God's in the Hizzle, Yo!

Yesterday, shortly before the end of my workday, B called me and said that he didn't want to go home after work. So being the marvelous friend that I am, I said that I'd be open to doing something - so long as it didn't entail drinking or spending too much moolah. So he said "How about a show?" to which I replied "Did you not just hear me say that I don't want to spend a lot of money?"

Well turns out he did hear me. He had found two tickets online to see Altar Boyz for pretty cheap. So last night, instead of going home and doing laundry like the responsible adult I often mean to be, I spent the evening with Matthew, Mark, Luke, Juan, and Abraham (he's Jewish).

The show is a Christian rock concert, mockumentary style. You are attending the final performance of the Altar Boyz concert tour, their last soul-saving effort to convert the righteous through pop harmonies and killer smiles!
The show works because it's mocking a religious contingency (aka the folks that actually attend such things) without really mocking the religion. And the combination of the guys is genius: Matthew (Chad Doreck) - the earnest Christian whose heart and smile is directed to the sinners in the audience; Mark (Ryan Ratliff) - the flamboyant diva of the group whose heart is directed at, well, Matthew; Luke (Andrew Call) - the slow minded bad boy who recently spent time "recovering" from "exhaustion"; Juan (Jay Garcia) - the latino who never knew his parents; and Abraham (Ryan Strand) - the Jew.

All five of the guys were really strong. There were a few moments where Chad Doreck (from Grease: You're the One That I Want) couldn't seem to muster the vocal and acting chops required... but that is really the only not-so-positive thing that I can say about it.

Mark's Jennifer-Hudson-channeling version of "Epiphany" was probably my favorite number in the show. Absolutely brilliant.

I kind of wish my parents lived closer so that I could take them. We aren't Catholic, but the show still hits close to the Mormon roots. Plus, my mom used to be Episcopalian so I'm sure she'd love it!

2 for 1 Weekend: "110 In The Shade" & "Curtains"

It was a weekend of theater for me. I know… You're thinking "what's new, Spenc?"

I am currently on a mission: to see all of the Tony nominated shows and performances before the Awards air on June 10th. Working towards that objective, I took in 2 shows this weekend: "110 In The Shade" & "Curtains"



"110 In The Shade" is a revival of a show that reminisces an old-school quality that can be found in "Oklahoma" and "Carousel". It is the story of a young woman who is on the verge of ending up alone, when a dark stranger wanders into town and inspires her and many townsfolk to believe in themselves and the good things will come.

I know, corny sounding, right? The show is actually really good. Some of the musical numbers were a little chaotic, and some of the characters were a little obnoxious. Yet on the whole, "110" left me with a smile and warmth like does a Grilled Cheese sandwich and a cup of Tomato Soup on a cold day.

Audra McDonald carries the production as "Lizzie", the young plain Jane whose family (of all men) is worried that she will end up alone, and their fears are then projected onto her. It's a role and a show that could be very cliché and predictable, but Audra creates such a beautiful character. She becomes a girl that everyone knows, that hides her insecurities behind a broadly intellectual yet thinly confident façade. Even when she opens herself up, she is guarded in her attempted vulnerability.
The other major standout was Bobby Steggert in the role of "Jimmy", Lizzie's little brother. He is a cock-eyed optimist who is clumsy and passionate and deftly delivers some of the best comic timing in the production.

"110" is nominated for Best Revival, but in spite of it's phenomenal leading lady's performance (much like "The Apple Tree) just won't hold up to this season's "Company".
Audra McDonald is nominated for Best Actress in a Musical, and I think she's definitely a favorite to win. I have yet to see Christine Ebersole (I'll see her next week in "Grey Gardens") or Donna Murphy, but so far I think that Audra has delivered the most deserving performance.




"Curtains" is a new musical by the hit-writing team Kander and Ebb. The story revolves around a 1950-something theater whose new show "Robbin' Hood" is plagued by deaths and tragedies on the Opening Night, beginning when the leading lady drops dead during the bows. An investigator from the Boston Police holds all of the cast and creative team under quarantine inside the theater as he unravels the case. Being a musical theater fan, he proceeds to not only solve the murder, but fall in love and make changes to the musical at the same time.

David Hyde Pierce plays the neurotically quirky "Lieutenant Ciofi". Pierce has received rave reviews, and a Tony nomination for the performance in the Best Actor in a Musical category. While his comedic delivery is wonderful, his dialect kept switching between "Boston cop" and "Niles Crane". I think it is wonderful that he's been recognized for his superbly funny performance, but I would be shocked if he were to win.
The show also features former Tony winners and current Tony Nominee's Karen Ziemba and Debra Monk, in the roles of "Georgia - one half of the show-writing team" and "Carmen - the stage mom turned Producer" respectively. Both deliver great performances. I was actually surprised at the amount of talent that Debra Monk has. Debra is nominated in the Leading Actress category, but won't win. She is up against huge performances from McDonald and Ebersole and Murphy…and while Monk's performance was good, it didn't carry any emotional pay-off or dramatic layering. Ziemba may win her category (Featured Actress). She was incredible as the writer turned star. Her character required a lot of diversity in singing, dancing, and acting. It was very impressive. Her category is also not stocked with the kind of performances that Leading Actress is, so I think she has a wonderful chance of going home with another Tony this year (she previously won for "Contact" back in 2000).

