrelated plays. So I won’t say to skip everything else to see The Norman Conquests. That said, this is an extremely enjoyable trio of plays- it is thoughtful comedy, but incredibly accessible. It is a terrific production with an all-around hilarious cast, directed by one of the best comedy directors today. Good comedies are rare on Broadway, and although I haven’t seen Warchus’s other Broadway hit God of Carnage yet, I’ve heard from several people that The Norman Conquests is better written. So if you’re looking for a comedy and don’t mind missing the “stars” in God of Carnage, The Norman Conquests is worth checking out.

(The Norman Conquests plays at the Circle in the Square Theatre, 1633 Broadway, on 50th St between Broadway and 8th Avenue. The three plays are performed through July 25th, and occur on a rotating schedule, so the performance schedule varies. In general, there are shows Tue at 7 PM, Wed at 2 PM, Wed through Fri at 8 PM, and on weekends there are “Trilogy Days”, in which all three plays are performed- at 11 AM, 3 PM, and 8 PM. See normanconquestsonbroadway.com for the complete schedule. Running time for each play is approximately 2 hours 20 minutes. Tickets for one play are $107-$112, and the entire trilogy costs $256. There is also student rush for $27, available the day of the performance. Tickets are available online at telecharge.com)

Mary Stuart (Broadhurst Theatre)

By Le-Anne

5 POINTS OR LESS:
historical drama • a transfer from London's West End • powerhouse actresses • strong images • stay for the second act

Harriet Walter as Elizabeth and Janet McTeer as Mary in Mary Stuart in the Donmar Warehouse production in London. Photo by Alastair Muir.

BOTTOM LINE: It starts out slow so hit the espresso bar before the show, just in case...you do not want to miss out on the second act which is well worth the wait.

Politics, lies, murder, conspiracy, imprisonment, and a battle for power among two of the most cutthroat leaders in history...and did I mention that they are women? One of the most interesting rivalries in history (between Queen Mary of Scotland and Queen Elizabeth I) is told in Friedrich Schiller’s historical drama, Mary Stuart, translated by Peter Oswald. It explores the struggle not only of women in power but women with power. Tony award winner Janet McTeer (Mary) and three-time-winner of Britain’s acclaimed Olivier Award Harriet Walter (Elizabeth) take on, perhaps, two of the strongest women depicted in history with full force. This Broadway revival, ripped fresh from London's West End, is full of bold direction, severe design elements, and fantastic acting. It is as tenacious as the women it portrays. That is, however, if you can make it through the first act.

While Act Two may be tenacious, Act One is rather tedious. Full of rambling monologues of no real interest, no real action, and not even monologues that can rest on the excuse of exposition, the first act lags. With the exception of one scene between Mary and Mortimer (Chandler Williams), in which Mortimer explains to Mary that he is her ally, not her enemy, and she reveals the Earl of Leicester (John Benjamin Hickey) as a friend and confidant, the first act is not terribly dynamic. Since I do not read German, I can only presume that Oswald gave justice to Schiller’s early nineteenth century work. So, I can only fault a dated sense of theatrical interest and style or maybe a cultural difference. The second act however, has such a modern sense of flow while maintaining the integrity of a period piece, that I wonder whether the discrepancy in style is Schiller’s handiwork or Oswald’s adaptation. But even in the able hands of McTeer and Walter, the first act falls flat. I must admit, my head bobbed a couple of times. At first, I was red with embarrassment until I noticed the orchestra of dipping heads in the dark all around me.

That being said, Act Two starts with a bang–or should I say a downpour. From the moment the torrential rain drenched the stage, with crashes of thunder, and flashes of lightning the theatre was alive. No more bobbing heads. The second act was so much more exciting it was as if it were different play. Director Phyllida Lloyd captures an absolutely gorgeous and eerie stage picture at a particular moment when Elizabeth and Mary lay eyes on each other for the first time. It happens in an instant but is an image that this reviewer will not soon forget. I find it so interesting that a single moment in a play can capture the entire collaborative process of theatre so expertly. Hours upon hours of lighting design (Hugh Vanstone), sound design (Paul Arditti), scenic and costume design (Anthony Ward), obvious manual labor behind these designs, precise direction, and fantastic acting expertly pulled together with the energy from the audience to create a flash that will live and die every night that it is performed. Moments like this is why one craves live theatre. This is where Lloyd shines as a director. There are several equally captivating stage pictures laced throughout the play, for example when Mary’s image hovers in Elizabeth’s conscience. Lloyd creates visually stunning scenes that can only be captured live.

