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.)

Abraham Lincoln’s Big, Gay Dance Party (FringeNYC)

By Dan

BOTTOM LINE: Really good for the Fringe with some great moments, although it is a bit long, a bit uneven, and potentially a bit over-rated.

Abraham Lincoln’s Big, Gay Dance Party is the paradigmatic Fringe title. You have the feeling that it could be a silly, gimmicky mess, or else it could be surprisingly interesting. It veers much more to the latter is an incredibly thoughtful show. But there are gimmicky elements as well, and I think these prevent Abraham Lincoln’s Big, Gay Dance Party from being the theatrical achievement it aims to be.

Since Abe is known for being honest - let’s be real, the title Abraham Lincoln’s Big, Gay Dance Party is about as accurate as the phrase “Holy Roman Empire”- the show is not a dance party, or really any kind of party, it isn’t really about Abraham Lincoln, and it isn’t even particularly gay (yes, there some brief moments of dancing Abes, but this is a minor diversion). The play is centered around the trial of a schoolteacher in Illinois, arrested for presenting a pageant in which she had her young students tell that Abraham Lincoln was homosexual. Except Abraham Lincoln’s Big, Gay Dance Party isn’t really about this trial, nor is it about whether or not Abe was gay. Rather, it is about how different people experience these events. After a brief prologue, there are three acts, told from the points of view of three people: the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and the famous journalist who comes into town to cover the story.

As one might expect, we learn more about the events with each act and missing information in one act is filled in with the next one. However, by the third act, much of the material starts becoming old. Because an audience member decides the order of the three acts, they need to work in any order. While this seems interesting in theory, I think the play would have been more successful if playwright Aaron Loeb decided the order for us, allowing him to determine what was revealed when. As it is, we have heard enough about certain events in the first two acts to make watching them unfold in the third act less interesting than they should be. (I suspect this is the case no matter the order one sees). Also, I noticed a few inconsistencies from one act to the other that might be avoided if the order were pre-determined.

I’m also not sure about the choice of the three main characters. I would have liked a story about the journalist, the prosecutor, and the teacher. The inclusion of the defense attorney turned this into a story of political maneuvering (both she and the prosecutor are scheming to become governor). And while I appreciate that this wasn’t a didactic tale about “an issue,” I would have liked more of the play that I saw in the part about Anton, the journalist (played by the superb Mark Anderson Phillips). His scene in the cornfield with Jerry (an equally superb Michael Phillis) was the best scene in the play, extraordinarily touching and intimate without being at all preachy. In fact, this scene was so surprising to me because much of what had come before had been a bit campy, especially Anton’s sidekick Esmerelda (played by Velina Brown, who also plays the defense attorney).

I think one of the biggest problems with this play was the uneven tone. It didn’t seem to know if it wanted to be campy, silly fun, or else a serious, thought-provoking piece. Certainly, something can have aspects of both, but I sensed a certain identity-crisis here. Whereas a silly campy Fringe show might demand a convoluted plot filled with shocking twists and turns, a multi-faceted character piece that aims to show several points of view would do better to simplify, simplify, simplify.

There is a lot worth seeing here, even if it is a bit long at two and a half hours. Among other things, Abraham Lincoln’s Big, Gay Dance Party has a great set design. Bill English’s set consists of three panels in which the different set pieces are hidden. Along with a cornfield curtain, this set is the savviest I have ever seen in the Fringe (a festival that severely limits design elements). Not only does English’s set work well, it also looks good, and even has a few surprises.

Abraham Lincoln’s Big, Gay Dance Party was sold out even before the first performance, so tickets to the remaining show will certainly be hard to come by. I’d bet given its success, it will reappear at the Fringe Encores series. I’m not sure that Abraham Lincoln’s Big, Gay Dance Party lives up to the hype implied by its early sell out, but it is a solid piece of theatre that I’m glad I saw.

(Abraham Lincoln’s Big, Gay Dance Party plays at the HERE Arts Center- Mainstage Theater, 145 6th Avenue- enter on Dominick, one block south of Spring. The show is approximately 2 hours 30 minutes long, with two brief intermissions. The final performance is Saturday 8/29 at 7:15 pm. For tickets and show info visit www.abrahamlincolnsbiggaydanceparty.com and for more FringeNYC info visit fringenyc.org.)

The Boys Upstairs (FringeNYC)

by Dan

BOTTOM LINE: A fairly standard gay play (which means light and superficial). It's good for a laugh or two, but all the more disappointing because it tries (and fails) to be so much more.

As a 31-year old gay man living in Hell’s Kitchen, I would seem to be the ideal target for The Boys Upstairs (a play about a group of gay guys, all in their mid 20s to early 30s, living in Hell’s Kitchen). And while it isn’t fair to expect that a light gay comedy will portray life as it is, I still wish that The Boys Upstairs had shown me, in some way, a bit more of the heart and soul of the life I know. Because while the writing is often funny, the play as a whole left me cold.

The Boys Upstairs takes place in the midtown apartment of two roommates, Josh and Seth. Their good friend Ashley basically lives there as well, since his real apartment is so far uptown he often crashes on the couch, along with whatever trick he has found for the evening. At the beginning of the play a new guy, Eric, has moved in downstairs (thus the title). He’s attractive, and appears to be straight, so all three guys instantly fall in lust with him. Throughout the play Josh (ostensibly the main character) tries to deal with Seth’s boyfriend (who he doesn’t like), with Ashley’s parade of men, and with his own insecurities and relationship hang-ups. And of course, since this is a gay living room comedy, all of this takes place amidst a plethora of cocktails and morning-after stories.

I’m all for fabulousity - I love a great cocktail and a night out with the boys. The trouble is, as much as this team claims (in their production notes) that this play is about something serious and meaningful, it really isn’t. I didn’t care about any of the characters. Any 20 or 30-something living in Manhattan will tell you that finances are a huge concern. So how could I care about Josh, a trust fund kid who can afford to let his friend live with him for a tiny portion of the rent? Why didn’t playwright Jason Mitchell write about two guys who couldn’t go out every night, and couldn’t order in breakfast, or takes cabs to go shopping, or jet off to some Caribbean island? Wouldn’t this struggle have been more interesting?

This critique aside, The Boys Upstairs aims to be a play about friendship. But I didn’t see any friendship on stage. I saw people who had fun together, but that isn’t friendship. Friendship may occur amidst cocktails and quips, but it isn’t limited to them. Since I didn’t buy the friendship of Josh, Seth, and Ashley, everything they did ultimately seemed shallow. Late in the play, Ashley does something upsetting to Josh. But this “event” (I’m being vague on purpose) is all resolved way too quickly. Another thing that really bothered me was the series of questions Josh twitters during the scene changes, which seem to be Mitchell’s way of telling the audience what he wants them to take away from his play. This device is so obvious and heavy-handed that I cringed every time a scene ended, in preparation for what was to come.

There are many good things about The Boys Upstairs (a show that has a good chance of getting in the Fringe Encores series, which may be the only way to see it, as the two remaining shows are sold out). The five guys in the cast are all attractive (an important thing in this kind of play), and all are good actors. I especially liked Kristen-Alexzander Griffith as Ashley, the most outlandish of the three friends. Ashley could have easily been a clichéd, one-note character; to Griffith’s credit, Ashley was actually the deepest character in the play. He’s much more Emmett from Queer as Folk than Jack from Will and Grace, even though Ashley is the most flamboyant, has the funniest lines, and does the most outlandish things, there is actually a real person there. Also good is David A. Rudd, who plays all of the boyfriends, dates, and tricks; my favorite was a Don’t Tell Mama employee who hilariously speaks in showtune-ese for his entire scene. Josh Segarra was cute, likeable, and fairly believable as the somewhat unbelievably hard-to-read Eric. Less appealing were Nic Cory as Josh and Joel T. Bauer as Seth. It isn’t that they were bad, they just didn’t compensate for the superficialities of the script the way that Griffith did.

It may be that ironically, I am actually not the appropriate audience for this kind of show: many audience members seemed to be twenty years older than the boys onstage, and there were certainly lots of laughs. To be fair, there were more than a few lines that made me laugh out loud, and I was never bored. Certainly, this seems to be a crowd-pleasing show, and although I wasn’t satisfied, I can certainly see how many others will laugh a lot and enjoy their time with The Boys Upstairs.

(The Boys Upstairs plays at the Soho Playhouse, 15 Vandam Street between Varick and 6th Avenue. The show is approximately 1 hour 35 minutes long. Performances are Thursday 8/27 at 5 pm and Friday 8/28 at 7 pm. For tickets and show info visit TheBoysUpstairs.info and for more FringeNYC info visit fringenyc.org.)