All I have left to see are "Grey Gardens" and "LoveMusik" (which isn't nominated for Best Musical, but it's three leading characters did get nominations.) The Awards are only a few weeks away!

"Company" Revival is Fantastic!

Last night, my friend Brad and I went to see the Broadway revival of Steven Sondheim's popular ensemble piece, "Company".

The musical is full of familiar and beloved numbers, like "Drive a Person Crazy", "Ladies Who Lunch", and most commonly known "Being Alive". I had seen these numbers performed before by Broadway legends like Alan Ball, Lea Solanga, Bernadette Peters, and Elaine Stritch, but this was my first encounter with the actual production.

It is said that, in regards to Sondheim, you either love him or you hate him. I have always leaned more towards the "love" side because of the way that he can write for a cast and not just a leading performer (like Steven Schwartz for example). After the production last night, I am firmly cemented in the "LOVE" category.

The show stars Raul Esparza as "Bobby": the last singleton in his verging upon middle-aged group of friends. The show is about Bobby's longing to be married, his confusion as to why he isn't already, and the journey into self-doubt and fear that must be taken before a person can be truly ready for a huge commitment like marriage.

The show spans two years, beginning and ending with "surprise" parties for Bobby. Everything in between is the interactions he has with the individual couples. He is looking to his friends for inspiration and guidance on and leading to marriage. Most of what he gets, however, is the reality that no marriage is perfect.

In a show where the music is so captivating and well-known, I was very surprised that the dialogue in the scenes and monologues were in fact the stand out aspect of the show. There are plenty of silent awkward moments throughout the show. Peter and Susan announce that they are (amicably) getting divorced. Harry and Sarah are respectively struggling with alcoholism and obsessive dieting. Paul and Amy are to be married, but Amy has a breakdown because she can't believe that someone could love her the way that Paul does. On the day of the wedding she announces that she won't be going through with it, breaking Paul's heart, only for her to turn around and go through with it anyway. And socialite Joanne and fourth husband Larry would appear to hate each other. She is a drunk. He cares more about his wealth.

The point of the story is that it will never look perfect. Love will never have a pretty bow on it and you will never NOT question it. But love is real, when you are ready for it.

Raul Esparza is phenomenal in this production. He is vulnerable, yet guarded. He is so certain of what he wants, but so completely lost in getting it. The sad but hopeful complexity that he gives to the role was something magical to see. He also has a very distinct voice (that normally I'm not a huge fan of) but he really showed so much control and power in his big numbers "Marry Me A Little" and the showstopping finale "Being Alive" (insert many tears here).

Other standouts were Barbara Walsh as "Joanne". Her version of famously drunk character was more complex than people familiar with the show would expect. Instead of light-hearted and drunk, she was angry and insecure (and still quite a bit drunk) Her version of "Here's to the Ladies Who Lunch" was wonderfully heart-breaking and pathetic. And absolutely phenomenal. Heather Laws was also sensational as "Amy". Her ultra-fast and sharp-tongued "Not Getting Married Today" was dead on and hilarious!

"Company" was directed by John Doyle. His direction was beautiful and complex in it's minimalism. The stage was set with a sleek baby Grande, a towering white pillar, and Plexiglas cubes of various sizes. There was no orchestra. Every member of the cast had an instrument, and many played multiple instruments throughout the production. At first I was worried that the instruments would take away from the acting, but I am happy to report that was not at all the case.

It was like a Black Box production of true Broadway caliber. I would highly recommend it to anyone that wants a moving, awe-inspiring, and non-cookie cutter Broadway experience.

Farewell, "Beauty and the Beast"

The three main women in my life in New York are quite different from each other. But one of the the things that they have in common is a favorite Broadway Show -- "Beauty and the Beast". So, for my sister's birthday, I got the four of us tickets to go see "Beauty and the Beast" just one more time before it takes it's final Broadway bow on July 29th.

I actually have never seen the show, so this was going to be a new experience for me.
The show is currently starring Disney Channel's "That's So Raven" star, Anneliese Van Der Pol. On that show, she plays the quirky (and more than slightly obnoxious) best friend of Raven Simone. So I went in being really nervous. Had Disney cast her just because of her ties with the corporation? I am pleased to say that I don't think so. I'm sure it helped, but the young leading lady had enough vocal and acting chops to really pull it off!