Of course, it helps to have two equally stunning actresses leading the way. Other standouts in this stellar cast include the aforementioned Hickey as the dubious Leicester and Williams as the impassioned Mortimer. Especially entertaining is Robert Stanton as Sir William Davison. With utmost sincerity, he brings humor to a weighty moment and the tennis match of words between him and Walter is delightful. Walter and McTeer rule the stage like true royalty and the two share an explosive chemistry. McTeer is earthy and brutally honest in her portrayal of the wronged Queen. In contrast, Walter is regal, secretive, and delicate in her strength. If McTeer’s Mary is coal, Walter’s Elizabeth is a cut diamond. Born from the same elements, both are tough, beautiful, and create fire -- and never, ever, play with fire.

(Mary Stuart is currently in previews and officially opens on April 19th. It plays at the Broadhurst Theatre, 235 West 44th Street. Performances are Tuesday at 7pm, Thursday & Friday at 8pm, Wednesday & Saturday at 2pm & 8pm and Sunday at 3pm. The show runs 2 hrs. 45 min. with one 15 min. intermission. Tickets are $64.00–$116.50. Student Rush: $29.50, available at the box office on the day of the performancee, limit 2 per valid ID. For tickets go to theatermania.com. Discount tickets are $40–$45, available until May 3 at broadwaybox.com.)

Joe Turner’s Come and Gone (Belasco-LCT)

By Dan

5 POINTS OR LESS
superb direction and an overall terrific production • set is marvelous and subtly beautiful • uniformly excellent ensemble cast • some may find it boring; others will find it riveting • incredibly beautiful final moments

BOTTOM LINE: If you don’t mind a play with a lot of talking and not a lot that “happens," this production of an August Wilson play is incredibly rewarding and sends you out on an emotional high.

Joe Turner’s Come and Gone is one of the ten plays in August Wilson’s “Pittsburgh cycle;" each play depicts a different decade in the 20th century, and all but one are set in Pittsburgh’s Hill District, an area once considered to be the center of African-American life in Pittsburgh. This is the first revival of Joe Turner’s Come and Gone since its original Broadway production in 1988. But in the last eight years, Wilson’s work has been produced somewhat regularly in New York...three of his plays have premiered on Broadway since 2001 (King Hedley II, Gem of the Ocean, and Radio Golf). Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom was revived on Broadway in 2003. And the Signature Theatre Company devoted their 2006-2007 season to August Wilson, producing King Hedley II, Seven Guitars, and Two Trains Running. The other three plays in the cycle are Jitney, The Piano Lesson, and Fences (and Wilson won Pulitzer prizes for both The Piano Lesson and Fences).

Wilson’s plays all deal with the lives of African-Americans in the 20th century, but they have other things in common as well. All have ensemble casts of between six and eleven characters, all are very “talky” and reward those who listen to the poetry and rhythm of the language, and all are primarily realistic in tone but have a touch of mysticism and magic. That said, some of Wilson’s plays are better than others, and the success of his plays have a lot to do with the quality of the productions. Fortunately, this Lincoln Center Theater production of Joe Turner’s Come and Gone is stunning.

Joe Turner’s Come and Gone is the “1910s” play. It takes place in 1911, during a period when many African-Americans were migrating north, leaving the farms in the south and settling in urban centers of industrialization like Chicago, New York and Pittsburgh. Set in a boarding house, Joe Turner’s Come and Gone captures the transient nature of this time, in which freed slaves and their children began traveling the country in search of better lives than they had in the southern states. The play gets its name from an early blues song; Joe Turner (actually Joe Turney, brother of Tennessee Governor Pete Turney) would illegally kidnap newly freed slaves and force them to work for him for seven years. One of these kidnapped men is Herald Loomis, one of the central characters in Joe Turner’s Come and Gone. Loomis was separated from his family after being kidnapped and forced to work on a chain gang; with his young daughter in tow, he arrives at Seth Holly’s boarding house in search of his wife.

Much of the first act of Joe Turner’s Come and Gone sets out and develops the various characters; most of the play is quite talky and it may seem like not much is happening. For this reason, some may find Joe Turner’s Come and Gone a bit boring. It isn’t necessarily clear from the outset where the play is going, and some characters may seem extraneous (I don’t agree, but it is something that critics have argued in the past). If you need a lot of action to sit through 2 hours and 40 minutes of a play, you might want to look elsewhere.

But I found this production riveting. Every member of the ensemble is terrific; they all give you a clear sense of each character the minute they appear onstage, which enables audiences to enjoy the characters from the beginning. I don’t mean that the cast rests on simple stereotypes, they don’t at all. But the combination of Wilson’s writing and the excellent performances allows you to immediately sink into the world of the play, without needing a lot of background information to understand what is going on.

