Occam’s Razor

Review: Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

As regular readers know, I am definitely not the sort who likes bloody and gross movies. That was one reason I avoided seeing Sweeney Todd in the theater, despite its rave reviews. Somehow all that blood didn’t seem in the holiday spirit. Sometimes though you have to grit your teeth (or in my case, fuzz my eyes during the worst parts) and watch a movie that otherwise obviously has plenty of merit. With renowned actor Johnny Depp playing the role of Sweeney Todd, plus a host of first rate familiar and not so familiar actors (including Alan Rickman as Judge Turpin and Sacha Baron Cohen as Pirelli), it was a movie unlikely to disappoint. It also helped that my 18-year-old daughter Rosie was a big fan of both Depp and the movie and had recently purchased the DVD.

Also providing impetus to view the movie was the reputation of its director: Tim Burton. Burton and Depp are quite a duo. It seems that Burton wants to cast Depp into all of his movies. Their relationship is now at least eighteen years old, when Burton first cast Depp in his breakout role of Edward Scissorhands. I correctly suspected I would need more than a few Rolaids to make it through Sweeney Todd.

Some of the violence is definitely cartoonish while others were too explicit for either my taste or my stomach. Fortunately, this is the kind of movie where you have a good idea when someone is about to die, since they have to be sitting in Sweeney Todd’s barbershop chair. Todd’s shop is conveniently located on the floor above Mrs. Lovett’s meat pie shop where she markets third class meat pies. I suspect you already know the gist of the plot. There is no point in filling up those pies with meat from dead cats when the psycho barber upstairs can provide a convenient fresh set of corpses, all for ready butchering.

The story of the demon barber of Fleet Street goes back to 1846 when this gruesome story was first published in serial form. It was likely written by the English author James Malcolm Rymer. Most Americans learned of Sweeney Todd from its musical adoption. Stephen Sondheim composed the lyrics and music to the highly successful Broadway musical, where it first arrived in 1979. Tim Burton’s task was to translate this successful and often performed musical to the big screen.

While I have yet to see Sweeney Todd in the theater, I can confidently say that I would be more comfortable with the musical on stage. On the stage, any depicted violence would be much less realistic and I would be much further removed from the action. Of course, in a movie the camera gives you an intimacy you cannot get in a theater. When necessary, which is too often for my tastes, Tim Burton is quite willing to let you see the gore first hand. This includes graphic shots of corpses in oversized meat grinders. The movie definitely deserved its R rating. There is no way I would have let any child of mine sees this movie until they were an adult, despite its obvious artistic merits.

In short, the movie, like its corpses, is a bloody well done, providing you can avoid retching. The movie is perfectly cast, led of course by the phenomenal Depp, but ably assisted by Helena Bonham Carter as Mrs. Lovett. You will not need Smell-o-vision to smell the stench of London in the mid 19th century. Burton nails the time with uncanny authenticity, which is enhanced by the ever present London chimneys bellowing black smoke, which are seen out the grimy windows of Sweeney Todd’s barber shop. With the omnipresent rats, roaches and blood running in the sewers you feel the need to disinfect yourself when the movie is over. Of course, part of the magic of Sweeney Todd is how it mixes touches of macabre humor in its music and lyrics. Only there is nothing really to laugh over in the sick and diseased world around Fleet Street in London.

Sweeney Todd is a pseudonym for a barber who was pressed into being sailor. In the process, he lost his wife and daughter at the whim of an evil judge, spent fifteen years at sea and then finally made it back to London to wreak his revenge. Depp portrays Todd as a man obsessed with lashing out, not just at those who inflicted this injustice upon him but at all sorts of people in London he feels would be better dead than alive. Despite the measured attempts at a macabre humor throughout, Sweeney Todd is really a sick tragedy. As rendered by Burton, Sweeney Todd takes on Shakespearean dimensions. One can imagine William Shakespeare wistfully wishing he had the opportunity to write something as spectacular as the tragic tale of Sweeney Todd. Having seen many of Shakespeare’s tragedies, including likely his bloodiest, Richard III, Sweeney Todd still somehow seems bloodier.

