"Life moves pretty fast."

"If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it."

Ferris was right. This past month (and year, for that matter) has flown by. So, my posts have been a little, well, non-existent. So, my apologies for those who've been paying attention, but I was, indeed, swept up in holiday merriment. I do look forward to getting back to business in the New Year. Here are a couple of topics that I'll be addressing in the near future:

1. The January Casualties. There may have been a flood of tourists in New York this season, and most of them visited the Great White Way. But, some shows got no love and will not see Valentine's Day.

2. I know that this may not be a secret to many, but it is starting to become more official: Government funding for the arts is literally being described as "discretionary spending." Non-essential, if you will. And the non-profit arts establishments around the country are suffering. Without some help, 2010 may see the closing of many a theater and the loss of many a job.

But, it is always darkest before the dawn, as they say (and, no, I cannot quote the source "they"). So, I'm looking for a brighter and happier dawn for the arts in this country and around the world. Stay tuned...

Until then, enjoy what you have in your life and celebrate the people who share it with you. Here's wishing you a very happy, healthy, wealthy, and bright New Year!

We interrupt theatre blogging (or recent lack, thereof) to bring you...

Movies that I look forward to every year and will watch EVERY time they come on during the holiday season.

I venture to say this will not be agreed upon by all of you. I try to defend my picks, but, you know what, sometimes logic escapes me. Some of you may not enjoy the holiday season at all-- "It's all a bunch of greedy commercialism, blah, blah, blah". And I agree, in part. But, the kid in me wins over the cynic in me this time of year. I even act like a kid. Just ask my wife. Anyway, if that's how you feel, perhaps you may want to skip the blog this month. Because I anticipate more holiday-themed entries. That is, if I take the time out of my Christmas movie viewing schedule.

I wanted to write this before all of the programs aired, as the holiday season seems to start earlier and earlier. I might have gotten it in just under the wire. Click on the titles and it'll take you to the imdb.com page for the movie. Some pages include times and channels for when these movies will be on during the month (You're welcome). Christmas Spirit Warning: This list goes to 11.

1. A Christmas Story--A gun. An eye. An icicle. A Christmas Miracle. It's the story of a boy's simple Christmas wish, told by an adult, for the child in all of us. Ralphie's relentless pursuit of his Red Ryder BB Gun is a great story in and of itself. But, told with the backdrop of the suburbs in the 1940s, it gives us fantastic characters to fill in this simple story. Scut Farkas and Grover Dill: You feared them. At 8pm on Christmas Eve, my TV is set and locked into a 24-hour marathon of this classic. And when I turn it off to go to sleep, I turn it right back on in the morning.

2. Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer--My sentimental favorite. Well, I guess all of these are sentimental favorites, but Rudolph holds a special place in my heart. When Clarice starts singing "There's always tomorrow for dreams to come true," I melt like the Winter Warlock in "Santa Claus is Comin' to Town" (we'll get to that later). A couple of misfits (Rudolph and Hermie the Elf/Dentist) are finally accepted by the society that shuns them and Christmas is saved by a glowing deformity! Plus, it contains one of my favorite bits of dialogue ever:

Yukon: This fog is as thick as peanut butter.

Hermie: You mean pea soup.

Yukon: YOU EAT WHAT YOU LIKE, I'LL EAT WHAT I LIKE!

3. Santa Claus is Comin' to Town--So, we got to it sooner rather than later. Taking a page out of the Rudolph Animation Handbook (both are Rankin/Bass productions), Fred Astaire and Mickey Rooney provide their voices to tell us the evolution of the Fat Man. They give us the whole history, from Burgermeister Meisterburger outlawing toys to a message of peace on Earth. The characters we meet along the way, including the Burgermeister himself, Topper the Penguin, Mr. Warlock ("Winter, please"), and the Kringle family (Tanta, Jingle, Tingle, Wingle, et al.) are, in a word, ridiculous. But, the fact that they can throw in all these superfluous details and connect the dots of Christmas tradition is kind of a treat to watch.

4. It's a Wonderful Life--Be a holiday cynic all you want. But, if you don't like this movie, you need to ask Santa for a soul this year. When I was a kid, this used to be shown from Thanksgiving to New Year's Day, basically every day, in color and black and white. Now, the networks are a little more sparing in the airing of this classic. A misplaced $8000 sends a good-hearted family man, with abandoned dreams, to consider offing himself until a simple angel comes to show him what the world will be like if he were never born. It makes us realize how many lives one person can actually touch, if only for a short while. The movie is perennially inspiring, and is very interesting to watch these days, as we are seeing plenty of Mr. Potters in our world. Plus, the end of the movie gets me every time. Yeah, Zu-Zu's "Angel gets its wings" thing is cute, but it's the inscription in the book that always makes me reflect on my own life (and cry like a toddler): Remember, George: no man is a failure who has friends. (Ray's eyes = "Niagra Falls"--we'll get to that later, too).

5. Elf--I saw this movie in the theatre in 2003, and I immediately deduced the following: This is a classic. It's Will Ferrell at his most sincere. Now, I'm a fan of Will, so that helps. But, I know some people get sick of his schtick. If you have not seen this performance, do yourself a favor. You will be giddy. If Will, as Buddy the Elf, can get James Caan (Sonny Corleone, for those struggling with a mental picture) to believe in Santa Claus, I know he can sell you. Plus, it takes the whole Rankin/Bass animation and brings it into the 21st Century. Appearances by Bob Newhart, Zooey Deschanel, Peter Dinklage, and Peter Billingsley (Ralphie from "A Christmas Story") aid our hero in bringing Christmas cheer back to New York, and the world, "by singing loud for all to hear."