Citizen Ruth (FringeNYC)

By Dan

BOTTOM LINE: The kind of musical I expect from the Fringe: Citizen Ruth shows some promise, and features a strong cast, but it’s a bit long, and doesn’t let the audience invest emotionally.

If you must see a 2009 Fringe musical based on or inspired by a film directed by Alexander Payne, then see Citizen Ruth. Not because Citizen Ruth is a terrific work of art, but because Vote! (the Fringe musical that tries to be the movie Election) is really pretty bad. While Citizen Ruth is a bit too long, and lacks a truly sympathetic character necessary for a musical, its positives ultimately balance out its negatives. If this sounds like faint praise, it is - I didn’t love Citizen Ruth, and there were times that I didn’t even like it. But I understand that creating a new musical is difficult; given the potential complexity of this material, Citizen Ruth is a decent first attempt.

Ruth Stoops is a homeless drug addict who is arrested (again); when the judge finds out that she is pregnant (again), he tells her he’ll go easier on her if she has an abortion. A particularly passionate group of Pro-lifers pays her bail, and brings her home, so they can persuade her to keep the baby. Eventually a pro-choice group gets their hands on her, and the battle begins.

From what I can tell, the musical follows the plot of the movie (which I haven’t seen) fairly closely. Both sides come off as fairly selfish, and it is clear that everyone seems to care more about the debate than they care about Ruth. But my main trouble with this musical is that I didn’t care much about Ruth either. This is not the fault of Garrett Long, who does an excellent job as the confused, used and abused Ruth. Long perfectly captures the way Ruth is pulled back and forth throughout the show, without ever once letting us forget that Ruth is, in her own way, an incredibly strong woman. Rather, the problem is in the way that Ruth is written - she doesn’t tell us, or anyone else, much about herself. She has two solos, “God Help Me” and “What About What I Want,” but they are unmelodic, unrhymed, whiny, and annoying (as opposed to the rest of the score, which is not this at all). In a musical, the audience often gets to know a main character through her songs. But these two solos are so obnoxious that I quickly tuned out, so Citizen Ruth became less about a troubled woman (an interesting subject for a musical) and more about an overly familiar debate (not so interesting for a musical).

From the laughter and applause in the almost sold-out theatre, it seems that many people did not mind this. The supporting cast (all of whom play several characters) is great; my favorites included Zack Collona as the way-too-sunny kid Matthew Stoney, Marya Grandy as the crazily intense Nurse Pat, Dennis Stowe as the hilariously annoyed Larry Jarvik, and the always dependable Annie Golden as the (admittedly random) chick rock star Jesse Dove. The costumes also deserve a mention. Unlike many Fringe shows (which tend to have merely suitable costumes that seem to have come from the actors’ closets), Clint Ramos’s costumes really help with character development. While there were some unnecessary projections, and the ever-present headset mics (which never work properly in Fringe shows - when will people learn?), these are minor flaws in an otherwise well-staged production.

And other than a few of Ruth’s songs, much of the score is worth a listen. Citizen Ruth remains light-hearted throughout, especially for a musical about abortion. While I didn’t laugh as hard as those around me, there were some funny moments, and I was never confused. My main problem was that I wanted to be more emotionally involved in the story (because I wasn’t, the second act began to get monotonous, and the ending was extremely sudden and unsatisfying). These critiques aside, if you are interested in politically-engaged new musicals that will also make you laugh, you might want to visit Citizen Ruth.

(Citizen Ruth plays at the Minetta Lane Theatre, 18 Minetta Lane, between 6th Avenue and MacDougal Street. The show is approximately 2 hours long, with one brief intermission. Performances are Sunday 8/23 at 10:30 pm and Monday 8/24 at 7:30 pm. For tickets and show info visit citizenruth.info and for more FringeNYC info visit fringenyc.org.)

America’s Next Top Bottom: Cycle 5! (FringeNYC)

By Dan

BOTTOM LINE: The first show I’ve seen with a literal “bottom line.” This is an improvisational comedy contest - the humor is dumb, dumb, dumb, but also very funny.

America’s Next Top Bottom: Cycle 5! is not a meditative look on the interrelationships of American gay men in the first decade of the 21st century, nor is it a reflection on the mores of sexual practices in a community that seems to be torn between seemingly conflicting desires for normalcy and queerness. Believe it or not, America’s Next Top Bottom: Cycle 5! is actually a comedy show in which the audience votes on which of seven flamboyant men will become America’s Next Top Bottom.

If you’re turned off already, then you probably don’t need to continue reading. But if you’re even mildly intrigued, then you’ll be glad to know that this fifth installation of America’s Next Top Bottom (the first four cycles occurred at the Celebration Theatre in Los Angeles) is frequently hilarious, largely improvisational, and very, very, very dumb (and I mean that as a compliment).

After introducing the seven contestants, a series of games and elimination challenges whittles the contest down to three finalists, and then the audience chooses a winner by voting with ballots that come in the program. There are different games in each show; the night I went, one challenge involved Teddy Teddy pulling a random prop from a bag and then asking each contestant to use it in a “talent contest” (you have to….juggle these Barbie dolls!) Yes, it all sounds very silly, and it is. But it is also very high energy, and at only about an hour, ends before it has the chance to get monotonous.

Drew Droege plays host Trina Sugg, a Franzia-drinking stressed-out mother who is thrilled to be bringing the show to “Broadway New York.” Trina Sugg, and her co-host Teddy Teddy (Pete Zias does this take-off on club kid Kenny Kenny) are the funniest people on stage, always ready with random asides that often made me laugh out loud. Much of the show is improvised; for example, the contestants didn’t seem to know what games to expect, which helped create the atmosphere of a contest. And as with a lot of improvisational comedy, the people on stage often make each other laugh as well.

If I have any critique, it is that some of the contestants rely too heavily on overly familiar racial stereotypes; for instance, I preferred “Corky Adaire” (a professional seat filler) to “Harajuku Sulu” (an Japanese guy with a hard-to-understand accent). But the show succeeds because it doesn’t just rely on the wackiness of these personas, but on the humor found in good improvisational comedy.

America’s Next Top Bottom isn’t overtly sexual, and there is no nudity, although the cast is liable to say anything. And while the audience seemed to be primarily full of gay men, this isn’t necessarily a gay show. Rather, this show will appeal to anyone who enjoys really dumb humor, like watching someone do ballet to Kelis’s “Milkshake”, or make up a poem from the words “New Jersey,” “grapefruit,” and “canary”. Or to put it another way - if you like Drew Droege as the voice of “Feathers” in the cult web show Planet Unicorn, you’ll find him hilarious in America’s Next Top Bottom: Cycle 5!

(America’s Next Top Bottom: Cycle 5! is unfortunately no longer running in the Fringe Festival. For show info visit americasnexttopbottom.com and for more FringeNYC info visit fringenyc.org.)

A History of Cobbling (FringeNYC)

By Dan

BOTTOM LINE: A short, bizarrely funny play that both entertains and stays with you.

I fully admit - I only went to see A History of Cobbling because my friend thought it sounded interesting. On my own, I probably wouldn’t have noticed it, as it is one of those plays that tends to get lost amongst other, flashier titles in the Fringe catalog. But I’m very glad I went. A History of Cobbling may be one of the more interesting plays I’ve seen in a long time, because it strides that fine line between fantasy and reality, between the ridiculous and the mundane.

The play takes place in the kitchen of Michael and Loraine’s home, as they discuss the surprising event of the day: on a deserted city street, Michael met a foot high English cobbler. Justin T. Klose and Cameron Reed, who also co-wrote the play, are Michael and Loraine. Both are excellent, and create complex characters that have lot more going on than it might at first seem. Reed’s somewhat daffy Loraine is especially delightful, and her speech is peppered with a lot of malapropisms that are as funny as they are unexpected.

All too often playwrights feel the need to tell the audience everything through dialogue; in A History of Cobbling, Klose and Reed wisely avoid this temptation. While Michael and Loraine are at first surprised by the presence of the foot high people, their conversation begins to ramble, and they are soon speaking about the most random subjects. And weirdly, it reminded me of many conversations I’ve had with my partner, in which something that at first seems shocking quickly becomes ordinary, and the talk moves on to the everyday events that are the bulk of most relationships. In other words, A History of Cobbling reminds us that relationships are built on things like grocery lists. But this isn’t just a typical play about a normal couple. In this strange little world, Michael and Loraine have a lot that they don’t talk about, and these elephants in the room become more and more evident as the play progresses.