In short, aided by Sondheim’s original interpretation, Burton does an outstanding job of bringing this story to the screen. Part of the problem is that he does too good a job. In fact, this is such a good movie that I really would like to see it again. The problem is I think I am too squeamish. So instead, I will wait to see it in on stage, and enjoy listening to the music from this wonderful musical. I am grateful for having seen this film once, and I will probably rue my own squeamishness that I cannot find the stomach to enjoy it a few more times.

In my humble opinion, this was a far worthier candidate for Best Picture than what actually won, No Country for Old Men. I really think it is a landmark film of some type. It is one of the few films I have ever rated at 3.5 or above.

I give Sweeney Todd 3.5 out of 4 stars.

April 19th, 2008 at 08:40pm Posted by Mark | The Arts | no comments

Review: My Fair Lady

Going to see a revival of any Broadway musical is a gamble. A musical revival is a lot like a movie sequel. It rarely lives up to the original. I have seen Les Miserables three times over fifteen years and each tour was a step down from the last tour. Each incarnation becomes just a little more shopworn. Some musicals like Cats have been on so many tours that someone should shoot it to put it out of its misery.

It has been fifty years since My Fair Lady first appeared on Broadway. I was a baby in a bassinet when it first came out. My Fair Lady is one of these landmark musicals and excruciatingly hard to do right. For one thing, Rex Harrison epitomized the role of Professor Henry Higgins, both on stage and in the movie. In 1965, he won Best Actor for the role. The film itself also won Best Picture. Consequently, any revival of the musical must be treated with asbestos gloves. The chances are you are more likely to screw it up than satisfy.

Cameron Mackintosh though took the risk with this national tour. His risk was mitigated in part by getting many of the same cast that performed it so successfully on London’s West End back in 2001. My Fair Lady rolled into Washington, DC last month. My wife, daughter and I caught one of its last performances Saturday night before it moved on.

Good news to residents of Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Newark, Los Angeles, Toronto, Costa Mesa (California) and Tempe (Arizona). This tour of My Fair Lady feels as fresh as it was fifty years ago. While obviously I never saw it on Broadway, it fares nearly as well as the 1964 movie. Since it got a good review, I felt lucky to get tickets to it at all, and had to select from one of the later performances. Dig deep into your wallet and buy your tickets now. Any fan of musicals who has the opportunity to see this tour and misses it has only himself to blame. It may not role into Tempe, Arizona until June 17th, but if I lived out there I’d still try to get my tickets now.

Its success depends in part on faithfully sticking with well-known material. Christopher Cazenove, who plays Professor Henry Higgins, borrows more than a little from the late Rex Harrison’s portrayal. Considering what an odd and cantankerous professor Henry Higgins is, he would be hard to reinvent, and that he does not is perhaps just as well. Most of the characters studiously replicate the characters that preceded them in its original production. Walter Charles, as Colonel Hugh Pickering, looks like he could have been plucked from Wilfrid Hyde-White’s portrayal on the screen.

There are some exceptions. Unquestionably, the most fun part to play in the musical is the part of Eliza’s lowbrow alcoholic father, Alfred P. Doolittle, acted in this production by Tim Jerome. Jerome brings an enormous amount of energy to his supporting part and practically carries the whole cast off with him. This is one reason why it is so surprising that the rest of the production works so well. He could easily overshadow the rest of the actors and yet he does not. Lisa O’Hare delights as Eliza Doolittle, yet she gives her role a subtly different energy than Audrey Hepburn did in the movie. Except for being significantly wider in girth than Rex Harrison was, Cazenove slips into Higgins’ role with consummate familiarity.