But as good as the cast is, this production truly soars because of director Bartlett Sher, known to New York audiences for directing the Lincoln Center Theater productions of Awake and Sing, The Light in the Piazza, and the revival of South Pacific. Sher is quickly becoming one of my favorite directors...everything he does is subtly beautiful. Sher’s choices are noticeable, but they are always appropriate and never overwhelm the piece and his direction of Joe Turner’s Come and Gone is no exception. It is worth mentioning that Sher is the first white man to direct a Broadway production of an August Wilson play. Wilson’s plays are all concerned with the specificity of the African-American experience in the United States, and with the various effects of racial identity; he therefore always demanded African-American directors for the high-profile productions of his plays. While Wilson died of cancer in 2005, I’d like to think he would applaud Sher’s direction of this piece. While I don’t want to give much away, Sher’s use of the set is beautiful, and what he does with the final moments of the piece took my breath away–it was the perfect way to theatricalize both Loomis’s awakening and the magical realism of the moment.

If you have never seen an August Wilson play, go see this production of Joe Turner’s Come and Gone- it is a great introduction to one of the most important American playwrights of the 20th century. If you have seen Wilson’s work before, you’ll have some sense of his style (while I always enjoy a Wilson play, I must admit that some of them can seem a bit long, especially if they are directed too didactically). I’m sure there are those who will find this production long as well...this certainly isn’t a play to see when you’re tired or at the end of a long week. But I’ve seen every Broadway production of a Wilson play since 2001 (I missed the season at the Signature Theatre), and this is definitely the best production I have seen. So as long as you don’t mind a play in which not a lot “happens," I highly recommend Joe Turner’s Come and Gone.

(Joe Turner’s Come and Gone plays at the Belasco Theatre, 111 W. 44th St, through June 14th. Performances are Tuesday through Saturday at 8pm, Wednesday and Saturday at 2pm, and Sunday at 3pm. Running time is approximately 2 hours 40 minutes. Tickets are $46.50- $96.50. Visit telecharge.com to buy tickets and visit lct.org, Lincoln Center Theater’s website, for more information.)

Rock of Ages (Brooks Atkinson Theatre)

By Dan

5 POINTS OR LESS
well-constructed jukebox musical...the book isn’t as dumb as you might think • great sound design...you can hear everything • fun characters • the cast all sing their faces off • should appeal to everyone except theatre snobs

BOTTOM LINE: An intelligently silly musical full of '80s rock hits...tons of energy onstage and off. Go, rock out, and have a great time.

I had heard a few things about Rock of Ages before I saw it. I knew it was a jukebox musical (like Mamma Mia and Jersey Boys), but instead of using music from just one group, Rock of Ages expands its reach to a genre: rock music from the '80s. I knew that Rock of Ages features, among others, Constantine Maroulis, of American Idol fame. And after a run off-Broadway last fall, the producers decided to move the show to Broadway. In doing so, they decided to lower the standard top price (making Rock of Ages the cheapest musical now on Broadway) and to sell drinks during the show. Clearly, the producers had guts...but was the move to Broadway a wise choice?

Although reviews haven’t come out as I write this, I suspect that Rock of Ages will be a hit. I had a great time, and from what I could tell, everyone around me did as well. To be fair, this may be partly due to the familiar tunes, including “More Than Words,” “Sister Christian,” “Shadows of the Night,” “We Built This City,” and “The Final Countdown." Audiences like familiar music which is why revivals and jukebox musicals are so popular on Broadway...they seem less risky to producers. Of course, not all jukebox musicals work; I still recoil at the wretchedness that was Good Vibrations. And I suspect that the key to a successful jukebox musical has less to do with the specific choice of songbook than one might think.

Of course, Rock of Ages also has alcohol, and tipsy audiences may be more easily pleased. Given my tendency to glare at fellow audience members who unwrap candies, and all but bludgeon those who have their cell phones out, I had wondered if I’d be bothered by the whole selling-drinks-during-the-show thing; I wasn’t at all. In fact, I hardly noticed it. A sheet in the playbill explains that to buy a drink during the show, you need to buy chips before, alleviating the need for any financial transactions. So the server merely runs down the aisle with some drinks and hands them to audience members in exchange for chips. While I would hate for this practice to become a trend on Broadway, I have to say that for this show and this show only, it seems to work. The experience feels more like a rock concert than a “Broadway musical," and if Rock of Ages succeeds (as I suspect it will), it will be because of this feeling.

