A Chorus Line

Slightly delayed review of A Chorus Line, which I saw on Wednesday night...

One... the legendary showstopping number from the show does a good job of describing the show as a whole.

One... act, with no intermission.
One... scene, the entire show takes place on an audition stage, no set changes necessary.
One... costume change, to prepare for the big finale, that's it.

I'll step out on my own limb here and say that the music isn't the main reason to see this show. A Chorus Line won a Pulitzer Prize for Drama, something that only seven musicals have ever achieved. As the Pulitzer claims to be awarded "for a distinguished play by an American author, preferably original in its source and dealing with American life," the award is not unjustified. The depth of character development is rarely matched in musical theatre. This show is a brilliant play, with associated music. The story is brilliant, the music is present.

A Chorus Line made its mark as the longest running musical of its time, playing from July 1975 through April 1990. That mark has since been eclipsed by Cats, Les Miserables, and the still running Phantom. I say with confidence that this show would not have such a run if it opened today. Though despite that, it was an oddly compelling story that really captured your attention.

As for the ratings:

Cast: 3 stars - perhaps unfairly due to my lack of enthusiasm for the musical.
Script: 4 stars
Music: 2 stars - I am not a fan.
Technical: N/A - What's there to be technical? There's no set, there's not much of anything.
Overall: 3 stars - I've seen it.

One... show I probably don't need to see again.

Avenue Q

I know you've been waiting for it... and had I read my season tickets correctly I would have had this review published LAST Wednesday, but alas, I'm an idiot and looked at my calendar, not realizing my tickets actually said the week before. Alas, all worked out and I still did see the show. Did I mention I'm an idiot? That said...

What a show! Avenue Q is Sesame Street for those entering the real world. In fact, the writers of the show claim to have meant it to be a homage to Jim Henson and Sesame Street, though they specifically disclaim any connection to either. The parallels, however, are abundant and hilarious. The integration of puppets and real-life characters is seamless, though in this case no effort whatsoever is made to hide the puppeteers. In fact, the puppeteers are simply extensions of the puppet characters.

There are certainly some risque scenes, and certainly the majority of which you'd never find broadcast on PBS. But what really takes this show over the top is the music.

It's rather disappointing that by far the most popular song in this musical is the cultural-crossover blockbuster "The Internet Is For Porn," as this sorely discounts some of the more poignant themes and outstanding lyrics in several other songs. Certainly "Everyone's A Little Bit Racist" really encapsulates the current generation's frustration with the epidemic of political correctness of society today.

Additionally, I thought the song "I Wish I Could Go Back To College" is probably one of the most brilliant songs in the show, and solidly demonstrates the writers' connection to basically anyone who went to college in the past 10 years. With references such as "Sitting in the computer lab / 4 A.M. before the final paper is due / Cursing the world that I didn't start sooner / And seeing the rest of the class there, too!" and "I wanna go back to my room and find a message in dry-erase pen on the door!" it's a certainty that any recent undergrads need to see this show, if only to wax nostalgic. Sadly, I can only assume that this show will eventually date itself and become a cultural relic of Generation X.

What's probably most amazing is that the entire cast consists of just 7 actors, 3 of which are purely human characters, and 4 puppeteers who seamlessly perform, voice, and constantly hand-off about a dozen puppet characters. To discount the skill and coordination to required to do this as they do would be impossible.

It's refreshing to see a musical that avoids the cliche of a cast of under-educated youth struggling to survive in a horrible, drug-filled world, and instead focuses on the difficulties and struggles undertaken by college-educated folks entering the real world of today.

As for the ratings:

Script: 4-stars. A brilliant overall concept, though bowed a bit too the cheap laughs at points. Cast: 5-stars, simply brilliant puppeteer/actors.
Music: 5-stars, every song worth listening to. A must-have soundtrack.
Technical: 4-stars, no gimmicks necessary with the rest of the supporting pieces.
Overall: 5-stars. See this everytime it comes to town. In my case, next time it's in town I'll be putting a group together to go see it.

Cabaret

It's been a while since a blog entry, and fittingly we kick things back off with a musical review.

The 5th Avenue Theatre closed their 2007-08 season with what ranks as one of my favorite musicals, Cabaret. It's one of the few musical soundtracks that sees frequent play on my MP3 player. It goes without saying that I was looking forward to this show all season. But it wasn't quite as I expected.

Each time you have a new production of an old musical (the original Cabaret opened on Broadway in 1966), you tend to get a fresh new interpretation. One advantage is that you tend to get the best features of all the previous productions. This show was no exception.