6. Christmas Vacation--Clark W. Griswold is on a quest for the perfect old-fashioned family Christmas. Hijinks ensue. And they are consistently hilarious. I've already seen this movie 3 times in the last week. One of the most quotable movies ever. Click here to refresh your memory. Clark's tirade against his boss at the end rivals his rant about the "pilgrimage to see a moose" in the original "Vacation." And, in the interest of dating itself, the yuppie couple next door (that includes a pre-Seinfeld Julia Louis-Dreyfuss) provide a wonderful late-80s foil. Too bad they didn't end the "Vacation" movies with this one, instead of this pile of trash.

7. How the Grinch Stole Christmas!--Yes, I mean the cartoon. A wonderful half-hour adaptation about the biggest hater in Whoville. He literally stole candy from a baby. However, he learns that you don't need material things to enjoy the holidays. You just need to be around those who make you happy. It makes my heart grow 3 sizes every time I see it. I actually want the cartoon to be longer when I'm watching it. So, having said that, I'm going to admit something. I liked the movie, too. And I will also watch that whenever it's on. I'm a sap. Deal with it.

8. A Charlie Brown Christmas--"Lights, please." Need I say more?

9. Bad Santa--A brilliant "anti-Christmas" movie. A foul-mouthed crook, who bleeds vodka, gets a job as a department store Santa so that he and his "little person" partner can wipe it out on Christmas Eve. But, our anti-hero doesn't count on a snot-nosed chubby kid, with an unusual desire for a pink elephant, and a bartender with daddy issues to come into his life. Throw in two comedic actors that left us too soon (John Ritter and Bernie Mac) and one that is still kicking and obsessed with making sandwiches (Cloris Leachman), and you've got a movie that the adults can watch after they put the kids to bed, sugar plums and all.

10. Scrooged--The best movie version of "A Christmas Carol" out there. I respect the classics, but this film pays homage to the original story (A live broadcast, starring Buddy Hackett as Scrooge--That is GOLD!--oh, and they have the Solid Gold Dancers too) while playing out its own version with TV network president Frank Cross (Bill Murray) at the center. It's so Meta. In my opinion (obviously), this is Murray's finest hour. A late-80s backdrop of commercialism and corporate greed frame this story perfectly, as we toggle between the "live broadcast" and Frank's "visitations." He goes from greedy douchebag, to needy douchebag, to schmuck (the Jews taught him that word), to not-a-schmuck (his words, not mine). If you haven't seen it, let me entice you: Bobcat Goldwait: Drunk with a loaded shotgun. Who's feeling the Christmas Spirit?

11. Just Friends--Maybe your definition of "Holiday Movie" is different from mine. But, there is snow on the ground and they celebrate Christmas in the movie. I include this movie based on my original criteria: I look forward to seeing it and will watch it EVERY time it's on. While I always enjoy Ryan Reynolds and Anna Faris, I have yet to see them top their performances in this movie. Write it off if you want, but if you went to school in the 90s (or even if you just remember the song, "I Swear"), you've got to identify to at least part of this movie. Ever been put into the "friend zone?" Ever have ridiculous fights with your little brother? Ever get a socialite messed up on Vicodin, then let her play with blue toothpaste? No? Never? In any case, the Town Carolers wondering about town as our protagonist gets shot down in various ways produce that fuzzy Christmas feeling. Plus, it also contains one of my favorite lines in all of cinema:

Clark: Are you kidding? You're Chris Brander! You're Hollywood; you date models. He's Jersey; he skis in his jeans!

So there you have it. Yes, I know, there are no legitimate "Christmas Carols" or "Miracles on 34th Street." Don't get me wrong. I love those movies too. But, if I'm gonna pick based on the criteria, I've gotta do, what I've gotta do.

At worst, this list at least gave you a little insight into two fundamental areas of my character: I love the holidays and, during these times, I have a penchant for sentimental tears and easy laughs. Not a surprise to some of you, I know.

Hope the kickoff to your holiday season brings tons of comfort and joy.

The Wildcat

So, it's another quasi-sports entry. Last season, the Miami Dolphins re-introduced a new offensive scheme into the Pro Football playbook that, until then, was more associated with College Football. It's called the Wildcat. Without getting too involved in explanation, it basically consists of a direct snap from the center to the running back with an unbalanced offensive line (Did I lose any of you yet? Stay with me, theatre talk starts soon). It was not a common practice in Pro Football until the Dolphins unearthed it and moved their game in a successful direction. In fact, they went from the worst team in football to a division leader and playoff team within one year. Opponents had to factor in the threat of the Wildcat as they prepared to play the Dolphins. Sometimes, they beat it. Often, they didn't. This season, teams practice their own versions of the Wildcat, even giving it custom names, like the Chargers' Wild Frog or Cowboys' Wild Hog. In short, the Wildcat changed the game.

The analogy begins. A couple of days ago, two producers struck a deal with the Shubert Organization (the largest landlord on Broadway, owning and operating 17 Broadway theaters). Producers Frederick Zollo and Robert Cole entered into a three-year development deal with the Shuberts, which basically states that should they have an interesting property to produce, they will come to the Shuberts first. The Shuberts have the option to jointly produce the project. If they are interested, this would guarantee a Shubert Theatre on Broadway, as well as either an outright investment by the Organization, or advisement without investing (but, still a guaranteed theatre). Plus, now these independent producers have their own sweet office space with the Shubert Organization.