I think everyone will read something different into this play; for me, it is about the need to keep going in the face of loss, and that while the desire to forget might seem to translate into an inability to remember, memories have a way of resurfacing in the most unexpected places. If this implies that A History of Cobbling is serious and somber, don’t be fooled. I laughed a lot during this piece; at times I had no idea why things were funny, since much of what goes on is so very odd. I enjoyed myself tremendously, and would recommend this to anyone looking for an entertaining play that doesn’t hit you over the head, but has enough substance to give you something to think and talk about after it is over. In a sense, A History of Cobbling is a lot like the cobbler Michael meets - short, a bit surreal and bizarre and strange, and much more affecting than it might at first appear.

(A History of Cobbling plays at the Soho Playhouse, 15 Vandam Street between Varick and 6th Avenue. The show is approximately 45 minutes long. Performances are Thursday 8/20 at 8:30 pm, Friday 8/21 at 3:30 pm and Tuesday 8/25 at 5:45 pm. For tickets and show info visit www.myspace.com/ahistoryofcobbling and for more FringeNYC info visit fringenyc.org.)

I Can Has Cheezburger: The MusicLOL! (FringeNYC)

By Dan

BOTTOM LINE: A sweet, fun, and often hilarious musical that may well be one of the must-sees of this year’s New York Fringe Festival.

ICanHasCheezburger.com is a popular website that basically consists of photos of cats accompanied by funny captions, many of which are grammatically incorrect (this “lolspeak” both parodies internet slang, and serves endearingly as the “thoughts” and “words” of the cats in the pictures.) Why on earth would it occur to anyone to make a musical out of such material? I have no idea, but fortunately for us, it occurred to Kristyn Pomranz and Katherine Steinberg, and the result is I Can Has Cheezburger: The MusicLOL!

I Can Has Cheezburger: The MusicLOL! is quintessential Fringe - a very silly musical made from unlikely source material. But while some shows seem to rely solely on a strange premise or enticing title (the cynic in me feels that the more interesting the title, the less interesting the show), I Can Has Cheezburger: The MusicLOL! actually delivers. It is incredibly sweet, and often hilarious.

The show begins with one woman showing her friend (and the audience) the ICanHasCheezburger.com website. All the while, her own cat lusts after the cheeseburger sitting on her desk. She decides to take a picture of him, and soon he is uploaded into internet world (where he is called Lolcat, and can now talk and sing), on his quest to find his true love, a cheeseburger. Along the way, Lolcat meets various characters, including Drop (another cat who also hopes for a cheeseburger), Lolrus (a walrus who yearns for a bucket), and Jodie (a mouse who wants someone to love). The characters are all inspired by ICanHasCheezburger.com and its related websites, and the show is frequently augmented by projections of the photos found there.

To be sure, these photos (and their captions) are essential to the show. Without them, the show wouldn’t be so funny (and most likely, it wouldn’t make much sense). The projections are extremely well-timed and well-placed. (Important - make sure to sit close enough so that you can see the top of the screen and fortunately there is a projection up when you walk in so you’ll be able to tell). Indeed, the biggest laughs come from the various photos; one could argue that the projections are really the core of the show, and everything else is just filler. But ultimately, I think the show works because both halves (the projections and the book-score-performances) work together incredibly well. I’d argue that each half depends on the other.

The cast is uniformly good. Seth Grugle is adorable as Lolcat- the “everycat” of the piece. Vincent DiGeronimo is also great as the cuddly Lolrus, although I had a difficult time understanding many of the lyrics in his songs. And then there is Bryan Welnicki, who plays Drop, a cat who sits under a box waiting for a cheeseburger to fall from the sky. He only has one song, but Welnicki gives my favorite performance in the show.

I also loved the story to this musical. Yes, this is a standard “quest” plot line (in this case, the quest is a Cheezburger). But if it isn’t sophisticated, it doesn’t need to be; the story held my interest, and I even liked the ending. If anything needs work, it is the score. While many of the songs have clever lyrics, the music is not very interesting. I enjoyed Jodie’s solo “Someone to Eat Cheese With” (Carly Zien has maybe the strongest voice in the cast), and the closing number “Tasty Taste of Love” is a terrific finale, and the best song of the show. But aside from these two exceptions, most of the music is more or less forgettable. In fact, I think that with better music, this show could be incredibly successful in a commercial off-Broadway engagement.

But even with a mediocre score, I had a great time at I Can Has Cheezburger: The MusicLOL! I laughed a lot, and had a smile on my face the entire time. Judging by the response of the (sold out) audience around me, lots of other people liked it as well. This is one of the few Fringe shows I’d recommend to everyone- if you are open to having a silly, light-hearted good time, you’ll enjoy this. And it isn’t just for cat lovers (although I must admit that yes, I wrote this review with a cat on my lap). I wouldn’t be surprised if it returned for the Fringe Encores series in September. But in case it doesn’t, try to make one of the remaining three performances (and buy soon!). Most Fringe shows have something worthwhile about them. But very few provide as much pure enjoyment as I Can Has Cheezburger: The MusicLOL!

(I Can Has Cheezburger: The MusicLOL! plays at the Cherry Lane Theater, 38 Commerce Street between 7th Avenue & Hudson Street. The show is approximately 1 hour 20 minutes long. Performances are Tuesday 8/18 at 6:15 pm, Wednesday 8/26 at 9:15 pm, and Friday 8/28 at 4:45 pm. For tickets and show info visit icanhascheezburgerthemusiclol.com and for more FringeNYC info visit fringenyc.org.)

How Now, Dow Jones (FringeNYC)

By Dan

BOTTOM LINE: A newly revised version of a semi-obscure 1968 Broadway musical, How Now, Dow Jones is worth seeing, especially if you’ve ever felt that “they sure don’t make ‘em like that anymore.”

Many shows at the Fringe are new works, hoping to gain notice through the festival and have future lives, like Urinetown famously did (a show that started at the Fringe and went on to run for several years on Broadway). How Now, Dow Jones is one of the first shows I’ve heard of that is doing the reverse - after a run on Broadway back in 1968, and six Tony award nominations (and one win), How Now, Dow Jones is now seeking additional attention at the Fringe.

More specifically, this is a revamped, significantly edited version of the How Now, Dow Jones that appeared on Broadway forty years ago. Director Ben West added three songs and some unused dialogue, and he eliminated four major characters, five musical numbers, and the entire ensemble. So a standard two act musical with large production numbers has become a short one-act piece that seems to focus more on the main characters.

Of course, without having seen the full-length version, it is difficult to know how this revised version compares. Kate is frustrated because her fiancé won’t marry her until the Dow Jones hits 1,000. Charley feels like killing himself because he fails at everything he tries. While it is clear from the outset that these two will wind up together, I felt that this main story got lost sometimes, and that the stakes weren’t really high enough until much later on in the piece.

That said, I really enjoyed this short, sweet musical. Cristen Paige plays Kate, and is perfectly suited to this kind of “old-school” material; her “Walk Away” is a standout. And as Charley, Colin Hanlon is extremely charming and affable. While there was something about him that seemed very 2009 (as opposed to Paige, who manages to appear very 1968), Hanlon’s “Gawk, Tousle and Shucks” is a delight, with Hanlon’s goofy “aw shucks” faces making the song a high point in the show. The rest of the cast members are great as well, although some seem a little young (so that the most age-appropriate actor seems too old, in comparison). And with one exception, all of them project well with very little amplification. It is a relief to see a musical that doesn’t rely on those annoying headset mics that seem so ubiquitous these days.

The one obvious thing missing from this How Now, Dow Jones is the large production numbers, especially “Step to the Rear.” (Check out bluegobo.com to see Tony Roberts and company sing it on the 1968 Tony Awards. The choreography is by Michael Bennett, who was brought in when the show was out of town but requested to remain uncredited.) The song remains in the show; understanding that it is the most hummable song in the score, West saves it for the end. While the eight-person cast does a great job with it, there still seems to be something missing - it is still an eight-person cast doing a full production number. I think this final song would have succeeded more if it had been the only dance number in the show. There are a few times when the duo of “Dow” (Shane Bland) and “Jones” (Dennis O’Bannion) dance around the stage, as if to make up for the lack of a full dance ensemble. While they are fine dancers, these two simply can’t replace a twenty-person chorus.

Nevertheless, I highly recommend seeing How Now, Dow Jones. It is fun, has great music that is likely unfamiliar to even the most avid fan of musical theatre, and at 75 minutes, is almost over too soon.