The music and design were wonderful. It's a BIG show. It's the show that set the standard for Disney's other HUGE productions, like "The Lion King" and "Mary Poppins". It's looming grandiosity takes you right back to your childhood. I remember seeing that movie, and from the moment the introductory melody began last Thursday night I remembered feeling that movie as well.

Unfortunately, it wasn't all magic and merriment. There were some very disappointing aspects of the production. The most disappointing this was the ensemble. The dancers were not together, which was seriously distracting from the illusion that they were flatware and plates. The character Lefou was slapstick, rehearsed, and completely annoying. Gaston was fine…but a little bit too…well, gay. He took self-admiration to a level only to be matched by the muscle queens in Chelsea. It was rather disconcerting.

When all was said and done, I was happy to have gone. I didn't want the show to leave the Broadway stage without ever having had the opportunity to see it.

But I assure you, after a little more than 13 years on the stage, the show is ready for retirement. It was fun, but there are newer, bigger, and better things to see now. So "Goodbye!" Beauty and the Beast... It's been fun!

"The Drowsy Chaperone"

Last Friday night I went to see "The Drowsy Chaperone". For theater fans it's a familiar title, after winning Tony Awards for "Best Featured Actress" (Beth Leavel) and "Best Original Score", which are only two of the five Tony's that Chaperone took home at the 2006 Awards ceremony.
For theater also-rans, let me fill you in just a little bit on the premise of the show.

The lights go dark, and the show starts. The show begins in stark darkness, and the Narrator (otherwise known as The Man in the Chair played by John Glover) begins talking about being a part of an audience, and the anticipation you feel right before the Overture begins. Will this show be worth the money? What if it sucks? You are immediately light-hearted and in the right mind-set for the lights to come up and the show to really begin.

You join The Man in his apartment, a small seemingly Manhattan-esque studio. He talks about being lonely, and how when he is lonely he turns to his records. He then invites you on a trip through his favorite show recording, "The Drowsy Chaperone". He proceeds to walk you through the "album", giving you backstory on his experience with the show and the actors who portrayed the characters that you see coming to life inside of his head, and inside of his very small studio apartment.

The show he walks you through is about a Diva (Janine LaManna, originally played by Sutton Foster) who is giving up the stage to marry the charismatic Robert whom she barely knows (Troy Britton Johnson); a Chaperone (Beth Leavel) who is more concerned with keeping her martini glass full than watching her bridal charge; a producer (Lenny Wolpe) on a mission to stop the wedding and get his leading lady back; and an ensemble of colorful characters who all asemble to celebrate a wedding with their own motives in mind.

The stand out performers in this performance were without question Beth Leavel and Danny Burstein (the European cassanova, Adolpho), who both brought such an amazing charisma and character to the performance that they were not only in a league of their own within this production, but in all of Broadway. They both embodied such flawless commitment to their respective characters that I was in awe whenever they were on stage. And when they were on stage together? Well forget about it. I've never seen an entire audience rock with laughter like that. Ever.

The show is a fabulous comedy, but also has a real heart. The Man in the Chair takes you so far into the unreality of his record that you get wonderfully lost. And in the climax of the show, when the power goes out, it is heart wrenching. The Man has a near break-down. All he wanted was to share this beautiful thing with you and right as it was about to pay off, it's ruined. The moment is heart-breaking. In an instant that Man seems so pathetic, so alone that all you want to do is cry with him. Or rather, cry for him.

The show does end on a happy note though. When the power returns and he starts to sing a tune from the show, the "characters" break free of their world and pull him into it. He's so happy. And again, you want to cry for him but in a completely different way.

My only wish is that I could've seen Sutton Foster in this production. Janine LaManna was fine, but nothing amazing or standout the way that Sutton Foster captivates even the most skeptic Broadway-goer. The last time I saw Foster was in 2002 Tony winning performance as Millie Dillmount in "Thoroughly Modern Millie" on that same Marquis Theater stage. I guess I'll just have to wait for her next big show ("Young Frankenstein", rumored to be opening this coming Halloween on the Great White Way) to see her again!

Mediocre, but for a good cause...

Last night, my friend Michelle and I went to see a charity concert of "The Rocky Horror Tribute Show". I admit that my motivation in going wasn't a philanthropic need to support Breast Cancer research and treatment. It was more a selfish need to see Howie Michael Smith half-naked on stage... (And may I just tell you - it was worth it!)

I know I sound like an obsessed teenage girl, but I truly think that the boy is incredibly talented. In my opinion, he was one of only three that looked like they had any business being on a Broadway stage.

First, there was Neil Patrick Harris. We all know him as "Doogie Howser", or more recently as "Barney" from the desperately un-funny How I Met Your Mother on CBS. Fortunately, Harris is actually a very talented comedian, and was wonderful in the role of "The Narrator". There were quite a few "shout outs" from the audience, poking fun at his breakthrough role and his career now. He moved on the audience comments with sharp timing and hilarious comebacks. He is a wonderful live performer, and without a doubt the BEST part of this production.