In these times, producers are getting more creative to make sure that shows they believe in can still make it to Broadway. While similar deals have been done in the past (see the article here for details), this particular deal, at this particular time, is definitely "thinking outside the box." And it's a game-changer. This is basically guaranteeing a Broadway home for these producers for the next three years, with this mighty theatrical machine acting as more than just a landlord for the productions. If the Shuberts invest in the show, or even attach their brand as "advisors", they are that much more committed to the show's success. That can only help the project's chances. It's like a how a movie has a better chance at being successful when it's made by a big studio, as opposed to being made independently, because larger studios have distribution deals with movie theaters across the country that guarantee the movie will be played in any number of those particular theaters.

While we're on the subject of Broadway theatre owners, here is another theatrical Wildcat, even though it's now old news for those who follow theatre. But, for those who don't, here's a little rundown. There are, essentially, three major organizations that run the Broadway theaters in New York City: the aforementioned Shubert Organization (17 theaters), The Nederlander Organziation (9 theaters), and Jujamcyn Theatres (5 theaters). Recently, Rocco Landesman stepped down as the president of Jujamcyn in order to head up that little organization called the National Endowment for the Arts. His shoes were filled by vice president and resident producer, Jordan Roth.

Why is this significant? More importantly, why is it a Wildcat move? I'll directly quote the NY Times to set you up: "The other two Broadway stalwarts, the Shubert and the Nederlander organizations, are led by Philip J. Smith, 78, and James M. Nederlander, 87." Then there's new Jujamcyn President, Jordan Roth, 33. That's right, 33. In fact, I believe that he'll be finishing up his work for an MBA at Columbia in May. He now presides over a third of the power structure for Broadway theaters. The next generation is upon us and Mr. Roth will be one of the many to take theatre in New York, and elsewhere, into the future. New ideas, fresh perspectives, and the power to implement them. That's what he brings to the table. This is the guy who produced the revival of "The Rocky Horror Show" on Broadway.....when he was 24! (What were YOU doing at 24?)

The Shubert deal and the hiring of Jordan Roth exemplify the Wildcat. It's part of a grand effort to shake up the system in order to keep the institution of theatre relevant and exciting. Just like the Pro Football Wildcat offensive scheme has critics and fans, I'm sure these decisions will have plenty of both. But, nevertheless, people must acknowledge the changes and play the game accordingly, lest they be left behind....like the Cleveland Browns.

"Confidence is contagious and so is lack of confidence, and a customer will recognize both."

Some Broadway producers may need to pay attention to the above quote as they embark on their latest endeavor.

According to the New York Times, a Gridiron legend is coming to the Great White Way! A play has been written about NFL Trophy namesake, and former Green Bay Packers coach, Vince Lombardi. And apparently, the story is strong enough to try to get "cheeseheads" into the Big Apple to see it. Check out the article here.

Any fan can tell you that it's difficult to watch most sports contests without getting a little emotionally involved. Similar, but not directly related to, what I wrote about professional wrestling, all sporting events are entertainment. And often, they are a visceral form of entertainment because of their spontaneity. We don't know what is going to happen and we are on pins and needles as the contests play out. We, as the audience, experience a range of emotions, from rage to elation, as we watch every touchdown, home run, goal, or basket. I can confirm this personally, as I jumped up and down like a 10-year old when the New York Yankees won their 27th World Series last Wednesday. Like the Gladiators of old, athletes display their talent in an effort to vanquish their opponent, to the delight of the home crowd (although, unlike the Gladiators, the results of modern day events are hopefully a little less...well...bloody).

So, naturally, many of these titans rivet us to the point of paying for tickets to the events, buying merchandise, and even attending victory parades in Lower Manhattan (not saying that we all do that, but some of us do--Go Yanks!). And when you discuss the engineers of these displays, namely the coaches, people are intrigued because it takes a special person to control the chaos of two teams battling for dominance on any given day. And Lombardi was a pivotal character in the history of both professional football and America. I honestly feel that their could be an audience for this that may be different from the usual Broadway prototype, not unlike those going to see "Rock of Ages." Sure, I think the usual Broadway theatregoers will be interested. But, there is a special market that producers, I hope, will be particularly focused on. You may have sports fans that will want to see the life of one of their heroes played out on stage, live, instead of watching the umpteenth documentary of him on the NFL Network. And that could be a good thing for both sports and theatre, as it can deepen our appreciation for both. (That is, of course, if it's any good. Stay tuned...)

Boo!

On the eve of the most theatrical of all holidays, I would like to wish everyone a safe and Happy Halloween.

It's a great day to dress up and grab some bit-size Snickers from strangers. Or, if you are on a college campus right now, it's a great day to dress only in your underwear (with a little makeup and a weird hairstyle, you'll call yourself a "Sexy Demon," or something), drink a bathtub full of Natty Light, and dance to Michael Jackson's Thriller all night.

At any rate, Halloween is a day for many to release their inhibitions and anxieties because they get to be someone, or something, else for an evening. We enjoy it because we get to lose ourselves for a little while. And sometimes a little release goes a long way. That's often what people look for in their entertainment, too. A little diversion. Of course, we may want to learn a thing or two. But, sometimes, you just need to not be "in your head." Laughter, tears, whatever. It all helps. And on Halloween, you ARE the entertainment. So live it up, gang!

By the way, if you want to see a cringe-worthy way of how NOT to be entertaining on Halloween, check out this clip from the Today Show. I'm sure this seemed like a great idea. But, many bright ideas can crumble in the execution. Talk about Dead Air! Maybe they should have rehearsed a little, eh?

