Homework: Guilty Pleasure

One of my long-time guilty pleasures has been HEARTBEATS, a sort of jukebox musical of Amanda "The Rose" McBroom's cabaret songs (plus a few presumably written for the show).  The thin story focuses on a woman turning 40 and wondering what went wrong with her marriage.  For some reason, the show and its 90s lite pop score really resonated with me when I was in the 7th grade.  I got the cast recording.  The L.A. cast recording.  I don't know how one got the L.A. cast recording of HEARTBEATS 40 minutes west of Cleveland in 1996, but by gum, I found a way. 

My favorite song had always been "Putting Things Away", a song which finds parallels in putting away groceries and dreams.  The lyric is a bit on the nose and the music cheesey, but I love this song:

   

  Discover Simple, Private Sharing at Drop.io 

 

In trying to find some mention of it on the internet, I found this most peculiar item--an assignment for an ESL class at the National Taiwan University.  Most of the assignment is about identifying the many household items and activities mentioned in the song--it really is a esl vocab paradise.  But the last study question--"What explanation in the second part of the song does the singer give for not liking to put things away? How do the last things she says in the song affect the interpretation of the rest of the song?"--would actually be difficult for me to answer.  How DOES the end of the song affect your interpretation of the beginning.  Because you don't want to play the ending of the song, but yet...and I remember why I got out of performing.  


One last tidbit: whilst at amazon looking for a jpeg of the cast recording I found this review I wrote while a Jr. in High School (I wrote a lot of amazon reviews back then).

Late Night Nonsense

I don't have a whole lot to weigh in on the current situation going on with respect to NBC's late night programming, other than to say, in my opinion, the ball was dropped in the mid-90s, when Jay Leno took over The Tonight Show instead of Letterman.  Fact: David Letterman is far funnier than Jay Leno.  I suppose there is something simple and non-threatening about Leno that appeases "those people" in America (the same "those people" who are afraid of Thai food and homosexuals and fans of Sarah Palin).  But as these past seven months have proven, "those people" have happily accepted Letterman as their late night leader.  Though Leno was the habitual "winner" in the ratings throughout his "competition" against Letterman, it was a competition NBC made for themselves by not giving Letterman the show in the first place.  I sincerely doubt Leno would have had the chutzpah to move to CBS (or any other network) against Letterman had Letterman been crowned Carson's successor, and NBC would have continued its unrestricted dominion over late night TV.  As it stands, NBC may have very well killed the Tonight Show, leaving Letterman the lone player on the field.  Watch the following clip and show me a Leno clip that is even remotely as funny.  It's a dare.

Norbert Leo Butz

If you aren't obsessed with Norbert Leo Butz, you either hate musicals or don't have ears.

An audio only of him singing One Song Glory in '98.  I believe he was the 1st Roger replacement.  The recording is okay...aside from a few moments of technical difficulty.  Norbert is perfection.



Here he playing Mark to Adam Pascall's Roger (I guess Norbert was a swing as well).  Why was this recorded in the first place?  Thank god RENT inspired the rabid fandom it did, prompting fans to record and collect live performances.  I'm curious as to what else exists out there...



Here he is in DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDREL (the show for which he won a Tony).  I really enjoyed this show--a legitimately funny musical comedy is a hard thing to pull off.



in Cabaret



Here he is in LAST 5 YEARS.  I chose this particular one because he is shirtless.  But pretty much all of the original production can be found here. 



As Fieryo in WICKED.  He basically outsings Idina here.  He was an interesting short for the romantic lead--i mean, he's shorter than Elphaba--but probably the smartest decision WICKED made.

South Pacific and Avatar: When is it okay to look away?

I don't think many people seen an inherent link between SOUTH PACIFIC and AVATAR.  But, at least for me, there are a few similiarties: I saw both at Lincoln Center in the first week of 2010, both are over 2.5 hours, both deal with warfare in tropical locales and troubled relations with "natives", but are absolutely stunning, stunning enough to negate some substantial flaws.

 When I say South Pacific is flawed, I do not mean to dismiss its substantial merit.  The score is gorgeous, tuneful, and memorable.  The characters are unlike any others in the music theater cannon, and the situations it deals likewise break any sort of mold that has existed before or since.  But things get confusing when the 2nd act becomes a bunch of guys in khaki barking and listening to the radio, someone gets MALARIA, but that turns out not to be so big a deal and he goes on a top secret mission (which, for some reason, requires the aid of a random French plantation owner).  The mission itself--as well as its consequences--is vague and confusing.  Oh, and that malaria victim falls in love (even though he has a girlfriend) with a local girl just because she's hot.  But she is so hot that he realizes he's racist for not wanting to marry her, even though there are many legitimate reasons not to marry her, like his girlfriend lack of knowledge about anything north of her lady parts.  And I'm not even going to start on the first scene ending with our heroine saying (forgive me for paraphrasing) "You tell me you've killed a man, but yet I can tell that it's okay."