As you might expect, complementing the ensemble is glorious dancing, magnificent staging and a wonderful energy from the cast. The only off-note of the evening was that the horns from the orchestra tended to make the higher registers from the performers hard to hear. That may have been due in part to the acoustics of the Kennedy Center Opera House or an overenthusiastic trumpeter. I was also somewhat annoyed by patrons arriving late, which made it hard to enjoy the first ten minutes of the show.

Thankfully, I can check My Fair Lady off the list of first class musicals that I have seen staged and thoroughly enjoyed. I realize that we were fortunate to get such a fine touring version. I must remember to keep my expectations more modest for the next musical that comes into town.

January 21st, 2008 at 11:05am Posted by Mark | The Arts | no comments

Review: Spamalot

This is a hard review to write for a Monty Python fan. We saw here in Las Vegas Sunday night Spamalot, the musical sort of wrapped around Monty Python’s phenomenally successful 1975 movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Yet I was underwhelmed.

Here is the problem with Spamalot: you have seen most of it before. Moreover, what you have not seen is not always that humorous. Rather than feel like a Monty Python production, it feels like an Eric Idle production, which it is. Now there is nothing wrong with Eric Idle’s sense of humor, it is just that his humor is just one of the spectrums that made the Monty Python shows and movies funny. Lacking the other creative voices, Spamalot feels very strained.

If you enjoyed the movie, and who among us has not, you will probably enjoy the reenactments of many of the classic scenes from the movie. On the other hand, if you have seen the movie repeatedly, and can recite every line in the Knights Who Say Ne sketch by heart then seeing it on stage feels very anticlimactic. Except for the voice of God played by John Cleese, there is not a single member of Monty Python in the entire production. So what you get are comedic actors trying to act like the comedy troupe. They often come close. But just as Californian sparkling wine is not quite French champagne, while imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, it is still imitation, and it tends to fall somewhat flat.

In some ways, what is new in the show is faithful to Monty Python. The plot is pretty incoherent and rambling. Some of the new songs are cute including “The Song That Goes Like This” and “The Diva’s Lament”. There are a few surprises that should not be, including Sir Lancelot who is exposed as a gay queen. There are a few modest improvements. “He’s Not Dead Yet” number adds new life and humor to the bring out your dead scene.

Still, something about this experience felt fundamentally false. It was close imitation Monty Python, but not Monty Python itself. It just made me wistful for the real thing. Its short running length (just over ninety minutes, with no intermission) made it feel needlessly hurried.

Mel Brooks took his 1968 movie The Producers and turned it into a phenomenally successful musical that just recently closed on Broadway. Ironically, the musical of The Producers is also playing in Las Vegas. Having seen the musical version of The Producers, both on stage and the subsequent movie, I can say that Mel made an even better product than the original source material. That is not the case here. This production does not come even close to being as funny or inventive as its source material. Rather than adding value to the original package, it unfortunately subtracts value.

My assessment is that unless you are only a part time Monty Python fan or want to see famous scenes from the movie reenacted, just stay away. This musical will doubtless keep the remaining members of the Monty Python troupe from spending their last days impoverished. If you are feeling nostalgic, it might leave you with a pleasant buzz. I suspect it will leave you feeling more let down than entertained.

The comic energy that was Monty Python has long gone. It is best to accept it and move on. Enjoy the movies and classic shows on DVD. They were authentic. Spamalot feels like a dressed up imitation of the real thing. If in Vegas and you have a choice between Spamalot and The Producers, see The Producers instead. Even if it is only 70% as good as it was on Broadway, it would still be far fresher and more entertaining than Spamalot.

July 16th, 2007 at 12:58pm Posted by Mark | The Arts | no comments

Review: The Producers (Movie, Musical Version)

I have a queer fascination for Mel Brook’s classic 1968 movie The Producers. It has been at least 25 years since I first saw it. I like the movie in part because it was so audacious, particularly for the year it came out. Some years back I tried to explain its appeal to my daughter. Born in 1989, from her perspective World War II might as well be The Civil War. Just what was it about a musical of Adolph Hitler that would be so shocking? Well, there was the horrific matter of the millions of Jews and other minorities he murdered. My fascination for it inspired us to go up to New York City in 2003 to see the show on Broadway.