I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

Well, in reality, it's a bit of both. Today, the New York Times released this article. The title: "Star-Studded Theatrical Hits Obscure Broadway's Challenges." It's about how Broadway, as a whole, is having a great fall. And a lot of the revenue coming in is from two plays (not musicals) consecutively grossing over a million dollars per week. Furthermore, a third play is not far under the million dollar mark in grosses. The plays are vehicles for the following stars: James Gandolfini, Jeff Daniels, Hugh Jackman, Daniel Craig, Jude Law, Hope Davis, and Marcia Gay Harden. The issue? Well, there are a lot more plays on Broadway that need audiences. And they're not getting them. So, overall, the economic health of Broadway is stable and, dare I say, thriving, for the moment. But, when these stars go bye-bye, will the pulse of midtown flatline?

Are we being lulled into a false sense of security? By these PLAYS doing so well, (remember, not musicals--plays are cheaper, because even if the stars get lots of money for their performance, producers don't have musicians, extra sound cues, etc., in their overhead--and that saves cash) are we getting the feeling that Broadway is "fixed"? Because "Brighton Beach Memoirs," the classic Neil Simon comedy, is in previews just a few streets down and it's not doing so well (Like "only 50% sold", not doing so well). And, Julia Stiles and Bill Pullman are right next door from "God of Carnage" in Mamet's "Oleanna" (hell, they even have a talk-back session after the show) and their numbers are...well, they're not the same (as in: $271K vs. $1M). So, it's not really stunt casting that sells, is it?

As I might have mentioned before, I have no problem with "stars" in a show....if they're good. And the group in the "Million Dollar Club" has the reputation and the reviews to garner this box office. In short, they're good. Great, even. I mean, come on, ALL FOUR cast members of "God of Carnage" got nominated for Tonys! That's ridiculous (in a good way). Furthermore, they have good material with which to work (except, "A Steady Rain," which, I hear, would have never made it to dinner theatre if Jackman and Craig weren't attached--but, it grossed over $1.2 million last week....and I didn't). So, yeah, Broadway is better for having them. And, ultimately, they legitimize themselves (even more than they already had) as actors because they can handle the Broadway grind.

I think, for better or worse, the theatrical stars align (in more ways than one) every so often. It's a copout, but it's the truth. But, we need to roll with it because it means people are coming to the theatre now. And we need to parlay their attendance into repeat performances, so to speak. Would it be possible to have the ladies who came to see Wolverine and James Bond today, come back next week to see the new Tracy Letts play, "Superior Donuts," across the street? Regional theaters, even Roundabout, can get audiences to buy ticket packages and subscribe to their season. Can theatre owners make a deal with producers to employ the same kind of package? For example, can the Nederlander Organization couple "Wicked" (undoubtedly, their most attended show) with "Brighton Beach Memoirs" at a discount? They own both of the theaters. Why not try to fill them both?

Most importantly, the theatrical community cannot be caught in a financial trance just because Jude Law is playing with his sword 8 shows a week. That's only until December. Then what happens? New and exciting material is out there to be financed, produced, and enjoyed by all. We just need to find it, option it, and get a star to be in it....wait....

Now for something completely different (or just more of the same): Because I have mentioned this show often in my writing as an example of too much input for not enough output, here's what I'll leave you with: The Ogre is calling it quits. The winter exodus is just around the corner, gang. How are we going to beat it?

Let Your Soul Glow

I love the fall in New York. Baseball playoffs, College and NFL Football hit their stride, and the Broadway season kicks off. Last night, I saw the first offering in the "New Musical" category: Memphis. The tagline is simple: "His Vision. Her Voice. The Birth of Rock 'n Roll." Truthfully, I had been looking forward to this show since I heard it was coming to Broadway. While the story may be familiar, it is, for all intents and purposes, a truly original musical.

I chose to write about this show for a couple of reasons:

1. The talent. While the book (which is, essentially, the dialogue and song lyrics of the show) was far from perfect, the energy, and the outright talent of the cast, hooked me. Chad Kimball and Montego Glover may be the hardest working musical leads on Broadway right now. And the entire cast (and I mean, entire cast) completely charms you onto your feet. They are often better than their material. Not to say all the material is weak. But, it might benefit from some tweaking during previews. The cast, on the other hand, does not have a weak link.

2. The underlying issue regarding the birth of this genre. There was a particular scene that truly affected me in this show. I won't give it away, but you'll know it if you see it. While many of us may have been exposed to a variation of this scene in some other medium (movies, TV, etc.), it is still horribly effective. Seeing unprovoked, baseless cruelty, even though it is "make believe," evokes a frightening reminder about our culture and society. We know that Rock 'n Roll would not have existed without African Americans in the South. Furthermore, we know about the complicated history of race relations in this country. But, we need to be reminded again. Because these issues are important and still exist. Theatre can be not only our entertainment, but our education. And we need to learn from our history so that we don't repeat it.

The Laramie Project may seem like a period piece about the senseless beating, and subsequent murder, of a gay man. 1998 seems like so long ago, doesn't it? Well, last Friday, in Queens, NY, a 49-year old man named Jack Price was beaten within an inch of his life (a life which he may not have much longer) for being gay. He was leaving a local deli and was beaten for being gay. That's it. Just like so many black people in our country's young history were beaten and killed for only one reason: They were black. Are we learning?

I know I'm getting in a little deep here, but I feel this is important. Sometimes we need to be forcefully reminded that although we have come very far as a country, we still have quite a long way to go. Art holds up a mirror to society and allows us to look at ourselves to see if we really have the strength to BE the change we want to see in this world (Thank you, Mathatma). I hope we have that strength. I really do.

To Freeze or Not To Freeze

This past week, the Broadway revival of "West Side Story" recouped its initial investment of $14 million. As I have stated before, this is a phenomenal feat, especially given the time it took (just over 7 months, including preview performances). This show had been selling out at full price (as opposed to discounted tickets through various organizations, like TKTS) from opening night through most of the summer. However, recently, ticket sales have been a little lighter. If you compare the week of June 15-21 to the week of September 21-27, you'll notice a drop in capacity of nearly 20%. Well, you could say that September is often a slower part of the year for Broadway, but check out our old standby, "Wicked" on the same weeks. Capacity is still hovering in the mid-to-high 90s, even during a slow season. Plus, "Wicked" has been on Broadway for nearly 6 years!