The story surrounds Cliff Bradshaw, an American writer in Berlin during the rise of Nazi Germany, who meets an English cabaret star named Sally Bowles. The scenes take place in the context of the Kit Kat Klub, a seedy nightclub with a flamboyant master of ceremonies. The Emcee serves as the narrator tying the entire show together, and is really the true star of the show. This is the only constant throughout the productions I've seen. Once you reach the edges, things vary wildly.

It was the 1998 revival where I developed my love of the show, so I can't help but compare this rendition to then. The 5th's production has a markedly different feel. Where the 1998 revival envisioned the Kit Kat Klub as a very dark and black locale, this version took a bright and jovial approach, characterized by bright reds and shimmering light. Initially I wasn't as impressed, but as the show went on I began to like it. As has almost become expected at the 5th Avenue, the set design was befitting of the finest theatrical productions you'll ever find.

A huge credit goes to the 5th for focusing on the story. The story itself felt much more prominent than previously where the focus seemed to be more on the cabaret song-and-dance aspect. This saved the show for me.

Even the music leaves room for interpretation since much of it is so tightly integrated to the show itself. Perhaps I am a bit too attached to the 1998 soundtrack, but I was a bit disappointed by the music arrangement. The songs were vastly the same of course, but I felt that many of them were taken at a much slower tempo than was really befitting of the show, bringing the cadence of the entire show down with them. With the first act at nearly 1.5 hours, this could have helped as well. I consider that this may have been a conscious decision, but I wasn't impressed. The show could have been better served by being a bit more lively, and though I'm rarely displeased with the musical output of the 5th's productions, this one left me with a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. The orchestra was a bit sloppy and especially out of sync with the singers at times. Ironically, this probably gave it more of an authentic cabaret feel as I would envision it, but if that was their goal it wasn't overt enough to be convincing and the result was underwhelming.

On to the ratings...

Cast: 3 stars - I wasn't particularly impressed. The lead roles were well played, but musically a bit lacking.
Script: 4 stars - The storyline is simple, yet compelling. Proof that complexity is not necessary for a solid script.
Technical: 4 stars - Kudos to the design crews. I give it another 1/2 star bonus.
Music: 3 stars - It pains me to do it, but I must.
Overall: 4 stars - The vision saved this show. Well worth seeing!

Mame

Time once again for another thrilling theatre review from yours truly.

Wednesday night I went to Mame at the 5th Avenue Theatre. This is another classic from the legendary 1960's musical theatre genre. The plot revolves around a young boy whose father dies and he goes off to live with his eccentric Aunt Mame in New York City. The story takes a bizarre journey with many strange twists and turns, which are all but irrelevant to the musical itself. The plot is just compelling enough to tie the big, lavish production numbers together throughout the show.

And production numbers they were.

Despite the bizarre compounding of scenes, I was oddly entertained by this show.

The lead role of Mame, originally pioneered on Broadway by the equally legendary Angela Lansbury, was outstandingly performed by Dee Hoty, who has had multiple Tony nominations for various Broadway performances throughout her career. In fact, the entire ensemble (of over 30 actors) was probably one of the finest I've seen come out of the 5th Avenue in recent memory. The production numbers were exciting and fun to watch. Though if I had to cite a fault, on a few of them the dancing was not quite as polished and in-sync as you would hope.

The music was typical of the 1960's musicals... I hesitate to say boring, but definitely the composition of a bygone era. A few songs, including the title number, are still equally recognizable today, if not by words by the tune itself.

And I know you love my ratings, so...

Cast: 5 stars - Outstanding. I'd give this bonus stars if I could.
Script: 3 stars - Don't go for the story.
Technical: 4 stars - Another great production by the 5th.
Music: 3 stars - On the high-side of 3, but nothing to write home about.
Overall: 3 stars - I nearly gave this 4, but I want to resist rating inflation, and there's definitely a level between this and the top, so it needs a 3.

Into the Woods

Last night I saw Into the Woods, a musical composed by Stephen Sondheim back in the mid 1980's, at the 5th Avenue Theatre. This was yet another of the "musicals I don't recall ever hearing of or seeing," besides the occasional reference. The musical interweaves four famous fairy tales (Little Red Riding Hood, Rapunzel, Jack and the Beanstalk, and Cinderella) within a common setting and then attempts to answer the question "what happens AFTER 'Happily Ever After'?"