Then there was Howie Michael Smith(left). Yes, we all know that I am a fan, but from unbiased standpoint the boy is still pretty wonderful. His vocal range is huge! He is a very charismatic actor, and it's not surprising that he is starring in another Broadway production at the moment. His numbers were wonderful and a bright spot in this admittedly lack-luster production.

Last, but not necessarily least, was Kevin Cahoon as "Dr. Frank". There were moments when I wasn't sure whether or not I was watching a Broadway production, or a drag show. Irregardless, his performance was wonderful. It was nearly impossible not to watch him when he was on the stage. And while I think it could be argued that his character was more "late night drag show host" than "demonically mad transvestite alien scientist", (Not that I could even really tell you what the difference is anyway... I'm just sayin'.), it was fun and far better than most everyone elses performance.

The rest of the cast seemed either incredibly amateur or really unprofessional. Rachel Helson ("Janet" and 18 year old founder of Acting for the Cure) was cute, but really young and really weak. Michael Sutherland ("Brad") was also very inexperienced and weak. To their defense, they are both freshman pursuing BFA's in acting. I'm sure for what they are they are really good. But putting them next to seasoned performers on the Broadway stage? It just seemed cruel.

The most disappointing thing about the production were the three leads that were played by Broadway veterans that didn't deliver. David Burtka, Kate Reinders, and Cathy Trien all starred in Broadway's Gypsy with Bernadette Peters. And all three delivered tepidly mediocre performances that were unprofessional and seemingly unrehearsed. I understand that this show is supposed to incorporate a sense of improvisation, but they were just unprepared.

Rocky Horror is a cult show for a reason. If you are not part of it, chances are you won't enjoy it. The audience participation and "script" make it next to impossible to understand what is transpiring on the stage. I didn't really know what the show was about. And I still don't. But am I sad that I went?

No. Like I said, Howie Michael Smith is great. And it was fun to see Neil Patrick Harris. So I was content.

And, after all, it was for a good cause...

(Photo from left to right: Kevin Cahoon, Rachel Helson, Michael Sutherland, Howie Michael Smith, David Burtka, Cathy Trien, and Kate Reinders)

Broadway's "Avenue Q"

I'm sure most everyone is already familiar with this show. I'm sure most everyone has heard the soundtrack, or is at least vaguely familiar with the concept of "Avenue Q". I knew the soundtrack by heart when I walked into the theater last night. It was my first time ever seeing the show, yet I had to consciously stop myself from singing along with the opening number.
All of my high expectations were met. I already knew most of the jokes, and their respective punchlines, but the actors delivered everything with a fresh edge that had me laughing out loud from lights up until the curtain call.

Right now the show is starring Howie Michael Smith. And may I say -- YUM. Not only is he one of the most attractive people I've seen on Broadway, he's also one of the more talented! His precisive character vocals and child-like engagement in the puppetry was astounding. You couldn't help but smile whenever he was on stage (nor could I help but blush!) The female lead, Mary Faber, was also spot on. Both actors were flawless, especially when voicing two different puppets that were on stage at the same time. It was amazing to me that their 'voices' never mushed together to sound mostly the same. The talent in every regard for both of these leads was hugely impressive.

The rest of the cast was good. Christmas Eve (played by Ann Sanders) was slightly inconsistent in her Asian-mocking dialect. Trekkie Monster and Nicky (voiced by Christian Anderson) were both engaging, if not standing out. Gary Coleman (played by Haneefah Wood) was funny, but only when the joke was centered on the character. Otherwise the performance was pretty lazy. Brian (played by Evan Harrington) was actually the worst of the cast. Every line fell off at the end, and the poor fool just never found a comedic beat to save his life. And the ensemble players? Well, they're ensemble for a reason…

The show lives on punchlines and shock-humor, and boy, does it deliver! Even with mediocre performances from the cast (excluding Smith and Faber!) the show was nothing but loveable and hilarious. I would definitely recommend it to anyone (except maybe not my mother…) even if they are familiar with it already. There are a few surprises that don't exist on the soundtrack, and seeing the show really solidifies the plotlines' progressions.

Omigod!..."Legally Blonde" on Broadway!

Last Wednesday I went to see "Legally Blonde", the newest addition to the Broadway Playbill list. The show started previews last Tuesday, and opens later this month. The show is directed by Jerry Mitchell of Broadway Choreographer fame, and stars Laura Bell Bundy who you may remember from the original cast of "Hairspray".

So, you've seen the movie. And you know the story. I was admittedly a little nervous about how the show was going to translate. But Omigod you guys, I loved it!