So, what caused this drop for WSS? Well, rumor has it that the Group Sales Department for the show reported that the Spanish language lyrics were a little too "think-y" for their audiences. So, many threatened to not book large groups to come see the show. And while matinee audiences of "blue-haired ladies" from retirement villages are often joked about in theatre, shows on Broadway would be sunk without them. So, what to do? During the final dress rehearsal, director Arthur Laurents told the audience, of which I was a part, that the only reason he wanted to bring this production to Broadway was so that audiences could see a more authentic representation of his beloved story. Thus, the Puerto Ricans would speak in their native tongue when they were speaking to each other, in both dialogue and song. But, tickets must be sold. So, in an attempt to accommodate both bus groups and tourists alike, the producers changed most of the song lyrics back to their original English translation. This show was work shopped, rehearsed, re-rehearsed, previewed, and open for nearly six months. And they changed it.

Traditionally, the content of the show's opening night performance will be the content of the show throughout the run, regardless of the length of said run. Out-of-town tryouts, rehearsals, and previews take place so that directors, producers, creators, and performers can assess strengths, weaknesses, and essentially what the show is going to be. However, recent developments on Broadway have challenged that age-old convention.

In addition to WSS, the uber-expensive "Shrek" has decided to add the familiar song, "I'm a Believer," (written by Neil Diamond) to its Broadway production. I think it's no secret that they are doing this to bolster ticket sales, but I honestly feel that if you can't get audiences to come see "Shrek" on Broadway, based on the branding alone, adding a song isn't going to help much. (Truth be told, I don't know what will help this show. But with capacity running at around 63%, they may be desperately grasping at straws--Ouch.)

There are, of course, two divergent schools of thought. One being, of course, the traditional. The production of a show should be "frozen" by opening night. While, of course, theatre is live performance and things happen differently from night to night, the content of the show (dialogue, music, lyrics, etc.) should stay the same through the run because paying audiences in May should be seeing, in essence, the same show as the audiences in June. In the documentary, "Show Business: The Road to Broadway," chronicling the paths of four different musicals as they were preparing to open and run on Broadway during the 2003-04 season, composer Stephen Schwartz remarked (and I'm paraphrasing) that there were certain changes that he would like to have made to "Wicked," but he ran out of time before the opening. So, what you see is what you get.

The other school of thought is more, well, ethereal. This is the concept that theatre is a living, breathing thing and must bend with the road. Therefore, if changes must be made during the run, then so be it. Audiences will be more grateful for it. There may be certain bits of action in a play or musical that may work better and garner a more positive response, but they are not discovered or implemented until the show has already opened. So, we should be open to change.

And I understand both sides of the argument. And please remember, this is regarding changing a show's content in a single run of a production. Essentially, it seems the motivation for this all comes down to sales. Are more people going to come see the show now that you've changed it? These changes will come at some cost to producers: at least through rehearsing the cast once the changes have been made. Producers not only have to get a show up and running, but they have to keep it running for as long as economically possible. When it no longer makes sense to keep a show on the boards, after desperate marketing, promotion, discounts, etc., it's time to pack it in. So, with that, is it going to be worth it to make these major changes to appeal to a portion of your audience?

Look, shows do change during a single run. But, that change is often organic day-to-day. There are cast changes that bring a different feeling or interpretation. An audience's response can also change the feeling of a show. But, when it comes to changing the actual content of the show (adding musical numbers, changing lots of dialogue) during its run, is it a way of "breathing new life" into it, or is it just a stunt to get more butts in the seats? Judging from some prior attempts, like the many incarnations of "The Scarlet Pimpernel" on Broadway, it doesn't really work. If you start making major changes to a production deep into its run in order to sell more half-price tickets, it shows that you are not willing to stand by your creative choices.

"West Side Story," I feel, will still continue to run because, truthfully, the investment has been recouped and its an overall good product, so that, alone, makes it competitive at the box office (in fact, once they do release tickets to TKTS, business should pick up once again). "Shrek?" Well, I don't know about that. I like that song just fine, but I don't remember a time after the mid-1970s when adding Neil Diamond actually improved your product. Have you seen the remake of "The Jazz Singer?"

"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?

A career trajectory?

So, Broadway Dance Center has been a New York institution for aspiring and professional dancers for a number of years. It's where young dancers go to sharpen their skills and where not-so-young dancers go to keep their skills sharp.

As with any business, location is everything. This is a dance center aimed for those who aspire to be on Broadway and for those already there and wanting to stay there. Naturally, one wants to have a business catering to Broadway in the midtown area. For quite some time, the Center was housed on 57th street. Certainly in midtown, but just a few blocks north of the "Broadway Block."

Recently, they have moved to state-of-the-art facilities on 45th Street, just two buildings over from the Al Hirschfeld Theatre, currently housing the hit Broadway revival of "Hair." Now, THAT is a great location as students can literally see their aspirations a mere two buildings away. You want to be on Broadway, well, there it is! You can almost touch it!

Two buildings away...all you need to do is look past one building. The building you need to look past? Well, if you looked at the picture above, you know what it is. Just a little establishment called Private Eyes Gentleman's Club. That ain't no off-Broadway theatre, folks.

