"You must choose...but choose wisely..."

Audiences who attend the upcoming Broadway premiere of David Mamet's "Oleanna" will get to stay after class during preview performances. This show premiered off-Broadway in 1992 and had audiences buzzing (for a brief synopsis and history, click here). For this production, the producers have invited special guests (including former NYC mayor, David Dinkins) to be on a discussion panel while the audience "takes a side" and the panel debates the act of sexual harassment as it pertains to the central conflict of this show. Mamet's ending is ambiguous and audiences are, essentially, forced to draw their own conclusion. So, the producers are providing a forum immediately following the performance to do just that. The show is fresh in their minds and they can witness and participate in a moderated discussion with these panelists.

I think that this is what great theatre is supposed to do. Provocative theatre often holds a mirror up to society. Cliche, but true. And even though this show was written in the early 90s, the issue is still very much a part of our culture. If you've ever worked for a corporate employer (or any employer that wants protection from frivolous lawsuits), you've been to those "mandatory seminars" that show cheesy videos about "appropriate behavior in the workplace." These post-show panels are great way to not only discuss what you think happened in the show, but to discuss the issue itself--the history, the effects, and the future. Plus, from a producer's perspective, this is a great incentive to get audiences to the less-attended preview performances.

Keep in mind, although the show did well in its LA stint, I don't know how it will be received here yet (Previews have not even started. So, it's kind of impossible to know). But, just the idea of being able to debate what you think is right or wrong, based on the information you received in the play, is a fantastic addition to the theatrical experience.

Now, I don't think this business model can be used for every show. I mean, shows like "Mary Poppins" would not illicit the same kind of discussion or debate. Although, I am curious about one minor detail. Where the hell did she come from? And where the hell did she go at the end? What, she just drops out of the sky, whips those brats into shape with a bunch of sugar (which is so bad for them, by the way--it kind of negates the "medicine," don't you think???), and then opens her umbrella and flys away? Where's she going?

I guess there are some mysteries we'll never solve.

Star Power???

So, I had the opportunity to see a Broadway show in a preview performance the other night. For those that don't know, here's what previews are all about: Before a show officially opens on Broadway, it has a number of preview performances, where tickets are sold, often at a discount because the show is not "frozen" yet. During the run of these performances, directors and producers can tweak the show based on what they saw played in front of the audience. So Tuesday's performance may be a little different from Wednesday's. Sometimes things work on paper, but not when they're mounted on a stage for public consumption. This includes changing staging, removing or inserting musical numbers, or even, in drastic cases, recasting certain parts. This allows the show to be the best it can possibly be before Opening Night. Furthermore, it starts some early buzz for the show.

Now, this blog was never intended to be a "Critic's Corner." Liking or disliking a show often has to due with subjective tastes. That being said, I would be remiss if I didn't discuss the feeling that the show I saw the other night is the reason Broadway often gets a bad reputation for dumbing down it's entertainment with attempts for fast cash based on alleged "big names" and absolutely ZERO creative substance.

I'm not going to mention the show by name, but if you've been paying attention to the upcoming Broadway season, it won't be a big mystery. This is a musical revival of a "classic" Broadway show. Now, it has been said that there are only three reasons to revive a show on Broadway:

1. The show has not been seen on Broadway in quite some time (like the recent revival of "West Side Story").
2. There is a new, fresh, directorial perspective (John Doyle's "Sweeney Todd").

3. There is a star that absolutely must be seen in an iconic role (Patti Lupone in "Gypsy").

Based on those criteria, only #1 really counts for this show. But, truthfully, there may be a good reason it hasn't been revived in a while. The material is kind of, well, weak. But, maybe the producers were banking on the star power of their leads to carry the show and raise the level of the material. Bad idea. Really, really bad idea. I often don't have a problem with a "star" in a show...if they're good. But, when talent agents negotiate a Broadway contract as something for their TV star to do on summer hiatus, or if their pilot doesn't get picked up, it hurts the show and the business.

Admittedly, there are many times where a show only exists because of the star attached. "The Boy From Oz" would not have been on Broadway without Hugh Jackman. But, Hugh Jackman is a great theatre actor, singer, and yeah, dancer (In 2003-2004, Wolverine was doing Rockette-style high kicks--Believe it. It happened). The show was good. HE made it great. He single-handedly ruled the box office and won a Tony award for his performance. In fact, instead of trying to find a replacement for him when his contract was up, the producers just decided to close the show. They even recouped the entire Broadway investment!

Look, ultimately, this show will be fine because it has a built-in audience (this is a non-profit company with a subscription base--so many tickets sell before the show is even in rehearsals) and a limited run. But, frankly, that's kind of what annoys me a bit. Did you really need these "stars" to boost your box office considering you have a loyal subscription base? There are so many actors that could have done so much more with these roles and would have made the show better. Instead, these stars have exposed the flaws of the show and their flaws as performers. Understandably, companies want to have safer bets in this economy, so you bank on "names" to get people to the theatre. But, if it's a big name on a bad product, and furthermore, the big name is part of the reason for the bad product, how have you positioned yourself for future sales? You do want your audiences to come back, don't you?