So it opens at the sorority house with the number "Omigod!" I promise you - you will leave the theater singing this song. It takes us right into the story. Elle and her sisters get excited because she thinks she is getting proposed to when in reality she is getting broken up with. She follows her boyfriend to Harvard where she doesn't fit in, but she starts to realize that she actually has a bunch of potential when mentored by the hot T.A. And then of corse she is assigned to work on a case for a sorority sister that she is eventually but fully in charge of and wins, thrusting her into the spotlight as a law school star after being hit on my her creepy professor. There aren't any new tricks up the writers sleeves. There ARE however some fabulously hilarious new jokes and musical numbers!

For example, you don't miss the line about "last season's Prada shoes" when the courtroom breaks out into "Is he gay? Or European?!", without a doubt the funniest number in the show. The character Brooke Windam is far more interesting in the stage version, when we are introduced to her character at the start of Act II as if we were watching her workout video - insert hot sweaty muscle-bound jump-roping chorus boys here!

"Legally Blonde" has all the makings of a Broadway smash: huge production numbers, catchy tunes, and a beautiful and talented cast.

The star of the show is Laura Bell Bundy, and not just because she is the main character. The second she appears you are immediately on her side. She carries the same lovable charisma on stage as I've only seen very few actresses muster, and puts her in a whole other class of Broadway performers with the likes of Sutton Foster and Kristin Chenoweth. You can't help but grin ear-to-ear when she is onstage.
The most impressive thing to me was the amount of emotional payoff Bundy was able to create. Elle Woods is a fun character, but in the film you didn't develop the real attachment that you get in the live version. After her professor hits on her, and then fires her, she sings on of two emotional ballads in the production which left me breathless. I loved the movie, but I never wanted to cry for Elle like I did last Wednesday. It was an amazing character transformation.

But don't worry, it doesn't stay serious all that long! After all, this isn't the kind of show you go to to have your core shaken and your beliefs challenged.

The show is just different enough from the film that it manages to feel like a brand new experience. It's a brilliantly fun, fast paced show with high kicks, pop references, and gays gays everywhere! It carries the same excitement and appeal that "Hairspray" and "Mamma Mia" brought to Broadway. I would highly recommend the show to anyone of any age from any walk of life!

"The Pirate Queen" on Broadway

"The Pirate Queen" was an experience that made me truly appreciative of good musical theater. Yes, it was just that bad.
With a book and music created by the same team that brought us "Les Miserables" and "Miss Saigon", I was very hopeful that this new musical production would be on par with their previous works that I love. I was amazed at just how short this show actually fell.
The story revolves around a true story. Grace O'Malley was the first female head of an Irish clan. She happened to lead at the same time that the first Queen Elizabeth was taking the thrown and leading an expansionistic monarchy.
In theory, the story could've been about these two women who ruled simultaneously at a time when women did not have any power. That would have been a very intriguing and rewarding story.
It could have been a three tiered love story. A woman and her country, a woman and her lover, and a woman and her son were the three obvious through lines that could've been developed in the story about Grace. That would have been a great story too.

It could have been an epic adventure. It could've featured sea-faring battles and exciting production/effect elements. That too would've been very entertaining...
Unfortunately, I can't really tell you what the show was about, because all of the above were so superficially developed that none had any sort of final emotional payoff. At intermission, I felt utterly confused about what was happening, and more importantly why I cared about what was happening. I've never been in a theater and actually considered leaving during the intermission. It was an extremely bizarre feeling for me.
The entire plot was completely contrived and predictable. A woman feels left out in a man's world. She gains the trust of men to become a great leader. She falls in love, but is forced to marry someone else (even though she's the ruler and could've changed that situation…). Her true love sticks around, so when the husband becomes totally worthless and betrays her the Lover can sweep in and save the day. But then there's the Queen of England who miraculously has a change of heart because she has no lover and sets Grace free, so really the Lover didn't save her at all when she got captured. And then the two queens are friends…
Confused? Ya, I'm sorry, but that's how I still feel. And I was there for the whole thing!
The show had a large ensemble that would randomly break out in RiverDance-esque production numbers that absolutely made no sense in the show. Only one of the four or five dance numbers could I even understand. Yes, at a wedding there would be dancing. But in a christening? What's with all the hardshoe Irish jigging? I mean, I get it. The show is about an Irish woman. And Riverdance is an Irish style. But aside from that little connection I cannot tell you why the show had choreography at all. Not that the dancing was bad. It was very good, but just so completely out of place!
There is a bar scene in Act One where the villain (Grace's arranged husband) sings about being adulterous. He is joined by barmaids and shipmates. The number was very crass. Understandably, it was to demonstrate the morals of the time period and the quality of life in Ireland. But they were all very clean. What I mean is they had meticulous wigs, clean make-up, and untarnished costumes. None of which are very realistic for a 1500's Irish pub. So the whole number was very off putting and seemed crass for no other reason than to be just that.
The only thing worse than that scene was any time the actress playing Queen Elizabeth was on stage. Her not-quite-legit soprano was nothing but grating. The overtones never even got close to correct. She was shrill and quite possibly one of the worst actresses I've ever seen. She was falsely emotive and intensely two dimensional. Her final change of heart and emotional pay off was so poorly developed that I was grateful for the dark theater, and that no one could see my eyes rolling in the back of my head.
To be fair, the leading actress (Stephanie Block - Grace) and the leading actor (Hadley Fraser - Tiernan) were wonderful. Both had wonderfully crisp and rich vocals, and it was only their solos/duets that stood out as Broadway caliber. It is unfortunate that they were cast in such a lack-luster production for what could have been big breaks in originating Broadway roles for the both of them.
"The Pirate Queen" opens next Thursday. Perhaps the incohesion of my experience will improve as the show ages and continues to develop. I hope it does.