(How Now, Dow Jones plays at the Minetta Lane Theatre, 18 Minetta Lane, between 6th Avenue and MacDougal Street. The show is approximately 1 hour 15 minutes long. Performances are Monday 8/17 at 10:30 pm, Tuesday 8/18 at 8 pm, Thursday 8/20 at 8:15 pm, and Sunday 8/23 at 5:45 pm. For tickets and show info visit HowNowDowJones.com and for more FringeNYC info visit fringenyc.org.)

VOTE! A New Musical (Fringe NYC)

It's time for a Theasy Point/Counterpoint!!

Zak - POINT

I had a good time at VOTE! A New Musical. There’s a lot of buzz surrounding this new musical about a high school election, due in part to its star-packed cast with a slew of Broadway performers (most notably Bailey Hanks, Winner of MTV’s “Legally Blonde the Search for Elle Woods and Broadway star Deidre Goodwin who had appeared in eight Broadway shows including A Chorus Line, Chicago and Nine and also the film version of Chicago.

VOTE! Follows three candidates on their road to the highest elected office in the land at typical American high school. While it might appear to just be a fluff piece about the inner workings of high school politics, VOTE! does briefly try to pose some bigger questions about our country’s political system. It’s lighthearted fun. VOTE! Doesn’t take itself to seriously and the nearly 400 audience members on opening night seemed to enjoy it. The score, written by Steven Jamail, is catchy and well crafted and the cast gives it their all and delivers solid performances across the board. All and all, worth a trip to the polling booth at the Minetta Lane Theatre to catch VOTE!

Dan - COUNTERPOINT

I decided to see VOTE! for one reason: it featured Deidre Goodwin. And to that extent, I got what I came for. Goodwin is terrific, and somehow manages to sell her one song “Hands of a Surgeon,” even though it makes absolutely no sense and has nothing to do with the plot of the musical (I think the song is about mnemonic devices, or about how Goodwin’s character could have been a surgeon but decided her talent was teaching, or maybe just about giving Goodwin a chance to wail). And Goodwin even gets a chance to dance, although it is only at the very end of the show, and for not nearly as long as I would have liked.

I just wish the rest of the musical had been even a quarter as entertaining. Maybe it isn’t fair to expect Fringe musicals to be fully realized, professional productions. But at the very least, I’d hope they would make sense. As best as I could tell, VOTE! is about a high school election for student council president (parallels to the far superior movie Election abound). But Muffin, the main character (gamely played by Bailey Hanks), doesn’t really seem to care much about winning the election. In fact, she doesn’t really participate in the campaign process at all; she seems to prefer looking at and thinking about airplanes. Apparently she wants to be a stewardess? I’m not sure why, or why we should care, but as there were several songs, and even a bit of choreography, that made reference to airplanes, I’m pretty sure Muffin likes them.

VOTE! isn’t awful; the energetic cast is a lot of fun and two cast members I found myself watching a lot were Daniel Robinson and Robbie Fowler. And some of the music is hummable, especially the final song. However, some lyrics could use work, such as “I want to be the villian’s girl, I tried to be good but it made me want to hurl.”

But VOTE! doesn’t work as a musical, unless the point is just to showcase a bunch of random, unconnected songs. For the most part, the book makes absolutely no sense. And when I could figure out what was going on, I didn’t care, because there is little, if any, character development. The production relies on a lot of unnecessary set pieces - why is there a huge blackboard that says “Return Your Textbooks?" And I even found some elements a bit offensive - why can’t the attractive blond cheerleader also be intelligent (spoiler - she cheats). And why does Nikki, the black girl, have to sing a song about how her main goal in life is to be “Just Black Enough?” The song comes out of nowhere, and implies that only black people need be concerned with racial politics.

The whole show just seemed to be thrown together, as if a bunch of high school students developed a musical in a week, each writing a different scene. There is promise here, but the material needs a lot of work. If you’re itching to see Deidre Goodwin perform, VOTE! might be worth checking out. But there are over 200 shows at FringeNYC this year, so if your time is limited, I’d look elsewhere.

(VOTE! A New Musical performs at The Minetta Lane Theatre, 18 Minetta Lane between MacDougal and 6th Avenue. Remaining performances are Sunday 8/23 at 3pm and Wednesday 8/26 at 5:30 pm. Tickets are $15. For more show info and tickets visit votethemusical.com and for more FringeNYC info visit fringenyc.org.)

Puppetry of the Penis (45 Bleecker)

By Dan

FIVE POINTS OR LESS
Silly, silly, silly • full frontal male nudity • great for groups of women • best experienced with a drink (or three)

BOTTOM LINE: Dumb, juvenile fun...two men form their genitals into different shapes. You were expecting something different?

I somehow won a pair of tickets to Puppetry of the Penis, so I finally got my chance to check out this show, which had a decent run in New York several years back. The general gist of the show is in the title - two men perform the “art of genital origami” pulling, shaping, and twisting their “tools” into various shapes including food, the signature Hamburger; animals, the Sea Anenome; and modes of transportation, the Roller Skate).

What can I say? It is what it is, juvenile, but potentially fun. The two young men (Rich Binning and Christopher J Cannon- both in their 20s) are perfect for this show. They embrace the silly humor, and quickly make the audience feel comfortable. This is not an erotic show at all, nor should it be. But yes, the puppeteers are naked for almost the entire show. As they narrate and prepare the various “dick tricks,” a video camera is aimed at the results, magnifying each trick so that everyone in the audience can see it. (Watch out for the aisles though - there are poles that may obscure your view of the screen).

There were a good number of people there on the Wednesday night I went- mostly women, some of whom had brought men along with them. There were also several pairs of (presumably) gay men. And this makes sense - the show probably appeals to those who don’t mind spending some time looking at two naked (and attractive, which surprised me!) men play with themselves. The women seemed to laugh a lot more, I’m assuming because the “tools” are somewhat foreign, and so the “tricks” seemed more strange and surprising.

At one point, Rich and Chris asked if any man in the audience wanted to try a trick with them, and to my surprise, a guy went on stage; he dropped his pants and made the Hamburger! I can’t be sure, but he didn’t look like a plant to me - his face was a bit flushed, and he looked both excited and embarrassed, “I can’t believe I’m doing this.”

The show is 90 minutes long, but the first 30 minutes is taken up by one of three female comedians. I saw Amy Schumer, and although she was funny for a few minutes, I thought she soon lost the audience. I’m guessing the comedy is meant to be a warm up to the main event, but for my friend and I, it actually did the opposite...we were having less fun during the intermission than we were when we first walked in. Hopefully the other two women are better; if not, you can always get a drink during intermission. Or to avoid the comedian altogether, you can hire the puppeteers for private parties (I’m not kidding).

(Puppetry of the Penis plays at 45 Bleecker (just east of Lafayette Street). Right now, tickets are on sale through September 13. Performances are Tuesday at 7pm, Wednesday through Friday at 8pm, Saturday at 7pm & 9:30pm, and Sunday at 7pm. Tickets are $39-$59. The show is about 90 minutes, with one intermission. Visit telecharge.com to buy tickets, and puppetryofthepenis.com for more info. Between September 8th and September 20th you can also try the “20 at 20” program ($20 tickets 20 minutes before the show). See 20at20.com for details.)

The Bacchae (Shakespeare in the Park)

By Dan

5 POINTS OR LESS
free theatre in Central Park • a boring production of a (potentially) thrilling text • probably won’t be a hot ticket

BOTTOM LINE: Even though it is free, I’d suggest skipping this. If you’ve seen The Bacchae before, you’ve probably seen a better production. If you haven’t, this production shouldn’t be the first one you see.

There are some good things about the Public Theater’s production of The Bacchae, now playing in Central Park. It is free. It is outside. It is about 90 minutes, no intermission. And most likely, you won’t need to camp out overnight to get a ticket (like many did earlier this summer to see Twelfth Night). Are there bad things? Well, you have to sit through this boring, boring production.

It isn’t that The Bacchae, by Euripedes, is a boring play, or even that the ancient text is in any way difficult to understand. Dionysus (a god) gets upset at King Pentheus (a mortal, and also his cousin) for refusing to worship him, so he drives Agave (the king’s mother) and a bunch of other women crazy. Agave tears her son apart, limb from limb, and then is heartbroken when she comes to her senses and sees that she is holding her dead son’s body parts in her hands. There is lots of ecstatic, even orgiastic behavior here: madness, violence, and tons of blood. This is a play that could be many things (raw, sexual, sensual, earthy, disgusting, tragic, frightening, seductive) but boring should not be one of them. Unfortunately, even though I knew it was a short one-act play, I couldn’t wait for it to be over.