Rock musicals are tough...so often, the performers are on stage trying to “melt your face," and audiences are sitting politely in their seats, because they are at a musical, and that is how one behaves. Rock of Ages, on the other hand, is more of a musical-rock concert hybrid, one that thrives on the energy of the audience. While I missed the off-Broadway run, my guess is that Rock of Ages works even better on Broadway, since a bigger audience means more energy. The energy was palpable as soon as I entered the theatre, and continued to build as more people came in. Rock music plays as the house fills, and this helps create the feeling of a concert; the recorded tunes work as a kind of opening act. So when the house lights go down, the audience is primed and ready to rock. And they do. From talking to someone I know who is involved in the show, audiences are going crazy every night. And it isn’t just limited to people in their 30s and 40s–the woman in front of me must have been at least 65, and bopped along to every song in the show.

So is Rock of Ages just a silly, mindless piece of entertainment, Broadway junk food, so to speak? Perhaps, but if so, it is done very well. Some might claim that the book by Chris D’Arienzo is dumb, but I disagree, I'd say it is intelligently silly, in the style of many “traditional” musical comedies. It is funny when it should be (which is a lot), but D’Arienzo also draws from the lyrics of the songs in the show. For example, a line in which one character is said to be “taking the midnight train” anticipates the final song, Journey’s “Don’t’ Stop Believin'.” But because the line and the song are separated by at least 20 minutes, it doesn’t come off as a clumsy joke (as one might expect), but rather a natural part of the script.

One of the best things about the book is that every character is likeable and you enjoy watching them. Of course, the actors all have a lot to do with this, every one is terrific (and they all sing their faces off). I always love watching Amy Spanger, who plays the heroine Sherrie; she is lovably naïve and tantalizingly sexy at the same time. Constantine Maroulis plays the hero Drew, and is surprisingly sweet, with a constant “aw shucks” quality about him. James Carpinello is suitably sleazy as the famous rocker Stacee Jaxx, and Mitchell Jarvis is great as Lonny, a barhand who also narrates the show. Jarvis will likely be compared to Jack Black, but I most enjoyed his character’s sexual ambiguity; Lonny does not seem strictly straight or gay (in many ways he is like the Emcee in Cabaret) and I think this makes a staple character like Lonny that much more enjoyable. However, my favorite is Wesley Taylor, who plays Franz, the son of the German developer who wants to tear down the rock club in which the show takes place. Taylor adorably livens every scene he is in, and when his big number comes in Act 2, the house goes wild.

The set is suitably large scale with an upstage screen on which various projections are shown. (A warning to those attempting the lottery: the lottery seats are apparently on the extreme sides of the orchestra, and I’m told you miss most of these projections. You may also feel a bit left out of the energy of the audience). Overall, the show looks fantastic. But I was even more impressed by how it sounded. Of course, one expects a show like this to be loud, and it is. But never uncomfortably so. But more importantly, I understood every single lyric, and heard every single spoken word. Even when the girls behind me were singing along with the songs, I could still hear the singers on stage. This is not a small feat in a show like this, and I think Peter Hylenski’s sound design does a lot to make this show work as well as it does.

While most people will love Rock of Ages, if you’re a true theatre snob- one who eschews anything that smacks of popular entertainment this may not be the show for you. And a warning to parents: some of the material is a bit racy, I’d give it a PG-13 rating. Personally, I enjoy all types of theatre, as long as they are done well and Rock of Ages is a silly collection of '80s rock tunes that is also a surprisingly enjoyable piece of musical theatre. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of anything I would change about it. As a girl behind me said to her friends during intermission, “It’s the '80s, it’s happy hour, it’s the best time of my life!” While I wouldn’t go quite so far, I have seen almost every new Broadway musical this season (except for the two still in previews), and will say that if you want to see a fun new musical and come out with a smile on your face, I’d definitely recommend Rock of Ages.

(Rock of Ages plays at the Brooks Atkinson Theatre, 256 W. 47th St. The general performance schedule is Mon at 8 PM, Tue at 7 PM, Thur and Fri at 8 PM, Sat at 2 PM and 8 PM, and Sun at 2 PM and 7 PM. Running time is approximately 2 hours 20 minutes. Tickets are $50.50-$99.00, and there is a lottery for $26.50 seats held 90 minutes before each show. For tickets visit ticketmaster.com, and visit rockofagesmusical.com for more information.)

Next to Normal (Booth Theatre)

By Molly

5 POINTS OR LESS
rock musical • original • kick-ass performances by the powerful but tiny cast of 6 • really depressing • missing something

Aaron Tveit, Alice Ripley and J. Robert Spencer in Next to Normal. Photo by Joan Marcus.