A musical of the movie (it is about a Broadway musical designed to be a flop, so its producers could abscond with two million dollars) turned out to be even funnier than the movie. Mel Brooks, the creative comic genius behind both versions, outdid himself with the Broadway musical. Fortunately, Mel (now 81) is still very much among the living. As in the original movie, and in at least some shows on Broadway, and definitely in the movie musical version, Mel shows up for a cameo in the famous “Springtime for Hitler” number.

Over the weekend, we finally got around to seeing the movie of the musical The Producers. It stars its original Broadway attractions, Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick. Having seen it on Broadway (but with different stars), I was curious if the movie could measure up.

As I mentioned in my review of the movie Rent transitioning a musical from the stage to film is a devilishly difficult chore, easy to screw up and hard to get right. Musicals are designed for the stage, not the wide screen. The movie Rent succeeded in part because it featured many of its stars from the original Broadway Cast. With Lane and Broderick, who have performed the roles of the washed up Broadway producer Max Bialystock and the shy accountant Leo Bloom literally hundreds of times on Broadway, the odds were that I would enjoy the movie.

I did very much enjoy the movie. However, after seeing it on Broadway I was sometimes dissatisfied with the choices made by director Susan Stroman in transitioning it to film. For the die-hard The Producers fans, the DVD does include the cut scenes in the bonus section. I feel removing these scenes really detracted from the movie. I would have preferred an uncut version that is more faithful to the stage.

Gratefully, most of the time Stroman gets the transition right. Lane is something of a serial Broadway actor. He inhabits the character of Max Bialystock with nearly, but not quite Zero Mostel’s sliminess. Broderick is looking a bit old for the part of Leo Bloom. Broderick tried hard to channel Gene Wilder, who played the original Leo Bloom, but gets only a B grade. Granted, Gene Wilder is a tough act to follow. I have yet to see an actor perform a manic role with more conviction than Gene.

Other parts in the movie soared while others hardly took off. Uma Thurmond was not quite right as the buxom and shapely Swede “Ulla”. Like Broderick, the 35-year-old actress looked at bit old for her part. On the other hand, Will Ferrell as the Nazi playwright of “Springtime for Hitler” is inspired. He should have performed it on Broadway. In playing the psychotic Franz Liebkind he finally graduates to the A comic actor list. Gary Beach reprises his Broadway role as the gay eccentric director Roger DeBris. He has lost none of his talent. The whole scene in the DeBris house may be the best part of the movie. It is funnier than it was on Broadway. I especially liked the parody of The Village People done at the end of the scene.

The sets of course are larger and more grandiose than on Broadway. The little old ladies, which Max uses as his source of financing (many of whom are performed by men), are no less funny than on stage.

Overall, there is little to complain about. The laughs come through a bit easier in the theater where there are hundreds laughing along with you. As a translation from stage to movie, it succeeds at about 85% of the time, which is much better than most. So I am confident that you will enjoy this rendering whether you have seen the version on stage or not.

Alas, soon it will be impossible to see it on the stage. The Broadway show, which premiered in 2001, is in its final weeks. So if you have not seen it staged you will likely have to content yourself with this movie version. It is nearly as enjoyable as seeing it on stage, but not quite. Thank goodness though it was brought to film. Otherwise, the staged version would be revived a few times, they probably forgotten. The musical deserves to be immortalized, and now it has been.

The movie gets a 3.2 on my 4.0 scale.

February 27th, 2007 at 07:58pm Posted by Mark | The Arts | no comments

Review: Rent (The Movie)

Translating a musical to film is a devilishly hard business. Most directors are wise to steer clear of the endeavor. In fact, it is such a hard business that I can only think of a handful of musical films that fully succeeded in making the transition. Two that immediately come to mind are of course West Side Story (1961) and Chicago (2002), for which both deservedly won Oscars for Best Picture. The difficulty comes from translating works that were designed to be performed on a stage into a film where people are singing yet do not look, well, goofy.