My biggest problem with this production is the Chorus of twelve women. I feel bad for the actors- they have to remain on stage the entire time, singing slow, monotonous music (it reminded me of something a cantor in church might sing). Other characters also sing, but the score (composed by Phillip Glass) is never appropriate for this piece. The choral singing is accompanied by “movement”- the women prance around the stage performing random gestures that seem completely disconnected from the actual text. These chorus sections sap what little energy there is from this production. Plus, the women are saddled with some of the ugliest costumes I’ve seen on stage in a long time (bright orange and yellow MC Hammer pants!). Unfortunately, this is just one example of the inexplicable costume choices. If someone can figure out why Teiresias ends the show in black sequined pants, please let me know.

But there are additional problems. In my opinion, Jonathan Groff is miscast as Dionysus. Dionysus should be seductive and sexual, someone who draws us in to worship him. But here, Groff comes off as a whiny schoolboy (especially at the beginning, when he complained that no one would worship him). This worked well in Spring Awakening (he starred as Melchior), but not so great here. A few other names people might recognize: Anthony Mackie (recently seen in The Hurt Locker) plays Pentheus, and André de Shields plays Teiresias, the blind prophet. Both are fine in their roles, but neither stands out in a way that held my interest. (I didn’t like Mackie’s cross-dressing scene at all - he goes from hesitant to put on a dress to super campy in about 5 seconds. But I blame director Joanne Akalaitis for this.)

In fact, this production seems so misguided that I’m guessing Akalaitis had some kind of driving concept in her head (perhaps a desire to go back to the performance style of the Ancient Greeks, combined with Dionysus as a Christ-figure?), one that caused her and Glass to ignore the show as an audience member might see it. In any case, this concept is not communicated to the audience at all. So all of the choices appear extremely random, and because there is nothing exciting to watch, boredom sets in very quickly. I felt like I was watching a PBS lecture on Ancient Greek theatre. Or like I was in a church, watching a Sunday school class put on the play. I actually found the program (with extensive dramaturgical notes) more interesting than the production.

If after all of this, you still want to see The Bacchae (it is free, after all), the good news is that it probably won’t be difficult to get tickets. I got to the park about 6:30pm and waited on the standby line. Even though it seemed as if I was fairly far back in the line, I got a ticket. While this was my first time waiting on the standby line, I’ve heard that if you’re there by 6 or 6:30 (5:30 to be really safe), you probably shouldn’t have any trouble getting in. (Caveat: if you are going with someone else, you won’t be guaranteed two tickets together, since the standby line is only 1 per person). And because I really don’t think this will be a hot ticket, I can’t imagine the line will get worse. Of course, you could also go to Central Park when they do their initial distribution at 1pm. (And again, I don’t see the need to get on this line super early in the morning).

(The Bacchae runs through August 30th. Added performance (stand-by line only): August 24. No performance: August 25. The show plays at the Delacorte Theater, located in Central Park at 81st Street, Tuesday through Sunday at 8 pm. It is approximately 90 minutes with no intermission. Normal ticket distribution is 1pm at the Delacorte (2 tickets per person). Tickets are handed out to the stand-by line starting at 7:30pm (these are 1 per person). Tickets are also available through the virtual line, and there are a few days of outer borough distribution - see www.publictheater.org for more info.)

Suspicious Package: Rx (The Brick Theater)

By Dan

5 POINTS OR LESS
interactive theatre/walking tour/video game • great for teenagers, dates, and small groups • great for the summer-you aren’t stuck inside on a nice afternoon • for anyone and everyone (except perhaps the extremely self-conscious) • GO!

BOTTOM LINE: HIGHLY recommended for everyone; if you can follow instructions, you’ll have a great time.

Describing something as “Interactive Theatre” might seem off-putting to some, evoking images of audience participation in which you might be brought on stage and made to do silly things, or else a kind of cheesy feel-good experience in which everyone claps along in time to music. But as someone who does not like most kinds of audience participation, to the point where I refuse to clap in time when certain musicals ask the audience to do so, Suspicious Package: Rx is a different kind of interactive theatre.

Suspicious Package: Rx has a cast of 6, and ALL are audience members. But don’t worry...you aren’t “performing” for anyone else; rather, you “experience” this show rather than simply watch it. The experience begins at the Brick Theater, where Creator/Director Gyda Arber meets with the group of six people. Everyone is assigned a role (Colonel, Chemist, Secretary, Computer Whiz, Doctor, Executive) and gets a costume piece. Arber has everyone introduce themselves, and asks each one a question designed to get you into character. I was the Computer Whiz, and she asked me to talk about any ways in which I was nerdy (of course I had many to choose from!)

Then Arber gives everyone a Zune Media Player (its like a video iPod) to guide you through the experience. Periodically, you receive instructions about where to go and what to do (“Facing the Brick theatre, turn to your left and walk up the stairs ahead of you”). Interspersed with this are video flashbacks that fill in your backstory, and audio “inner dialogue” that tells you about what “you” are thinking. At times, you will wind up in the same location as one or more of the other participants, and you’ll be given lines to read (this is the theatre aspect).

The key thing is that each person’s experience is different. The media players are coordinated; you might walk away from someone else in the group, only to meet up with them at some point later on, and have a scene together. Then you might leave and go somewhere else, and speak with another character. As the experience goes on, you learn more about the story and the characters. (Without giving too much away, Suspicious Package: Rx is a sci-fi dystopia, set in 1960's Williamsburg, with survivors of a recent plague taking an antidepressant drug.)

I had a terrific time at Suspicious Package: Rx, as did my friend (who normally does not like theatre, especially on a beautiful summer afternoon). We enjoyed the experience of walking around, following the directions, and then all of a sudden talking to another character. And because we didn’t know much about the plot, we also had to work to piece together the different pieces of the story, trying to figure out what exactly was going on. All was clear by the end, but I would definitely return again to experience a different character (you get to choose your character when you reserve).

Do I have any criticisms? The acting and costumes in the video footage was fairly amateur, although this didn’t matter at all. And the more amateur look kind of fits in with the entire experience, since the “cast” of each show is of course decidedly amateur. And there were a couple times when I anticipated some directions. For instance, I was told to walk to an establishment. I walked there, went inside and sat down. I watched some video footage, and then heard the instructions “go inside and sit down”- turns out I had entered and watched a dialogue I wasn’t really supposed to have seen. It didn’t ruin anything, and these slight deviations from the script are a part of any piece of live theatre. But I’d advise following the directions as closely as possible. And keep in mind that not knowing what is going on is part of the experience.

Note- if you’re extremely self-conscious, you might feel a bit strange. You wear a small costume piece throughout the show, and occasionally have conversations with other people in public places that might seem weird to those who aren’t part of the experience. Of course, this is NY, so most people walking the streets of Williamsburg won’t bat an eye. At the end, the table next to us started listening in on our conversation. Turns out they had finished the experience an hour earlier. But of course, we didn’t know that at the time, so it suddenly felt like we had a real audience.

I highly recommend Suspicious Package: Rx. While it isn’t scheduled to run much longer, Arber told me they were thinking of extending the show. She also said she would do it by appointment, so if you have a group of six people, you can probably arrange a time with her. If you have a group of 4 people, ask Arber about the original Suspicious Package, which has a film noir theme. If you’re looking for something fun to do this weekend, definitely check it out.

(Suspicious Package: RX plays at the Brick Theater, 575 Metropolitan Avenue, in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. ½ a block from the Lorimer stop of the L train. All tickets $20, including a post-show beverage. Reservations Required. The entire experience runs about an hour. Tickets available through theatermania.com (212-352-3101 or 1-866-811-4111). For more information visit www.suspiciouspackageshow.com. Right now, you can only buy tickets for July 18th, 19th and 25th, but you might be able to arrange additional experiences by contacting Gyda Arber directly: gyda@bricktheater.com.)

Dan Talks Tonys

Part 3- Everything Else

In this third and final installment, I’ll go through my thoughts on the remaining awards, and then I’ll rant a bit about the upcoming broadcast, and why I think the Tony Award Broadcast is needlessly becoming dumber and dumber each year. But first…

DESIGN AWARDS
This is only the fifth year in which there have been separate design awards for plays and musicals, and only the second in which an award has been given for sound design. So whereas in 2004 there were only three design categories, now there are eight. The winners in these categories are often the hardest to predict. But for those who want to win a Tony contest (like the one on Theatre is Easy - enter here - the design categories can be crucial.