BOTTOM LINE: An exciting new musical with a lot to like...and well, a lot to dislike.

Musical theatre fans rejoice–a brand spanking new, modern musical starring the irresistible Alice Ripley is now on Broadway! Everyone else, remain seated. I know Next to Normal will amass a following of devoted fans who connect with this rock musical as if it was written for them. And I know I will get flak for not jumping on board. It's not that I don't understand, and it's not even that I don't like the show because really, there are a bunch of fantastic things about Next to Normal. There's just something missing for me, some nagging disconnect in the reality, perceived reality, and the way the plot unfolds. I want to believe these people are real but unfortunately I just can't get there. Let's start with a little background.

Next to Normal premiered off-Broadway at Second Stage Theatre last year and then played for a while at the Arena Stage in Washington D.C. Before this, the show was crafted on a smaller scale in New York and also ran for a bit in Seattle. All this time, the creative team and producers worked to perfect the show, getting it ready for the inevitable Broadway production we have today. I'm sure it's gone through a lot of changes in that time. Next to Normal is the story of a dysfunctional family; Diana (Alice Ripley) is a mother with mental illness, Dan (J. Robert Spencer) is her stable husband, Gabe (Aaron Tveit) is their son and Natalie (Jennifer Damiano) is their daughter. Diana's condition is getting worse and rendering her all but unable to maintain a normal life. The family is left to deal with their mother's addiction to meds, visits to various shrinks, suicide attempt, and eventually electroshock therapy which leaves her unable to remember much of the past.

Directed by Michael Greif (Rent) and with music by Brian Yorkey and Tom Kitt (High Fidelity), Next to Normal is a rock opera that never stops rocking. Nearly every word is sung and the band sits on stage next to the action. And the music is hands down the best part of this theatrical experience. Next to Normal feels very much like Rent in the sense that the music rocks hard and the pulsating score is consistent through the story, changing with the tone of the moment. And like Rent (which also tackles a sad and gritty storyline), the music is there as an outlet for these characters' emotions, not just for theatrical show. You'd never call these songs "numbers" or "dittys" as they hold much more weight than that. Check out the songs on the show's website for a taste of the score.

Another positive of this production are the performances, specifically the vocals. Everyone sings this show with absolute perfection, equally weighted and important to the story. It's wonderful to listen to. Acting-wise, Ripley and Damiano are riviting. Ripley is charmingly disturbed and Damiano, as the 16-year old just trying to make it through adolescence, evokes such pain and weakness through a collected, determined exterior. To their credit, Tveit and Adam Chanler-Beret as Natalie's boyfriend Henry do their best to create unique characters that support the story even though they aren't given much to work with in the script. Louis Hobson as the various doctors is adequate although his part isn't very deep at all. Spencer, as Diana's husband, lacks adequate emotion; the ex-Jersey Boy sounds supurb but I never believed he was anyone's husband or father, doting or otherwise.

If you're a already a musical theatre fan, stop reading now and go see Next to Normal. You'll like it, you'll connect, you'll cry, you'll appreciate the uniqueness this show has to offer in a consistently cookie-cutter genre. It deserves credit for breaking the norm. But if you're interested in the other side of the coin, I'll be happy to tell you why this show doesn't work for me. It mostly has to do with the minimalist, representational approach to the story-telling (which actually, I'm usually all about). The set (also like Rent) is a three-storied structure of scaffolding representing the family's home. The ground floor includes furniture that gets pushed to the front of the stage when it's being used and pushed back when it's not. The other scenes take place in the bare area in front of the house with a few set pieces or props to indicate the setting. Basically, the scenes are "suggested" to the audience and we use our imaginations to connect the dots. In theory, this technique should work, and if the characters were as real and grounded as the plot lends, I wouldn't have had a problem with the minimalistic interpretation...it would've been an artsy storytelling choice that didn't muddy the plot.

But sadly I didn't, for one iota of one second, believe that any of these characters were real or their story true. The gravity of this situation, especially at the end of the play, wouldn't make anyone sing, let alone look on any bright side of life. The plight this family goes through is so damn depressing I'm not sure one could just soldier on and look on the bright side, and at least not be severely screwed up. Seriously, it's a downer. Maybe this story requires stronger acting choices, more depth to these characters to bring their drama to life. Next to Normal introduces a profound set of circumstances and never really delves into how the characters feel about them. Sure, we hear the lyrics and feel the drive of the music, but the actors don't truly personify people going through a struggle (Damiano not included, she's mostly dead-on with her character's emotion). Maybe they're too busy singing. And maybe this story would be better told without music. I really wanted to connect with this show, and through the music I did feel somewhat attached. But in the end, Next to Normal didn't leave me feeling resolved or restored, it simply left me feeling sad and disjointed.