I saw the musical Rent on stage when it appeared here in Washington D.C. in the late 1990s. My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed it, despite the fact that all the performers were wearing microphones and there was the distraction of a band on one side of the stage. Even then as a young forty-something I was feeling a bit too old for it. Christopher Columbus directed the movie version that was released last year. Given the saccharine way he directed the first two Harry Potter movies, I felt no compelling reason to see it on the screen. However, my daughter owns the DVD so I slipped it in our player last night.

The movie Rent is a tough sell to American audiences. It is full of the kinds of characters guaranteed to raise the hair of members of the American Family Association. If you are easily offended, it will offend you. It is rife with immature, twenty something characters who swear, smoke, drink, shoot up, engage in promiscuous sex and move from one toxic relationship to another. They frequently prefer their own gender, or swing both ways. In fact, most of the characters are HIV positive, and many have come down with AIDS. Of course, in both the musical and the film, they are hardly apologetic for their extreme counterculture behavior; in fact, they have the audacity to celebrate it in all its largely dysfunctional glory.

Perhaps this contributed to the movie’s less than stellar box office sales. Outside of Austin, it would just not sell in Texas. However, if you enjoy the musical genre, you should watch the film.

The film is well cast and directed. It fully captures the gritty reality of Manhattan’s more distressed neighborhoods. In neighborhoods where forty years earlier the Jets were fighting with the Sharks, we now find an inglorious little Bohemia. Naturally, this is not coincidental. The author Jonathan Larson deliberately tried to write a modern day version of Puccini’s opera La Boheme. Rent is hardly the first movie to draw inspiration from this opera. Another recent example is Baz Lurhmann’s amazing 2001 movie Moulin Rouge!

The cast consists of people who generally have not starred prominently on film before. Anthony Rapp, who plays the pivotal role of the documentary filmmaker Mark Cohen in the movie, also played the character when Rent first appeared Off Broadway. In fact, he looks a bit old for the part. However he seems to have mastered the role of Mark, who is an against the mainstream, sensitive (but pissed off) estranged Jewish liberal. The best actors as you might expect play the pivotal rolls of the transvestite Angel (Wilson Jermaine Heredia) and Tom Collins (Jesse Martin). The joy Tom Collins feels for his love Angel is quite palpable on the screen. The heat between Roger (Adam Pascal) and Mimi (Rosario Dawson) is not quite as intense nor as understandable. Maureen (Idina Menzel) and Joanne (Tracie Thoms) spend more screen time estranged than being sweet to each other. I was somewhat disappointed in Idina Menzel as Maureen. She did not quite have the same frenetic, over the top style of the actress we saw in the staged version of the musical. Indeed, you spent the first third of the musical waiting for Maureen’s dramatic appearance. In the film, Columbus unwisely chose to put her in a flashback before she appears at her performance.

In general, the choreography is excellent, and the direction is very good. With many musicals, you are aware the music is lip-synched. Here it is impossible to tell. I noticed little snips removed from the staged version as well as padded dialog and extra scenes that you would expect translating a musical to film. You know of course that dozens of takes were needed for each scene, but like the music, it flows seamlessly. It is impossible to tell.

With a few exceptions, each character is a mountain of anger and hurt. They are often obnoxious and bullheaded, as early twenty something young adults frequently are. Each could profit from many sessions with mental help therapists. Instead, because they are largely broke, they become their own support group. Nonetheless, it is hard not to care about them as they careen from one young adult crisis to the next. Even if drag queens disgust you, you would not be a human if you did not shed a tear at Angel’s passing.