With the amateur productions I've seen, these dramaturgical quibbles were enough to seriously taint the experience, but the production at Lincoln center was so stunningly designed, acted and sung that most of the more bizarre elements of the book didn't reveal themselves until I allowed myself the think about them afterwards.  Even those tedious "listen to the exciting stuff happen off stage" scenes were styling enough to hold my interest.

 Despite it's flaws, SOUTH PACIFIC is still unquestionably a masterpiece, deserving of it's Pulitzer prize.  The Lincoln Center production merely shook the cobwebs off and gave it what I can imagine to be an emotional punch similar to what audiences felt in the 1940s.  AVATAR is a remarkable technical achievement, manipulative and predictable.  It is, in fact, exactly the sort of movie I have spent 26 years avoiding.  But it was visually stunning, even moving at times, with many unforgettable moments.  In short, it was "worth it".

So at what point is it okay to ignore flaws and relish in the abundant resources of a production?  Is it somehow "cheating" or "quitting" to allow a movie like AVATAR wow us with razzle dazzle, even if it was somewhat (though not entirely) lacking in substance?  Another example: I loved FINNIAN'S RAINBOW.  A friend of mine hated it.  He loved the score, but couldn't get over the lack of conflict in the book, or the underdeveloped characters, or the hastily created romance.  I, for one, didn't care how hasty the romance was, since it created an excuse for me to hear the delightful "If This Isn't Love".  Sure, the character development was fairly crude compared to that of, say, A CATERED AFFAIR, but the richness and joy in FINNIAN'S score made it the more satisfying evening.  And really, most everything can be picked apart if held up to close enough scrutiny; the whole is almost always greater than the sum of its parts.  It's a fine fine line indeed.

Whatever Happened to Her?

Martine McCutcheon is probably best known on this side of the pawn for her role as Hugh Grant (as England's Prime Minister)'s secretary in LOVE ACTUALLY (the cutest movie ever made).  But she had previously had considerable success as a television actress, pop singer, and won a slew of awards as Eliza Doolittle in Trevor Nunn's acclaimed MY FAIR LADY.  The wikipedia article on her indicates she's something of a hot mess with her most recent work being in the public appearance/spokesperson realm, but the her surpsingly satisfying rendition of "Don't Rain on My Parade" (even if the last phrase is not quite thrilling enough) indicates that a return to the musical theater stage (were that she were Charlotte in the Night Music revival!) is necessary. 

What to expect when you're expecting NINE

If the powers that be in the 1980s thought that NINE differed enough from its source material, 8 1/2, that 6 months was added to the title.  Well, perhaps, if there hadn't been that Mickey Rourke/Kim Basinger movie, Rob Marshall's adaptation of the Tony award winning musical might have considered a further update: 9 1/2.  I'm not going to go into a full fledged review, as that is ultimately something I don't really feel comfortable doing (though I have and will probably continue to do even as I complete this post), but I do want to point out the ways in which the film is so very different from it's stage predecessor.  This means "spoilers" will follow.

1) The "concept".  Part of what made the stage NINE (hereafter "S9") successful was its highly theatrical concept.  Guido on a white tile stage on which sat all the women in Contini's life, commenting--if only with their continued presence--on the proceedings. Additionally, everyone onstage, aside from Guido and little boys, was played by a woman.  The movie takes a more naturalist approach, with men appearing in various roles and the women only appearing when they are actually in scenes (though sometimes they appear as realizations of Guido's imagination).  The musical numbers happen mostly in Guido's mind--often in justoposition to a "real life" scene--on the set of what is supposed to be his next movie, which is apparently Rob Marshall's CHICAGO.  (No wonder Guido is confused.)  But, snarkiness aside, I generally understood Guido's desire to envision his women's problems in a particularly glamorous and sexy way, even if the specifics of the device were a little fuzzy.  And despite a certain conceptual unclarity, the numbers are all gorgeously shot and contain the right emotional impulse and pay-off.

2) The score.  A lot is missing, including the title song, "Grand Canal", "Be On Your Own", "Only With You", "Simple", "Growing Tall", and one of my favorite songs of ALL TIME "The Bells of Saint Sebastian".  We did get 3 new songs, including a useless (if somewhat entertaining) go-go dance number for Kate Hudson and a bunch of sexy boys in skinny ties, a simple and pleasant song about dreams for Sophia Loren (in lieu of the title song) and a Kander-Ebb knock-off for Marion Cotillard (in lieu of "Be On Your Own").  The Cotillard number was the most interesting change for me.  Perhaps they didn't want Luisa--Guido's long suffering wife--to be saddled with 2 weepy ballads.  Her new song is a raunchy strip tease that is played against a more reserved book scene.  The combination is effective if the song itself is forgettable and the staging particularly reminiscent of CABARET.  There is also a lot of incidental music (assorted lounge singers and the like) throughout.  I'm not sure if Yeston wrote that as well, but it left little-to-no impression either way.