Of course, it is hard to know how people vote. It isn’t that I think voters are mindless when they vote for design awards, it is just that there is so much to take in when you see a play once. While I believe that many voters try to select the most deserving nominee, I think sometimes it is hard to figure out who that is. Sometimes, they just vote down the line for whatever is the big show of the season. This happened in 2001 with The Producers (I am STILL annoyed about this, the lighting for Jane Eyre was far superior). And last year, South Pacific won all four musical design awards, but in this case, I felt it deserved them. Since Billy Elliot has been nominated for all four musical design awards, a sweep is possible. On the other hand, design awards are often a place where voters can award a show that they liked, but didn’t vote for anywhere else. For example, last year The 39 Steps (which is somehow still running) won two Tony awards, for Lighting and Sound Design. Voters may also vote based on the designer’s history at the Tonys: for example, costume designer Jane Greenwood received her 16th Tony nomination this year for Waiting for Godot, and has never won. (And I doubt she’ll win this year). But that would mean voters say to themselves “Michael Yeargan should win Best Scenic Design of a Play,” as opposed to saying “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone should win Best Scenic Design of a Play.” (It would also mean they know who has and who hasn’t won a Tony.)

It could be that voters “vote down the line” more with musicals than with plays. Or it could be that because scenic and costume design is more “concrete” (you can spot it in a photograph, for example), voters are more likely to actually vote based on the designs. In comparison, lighting and sound design have less tangible “products,” and so perhaps in these categories, voters just go with the show they liked the best. It’s worth mentioning that the Tony website, tonyawards.com, has this year started what will hopefully be an ongoing feature: a three minute clip of every nominated show (play, musical, and special event). The clips I saw seemed to provide a good sample of each nominated production. So if you want to make some informed guesses in the design categories, it might be worth checking these videos out.

Here are my best guesses as to who will win the design awards. But some of these categories are really tough to call.

BEST SCENIC DESIGN OF A PLAY
I’m guessing 33 Variations here—it has the most intricate set, and I can still remember those sheets of paper flying through the air as the set was moved. (Also nominated: Exit the King, Joe Turner’s Come and Gone, and The Norman Conquests).

BEST COSTUME DESIGN OF A PLAY
Tough category. Rule out Blithe Spirit. Exit the King has regal costumes, and a bit absurdist. Waiting for Godot has the Susan Lucci of costume design (Jane Greenwood). But I’ll go with Mary Stuart, if only because the concept (women in Victorian dresses, men in modern suits) was so brilliant. Plus, I think voters will want to reward this show with something.

BEST LIGHTING DESIGN OF A PLAY
Again, tough call. I’d rule out Equus, simply because it closed. But it’s a toss up between the other three. Joe Turner’s Come and Gone has Brian MacDevitt, who has three Tonys already. 33 Variations has a beautiful overall aesthetic, which could help it stand out. And Mary Stuart has rain.

BEST SOUND DESIGN OF A PLAY
I’d go with Exit the King, if only because it has the most memorable “effects.” Equus also had some great “effects” (the scraping of horse hooves was particularly haunting). But again, it closed. (Also nominated: Joe Turner’s Come and Gone and Mary Stuart).

BEST SCENIC DESIGN OF A MUSICAL
The set for Billy Elliot isn’t pretty, but it moves around in interesting ways. And it’s big, which is always a plus. I’d actually give it to [title of show], for daring to only have four chairs and a keyboard, but I’m perverse like that. (Also nominated: Guys and Dolls, Next to Normal, and Pal Joey).

BEST COSTUME DESIGN OF A MUSICAL
Hopefully this will be the category that will prevent a Billy Elliot design sweep. Many are predicting Tim Hatley’s designs for Shrek will win, but I also wouldn’t count out Michael McDonald’s gorgeous costumes for Hair, which are clearly visible to the audience since the performers often come right up near you. (Also nominated: Rock of Ages).

BEST LIGHTING DESIGN OF A MUSICAL
Kevin Adams is nominated twice here, and while his designs for Next to Normal were good, I hope he wins for Hair - the lighting in that show is stunning. But Billy Elliot is also a possibility. (Also nominated: West Side Story).

BEST SOUND DESIGN OF A MUSICAL
Hair has people running out into the audience, and Next to Normal has an orchestra scattered around the stage: both seem like big challenges sound-wise. I’d actually vote for Rock of Ages...as loud as the music was, I could also hear every single word and sung lyric, even during the loudest guitar riff. But while I thought the sound design to Billy Elliot was atrocious (rarely do I notice sound design this much!), I’m betting it has a good chance of winning.

BEST SPECIAL THEATRICAL EVENT
Ok, so this is the one category in which I didn’t see ANY of the nominees. Does this mean I have nothing to say? Ha! Liza's at The Palace is a sure winner here, and while I still regret not trekking out in the snow to see Liza Minnelli’s show this winter, I’m looking forward to an entertaining acceptance speech. Her closest competition would seem to be Will Ferrell’s show You're Welcome America- A Final Night with George W. Bush. At least, this is the show that did the best at the box office. But Ferrell isn’t someone Tony voters care much about, especially since he refused (repeatedly, I heard) to host the Tony awards this year (Neil Patrick Harris is hosting this year). The other two nominees are Slava's Snowshow- a holiday transfer of a Russian clowning spectacle, and Soul of Shaolin- a Chinese martial arts spectacle. Both may have been nice shows. But they aren’t Liza, and as one might say, Liza IS the Tonys!

The Snubs
It’s worth briefly reviewing some of the people and shows that didn’t receive nominations this year. Almost every one was from a show that closed in 2008 or January 2009. And while shows that don’t run into the spring often don’t do as well in the Tonys, the sheer quality of the Fall shows, and the almost total lack of nominations, is particularly noticeable this year. In fact, not counting the special theatrical events, only three shows that closed in or before January received any nominations- [title of show] received one, and Dividing the Estate and Irving Berlin’s White Christmas each received two.

While I didn’t see Impressionism, A Man For All Seasons, Hedda Gabler, The Philanthropist, Accent on Youth, or Cirque Dreams, they all received mixed to negative reviews, so I’m not surprised that none of them received nominations. Two of the worst shows I saw this season, To Be or Not To Be and Desire Under the Elms, also did not receive any nominations (although some people, including New York Times reviewer Charles Isherwood, apparently loved Desire Under the Elms). Some feel that Tovah Feldshuh and James Barbour should have been nominated for their performances in Irena’s Vow and A Tale of Two Cities. I found Feldshuh’s performance a bit over-the-top, but I agree that Barbour probably should have been nominated (instead of Contantine Maroulis). Likewise, I think Daniel Radcliffe made an astounding Broadway debut in Equus, and should have been nominated for his performance. And Mercedes Ruehl, probably the best part of The American Plan, also should have been nominated.

It was a great year for play revivals, so I guess it is inevitable that some revivals were undeservedly shut out, most notably The Seagull (which I missed) and All My Sons (which I loved). But all four plays nominated for Best Revival opened in the spring, by which time both The Seagull and All My Sons had closed. Apparently Casey Mulligan was excellent in The Seagull, and All My Sons had several Tony-worthy elements, including performances by Dianne Wiest, John Lithgow, and Patrick Wilson, and direction by Simon McBurney.

Likewise, I thought two musicals, both of which closed by the beginning of January, deserved more attention from the nominating committee. While many did not like 13, the musical with a thirteen-member teenage cast, I thought it an extremely well done, exciting new musical. If nothing else, Jason Robert Brown should have been nominated for his score. I also thought Aaron Simon Gross’s performance Tony-worthy- certainly better than any of the kids from Billy Elliot. And while [title of show] received one nomination for its book, I think it should have also been nominated for Best Score, Featured Actress (Susan Blackwell), and Best Musical. And I wonder, if it had been running on Broadway in the spring, if it wouldn’t have received more nominations.

The Tony Awards Broadcast
To quote from a recent press release: “The Tony Awards telecast on Sunday, June 7th will feature performances by each of the Tony-nominated Best Musicals and Best Musical Revivals, including: Billy Elliot, The Musical; Guys and Dolls; Hair; Next to Normal; Pal Joey; Rock of Ages; Shrek the Musical; and West Side Story. Additionally, The Tony Awards will feature special performances from three touring shows – Jersey Boys, Legally Blonde The Musical and Mamma Mia!”