Christopher Columbus has partially redeemed himself in my eyes. I now forgive him for the first two Harry Potter movies. Maybe movie musicals are a niche where he can demonstrate special competence. Rent may not reach the lofty heights of West Side Story or Chicago, but it deserved much better than the tepid response at the box office. Take a chance and “Rent” it.

3.3 on my 4.0 scale.

October 8th, 2006 at 12:59pm Posted by Mark | The Arts | no comments

Review: Oliver!

It has been at least twenty years since my wife and I made the journey into outer suburban Maryland to the Olney Theater. Now I remember why. If you live in Northern Virginia, even during non rush hours it is a pain to get to Olney, Maryland. Olney, which still has the feel of a distant suburb, sits a dozen or so miles north of Silver Spring. It is accessible only by roads chock full of traffic lights. It struck me as an odd place for a professional theater. The Olney Theater though has a storied history. It has been entertaining Marylanders since 1938. My father, a Washington native (who attended the show with us) remembers the theater when he was a boy. It hosts numerous plays and musicals every year, many of them top notch productions. Their latest is their family production of the 1968 Broadway hit musical Oliver! Charles Dickens of course wrote the original book Oliver Twist on which the musical is based. We caught the Sunday matinee.

Our family enjoys a good musical. We especially enjoy a decent production where we do not have to pay an arm and a leg for tickets. The Olney Theater straddles the middle ground between polished theaters like Washington’s National Theatre which often brings touring versions of Broadway shows and community theaters. With adult ticket prices for Oliver between $29 and $39, and with kids under 18 half price (plus a modest discount for senior citizens), going to see Oliver is easier on your wallet than going to see some of the other high-class theater in the area.

At the Olney Theater, all the adults are all professional actors. However, Oliver is also a production full of children. Could this ensemble put together a good performance? The answer is mixed. The boys rotate between performances. Fortunately, the boy I saw who played the central part of Oliver was quite good. He could not have been more than ten years old yet he had a surprising amount of stage presence and even a good singing voice. The principle roles are cast solidly. Oliver completely fails without someone excellent in the role of Fagan. Andrew Long does not disappoint as Fagan. Brian Sgambati is also appropriately threatening as Bill Sikes. Fortunately he is not so threatening as to have the younger children in the audience (and there were plenty) heading for the exit. I also really enjoyed Stephen Carter-Hicks as Mr. Bumble (and a number of other parts) and Peggy Yates in the role of Nancy.

The whole production is staged on one set, which while it offers an efficient use of space, fails to convey a sense of place during the many scene changes. The lighting was often rather dim. The theater had a smoky look to it, making it hard to suspend disbelief during “outdoor” scenes. Having never seen Oliver before, the production seemed like it must have been trimmed. Subtracting intermissions, it was less than two hours long. Perhaps this is a good strategy since children are not known for being able to sit for long periods unless they are attached to a Game Cube. The plot moved briskly, leaving little time for character development.

For a children’s musical, it still works. It conveys many adult themes about the way children used to be treated (and still are in some places of the world). Children are likely to find it both educational and amusing. However, discerning theatergoers like my family will probably not feel like they got a bargain from this production. Nevertheless, they should feel they got what they paid for: a solid but not overly memorable performance with some dated but still catchy tunes. You will probably find it a pleasant way to keep your children and yourself entertained for a few hours. However, you probably will not be recommending that your friends see it too.

December 2nd, 2005 at 08:24pm Posted by Mark | The Arts | no comments

Taking Oz for a Spin

L. Frank Baum’s book, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, was first published in 1900. It was the first of fourteen books that he would write about his Oz universe. The book was turned into plays and, of course, the classic 1939 motion picture. After more than a century, you would think that Americans had plumbed the Oz universe for all it is worth. Not so, as those of us who have seen the hit Broadway musical Wicked can attest.

Last week I got my opportunity to see the touring company of Wicked at the Oriental Theater in downtown Chicago. The touring company stars Ana Gasteyer (of Saturday Night Live!) as the Wicked Witch of the West and Kate Reinders as the good witch Glinda.

