Dying is easy, Stand up is hard....

...and often you die there too!

A very good friend of mine has recently (by recently, I mean in the last year and a half) has jumped into the stand-up comedy scene in the Big, Bad City.  He has come quite a long way.  If fact, he's probably done better than many who have been at it for years.  Is he headlining at Madison Square Garden?  No.  In fact, to be doing well in the city means that you are actually getting paid to do your material in front of an audience.  Any audience.  And when I say paid, I mean 25 bucks a night, if you're lucky.  Big time, right?  

Over the last few years, in both NY and LA, I've seen how difficult the road to being a big time stand-up (or ANY stand-up) can be.  It's an entirely different world from being an actor.  There are no auditions in front of casting directors in studio spaces.  Your audition is in front on an audience of drunk frat boys pulled off the street by a promoter.  They are enticed with cheap beer and hopefully they stay for the comedy.  It's a baptism by fire, always.  

Furthermore, you run your own enterprise.  Your are as successful as you make yourself (that, I think can be said for most situations--however, it's can be taken as literally as possible here).  You are the writer, producer, director, performer, and promoter all in one.  You've got to get people to the show.  And they have to think you're funny if you want to continue to perform.  Furthermore, if you need to "work out" material, it's in front of an audience.  Some stand-ups can get in front of an audience 7 days a week for a month just to create an act that lasts 5 minutes.  

Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, and nearly every successful stand up started crafting their act at some version of a Chuckles Laugh Hut during open-mike night.  Hell, many successful comedians still drop-by certain clubs late at night to work on new material (and in doing so, they bump 3 comedic hopefuls off the bill for that night--another "perk").

So, as you're walking through Times Square, hearing the constant echo of "You guys like stand-up comedy?" every 3 feet, remember that those guys you see with the clipboards aren't just trying to make conversation with strangers.  Those are the guys you will see on stage that night if you by a ticket from them.  They need to get people to the show in order to perform 5 minutes of possibly mediocre material in the hopes of becoming the next Dave Chapelle.  

(Cue the NBC "The More You Know" music)

Uh oh, it's Magic!

So, like most civilized humans in these here United States, I saw Harry Potter 6 last week.  I'll spare you the review because my whole view on the HP films is that we like them, even when we don't like them as much as the books or the other movie installments.  It's my theory that if you went in to the most recent movie liking everything up to it, you'll probably like this one.  If you don't, you'll still watch it again to tie everything together.

What I really was thinking during this movie is:  Ok, when will Warner Bros. and JK Rowling allow this to become a big musical on the Great White Way?  Or, has someone already optioned it?  And, yes, I know about the You Tube musical.  Somehow, I don't think that will be the future Broadway adventures of Harry Potter.  Although, I guess I wouldn't be surprised if those kids have already taken a few meetings.  Based on what has been happening and what is about to happen this upcoming season, it appears that things just keep getting bigger and bigger (and you thought Lion King was the be all, end all of budget explosions).

I submit this:  Spiderman: Turn off the Dark.   This is not a joke.  If you live in NYC, you know about it.  If you don't:  Surprise!  The web-slinger is gonna tap dance!  Directed by Julie "Puppet Master" Taymor (who also directed Lion King), with music and lyrics by Bono and The Edge, it is slated to open in early 2010.  Rumor has it that the show is already at a $50 million budget and it doesn't even have insurance bonding yet!  If the budget did not increase, which it undoubtedly will, the show will have to sell out at full price for 8 years!  Now, yes, some shows run for many, many years.  However, I don't think Phantom has sold out at full price since the early 90's (tell me a time where you DIDN'T see it at the TKTS booth).

The reason this is not a large concern:  Movie Studio Money.  Like Shrek and many before it, much of the money for these shows come from the studios that produced or distributed the movie(s). To them $50 million is a Kate Hudson romantic comedy that can last a weekend in the theater, then be that "must-get" Valentine's Day DVD.  It's nothing.  It's a write-off if it fails.  

So, here's the question.  Are audiences gonna go to see this show?  And if the answer is Yes, are they going to see it just to see how Julie and the gang are gonna pull it off?  Is it all novelty and no substance?  Are we, as theatre-goers, getting dumbed down for the sake of special effects? Well, it remains to be seen.  But, I guess, truth be told, this could be just the modern-day version of landing a helicopter on stage or a falling chandelier.

By the way, click here.  While this musical has no plans for Broadway (yet), it has been done...in front of audiences...believe it...

One Show Glorious

Last night, I was hanging out with two of my greatest friends.  In a weird turn of events, we started out watching the Home Run Derby (is it me, or does Prince Fielder's swing make him look like a drunk?) and ended the evening discussing musical theatre.  Yeah, we're an interesting bunch.  