Ugh. I’m all for performances from the season’s musicals. I still remember watching one of my first Tony awards, and seeing the cast of Falsettos perform “The Baseball Game.” These early musical performances, from shows I had never even heard of, riveted me. Unfortunately, the CBS execs, especially head exec Les Moonves, have decided that people are ONLY interested in watching musicals. And so the more musical performances, the better, which is why space is being given in the broadcast to performances from touring shows. The design awards are not shown on television...you can only see them by logging onto the Tony website’s live feed for the “Creative Arts Awards.” Also part of this segment are the awards for Orchestrations, Choreography(!), Book of Musical(!!), and Revival of a Play(!!!). I am appalled by this. (It happened last year too). If the Academy Awards can find a way to fit in the award for Best Animated Short Film, shouldn’t the Tony Awards be able to fit in Best Revival of a Play?

CBS is clearly trying to “boost” ratings by stacking the broadcast with performances, and thus getting rid of the “boring stuff.” However, the Tony awards is NEVER highly rated. No one who isn’t already planning on watching is going to tune in because the touring cast of Legally Blonde is performing. I believe that the Awards show that takes place in Radio City Music Hall should be shown in its entirety. One could argue that the American public doesn’t care about orchestrations. But how do we know, if we don’t let audiences learn about them? What if there was a short speech before the award was presented that explained what an orchestration is (like in the Academy Awards)? Why must television programming always be dictated by what executives think audiences want to see?

Perhaps one could argue that the Academy Awards are more star-studded. And although everyone can see movies, only a small handful travel to New York to see a Broadway show. So maybe a comparison between the two awards shows isn’t exactly fair. But what CBS forgets is that people aren’t just interested in seeing familiar performances. I always watched the Tonys growing up because it would give me insight into the hidden, magical world of “Broadway.” And not just musicals - I remember watching one year and repeatedly hearing a five-word phrase “Angels in America: Millenium Approaches.” I had no idea what it was about, but I was fascinated. I don’t believe that American audiences aren’t interested in plays - I think they are, but they aren’t given the chance. I believe that things like the Tony award broadcast make it seem like Broadway is all big and flashy musicals. Broadway theatre is many things, and big flashy musicals are only one part. But in recent years, the Tony Award broadcast has become increasingly dumber, in a futile effort to draw in more audiences. But I don’t think CBS will ever draw in more viewers this way, I think they have the wrong strategy. I think the only way they can increase viewership is to put back in all of the “boring stuff,” because I’d argue that this is the one thing not available anywhere else. I think viewers actually want to be challenged. Many people will never watch the Tonys. A much smaller group will always watch. And I believe that the group in the middle, the ones who might watch if the show is good, are tired with an awards show that has so little to do with celebrating achievement. They want to learn more about theatre (including things like lighting design), but have given up on the Tonys as a source for this.

Ok- rant over. Now go watch the Tonys.

The 63rd Annual Tony Awards
The Tony Awards will be broadcast live in HD, from Radio City Music Hall on CBS, Sunday, June 7th, 8:00 – 11:00 p.m. (ET/PT time delay). The 2009 Tony Awards are presented by the Broadway League and the American Theatre Wing. To view the live Tony Awards pre-telecast, featuring the Creative Arts Awards, please log onto www.TonyAwards.com at 7:00 p.m. (EST) on Sunday, June 7th.

For the first time ever, fans in the New York area are invited to watch the Tony Awards simulcast in Times Square. Live from Radio City Music Hall, the Tony Awards will be simulcast on the Clear Channel Spectacolor HD Screen, from 7:00 p.m. – 11:00 p.m. and will feature the pre-telecast Creative Arts Awards and the Tony Awards broadcast. Seating will be provided in Duffy Square.

Dan Talks Tonys

Part 2- The Musicals

There were ten new musicals and four revivals on Broadway this season, and I saw all but two. I missed Irving Berlin’s White Christmas, a holiday special that some suspect was brought to Broadway (at a financial loss) simply to give it additional credence in its more lucrative regional life. And I haven’t yet seen the revival of Guys and Dolls, although I’ve heard it is not worth the time. But I’ve seen everything else (yes, I even saw The Story of My Life, which didn’t run long enough to be Tony-eligible). My favorite musicals of the season are Next to Normal (which received 11 nominations) and [title of show] (which sadly only received one, for Hunter Bell’s book). And while I don’t think Billy Elliot will completely sweep the awards this year, I think it will do quite well, and will likely win in categories I don’t think it deserves, starting with…

BEST MUSICAL
I don’t think Billy Elliot should win here, because while some aspects were quite wonderful (the direction, and perhaps the book), the total product was surprisingly disappointing. But voters love big musicals, and from what I can tell, most people seem to enjoy this show, and don’t mind the bland score as much as I did. If there is an upset, it will be Next to Normal. On certain days, when I’m feeling especially optimistic, I think this might be possible. I certainly wouldn’t count it out (and if it happens, it could be a tie-breaker in Tony contests). But I’m betting that Billy Elliot, with its 15 nominations, will win Best Musical. The other two nominated musicals, Shrek and Rock of Ages, have almost no chance, especially because some feel one (or both) took the slot(s) that should have been given to either 9 to 5 or [title of show].

BEST REVIVAL OF A MUSICAL
This one is kind of a no-brainer. Pal Joey was an excellent revival, but it closed on March 1st. And while I am very glad I saw it, I think the musical itself is more for musical theater buffs, whereas the other three nominees are more popular shows that will appeal to a wider audience. I haven’t seen Guys and Dolls, but many say it was only nominated for Best Musical Revival because there is a clause that says the nominating committee MUST fill all of the slots in a category when possible. So since there are only four musical revivals, they all automatically receive nominations. (It’s the same reason the apparently hideous revival of Grease was nominated last season.) This leaves West Side Story and Hair. Before I saw them, I thought they might be about evenly matched. But after seeing both in the past few weeks, it is clear that Hair will win this category hands (and pants?) down. West Side Story might be a better musical on paper, but this isn’t what wins a Best Musical Revival. West Side Story has sets that seem to be taken from a regional, or even college production, and direction that is relatively uninspired. It isn’t that it is a bad production...it is almost impossible to ruin West Side Story and this is a solid production. But there isn’t much that is special about it other than a few performances (if I return to West Side Story it will really be to see Karen Olivo again...see Featured Actress category). Hair, on the other hand, has been hailed as a minor revelation, a production that brings out the best qualities of the musical, and shows the magic that can be found therein. And I agree. I will almost definitely return to see Hair again because of the overall experience.

BEST BOOK OF A MUSICAL
Supposedly the book of a musical is one of the hardest things to write, and is often the first thing blamed when the musical suffers. It is also kind of difficult to quantify; it is more than just the words people speak when they aren’t singing. I think of a musical’s book as the structure, and the outline for what happens so even when a musical is sung-throughout there is still a book. This year, the four nominated books are from Billy Elliot, Next to Normal, Shrek, and [title of show]. Even though David Lindsay-Abaire has a Pulitzer, I think his book for Shrek is the first to rule out, not because it isn’t good, but because in a category like this, voters need to feel drawn to a show, and I think Shrek is the one show with the least emotional pull. Next to Normal is pretty much sung-through, and while that shouldn’t make a difference, I think it might hurt here. Many think Billy Elliot is the likely winner, because it is the big show of the season. Personally, I’m hoping for Hunter Bell to win for [title of show]. While the show closed in October, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was one of the big upsets of the evening. There’s a line on the recording where Bell sings “What if this show won a Tony award?” I’m hoping voters want to find out.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE (MUSIC AND LYRICS) WRITTEN FOR THE THEATRE
By all rights, I don’t think Billy Elliot should even have been nominated (I would have picked the scores to both [title of show] and 13 over this one.) But it IS a score with music by Elton John, and it IS the big new musical of the season, so it could certainly win. The trouble is, the score to Billy Elliot is, to put it simply, bad. And I have a feeling I’m not the only one who thinks so. And because people will expect Billy Elliot to win a bunch of awards, voters may use this category to award another show. So who will win? Shrek’s score has music by Jeanine Tesori (who has been nominated three times already, and who should have won a Tony for Caroline, or Change) and lyrics by David Lindsay-Abaire (who won the Pulitzer prize for Rabbit Hole). And the score is (surprisingly?) quite good; it's intelligent and funny and maybe even a little bit subversive. But the show as a whole is just pleasant...you leave the theatre thinking “that was nice.” And this is why Shrek may not win anything. It is the same with 9 to 5. The score was written by Dolly Parton, and overall, I think she did a fine job. I am looking forward to listening to the score again (the album hasn’t been released). However, I’m not sure that Dolly’s immense fan base overlaps much with the Tony voters. So Next to Normal is Billy Elliot’s biggest competition. In my opinion, Next to Normal has the best score of the year. The show is almost entirely sung-through, and the score does an incredible job in creating the complex characters on stage.