I came into the musical cold but with an open mind. I had heard none of its music and knew nothing of its plot. So it is a pleasure to report that Wicked (as its sales figures attest) is a terrific musical that succeeds on almost every level. Having not seen the Broadway production I cannot compare that cast with this touring cast. However, I can say that with the exception of a minor character or two the performances in the touring version were very well done.

As you would expect the staging is spectacular. (Wicked deservedly won Tony Awards for costume and set design). As for the music, it hits many high water marks. While some of the songs are not terribly memorable, when a song hits a high note it often does so brilliantly. For me, “Defying Gravity”, which concludes Act 1, was the highpoint of the show. It is Broadway at its best: song, spectacle and acting all interwoven into one piece that, like its title suggests, soars far into the stratosphere.

Those expecting another retelling of the classic story are going to be disappointed. Dorothy, Toto and the rest of the gang do appear tangentially. Rather than retell that well-known tale, this musical focuses in on the relationship between Glinda and Elphaba (a.k.a. The Wicked Witch of the West). Much of it occurs long before Dorothy shows up. In this version Dorothy is an offstage presence who is manipulated by both Glinda and Elphaba to effect some big changes in Oz.

Wicked presents a delightful and frankly far more satisfying alternate version of Oz. Elphaba is not quite as wicked as she appears (in fact, she is something of an environmentalist). As for Glinda, or “Guh-Linda” as she prefers to be known through much of the musical, she is deliberately portrayed as a shallow, sincere but kindhearted bubble-headed blonde. Both Ms. Gasteyer and Ms. Reinders shine in their respective roles. The heart of this story centers on Elphaba. She may be green, but she is shown to be a complex woman who happens to have some unusual talents. Ms. Gasteyer does a marvelous job of bringing out the complexity of her character. Glinda may be one dimensional, but no one will say that about Elphaba.

In fact, Wicked pulls off a neat trick. It retells the tired Oz tale into a form that is fun, intriguing and keeps you guessing. Plots are turned inside out. The result is a story that is much more interesting and far more compelling than the comparatively cartoonish quality of the original story. If you cannot come to New York to see the Broadway version, I am confident you will be fully enchanted with the touring company version. We found it well worth seeing, even if we were reduced to obstructed view seats. In fact, I plan to see it again when it comes to Washington, D.C. (This time we will get much better seats.)

August 21st, 2005 at 09:14pm Posted by Mark | The Arts | no comments

Thoughts on Musicals

I don’t totally understand why I am drawn to musicals. But there is no question about it: I have the bug.

Part of its allure I think is that musicals deliver stories. Operas deliver singers. With operas stories are often secondary. The point of opera seems to me to usually be to showcase outstanding operatic voices. Occasionally we get wonderful soloists who can act convincingly as well as sing. But mostly when we see operas we have to substitute our imagination for acting. It’s the glorious power of voice or voices doing some difficult duets or arias that gets our goose bumps. But for the most part acting in operas leaves a lot to be desired and consequently many operas seem cartoonish.

Of course there are plenty of fluffy musicals where acting doesn’t matter in the least. But story almost always matters in musicals. Indeed musicals are often tuned and retuned to make for a compelling night of theater. The songs are designed to provide emotional impact to the part of the story being staged. Song and story must be intricately woven together for most musicals to succeed. If each does not support the other, the typical result is a flop.

Operas are usually staged for a couple weeks. Musicals, at least when first released, are designed to entertain us for months or years. Musicals are designed to attract wider audiences. To stay on Broadway for years a show needs to have a story with widespread appeal and catchy music. Consequently in musicals you are likely to hear many more repetitions on a theme than you will in opera. You should leave a musical with a few songs in your head. It’s quite possible to leave an opera with only the glorious remembrances of the voices, but being unable to recall any of the actual music.