(Next to Normal plays at the Booth Theatre, 222 West 45th Street. Performances are Tuesday at 7pm, Wednesday through Friday at 8pm, Saturday at 2pm & 8pm and Sunday at 3pm & 7:30pm. The show runs 2 hrs. 20 min. with one 15 min. intermission. Tickets are $36.50-$111.50 with a limited number of $25 rush tickets available at the box office starting at 10am. For tickets visit telecharge.com. For more show info visit nexttonormal.com.)

Exit the King (Barrymore Theatre)

By Dan

5 POINTS OR LESS
Tony-worthy performance by Geoffrey Rush • unforgettable final scene • accessible absurdist theatre • makes you think • go with someone so you can discuss it afterwards

Lauren Ambrose and Geoffrey Rush in Exit the King.

BOTTOM LINE: In a Broadway season with so much to choose from, this is one show that will stay with you for a long, long time.

While Eugene Ionesco is an incredibly important playwright, his Absurdist plays (The Chairs, The Bald Soprano, Rhinoceros) are not what one might think of as typical Broadway fare. Unfortunately, most of the plays (new or revivals) produced on Broadway tend to be similarly realistic in style, that is, “real” things happening to “real” characters. So for this reason alone, I was excited to see the new production of Exit the King, and intrigued to see how it played in the 1000+ seat Barrymore Theatre. While this was not as awe-inspiring as the version of Ionesco’s The Chairs that played in London and on Broadway in 1998, it was still a great production. It was extremely well-directed by Neil Armfield, who provides it with a few moments of true theatre magic.

I imagine that for some, Ionesco is one of those playwrights who is more of a vegetable than a dessert, you feel like you really should see an Ionesco play because you feel like its good for you, but you’d kind of rather go see Hair instead. So for those who want to want to see Exit the King, fear not, this production is a lot of fun, and you’ll laugh a lot. If you’re worried that you won’t get the play, I don’t think that will be a problem at all. The premise is fairly simple: King Berenger (Geoffrey Rush) rules a kingdom, and his kingdom is almost ruined, and the King is supposed to die fairly soon. But he doesn’t want to die. Unfortunately, he has to by the end of the play.

Of course, this simple premise contains within it many layers on which one can interpret the play. My friend turned to me during intermission and said “you know, I think this is a lot about perception," and I think he’s right. As much as the King is a king, he is also an “everyman” (and indeed, “Berenger” is an everyman character in several other Ionesco plays). We all must deal with questions of our own mortality and to a certain extent, we are all “kings”, in that we live at the center of our own lives (kingdoms), and control (or at least try to control) everything that happens in them. The King is each of us. But as this production hints at, the King can also be the government, or the nation, or President Bush, or any of a multitude of bankrupt (yet bailed-out) corporations. And this is what makes this play so enjoyable. You can watch and interpret it on so many levels, from physical humor to philosophical discussion.

Each member of the cast is great and they are all very different. These roles could so easily become one-note and cartoonish, yet the entire cast works hard to find the humanity in these characters, without sacrificing any opportunity to make the audience laugh. I always love Andrea Martin (last seen on Broadway in Young Frankenstein)...she was hilarious as the maid Juliette. Lauren Ambrose (best known for playing Claire on Six Feet Under) does a great job with the role of Queen Marie, the young queen who doesn’t want King Berenger to die. But it was the two “stars," Susan Sarandon and Geoffrey Rush, who gave what I thought were the two most memorable performances.

I’ll admit, for a large portion of the play, I wasn’t quite sure what Susan Sarandon (as the King’s first wife, Queen Marquerite) was doing because she seemed oddly out of place and too restrained for the hilarity and chaos that was happening all around her. I wanted her to be bitchier, more of a domineering matriarch than a voice of reason. Of course, her calm presence is the whole point, and this eventually becomes clear later in the play. Sarandon’s final monologue is stunning, and while I don’t want to describe it, I would tell anyone to see Exit the King simply to see this final scene. I have no doubt it will be one of my top theatrical moments of the year, and will remain in my head for a long time.

And Geoffrey Rush gives what is no doubt one of the best performances of the year. He is a lock for a Tony nomination, and may very well win the award in June. His King Berenger is hilarious and sad at the same time; tremendously physical (just watch what he does with his scepter!) while simultaneously reminding us that he is becoming more and more decrepit with every minute. Rush makes it clear that the King is clearly the energetic and emotional center of Ionesco’s play, as well he should be. For what it is worth, Rush and director Neil Armfield co-translated Ionesco’s text; I’d have to compare this to other translations, but I suspect that their version does a lot to make this Exit the King accessible to modern Broadway audiences.