I'm wondering if they got a break on the real estate by partnering with the building next door. Broadway Dance Center: We'll get you ready for the bright lights of Broadway! But, if those lights are too bright, we believe in options. Hey, you're still a dancer right? Just stop in next door and get a taste of another kind of dancing. No dance bag necessary (you won't need a leotard). Tap shoes optional, as they may increase the quality of your "show"--Gotta Have a Gimmick, right?

The Show Must Go On. Even if you suck.

Thank the goodness for Facebook. Without it, I would not have come across this article by our theatrical Perez Hilton, Michael Riedel. Now, the NY Post is not really what I would call "a news source," but it's fun to thumb through for the bold words and fun pictures, because you know, seeing the leader of the free world in swimming trunks is at the forefront of bipartisanship.

Riedel is a Broadway columnist for the Post and recently wrote an article pertaining to the amount of people calling in sick for the Broadway production of "West Side Story," citing, and I quote, "injuries, illnesses, vocal troubles, blah, blah, blah." His angle is "Don't cross the Boss," as he describes 91-year old writer/director, Arthur Laurents, riding in on his high horse...well, hopefully not that high--I mean, he could break something getting off it (Cheap joke? Yes. True Statement? Yes.)...and coming down on the actors and stating they had better show up more often or find another job.

Look, if I didn't see this production, or more importantly, didn't hear information from the receiving end of Mr. Laurents' "riot act", perhaps I wouldn't care as much. But, I feel that I need to speak for professional theatre personnel. There are people who will read this article in the Tri-State area, or beyond, and have a very bad taste in their mouth for Broadway talent. Furthermore, they will use this as a cautionary tale when they stage their community theatre production in Blaine, Missouri. "Don't be like those kids in 'West Side Story' on Broadway. Like Ron Lee said, 'bloodied and bowed, you crawled on stage.' It doesn't matter that your audience paid to see dancing and you gave them bloodied crawling--get out there and be the best crawler you can be!"

The Actor's Equity Association was established to protect professionals in the theatre business. Look, I know the show must go on. And that's exactly what understudies are for. So, if you are sick, a family member dies, you get shin splints and can't walk for a week, or you (God forbid) get married and have a honeymoon, the show CAN go on without you. In most "regular" jobs, people are allotted sick days, personal days, vacation days, and in some instances, mental health days! Why are performers and technicians, who work more days (Count 'em, 6. Every week, 'til the show closes) than corporate America not allowed the same? Because, you know what, sometimes you need to have a break. Because the argument against the "we paid all this money to see the original cast" rant is this: What if you paid all that money to see the original cast, and they were sick? But, to be the "work horses of old," they went on anyway? And they blew dog because they were performing with pneumonia? How cheated would you feel then?

This cast busted their ass not only with this show, but with the billion press events surrounding it since before it opened. So, no, they are not only working 3 hours a day. They devote mountains of time and energy to this every single day. Because they are paid to do so--just like an accountant for Price-Waterhouse is paid to bust his ass crunching numbers all day, every day. But, sometimes Mr. Accountant gets sick and can't come to work because he knows that not only will he be doing a disservice to his health, he will be doing a disservice to his co-workers and clients (the people who pay for his service) because he will not be at his best. But, Mr. Accountant may not have someone waiting for the chance to do his job for the day. Mr. Broadway Actor does.

When you are doing a show of this magnitude, getting this attention (for better or worse), you want to be at your best every time. And when grandpa keeps ragging on you because it's not like it was "in my day," it cuts the soul a bit. And now you're afraid to call out of work because you have swine flu, but if you come in, you infect everyone else. The A-Man's got the WSS cast by the balls. And look, if he's just a crazy old coot (I'm not saying he is, I'm saying if he is), it doesn't matter because he owns the show! He can pull the plug at any time! The producers can't even override him. The best they can do is apologize for him should the need arise.

Do people take advantage of sick/personal days on Broadway? I do not doubt that. But, has there been a time where you called out sick when you weren't? Be honest. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it happens. So, save the Piven parallels. Jeremy Piven signed a contract and welched on it. This is about Broadway production contracts which actually have time off written in. And when you are literally sweating and bleeding on stage 8 times a week, you might need more than just one Monday to recover.

Don't call us. Just check out my webpage.

So, I came across this story in the Times. If you are too lazy to hit the link, here's the deal. Apparently a casting director, Daryl Eisenberg, was "broadcasting live" from the audition room. Meaning, she is "tweeting" her reactions during actual auditions (Not during the auditions, she clarifies. After the actor has left the room.) Well, now there is (or was) a whole uproar by Actor's Equity and, of course, many others in the business regarding what is ethical in an audition room.

Look, I'll just say this. Most performers are phenomenally insecure. Furthermore, they are obsessed with access to people who can make decisions on their career (i.e., casting directors). So, if an actor "follows" Ms. Eisenberg on Twitter, checked out her page about the time they are done auditioning, and received a "bad review," there will be a VERY busy bartender in midtown about a half hour later. Because not only did the actor not get a callback, they are paranoid that their bad habits are broadcast on the internet.

For the most part, the audition room is supposed to be a safe room. It's a very awkward setting with a small amount of people sitting at a table on the far side of the room (sometimes only 1 or 2) and actors have to bear their souls (for better or worse). That's the job interview, essentially. "Hi, nice to meet you. I see you've trained at NYU. Great. So, I'm sure you know many people in the waiting room. Now, take every risk you've been afraid to take in your life. And do it in 16 bars." They should be able to do what they need to without being embarrassed on the internet. I know she did not mention names or take videos, but if someone goes to her page and reads the list, they can see what time she commented and begin their shame spiral. Then again, if she liked them, they can do the Happy Dance.