I doubt it will.

Broadway's "Mary Poppins"

When I was in elementary school, I was in a 3 year production of OLIVER! To learn a British accent, the director had me watch "Mary Poppins" over and over, and over again.

And I've always asserted that "Mary Poppins" made me gay.

I had that reaffirmed last night when I went to see the new Broadway musical version of the iconic Disney film.

"Mary Poppins" opened on Broadway in November of 2006. Disney and Cameron Macintosh moved their hit musical, "The Lion King", from the New Amsterdam to the Minskoff Theater to accommodate what they anticipating being a smash-hit. Boy, did they hit that one on the head!
This show embodies all of the superfluous elements that theater-goers crave. You get huge awe-inspiring sets, every color in the rainbow in the brightest possible hues, the glitz that reminisces the golden age of Follies, and dazzling special effects that have become commodities in Disney's musical productions.

The set and costume designs were the standout aspects of this production. The dancing statues, flying set pieces, and bright costumes were incredibly well constructed. The backdrops were like watching film. The lighting designers created a moving night sky, complete with passing flocks of birds and light breezes. They were unlike anything I had ever seen before!

The special effects were able to embody the mystery and awe that the movie inspired so many years ago. In "Practically Perfect" Mary and the children unload that famously magical carpet bag of hers. Tall lamps, foliage, and a whole chaise lounge all come out of it. I have no idea how they did it! Mirrors? Trap doors? Probably, but I could not tell you for certain. And I love that! It created so much magic right from the beginning. It didn't lose it's luster either. Tap numbers on the ceiling, dancers walking up the walls in defiance of gravity, and, of course, the flying umbrella were all phenomenally well executed.

The production numbers were just that: Productions! I haven't seen a show with so much energy, color, and flare since the revival of "42nd Street"! The ensemble left me breathless and smiling from ear to ear, as well it should!

The title character, played by Ashley Brown, was also really well done. True, she is no Julie Andrews. But then, who is? She was able to keep the same lovable subtlety that was introduced in the original performance, while still bringing to the stage a new and different character. The portrayal of "Bert" by Gavin Lee was every bit as good (if not better) than what we know from Dick Van Dyke. He was charming, quirky, and gave so much heart to the role.

One other stand out performance came from a character who was not in the Disney film - Miss Andrews. Miss Andrews is the father's childhood nanny who comes to instill the militarian qualities of Order after Mary Poppins leaves. The character isn't around for long, but is exquisitely devilish, singing of punishment by "brimstone, treacle, and cod liver oil". The final showdown between Nanny Andrews and Mary Poppins is by far the best "new" number in the production.

My only complaint would be that the story did have moments in the (too long) first act that seemed to drag a bit. The parents were not bad, but paled in comparison to the other performers. So anytime the scenes were being carried by them I found myself losing focus. It wasn't that they were bad, but they just couldn't keep the pace that the other cast members initiated and miraculously maintained.

You won't get the kind of ground-breaking vision or demanding acting chops that other new shows this season offer (see "Spring Awakening"). What you will get is 2 1/2 hours of Quintessential Broadway: high kicks, glamor, and a feel-good experience to be cherished for a very, very long time.

"The Apple Tree" Broadway Revival

I have to take a moment to exude my overwhelming appreciation for the artist that is Kristin Chenoweth. Classical intonation, unmatchable range, vocal characterization, and impeccable comedic timing – She is the quintessential Broadway powerhouse packaged in one very beautifully curvy yet tiny package!

The Broadway revival of “The Apple Tree” closes this Sunday. I am a huge fan of the leading lady, so I decided that I just couldn’t miss the chance to see her in this show, especially with all of the critical acclaim she had received for the role.

I wish, however, that I had done a bit more research on the show itself before going.

If it weren’t for Kristin, this show would have NEVER been moved from the Encore! Revival stage to Broadway. The triptych show is one of the most random pieces of theater that I have ever seen. Act one, “The Diary of Adam and Eve” is supremely delightful. Despite the bland staging which consisted of a bunch of ladders in various sizes and one small palette of grass (which looked like something made for an elementary school production) the piece was completely engaging!