The design aspects of the production are all great. The set and costumes are blatantly theatrical with large tapestries supported by clearly visible wires, and huge robes that are thrown all over the stage. And the lighting and sound work subtly, providing a feeling that the King’s death is inevitable. That is, except when they are most definitely NOT subtle...two memorable moments include a frantic chase scene lit with a strobe light and the King’s “procession” accompanied by a marching band.

Are there any downsides to this production? There were a few times the play seemed to drag (although maybe I was just tired) but hang in there because it is worth it. And the theatre was uncomfortably warm the night I went...I’m hoping that was just due to the change of seasons, but be prepared and dress accordingly. But while people go to theatre for different reasons, I think any even semi-serious theatergoer MUST see Exit the King. If you want a play that makes you think, see Exit the King. If you want a play that makes you laugh, see Exit the King. And if you want a play that makes you marvel at the unique power of the theatre, then see Exit the King.

(Exit the King plays at the Barrymore Theatre, 243 W. 47th St, through June 14th. The general performance schedule is Tue at 7 PM, Wed through Sat at 8 PM, and matinees on Wed and Sat at 2 PM, and Sun at 3 PM. Running time is approximately 2 hours 30 minutes. Tickets are $66.50- $116.50, and $26.50 student rush tickets are available at the box office the day of the performance. Visit telecharge.com to buy tickets and exitthekingonbroadway.com for more information.)

Avenue Q (Golden Theatre)

By Molly and Dan

Stephanie D'Abruzzo and John Tartaglia from the original cast of Avenue Q. Photo by Carol Rosegg.

Molly says:
Avenue Q is a hysterically witty original musical that has been playing on Broadway since 2003. It is the story of young people finding their way through life and love in New York City, told with puppets in a sort of sarcastic, "adult" Sesame Street-like interpretation. With a genuinely catchy score, fun characters and an insane sense of humor, it's easy to see why Avenue Q is still a hot ticket on Broadway. I saw the show when it first opened 6 years ago with the original cast and had a fantastic time. At that time, I was very familiar with the soundtrack (as in, I couldn't stop listening to it because it was so damn entertaining) and it didn't hinder my experience (contrary to Dan's, as you can read below). I recall at one point laughing so hard I was crying to such an extent that I couldn't even see what was happening on stage. I haven't seen the show since and I suppose a lot could have happened in the 6 years since Avenue Q opened, but I truly feel that at this show's core is a whole lot of heart and a brilliant adventure in storytelling.

Dan says:
I saw Avenue Q on Broadway shortly before it won the Tony Award for Best Musical (beating out Wicked in an upset). The race that year was extremely heated...Avenue Q mounted an aggressive campaign, urging Tony voters to “vote with their heart," implying that most of them liked Avenue Q the best but might vote for something else (eh hem, Wicked) for business reasons. All of this was happening when I saw the show, and coupled with the fact that my family had seen the show without me (how dare they!) several months before, made seeing it seem more like a duty than a pleasure. In other words, the show had been built up so much by that point, beginning from the initial off-Broadway run at the Vineyard Theatre, that I don’t know that it could ever have lived up to the hype.

Which is not to say I didn’t enjoy the show because I did. But I saw it alone, and Avenue Q is definitely a show to see with other people. I also knew a lot about the show going in, including (much to my dismay) some of the key jokes. Unfortunately, many of these jokes are in the songs, and not just in the song lyrics, but in the song titles. I had tried not to listen to the music before seeing the show, but it is hard to escape reading the titles of songs- they're often listed in articles about the show, and of course they're in the program. I’m sure that others won’t mind this the way I did, but if you haven’t seen it yet and are thinking about it, I’d urge you to try hard not to read too much about the show.

Of course, Avenue Q has a lot more going for it than (often off-color) humor; the book is quite smart, and refreshingly “un-PC." At the same time, as “radical” as some thought the content was at the time, the show is constructed in the manner of a traditional musical comedy, making it easy to understand why it has had such a long run on Broadway. I’m actually listening to the recording again as I write this, and Avenue Q has a great score–one that is immediately accessible with the first encounter, but still enjoyable after repeated listenings. I think it would appeal to anyone who has ever been young and poor and unsure of what to do with their life...which is probably anyone over 18. (As far as taking kids, I personally think it would be fine for anyone in high school, but parents should be warned there is some mature content, including language and sexual scenes). However, one of the best things about Avenue Q was the original cast, especially Ann Harada and John Tartaglia. Five years later, I’m not sure how the show is holding up, shows sometimes have a tendency to degrade over time and I haven’t heard much from people who have seen the show recently. But I have thought often about returning, probably trying the lottery for $21.25 front-row tickets. If I do, I’ll be sure to post an update.