Anyway, we were discussing landmark moments in theatre history and brought up the show "Rent."  No matter what you thought of the show's content, I know many of you understand it's place in history.  In 1996, it was like nothing you've ever seen.  And it changed the game.  From the direction to the score, it was unique, fresh, poignant, and brilliant.  Hell, it even invented a new way for fans to see the show!  Who heard of a ticket lottery for front row seats before "Rent?" (and that's an honest question--if there was one before this, please let me know).  While in college, I drove with my two buddies to NYC, sat on 41st Street at 3:30am, and saw a side of NY that was VERY interesting for a 19-year old.  And all for the hope of seeing this show for $20 front row seats.  We made it through the night, were offered weed numerous times, almost got run over by a taxi, saw the show, and didn't stop talking about it for years.  It changed our views of theatre and the world.  It demonstrated what art could do.  

At the Commercial Theatre Institute workshop, Producer Kevin McCollum said that the shows he has always been interested in producing are those that began on the Earth and ended in the heavens.  He produced shows like "In the Heights,"  the revival of "West Side Story," "Avenue Q," and, oh yeah, "Rent."  Has this guy got good instincts or what?

So, yeah, the movie was mishandled and it's kind of a shame that it's image was tarnished a little bit by that.  But, my question is this:  Has there been a show since "Rent" that has had a "voice of a generation" effect?  Yeah, I know, "The Producers" won the most Tonys and "Wicked" has the box office to fix the economic crisis, but do they have the initial impact that "Rent" did?  Or, in hindsight, is the show an overrated period piece?  I'm not of that opinion, but I'd be interested to see who is.

Showing Where the Sun Don't Shine

"Tastefully done." What do you think of when you hear that phrase?

During my blogging hiatus, I had the privilege of getting lottery tickets (meaning you enter your name into a bucket and if it's picked, you get to buy decent seats to a show for approximately $25) to the 2009 Tony Award-winning Best Musical Revival: Hair. Now, I've seen a few productions of this show over the years. And honestly, I never really "got it." Of course, I understand the overall theme of the show because, well, you can't really miss that. But, it always seemed like there was a problem in the execution. Obviously, I wasn't around for the original Broadway outing, and I'm sure it was truly important for that time. However, I never felt like it had as much relevance in the modern day because of the disjointed storytelling (I'm sure this had nothing to do with the writers enjoying a few herbal refreshments from time to time). So, I filed it under "period piece" and moved on. Until I saw this production. The brilliant direction, that involves the audience in the experience, instead of "putting on a hippie show" for them, makes this show succeed in message and entertainment. That, and the phenomenally talented cast who embraced their roles and the audience with the same passion and excitement. I truly loved this show.

But, what about the nude scene? You know, the infamous part of the play where the Tribe strips off their patchouli-soaked garb and frees themselves for the audience. Well, at this point, most of the audience goes from "Claude seems so conflicted" to "Hey Look. Boobies." Bear in mind, we don't want to do that. We are seasoned theatre-goers. We've seen Shakespeare in the Round and Sondheim in the Square. We are mature individuals who, for the most part, have seen naked humans before. But, we try to look away, then we find ourselves staring, and then it becomes this crazy game of "Where do I look? Do they want me to look? Am I supposed to look?"

Look, in all honesty, the scene lasts about 20 seconds, in discrete lighting, and it creates a powerful paradox about rebellion and unity. I raise this point because it is, and has been, the single greatest discussion about the show. The nude scene. Why is that? Especially these days, have we not been jaded regarding nudity, considering it's in damn near any movie nominated for an Oscar? The short answer, I think, is, we don't see people walking naked down the street every day, so it definitely breaks convention to see birthday suits in public places, including the theatre. So, it brings out the adolescent in us for a moment.

I guess it's in the presentation. I was in a play where I had to bear all and I was never sure if it was an integral part of the storytelling. But, I did it anyway (Sorry you missed that? Yeah, I didn't think so). This was an interesting(?) play about love and defying death, but what was the first comment after the show? "So....balls out, huh?" I guess it can become a distraction.

The point is, I understand the PR of peddling this "suggestive" angle of the show to media outlets because of that one moment. It may sell tickets. And as they say, "Sex Sells." But, this scene isn't about sex. At all. And, ultimately, it shouldn't define this show.

Now, if you're doing "Showgirls: The Musical," the marketing writes itself. "Come see boobies and sex....and singing!"

What I miss?

Hey there follower(s),

My apologies for the lack of posting over the last few weeks.  In the last few weeks there have been some pretty huge events that have occurred that have distracted me from writing.  Let's see: Summer began (even though most of the Northeast has not noticed through the bleak rain), we lost a few modern American icons (Yes, icons.  If they changed the face of American music/TV/poster sales, they are icons.  Deal with it.), numerous shows on Broadway have gone the way of the aforementioned icons, I celebrated my first year of marriage to the coolest woman in the world, and probably the single greatest reason for my lack of writing:  I was hacked!  My email account forced out Discount Electronic Ads to everyone in my address book, including people I haven't been in touch with in years and people I really don't plan to be in touch with moving forward.  So that must've been weird.  "Wow, Ray DeJohn.  What's up with him?....Wait...You're selling what?"

So, needless to say, I've changed my email account in order to prevent any Avon/Amway sales pitches to those on my contact list.  Apologies to those who received it.  Anyway, trying to change everything over has been a little mentally distracting.  But, fear not, I will be addressing some fun and insightful topics soon.  Stay tuned....