It opens with Adam (played by Brian d’Arcy James…soon to be seen in "Young Frankenstein") waking up and being instructed to name all the animals. He proceeds to name all the flying things “flyers”, the crawling things “crawlers”, etc. He then comments on how wonderful it is to be the “single man among all the animals”. No sooner does he revel in this than he is struck by a pain in his ribs, and out comes Eve (played by Kristin Chenoweth) on that small patch of grass. He dismisses her with an “I’ll name that animal later…”

Eve awakes, and begins giving animals their real names, based on the reasoning that “it’s just what they look like” and “I just know!”. The first encounter between Eve and Adam is hysterical, each trying to decide what kind of animal the other is, and why it can talk when none of the others (except of course for the Parrot) seem to be able to. The show typifies the differences between men and women: Adams dislike of anything without purpose, like flowers; His response of “that’s just the color of wood” when Eve questions the color scheme in his home; Eve’s suggestion of rubbing some berries into the wood to give it some “pizzazz!” etc.

Of corse the fun is ruined when the Snake (played by Sean Palmer...yum!) convinces Eve that the forbidden fruit isn't actually the apples, but rather the bad jokes that Adam has invented. She then passes the misinformation on to Adam, and they both are forced to leave the garden.

The funniest part of the first act is the sequence when Eve is pregnant, and Adam questions her weight gain. I was in tears I was laughing so hard! The sequence continues with the baby arriving, and neither of them knowing what kind of animal it is. Adam can’t understand how he hunts all day and Eve never leaves the house, yet she seems to be able to catch a strange animal. Eventually they realize they are people, just like them: Cain and Abel.

The story comes to a close with a monologue from Eve, lamenting over the “emptiness that consumes [her] home” after Abel is killed by his brother, and Cain runs away. The delivery was such a sharp contrast to the humor-filled act. The emotional payout continues after her speech with Adam telling us about how Eve has passed away. He is on his way out to water the flowers. Eve’s flowers. Afterall, while he never liked them, they were her favorite.

And again, there was much crying.

Both Chenoweth and James gave such amazing performances. I was so impressed. And I was so excited to see the next half of the show! The second act was set to be two plays: “The Lady or The Tiger?” and “Passionella”.

“The Lady or The Tiger?” is about a princess who loves a soldier, which is apparently forbidden, though it’s never explained why. When discovered, the soldier is given a “fair trial” which consists of the defendant picking one of two doors. One door will have behind it a maiden, who the man will then marry on the spot. The other door will have a man-eating tiger. So when the princess learns which door holds the tiger, she is torn – the beautiful woman that her lover would have to marry is her nemesis. Does she tell her lover how to live and sacrifice him to a marriage to her enemy? Or does she let him die? After all, if she can’t have him….

The music was painful. The costuming/design was bad Vegas Cabaret. The ensemble was annoying. The only bright spot in the whole show was a number by Kristin after she discovers her dilemma. She does the whole thing with a Brooklyn accent. Very “Fanny Brice”. Her comedic timing saved me from wanting to cry through this part of the three-part show.

“Passionella” is a Cinderella story. The main character “Ella” is a chimney sweep who dreams of being a movie star. Her first number was hysterical. First, Kristin is one of the best female Broadway vocalists on the stage today. The character, Ella, was a TERRIBLE singer. The entire audience, myself included, was in stitches! She was off-pitch and shaky and absolutely brilliant!
Anyway, her God Mother (played by Sean Palmer, also knows as “Marcus Adent” from Sex and the City) allows her to become the beautiful star “Passionella”, but only during prime time tv hours. The number “Gorgeous” was a stand out. I had seen Kristin perform this number in her solo concert at the Met, but within the context of the show was even more impressed!

So she becomes famous. Falls in love with a rockstar who accuses her of not being “real”, and she starts to lament her transformation. Again, the ensemble is seriously lacking. And the two male leads (The Rockstar – d’Arcy James, and Narrator/GodMother – Sean Palmer) were not very note-worthy either. The plot gives you a predictable ending. The rockstar falls in love, and ends up being a transformative-geek as well. So the awkward chimney sweep and dwerby guy fall in love and live happily, if not unattractively, ever after.

Very disappointing. I left the theater feeling so resentful. How dare a show build me up so much in the first act, only to be bored out of my mind in the second act?!
Again, all applaud to Kristin Chenoweth, who made the most out of the script and music to create for herself another shining moment on Broadway. I just wish the Encores!, Round About Theater Co, and Studio 54 could have had a better production, rather than a tepid revival of a mediocre musical that relied much too heavily on it’s star power.

Broadway's "Spring Awakening"

My latest impulse buy is by far the best thing I have purchased in a really long time.
I walk past the Eugene O’Neil Theater every day, going from the C train subway stop to my office. And every morning there are people lined up outside, hoping to get last minute tickets to see the O’Neil’s current production, “Spring Awakening”.