And, look, I'm not addressing the "American Idol" auditions (and many like them) where the actor/singer is taped for public consumption. The auditionee (if that's a word) is notified and has to sign a release form acknowledging this, lest they sue for misrepresentation. And, of course, they tape you for film and TV, but it's not for the world to see.

Maybe there is no right or wrong answer to this. The world is changing and communication changes with it. I just think it lacks class. Yeah, they may suck. But, it's about being constructive to the person in the room. By "tweeting" (and I'm really growing weary of the term), the usual "ok, the actor's out of the room" gossip now has a much bigger audience. We've all heard audition horror stories (and some of us have probably been a part of them), but does that condone live updates to, literally, the world about how you are so annoyed at hearing "All That Jazz" for the umpteenth time? What do you think?

In the Times piece, it states that Ms. Eisenberg has met with Equity and apologized and is looking forward to putting this behind her. So....sorry to bring it up again....I've been busy. But, look, she "tweeted" all about it.

These Hippies are Rich!

Playbill.com has just reported that the revivial of "Hair" has recouped its original investment of $5.76 million.  That means moving forward, any money the show makes, after the weekly operating costs, is all profit for the producers and investors.  Considering the recent box office grosses for this show have hovered around $1 million (or more) a week, I see a whole lot of tie-dye jeans and peace sign medallions in the near future.

Two things are of particular interest to me:

1.  With an opening night of March 31, 2009, it took less than 5 months after the "official" opening night to make all of its money back.  That's crazy fast.  (Previews began March 6--so that would be just over 5 months)

2.  Rumor has it, this show had lots of difficulty getting capitalized.  This past winter, producers were having trouble raising all the money to get it going.  So, it almost didn't happen.  Now, I'm guessing lots of people are happy they backed this one.

So, congrats to "Hair."  It proves that it is possible, no matter how unlikely, for a "message" show to make money in the theatre.

Don't forget to hook up the doll

The voice of a genre was silenced today (the genre, of course, being whiny teenage dramadies of the 1980s).  I just wanted to pay quick tribute to John Hughes.  He wrote/directed/produced some of the most influential movies of my youth.  In fact, I dare say that many artists had their childhoods shaped by many of his films.  Whether you admit it or not, you wanted to be Ferris Bueller.  But, you probably were Duckie.  There's nothing wrong with that.  At least you loved Otis.

I'm saddened by this not just because he's gone.  But because he joins a list of extremely influential entertainment personalities that have passed on far too soon this year.  Who are the pioneers to take us into the future of entertainment?  Are you among them?  

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....

If you could make it anywhere else, would you?

A couple of days ago, I found out that two very dear friends of mine are shrugging off the big city for a life Upstate. And they couldn’t be happier. See, they came to New York, like so many, as actors. I don’t say “aspiring actors” or “looking to break into show biz.” They were actors. They performed (and were paid) all over the country by the time they made the move; they just wanted to be here because, well, that’s what you do. New York or Los Angeles. For the most part, that’s where the auditions are, that’s how you take your career to the next level, that’s how you become a star. So conventional wisdom states. But, unlike many, my friends never really enjoyed the pulse of the city. They were here because New York is where you go for musical theatre. Period. So, they earned their stripes: Bartending, taking gigs out of town, cruise ships, dinner theatre, the whole deal. Then they had a baby, and their priorities changed. They realized that after a number of years, they didn’t want to be a part of this grind anymore. Actually, they never wanted to really be a part of it, they just didn't want to endure it any longer. They could actually be happy working a decent job, not performing, with a better quality of life somewhere else. My buddy was offered a promotion from the beer distributor he works for here in the city. The position is in Syracuse and he and his wife jumped on it without a second thought. No more struggling with strollers on the subway, no smell of hot garbage on the street in July, no more pausing a phone conversation on the street because an ambulance is passing every 2 seconds. They are out.

And looking at their situation, and seeing friends around me growing up, I ask this question: If you were not pursuing a career in the arts, would you still want to live in NYC? I, personally, think that this is the greatest city in the world. But, I also know that it can beat you down. So, why endure the bad if you know you can have the good elsewhere. This is what my friends have discovered. They want a backyard and a driveway, and they don’t want to have to be millionaires to have either. What is "the good" for you? Is it the a huge backyard with a white picket fence? Or is it the ability to buy a slice of pizza at 4am?

This week’s Time Out New York’s cover page asks: “Do you belong in NYC?” And it was the first time in a long time that I couldn’t give a definitive answer. A brief history: I moved to NY after college, worked as an actor/bartender/ waiter for 5 years and moved to LA for 4 years and did...pretty much the same thing. I originally moved to “take the next step” and have better weather, but eventually, I decided that my priorities changed and an actor’s life was no longer desirable. I liked acting; I just didn’t like all the hoops you had to jump through to make a living at it. I moved back to NY with my wife last year in an attempt to start a new chapter in our lives. But, not as an actor. I see the city differently now. And there is a lot that I want to accomplish here still, but I must admit, the large yard/picket fence deal is a little more tempting than it used to be (and I don’t even like yard work).

And I think the love/hate relationship with this city is pretty common. But, look, there is a vibe here that doesn’t exist anywhere else. The feeling that you are in the center of the universe is pretty damn cool. Yes, we pay too much money for it. But, sometimes, when the subway is on time (and you get a seat), and you have a great impromptu happy hour with some great friends because you all coincidentally happen to be in midtown at the same time, you realize that this kind of human connection cannot happen everywhere. And it usually doesn’t.

But, when you’re 50 years old and still living hand-to-mouth, and more importantly, you don’t enjoy that lifestyle but you keep plugging along for that "big break," will you know when to say when? And if so, where do you go?