3) The Performances. Daniel Day Lewis is nothing short of incredible.  His inhabitation of Guido Contini is so thorough and complete that one hardly notices how thinly developed the stories of his respective women are--no matter how little time we the audience spend with his many loves, their effect on Contini is so clear and precise in Lewis' performance that we fill in whatever dramaturgical gaps were left behind.  Marion Cotillard makes the strongest impression of the women.  Partially because her arch was the most developed, but mostly because she's a damn good actress and her "My Husband Makes Movies" was wonderful (and aided greatly by Marshall's treatment).  Judi Dench as Lilliane LaFleur (Guido's agent in S9, but an Edith Head-esque costume designer here, a change which seemed unnecessary at first, but makes complete sense in context) also scores well with her particular blend of criticism and advice.  And she makes fine use of "Follies Bergeres", a song I have never been all that fond of.  Penelope Cruz is infectious as Carla--Guido's mistress--and makes a fine vamp in her "Call to the Vatican".  Nicole Kidman's role was reduced to a scene on the film set followed by an adequate rendition of "Unusual Way", which is a beautiful song, but not too effective without any context or backstory to support it.  Fergie sings "Be Italian" (another non-favorite of mine) magnificently, even if the number features the most loathsome musical-theater cliche--tamborines, blech--while officially making "sexy dancing on black, wooden, arch back chairs" the SECOND most loathsome musical-theater cliche.  Every second Kate Hudson is on screen is useless.  Not because she lacks talent, but because her character is not an asset to the story in any way.  It's as if Serena van der Woodsen fell in a rabbit hole and ended in 1960s Italy...with gogo dancing boys in oft mentioned skinny ties.

4) Back to the title for a moment.  The show is called NINE because adult Guido is constantly at a battle with childish impulses, behavior, and memories vs Grown-up responsibilities.  In S9, little Guido talks Grown-Up Guido out of suicide (with the lovely "Growing Tall", perhaps the number I missed most from the film).  Here the child is used much more sparringly.  Though I think Marshall ultimately gets the point accross, it all seems a little underplayed to me, considering that little boy is basically the title role.

But squibbles and squabbles aside, NINE is a lush and decadent movie that is thankfully bringing public attention to a brilliant--if often overlooked--musical.

A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC thoughts

Last night I saw the current Broadway revival of A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC (currently in previews).  Those of you who have been reading regularly (both of you) may know that this production has been somewhat of a fixation for me, particularly with respect to casting and the mere existence of her majesty, Angela Lansbury.  Overall, the production was beautiful--I found the set to be elegant and versitle, the costumes stylish and flattering and the lighting atmospheric and slick.  From my vantage point in the top balcony, I also appreciated teh nuanced sound design, with the faintest of ambient noises being piped into different speakers.

The big question on everyone's (i.e. both of yours) minds is probably, "How is Catherine Zeta Jones"?  I would consider her performance a success.  She had an appropriate gravitas and landed most of her zingers squarely on target.  If I felt she pushed a bit hard at times (singing "The Glamorous Life"'s slight melody like it was "Don't Rain on My Parade" and "Send in the Clowns" like it was "Memory"), she possesses and embodies all the requisite charm and glamour and will no doubt only continue to grow in the role.

Angie is, of course, delightful, though there was something off in "Liaisons".  I don't know if it was an interpretive choice or an error (or a combination of the two), but the rest of her line readings were particularly devastating and hilarious.

Anne (Ramona Mallory) and Henrick (Hunter Ryan Herdlika)--both young unknowns--were quite delightful.  They both had strong voices that handled the difficult and rangy music without grating, quirky and endearing personas, and legitimate chemistry onstage.  

The casting of Aaron Lazar and Erin Davie as Count and Charlotte Malcolm had me scratching my head when it was announced--the Count is usually a more pompous/bombastic presence in the vein of Mark Kudish or, in another time, Robert Westenberg while Charlotte is a wry, one-liner machine--I trusted there was some concept or idea that justified the casting of the two young pretty people.  It seems the couple is envisioned as a nouveau, status conscious couple--I was reminded of Pete Campbell and his calculating wife, Trudy, on MAD MEN.  Lazar's Count seemed more naive and entitled than pompous, but it was a shift that worked for me.  Vocally he was spot on, and he takes his shirt off in Act 2.  No complaints.  I've been a fan since I saw him in PIAZZA and am more than willing to renew my membership dues to his fan club.  Davie surprised me with her depth and wit in act 1, and her "Every Day A Little Death" was perhaps the most musically satisfying renditions of the song I've heard.  I was less convinced with her as the scheming seductress in Act 2, but perhaps she will settle in over time.

 (Marry Me...a little)

My only complaint was that the production seemed awfully heavy.  Many of the songs felt over-interperated to me, acting on some belief that if the lyric was slowed down and said with greater emphasis it would mean more.  It's a choice, but I felt many songs--particularly all of the brief numbers for the ensemble--felt ponderous and at odds with the natural lilting momentum of the music.  I felt, overall, that the evening could have somehow been more "wonderful" and "enchanting", but was nonetheless engaged throughout (each act flew by even though they both clocked in at more than an hour each).