I had heard talk of this show over the last little while. Between Rosie O’Donnell and my best friend dash Broadway expert (albeit in his own mind…) the show had been highly recommended as one for me to see. I went online and checked out the website, and noticed that they have a seating section called “On Stage Seating. This piqued my curiosity, so I stopped by the theater on my way home after work. The guy at the box office (very cute!) offered to let me see the stage, so I went in with him. Literally, there were three rows of tiered seats right on the sides of the stage. There were no wings.

“Wow” I said, “Are there any for tonight?”

“Not til June” he said. “Are you single?”

I was completely taken off guard by the cute box office boy…until I realized that he wasn’t in fact hitting on me, but trying to determine how many tickets I was after.

“Just me!” I said, praying my face wasn’t as bright red as it felt.

He had a seat, second row and center, which had just come available. The price was more than I had thought I would end up spending, but after seeing the stage and spending a day reading reviews and watching youtube videos…I splurged!

And I am SO glad that I did!

THE SHOW

“Spring Awakening” is set in the late 1800’s in Germany. The cast is very young. I believe that no one is older than 23! It is a look at what happens when teenagers and adults lack the communication necessary when going through sexual development.

The opening scene involves our ingénue, Wendla, asking her mother “Where do babies come from?” Her mother doesn’t want to talk about it, but is forced to when she threatens to “run right out and ask the chimney sweep” instead. While the mother submits, she still does not offer up the whole truth.

The leading males, Melchior and Moritz, take the next scene when Moritz tells Melchior of his haunted dreams by a woman in “blue leggings” and the “sticky horror” she causes him. Melchior is the most learned of all the boys, and on his own discovered books on sex and the difference between men and women. He responds to his friend with “Oh! That kind of dream…” Moritz does not want Melchior to explain the sex to him, but rather asks him to write it all down…including illustrations if he so desires.

The show continues with all the other characters divulging their sexual secrets. One girl confides in her friends that she is sexually abused. This inspires Wendla, who marvels at what the pain of being beaten must feel like because she has never felt “anything”. This pursuit of pain is what opens her up to sexual exploration.

I want so badly to continue to write on the plot, but would not want to ruin anything for anyone! So I will stop there.

The young talent in this show is astonishing, with particular applaud to the three leading characters: Moritz, played by John Gallagher Jr; Wendla, played by Lea Michele (Mark my words…she will be HUGE); and Melchior, played by Jonathan Groff.

I was amazed by the acting chops these three young stars demonstrated. I cannot pick a favorite out of the three as there were so many things I liked about their characters that just aren’t comparable to the others. Moritz is dark and twitchy, but is portrayed in a way that you instantly are on his side. He immediately connects! Melchior is brooding and (sigh) handsome. His role required so much depth, from excitement to overwhelming sobs that had me in tears. Big time. And Lea Michele’s VOICE?! Oh. My. God. The girl is phenomenal, and the acting is superb as well. That character develops so much from the time she is questioning her mother about the origin of babies, and pursuing the boy next door for sex. All three gave performances that were out of this world!

The show requires some huge energy because of the style of music. The showstopper “The Bitch of Living” wraps in a mosh-pit-esque dance sequence that left me out of breath. The cast delivered huge numbers and modern sound throughout the entire performance that left my dying for more. The music provides the thoughts and emotions for the characters. The characters actually use hand held microphones when singing to demonstrate the disconnect from their “reality”. At first, I didn’t know how I felt about it. But the way it was executed was superb! I felt it was an awesome and totally original choice by the director. It’s not that no one has ever used hand held mics before…but it was the way it was done that was so impressive!

The one thing I did not understand was all the hype over one of the smaller characters, played by Lauren Pritchard. The playbill noted that she has original music on her myspace account, which I found totally cheesy. The New Yorker had sort of spotlighted her as an up and coming pop star, but she paled in comparison to the rest of the cast! Not that she wasn’t great, but definitely not deserving of more attention than the three leads.

I also don’t understand all the comparison that this show is getting to RENT. This show is about sexual discovery and loss. RENT is about living each day like it’s the last, and finding hope in a poor disease-ridden city. Yes, both shows were a big “shock” to the theater community when they opened in that the content was more risqué than anything else. But if that is the only comparison, then you could logically compare this show to “A Chorus Line” or “Cabaret”, which were ground-breaking and shocking pieces for their time.

And I don’t think that anyone is going to be running a comparison of “Spring Awakening” to “A Chorus Line”… (Which, by the by, I saw the revival of a few months ago and would also highly recommend it to everyone!)
All in all, this is by far the best thing I’ve seen on Broadway. Ever. (For those of you who just thought “What about RENT???” – I’ve only seen that show once, and it was on tour, not Broadway. So it doesn’t count!) If you come to New York anytime soon, go see it. I promise you will not be disappointed!