In a musical it doesn’t matter too much whether the Jean Valjean of the moment has a good voice or a terrific voice. Terrific voices are always preferred but it is more important to be able to act convincingly than to have a stellar voice. In musicals the singing accentuates the emotional impact of the underlying story. That certainly can be true in opera and is in the best operas. However in operas the story doesn’t matter as much. Typically in operas a half dozen ideas are performed over and over again in different variations. Tragedy and the emotional turmoils of loves found and lost are often the common threads. In opera the overpowering voices tend to make subtlety difficult or impossible.

For millions of musical lovers a compelling story plus good music equals a satisfying night at the theater. In general the better the creators are at handling both aspects the more likely the musical will succeed. For example Les Miserables has a deeply satisfying story. What could be more satisfying that a variation of the Christ died on the Cross meme? However it would have been just another musical had not the music, lyrics and glorious, glorious orchestration been so compelling. While full of repetitious themes, the repetition is not overbearing. Bringing it together of course is the quality of the acting, directing and staging. The qualities of the voices in the role are really just the frosting on the cake.

Just as modern movies substitute computer-generated imagery for scenery, many modern musicals fall into the false belief that impressive sets and staging are also needed for a musical to succeed. Falling chandeliers and helicopters dropping from above stage give a certain flash in the pan, but don’t always succeed if the story is also not deeply engaging.

Making successful musicals though is a tricky business. There is a fine line between ideas that work and those that flop. When musicals flop it is usually because the story does not have broad enough appeal. The talent that gave us Les Miserables and Miss Saigon, for example, learned to take existing artistic works with compelling stories and wrap music around them. But they failed with Martin Guerre. The story was simply not compelling enough. The story of a man unable to consummate an arranged marriage simply does not engage us.

Some musicals have songs that are so wonderful you would think they would be enough to carry the plot through. Chess (1984) is such a musical. Brought to us by some of the same folks from Abba it is a wonderful mixture of a traditional and rock musical songs. But a story about chess champions is just not engaging. The timing didn’t work either. It came out just as the Cold War was ending. The Cold War was yesterday’s new. For any musical snob though Chess is one to buy and listen to over and over again. It’s too bad it failed on Broadway. (Some suggested if they had kept the London version it would have done well in America, since it did fine overseas.)

Musicals are a very long topic that I will have to revisit. But I would like to highlight three of my favorite musicals and encourage you to see them if they come by. Most musical aficionados have see Les Miserables. It’s my favorite musical. I have seen it three times. After nearly twenty years though even the touring companies can’t quite keep up its primal energy. But anyone who claims to like musicals must see it: it sets a standard I’m not sure any other modern musical has quite matched.

Ragtime is probably no longer on tour, but may be available in local productions. I hope it gets revived, even though it is fairly new as musicals go. How it lost the Tony to The Lion King is beyond me because it had all the elements that should have won it best musical except for the flashiness of The Lion King. With a good story you shouldn’t need flashiness.

If I had to pick a musical for best music I would pick a sleeper, the 1991 production of The Secret Garden. I have yet to see it staged and until I do I cannot give it an honest assessment. But I am looking forward to it since it is staged regularly. Most musicals rely on a lot of repetition, but it is nearly absent from The Secret Garden. With one or two exceptions each song is stellar and memorable.

Although I am sure I will get a lot of grief, I think Andrew Lloyd Weber’s post Evita musicals should be avoided. In particular I found both Phantom of the Opera and Cats grating. It’s okay to have a lovely theme, but it doesn’t have to be pounded into our heads ad naseum, as happens in Phantom of the Opera. Twenty years on Broadway suggests that I must be wrong, but to me it’s a perfect example of a musical high on infectious but extremely repetitious music but empty of content. I found the Phantom loathsome, and I found Christine both shallow and annoying. In short it is a musical full of stereotypes and special effects. Rather than being satisfying it fizzes like soda. My advice: just say no.

March 24th, 2005 at 10:09pm Posted by Mark | The Arts | no comments