The first act is pretty straight-forward, and tells each of the four stories, threading them together with an original fifth story that builds its plot using elements from each of the other four. At first, I expected it to become quite a mess of subplots that would be nothing if not confusing to follow. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find it very easy to follow, probably the result of the four fairy tales being so familiar and the characters so distinct. But despite how busy it was, I found the first act to be very level-toned, with not much excitement or any climactic points whatsoever. It was a very long (1.5 hours for the Act I alone) set up for the second act. If fact, at the end of the first act, short of a "To Be Continued!" announced by the narrator, you'd likely be asking the question (as some around me did), "Is that the end? Or is it just intermission?"

Act II is where the stories converge and the real embellishment occurs as the characters from each of the stories unite in a common goal of defending themselves against the Giant of the Beanstalk's wife avenging the death of her husband in the first act. I must admit, as the second act began, I had that momentary dread of "should I have left at the intermission?" But the second act proved to actually be a bit captivating, and rather entertaining, which kept my attention easily until the conclusion.

As this was one of the 5th's local productions, the cast drew from the finest musical performers Seattle has to offer, who are certainly not a disappointment. The scenery and other effects were top-notch, while without all the flash and awe that seems to have become the requisite of current Broadway musicals. It was a solid musical in the genre of what I would call "traditional American musicals."

On to the ratings:

Script - 3 stars - Interesting premise, but it just didn't appeal much to me.
Technical - 4 stars - Solid and quality. Even the occasional pyrotechnics. Well designed and well executed. It was like looking into a storybook.
Cast - 4 stars - An outstanding local group of performers, with some definite highlights but consistent quality overall.
Music - 3 stars - Despite its Tony award-winning score (edging out Phantom for the honor in 1988), I just wasn't impressed. Though not bad, I didn't come away humming the tunes or wanting more.
Overall - 3 stars - Hard to justify more. I would see it again if given the right opportunity, but not otherwise.

Spamalot

Joining the list of the best musicals I've seen recently is the 2005 Tony Award winning Best Musical, Monty Python's Spamalot. Based on the legendary comedic film "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," it was 2-hours of non-stop hilarity. Whether or not you are a fan of the original movie (I've seen the movie a handful of times, but have never been overtly obsessed with it like some people), you're bound to be entertained by the show. Cleverly toe-tapping numbers are abundant throughout the irrelevant plot. Anyone who has seen the original movie knows that the plot is only a clever way to get from one bit of randomness to another. Understandably, describing it to someone who has not seen the movie or musical before is an excercise in futility.

Since I know you're all looking forward to my classic rating scale...

Cast: 4 stars - no, really, there were only four stars in the show. Maybe not quite. But regardless, it was an outstanding cast of funny and entertaining characters.
Script: 4 stars - it would have to be.
Technical: 4 stars. Everything you would expect from a Broadway musical, though I reserve my 5-star rating for things that make me go "how'd they do that?" at least once.
Music: 5 stars - my toes were tapping most all the way through, and songs have been stuck in my head ever since. This will likely be making an appearance in my iPod-like-device shortly.
Overall: 4 stars - close to a 5-star musical, but lacking any obsession with the Monty Python genre, I give it a 4. Anyone who is a fan of Monty Python would certainly consider this a 5.

Young Frankenstein

Tonight I went to see Mel Brooks' new world premiere musical Young Frankenstein at the Paramount Theatre. In a rare, yet becoming more common, pre-Broadway premiere here in Seattle before it heads to New York, it proved to be all that you would expect from a Broadway musical.

Based on the classic movie created in 1974, it is typical Mel Brooks vaudevillian, often slapstick comedy filled with innuendo, repeating gags, and one-liners. Now, this doesn't typically fall into my preferred comedic genre, but I still found it quite entertaining. As expected, near constant laughter filled the theatre. A Broadway-caliber cast including Megan Mullally, best known as Karen Walker from the sitcom Will & Grace, was one of the headliners, though really only because she was one of the biggest names in the cast. Her actual role was incidental to the plot, and in fact she only was on stage for perhaps one-quarter of the entire 2.5 hour show. The real showstopping performance for me was Andrea Martin, who may not have much name recognition, but made a big name for herself as crazy Aunt Voula in My Big Fat Greek Wedding. She provided and outstanding and absolutely hilarious performance in her supporting role.

The music, also completely composed by Mel Brooks, was as unique as the dialogue. However not particularly diverse in its style. With many recent musicals trying to set themselves apart from others by using unique styles and themes, this was a refreshing return to more traditional musical numbers. The emphasis is on the words, not the music. Though filled with musical numbers, the music isn't what defines this show.