I have seen two productions of this particular show before this current revival. Both times were middle school productions performed by teenagers. Both previous productions made me care about the characters and show more than this professional production. There was more heart, excitement, and purity in those productions. I think they cost about $5 to see. Tickets for this revival range from $86.50 to $136.50. Now, I'm not really a math guy. But, something doesn't add up.

Avenue Q closed...wait....

Let's not break out the black dresses and mourning attire just yet. It turns out the closing of one of the most innovative and hilarious musicals on Broadway was only "For Now." In a groundbreaking move, the producers of "Avenue Q" joined the cast on the stage for the final curtain call yesterday and announced that they will be moving the show Off-Broadway for an open-ended run, starting October 9! This will be the first time that a Broadway show will be taken Off-Broadway for a new life. And there couldn't be a more perfect show for this move.

This is a show that broke the mold for a successful Broadway musical. Who would have thought that a musical puppet show would last six years on Broadway, recoup it's investment (and then some--apparently, it cost $3.5 million to initially produce on Broadway and has grossed over $117 million!), and win the Tony Award for Best Musical in 2004, beating this little show? And while it played Broadway successfully, it can transfer to a smaller house Off-Broadway easily, as it has a small cast and a relatively simple set. Furthermore, they can drop the prices on the tickets because, obviously, Off-Broadway shows are not as costly as those on the Great White Way. So, everybody wins! The producers still get to make money on this show and audiences will still get to see what will essentially be the same product, but it won't cost as much.

I, for one, am very pleased by this. I think this show should always be running somewhere. Not only, is it painfully hilarious, but it speaks to all of us. We all look for our purpose in life and occasionally get lost along the way. And this show tells us that we are not alone. And if that is not something you want to see in a show, I would offer this: Puppets curse and have sex on stage. And that's just awesome.

Tickets and information are here.

Layeth the Smacketh Down

It has often been said that professional wrestling is basically a soap opera. The only difference is the audience. Soap operas cater to middle-aged women (and gay men) and wrestling caters to adolescent boys (and gay men). And for the most part, it is true: high stakes storylines, bad acting, and well choreographed "fight scenes." But, I would take that comparison one step further: Pro Wrestling is Theatre. Or, at least, a modern day Vaudeville.

This is live performance. A difference between this and theatre is that these stories need to change and evolve with every performance. They aren't doing the same show every night (although if you've been watching pro wrestling for a while, you might disagree with that). But they are doing a show almost every single night. The squared-circle is their stage and they must make the fans (thousands to millions depending on the TV coverage) feel something if they want to stay viable. Actors on stage must also make their audience feel, think, and discuss. Both professions must tell a story through performance, no matter how simple or complex. And if the audience doesn't feel it, the story doesn't continue. In theatre, shows close and actors lose jobs. In wrestling, wrestlers no longer get their "push" from management and may ultimately lose their jobs.

In addition, wrestlers are gypsies. They may have a home base, but they are in a different city almost EVERY night. And that is not an exaggeration. Some guys work upwards of 300 days a year. If they have families, they rarely see them. All for the love of the business and for a shot at being the next Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, or Stone Cold Steve Austin. If you're an actor, imagine being on a non-equity tour (pro wrestling is not unionized), doing one-nighters EVERY NIGHT for most of the year. No split weeks, no week or month-long stints. A different city every night. Many of them won't even be interesting cities (not that it matters, these guys hardly have time to "explore" the cities they are in).

And even if you've never seen a stitch of a wrestling telecast, you cannot deny that the theatricality of wrestling is what makes it tick. You can watch no-name boxers beating each other to a pulp to cure your fix for violence. But, the reason that pro wrestling has been so popular for all these years is the characters. What's more fun: watching two middleweights punch each other for 6 rounds, or seeing Shawn "Heartbreak Kid" Michaels face The Undertaker in a "Hell in a Cell" match.

Does it appeal to our more base sensibilities? Sure. But, so does "Rock of Ages" and "Tony and Tina's Wedding." Sometimes entertainment is meant to be just that. Which is why, when a lawsuit from the World Wildlife Foundation threatened him a few years ago, WWE owner and chairman Vince McMahon had no problem changing the name of his product from World Wrestling Federation to World Wrestling Entertainment. We know the results are pre-determined, and in the internet age, many are finding out said result before the events even take place. But, most of the world knows what happens at the end of "Hamlet," and we still go see it because we want to see how it's going to play out.

I have been having this discussion for years. While I don't really watch it on a regular basis anymore, I will incriminate myself and say that I used to be a huge fan. And I do feel that it still needs to be defended as entertainment. And I think it matters. Right, Rock?