A TEXAS-SIZED TONY BLOG

So, I’m back in New York from deep in the heart of Texas.  It was a great trip, with some fine food, family, and friends.  I will look upon this trip with fond memories and harsh indigestion.  During my trip, I did manage to watch the Tony Awards from Houston.  Furthermore, I managed to read a billion reviews on the topic and viewed some interesting debates/conversations.  So, here is my very late, relatively undiplomatic, 12 cents (because it’s more than 2), which I’ll try to keep brief.  But, I may fail in doing that.

1.  Neil Patrick Harris:  Hilarious and perfect for the broadcast.  Not just his song at the end, but everything he did.  Don’t give me “The sushi joke didn’t land.”  Bullshit.  If you knew the reference, it was hilarious and perfectly timed as they announced nominees for the Best Actor in a Play award shortly thereafter and panned to a very amused Raul Esparza (who, incidentally, stole that show from Mr. Mercury).  NPH kept the show moving and was funny when he was on—like a good host.

2.     2.  Sound problems:  Inexcusable.  Hey sound guys and producers of the Tonys, you’ve done this before, yes?  You did a camera rehearsal, right?  Dude, for your own benefit of not having Elton John throw a Bitch Fit, get it together.  Years ago, I was in a show that was plagued with sound issues in Vegas.  We were supposed to run 6 weeks. We ran 3.  Nobody wants to see a show with music that you can’t HEAR!

3.    3.  Alice Ripley.  Madame, I didn’t see your show yet, but apparently you deserved this award.  And I honor that.  Just stop yelling at me.

4.     4.  Poison, Poison, Poison.  The fact that they were at the Tony Awards brought out the 12-year old hair-metal fan in me.  The fact that Bret Michaels ate it via a stage drop brought out the 12-year old mean kid in me.  Because I laughed.  Sorry.  Glad to hear he’s recuperating.  (NPH’s "head banging" joke:  Priceless)

5.     5.  The number from “Guys and Dolls:” I preface this by saying that I'm singling this out because it is my favorite musical of all time.  Which is why those nearest and dearest to me begged me not to go see it.  I did have every intention of getting to see it this summer, just because I had to see this for myself.  Unfortunately, it’s closing this Sunday.  After seeing “Sit Down, You’re Rockin’ the Boat” on the Tony broadcast, I understand why.  How do you take the greatest 11 o’clock number in theatre history and make it boring and then spastically inappropriate?  The people up there have talent.  Use it.  That number doesn’t need cheap laughs (Mary Testa is way talented, she doesn’t need to spank herself for attention….at least not with this material).  When I heard Titus was playing this part, I was thrilled.  But, looking at the entire number, save the last minute, he was completely stifled and it didn’t seem like he was allowed to make the song his own at all.  By the time we “went to church” in the song, it was too little too late.  Mic problems, not your fault.  Keeping the spirit and the integrity of a classic, totally your fault (Producers and directors, not actors).

6.     6.  The touring productions performing at the Tonys.  See below.

Ok, so here’s the big debate and one I’d like to spend the most time on.  Was it worth it?  Jersey Boys, Mamma Mia, and Legally Blonde are performing all over the country and got a chance to show their stuff on a national broadcast.  And that’s why I think it was a good idea.  This award show is about bringing Broadway into your living rooms.  Touring shows need to be showcased like this, so they can be properly marketed in their multiple stops across the country.  This broadcast is a one-stop shop to the entire nation! 

Now, there are arguments that state that the Tonys are about the best of Broadway, and I agree.  But, aren’t these shows getting a life on tour because they are and have been among the best of Broadway? And regional audiences dig it.  Apparently, while Legally Blonde did “ok” on Broadway, it is KILLING across the country.  My sister-in –law in Houston cannot get a seat!  How does that happen?  National exposure.  I’m sure this would not be the case without that MTV show that appealed to the core demographic of the audience for this show.  But, the moms are the ones who buy the tix for the teenage girls, so the sale is doubled (or even tripled if dad can get drunk enough before the show to sit through it—I haven’t seen it, I’m just thinking this would not the show Dad would choose to see on Father’s day….or any day)! 

There are also some people that say, “Well, these performers are not Broadway performers, so they shouldn’t be performing on a  ‘Broadway’ awards show.”  To them, I’ll say this:  Stop the madness.  More often than not, performers touring with a show ARE Broadway performers.  They’ve been on Broadway, they’ll be there again and they are as talented (or sometimes more) than those currently on Broadway.  Furthermore, they make more money!  Often actors will go on tour with a show they were in on Broadway in order to bank some more cash.  Touring companies get something Broadway companies don’t: a fat, tax-free per diem.  It’s for road expenses, and you can use that to live off of while you bank your salary, which is directly equivalent to a Broadway salary.  So when you give no credit to the Elphaba you see performing in Cheboygan, remember, she was headlining Broadway while you were still weeping about Idina Menzel leaving the show.

On the other side of things, I have a question for those who chose these particular numbers from the shows:  Do you feel this was the best way to showcase these productions?  The balance was off a bit, but I do understand that these shows are currently running across the country and the producers could not pull every performer from their current cities to do a huge, splashy advertisement…er…production number.  I dunno, just a question.  Seeing the multiple Frankie Valli’s made me think of the final scene of “Three Amigos” for some reason.  I also blame a lot of it on sound mixing.  And, no, I can’t do a better job of sound mixing.  That’s your job.

So, yeah, it’s a lot to chew on, but I’ve been away for a week and had this on my mind for a little while.  And there were a billion other things that happened that I marked out for (the Billy Elliot kids, Karen Olivo, Liza losing her mind for the umpteenth time), but if your still reading this, you stuck with me through quite a bit, and I don’t wanna push it.  Feel free to discuss.  Until later, HOOK ‘EM HORNS!!!