(Avenue Q plays at the Golden Theater, 252 West 45th Street. Performances are Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday at 8pm, Saturday at 2pm and 8pm, and Sunday at 2pm and 7pm. Tickets are $66.50-$121.50. 12 rush tickets at $21.25 are raffled off before each performance...for more info click here. Visit telecharge.com for tickets and check out avenueq.com for more show info including US tour dates.)

reasons to be pretty (Lyceum Theatre)

By Molly

5 POINTS OR LESS
a funny drama • young and hip • lots of f-bombs • stellar performances • pushes the envelope in a good way

Thomas Sadoski and Marin Ireland in reasons to be pretty.

BOTTOM LINE: Bitingly funny and self-aware. Perfect entertainment, especially for members of Gens X and Y.

Neil LaBute is one of the greatest American playwrights out there today. He is prolific, hip and insightful. He generally writes about people in their 20s and 30s and his characters are always flawed yet relatable archetypes. Although LaBute has recognizable work from stage and screen (he penned The Shape of Things, Fat Pig and Nurse Betty, to name a few) this marks his Broadway debut. Reasons is a good choice for Broadway because the story isn't as alienating as some of his other work. There are still squeamy moments and brutal insults characteristic of any LaBute play, but unlike some of his other work, most of the characters in reasons are truly likable. Sure, they are flawed, but at their core they are sympathetic. This is especially true of the protagonist, Greg.

LaBute's writing style is sharp and aggressive. His characters sling bad words and insults at one another, never afraid to raise their voice or fight back in self-defense. When the scene isn't heated, their witty banter is reminiscent of an especially perceptive Friends episode. LaBute's themes are often about exposing the bullshit that underlies relationships, usually involving Gen-Xers living typical American lives. The superficiality of dating is a common theme as well. LaBute's work is captivating, in part, because his characters are so evocative of people you know and his stories are so authentically relatable.

Reasons is really a wonderful script performed to perfection by the cast of four. Greg (Thomas Sadoski) works the night shift with his friend Kent (Steven Pasquale), your standard misogynistic douchebag who is charming enough to get whatever he wants. When a new, hot employee joins the staff, Greg is caught saying something degrading about how his girlfriend Steph (Marin Ireland) looks in comparison. Kent's wife Carly (Piper Perabo) overhears the comment and quickly tells Steph, as any good girlfriend would. Steph is obviously pissed and hurt and the inevitable ugly breakup of Greg and Steph results. Everyone is a little bit in the wrong: Greg shouldn't have said anything in the first place, Kent shouldn't have brought it up and encouraged Greg to talk about it, Steph shouldn't have overreacted and Carly probably shouldn't have told Steph anyway. Add to this drama the complications that arise as Kent makes bad, deceitful decisions in his own life and you get a precarious scenario between four friends.

Director Terry Kinney does a great job keeping the scenes moving and the energy high; the tension is always lingering in the air. The stage is set with a generic room of sorts, including a back wall with one window and one door and tile floor below. In between scenes, furniture and set pieces whiz on to the stage and then off again, transforming the space into Greg's house, the warehouse where they work, the mall food court and a baseball field. Reasons moves right along, never feeling tiresome or boring. And with a fun score accompanying the scene changes like a really good movie soundtrack does, Reasons adopts a fresh, movie-like quality to the production. For all of the ways that this play brilliantly utilizes its theatrical resources, it really does feel like a movie in many ways.

It's beyond refreshing to see unique stories told on stage, especially about young adults in the present. That is a genre seldom explored by work that makes it all the way to Broadway, and that could be a direct correlation between the general Broadway audience and the material. Those of you who fit into the age group that reasons delves into seriously need to see this show–it's for you, and it's freaking awesome that it gets to have a Broadway production. And even if you're not in your 20s or 30s, you can relate, you've been there, and you should definitely check out LaBute's newest play.

(reasons to be pretty plays at the Lyceum Theatre, 149 West 45th Street. Performances are Tuesday at 7pm, Wednesday through Saturday at 8pm, Wednesday and Saturday at 2pm and Sunday at 3pm. Tickets are $31.50 - $111.50. Call 212.239.6200 or visit telecharge.com. Check broadwaybox.com for discount codes. Visit doesthisplaymakemelookfat.com for more show info.)