BEST DIRECTION OF A MUSICAL
At the Academy Awards, the winner for Best Director often (but not always) wins for directing that year’s Best Picture. The same thing generally happens with musicals at the Tonys, with the difference that in the Tonys, there are two “Best Musicals”- the new musicals and the revivals. So given that Billy Elliot and Hair will most likely win these respective categories, this category is basically between Stephen Daldry (who directed Billy Elliot) and Diane Paulus (who directed Hair). Kristin Hanggi did a decent enough job with Rock of Ages, and probably is one of the key people responsible for making it as good as it is, but I have as much chance of winning this award as she does. And as much as I love Next to Normal, my biggest problem with it is the direction. Michael Greif (who also directed Rent - boy does he love his scaffolding!) probably contributed a lot in the developmental process of this piece, so I guess one might justify the nomination for that reason. But his direction always seems serviceable to me, with occasional moments where I think “why on earth did he have them do that?” Whereas Diane Paulus staged perhaps the best ending of any musical this season (and those last ten minutes or so of Hair are ALL her). I’d love to see her win for this reason alone. But I suspect Stephen Daldry will win here, and as much as I thought Billy Elliot was just ok, I have to admit Daldry’s direction is excellent.

BEST CHOREOGRAPHY
Given that Billy Elliot is a show about dancing, and that it is the big show of the season, and that there is a lot of solo dancing and group dancing and flying in the air dancing, does anyone else have a chance? I don’t think so. Randy Skinner’s choreography in Irving Berlin’s White Christmas was reportedly quite good (I didn’t see it). Karole Armitage’s work in Hair fit the piece well, which means it is less showy than the dancing in Billy Elliot. And Andy Blankenbuehler, who deservedly won this award last year for In the Heights, did some of the same things again (i.e. dancing that isn't featured center stage, but occurs more atmospherically) in this year's 9 to 5. All fine choreography. But I bet even if Jerome Robbins had risen from the dead and re-choreographed West Side Story, he still would lose to Peter Darling and Billy Elliot.

BEST ORCHESTRATIONS
This is one of those awards that most people (including, I suspect, many Tony voters) don’t quite know how to judge. The orchestrator’s work varies depending on the composer, and the right orchestration can turn a simple melody into a thrilling moment in the theatre. However, where does the score stop and the orchestration begin? I suspect rather than thinking through this, many voters simply go with either their pick for Best Musical, or their pick for Best Score. (Occasionally musical revivals have new orchestrations that are nominated, but that didn’t happen this year). If they do, Shrek and Irving Berlin’s White Christmas have little to no chance, leaving Billy Elliot and Next to Normal. My personal pick is Next to Normal; the orchestrations turn what could have been a more traditional “rock” sound into something much more complex. But I have a feeling Billy Elliot may have better chances.

BEST PERFORMANCE BY A LEADING ACTRESS IN A MUSICAL
Everyone I know is crossing their fingers that Alice Ripley wins on June 7th (ok, what can I say, I know a lot of theatre queens). Ripley’s performance in Next to Normal is one of the best performances this season, man or woman, play or musical. It is so difficult to play a crazy person realistically, that is, not go overboard with the craziness, and Ripley’s genius is that she simultaneously shows both the unhinged, bipolar person, and the completely rational (in her mind, at least) person who is battling that illness. Ripley was nominated once before with Emily Skinner...the two women played the Siamese twins Daisy and Violet in Sideshow. (Emily, when will you return to Broadway?) And since this is the only acting category in which Billy Elliot has no nominees, Ripley’s chances look good. I’d guess her biggest competition is Allison Janney (who we all love, of course). Janney is quite good in 9 to 5 (in the Lily Tomlin role), but she isn’t the strongest singer, and that may hurt her. Pal Joey’s Stockard Channing was wonderful, but the show closed already. Sutton Foster was also good in Shrek - funny, quirky, a bit of a tomboy - but she’s already won a Tony and now just seems to get nominated every time she does a Broadway musical (for roles in which she is funny, quirky, and a bit of a tomboy), so I don’t think people will vote for her. And while Josefina Scaglione is lovely as Maria in West Side Story, she doesn’t remain etched in one’s memory days after the show the way that Ripley or Janney or even Channing do. So c’mon Alice Ripley!

BEST PERFORMANCE BY A LEADING ACTOR IN A MUSICAL
This year, it was ruled that all three boys who share the role of Billy would be considered together. And it was also ruled that voters only needed to see one of them perform. While both of these rulings make sense (otherwise, it would mean needing to see Billy Elliot three times), it means that those who vote for the three kids will be voting for performers they haven’t seen. This nomination really asks voters to vote for a role, rather than a performance. The role of Billy is exciting to watch: a 10-12 year old boy dances all over the stage. But I’d contend that the boys who do the role in five years will be just as exciting - it is the role that is the star here - the choreography and the sight of a kid dancing it. While I think voters will be suckered in by the draw of youth (the mindset of “yay, I love when kids win awards!”) I think all of the other nominees deserve the award more. American Idol alum Constantine Maroulis is surprisingly good in Rock of Ages. Gavin Creel in Hair is terrific (although I liked castmate Will Swenson even better). Brian d’Arcy James somehow manages to humanize Shrek the ogre, even through all of that makeup. And while some feel that James was better than J. Robert Spencer in Next to Normal (James did the role of Dan at Second Stage, but left the show to star in Shrek), I think Spencer perfectly captures the ordinariness of his character, a father and husband who wants desperately to live a normal, even boring, life. So yeah, when this award is announced, I fully expect to be annoyed, but hey, that’s commercial theatre for you.

BEST PERFORMANCE BY A FEATURED ACTRESS IN A MUSICAL
Ok, it is really hard for me to be objective with this category this year. I worked with Karen Olivo several years ago, and love her in everything she is in. And she is an incredibly warm, loving person to boot. I’m trying not to jinx her chances by getting my hopes up too much, but I DO think she has a good chance at winning. Her performance as Anita is one of the best parts in the current revival of West Side Story. So since I can’t be objective, who else is nominated? There are two women from Billy Elliot: Carole Shelley (Billy’s grandmother) and Haydn Gwynne (Billy’s dance teacher). Of these two, Gwynne has the better chance, if only because her role is larger. I think she is Karen’s biggest competition. Martha Plimpton’s rendition of “Zip” was a highlight of Pal Joey, and while this is the third year in a row she has been nominated, I don’t think the role was enough of a standout to make up for the fact that the show isn’t running anymore. And finally, there’s Next to Normal’s Jennifer Damiano. While I’m thrilled she is nominated (because I love the show), I think this is a case where the nomination is the prize.

BEST PERFORMANCE BY A FEATURED ACTOR IN A MUSICAL
Enough with Billy Elliot already! This category also has two nominees from that showm Gregory Jbara (who plays the father) and David Bologna (who plays Billy’s soon-to-be-gay friend Michael). Or rather, Bologna is one of the two kids who plays Michael...the other one (Frank Dolce) isn’t nominated. Apparently, while the producers made a special petition to get all three Billys considered together, they didn’t do the same for the two Michaels, so because Bologna did the show opening night, he is the only one eligible for the nomination. The two kids are still splitting performances, so it is conceivable that many Tony voters won’t even see Bologna in the role. Whatever...if someone from Billy Elliot wins this category it will be Gregory Jbara, who I loved in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and who also gave my favorite performance in this show. Which isn’t to say I think he should win (although he has a good chance). I’m rooting for Will Swenson, who played Berger in Hair. Easily the best performance in that show, Swenson perfectly encapsulates the spirit and energy and innocence and playfulness that Hair is all about. But I wouldn’t count out Marc Kudisch or Christopher Sieber either. Both are well-known Broadway stalwarts who have been nominated in this category before (Kudisch for Thoroughly Modern Millie and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, and Sieber for Spamalot). Kudisch is perfectly cast as the lecherous boss (the Dabney Coleman role) in 9 to 5. And Sieber gives probably the most unforgettable performance in Shrek...as Lord Farquaad he spends almost the entire performance on his knees. So this is another tough category, and I’m honestly not sure who I’d pick if I were taking part in the Theasy Tony Guessing Contest (where you can win 5 pairs of tickets to the NYC International Fringe Festival- enter here) Good Luck!

Stay tuned for Part 3- Everything Else