As for the technical aspects of the show, it was probably one of the finest I have ever seen in Seattle. Its Broadway-bound budget was apparent throughout, from the sets to the costumes, and especially in some not-to-be-missed special effects that several times made me believe I was watching a movie, rather than a musical. I had several "how'd they do that?" moments.

And on to my ratings:

Script - 3 stars - I can't say I'm a big fan of this story. The movie has achieved cult-classic status, which is probably the only reason this story was compelled to become a musical.
Cast - 4 stars - This is the epitome of a Broadway cast. With a bonus 5th star to Andrea Martin.
Technical - 5+ stars - One of, if not absolutely, the finest technical production I have seen.
Music - 4 stars - Filled with songs, but none of which meet my primary criteria of being stuck in my head as I left the theatre.
Overall - 4 stars - I can't say I'd pay to see this again. The show wasn't particularly compelling to me. But it was so well produced I can't say it's not worth seeing once.

Rent

A belated review of last Wednesday's performance of Rent at the Paramount. This is the fourth performance of Rent I have attended, all of which have been on the various touring productions that have come to Seattle over the past 10 years, which seats it firmly at the top of my list of most-viewed musicals. As such, this review is going to be a bit more detailed than most of my other musical reviews, and most of my references will probably only make sense to those who have seen the musical before (or to some extent the movie, which does the musical no justice whatsoever).

As always, Rent draws quite the diverse audience, including many of the non-regular theatre goers. In this case, quite the younger crowd was represented, with many high-school and even younger kids attending a show which would easily get an R-rating from the MPAA (though notably, the movie received a PG-13 rating, no thanks to editing a lot of the dialogue and scenes). Despite this, I think most of the younger crowd dressed more appropriately for the theatre than the "Seattle casual" some of the older folks tend to wear (as I've ranted on in previous blogs). If only their theatre ettiquette matched their attire. But overall, I wasn't bothered too much by the audience around me.

As for the show, overall I'd have to say it was probably the weakest of the productions I've seen. That's not to say it was bad, I just have a lot to compare it to. Of course, there are some constants that don't change, including the script and scenery, all of which has been the same across all productions I've seen. That leaves the differences to the band and the cast, which I will detail now:

Primary cast -
Mark: Good work, I enjoyed his performance... I thought he really captured the demeanor of the character better than some others.

Roger: Came to the tour straight from the London production... and it shows. London audiences probably think nothing of the fact that he has a British accent, in a musical set entirely in the slums of New York City. I wasn't at all impressed with his performance. It was obvious he had worked hard at covering up his accent with a more American one, but frequently it would come through. I also noticed his singing was a bit reserved, which surprised me for such a dramatic and frequently angry role. I wanted more edge, but consider the possibility that in giving more edge, he would be unable to cover up his accent as successfully, thus he toned it down. Whatever the reason, I wasn't as thrilled by his performance.

Collins: Absolutely outstanding performance. This is the role pioneered by Jesse L. Martin (who popular culture knows mostly from his current role as Detective Green on the original Law & Order series). This role is consistently one of the strongest actors in the cast, and this one was probably the finest I've seen.

Angel: By far the most athletic and energetic performance I've seen... which many may say is what the role calls for. Personally, I think it was overdone. It was so overdone it was distracting from the dialogue/music to me.

Benny: Eh, something about him didn't thrill me. His role is designed to elicit a loathing from the audience, and this time he especially succeeded. Maybe he was too good. Either way I wasn't thrilled.

Maureen: A bit of background... the first time I saw Rent, Maureen's big protest scene was probably my least favorite part of the entire show. (In contrast, for most people it's quite the opposite reaction.) Each time I've seen it it has grown on me, and in this performance, it was absolutely hilarious. The actress who played Maureen did an absolutely outstanding job. She seemed so completely ditzy... it fit the role perfectly.

Joanne & Mimi: Both of these were good, and didn't stand out as better or worse than I've seen previously. They just didn't stand out at all.

The band: The music had a bit of a rough start. For most of the first act it felt like the band was pushing the tempo the entire time, and it was just causing a bit of tension between the music and the singers. This came back together towards the second act, but even then, the music just seemed a bit off balance at times, and while the artists were incredibly proficient, I wasn't as impressed as previously.

Overall rating: 4-stars. This is with a musical that would easily receive 5-stars from me on any other day. It definitely won't stop me from seeing it again every time it makes a stop in Seattle.

April Update

Seeing it's the 25th of April and I have yet to make a post since March 31st, we'll call this the April update, and I will endeavor to give a whirlwind tour of the month so far.

I made it back safe and sound from the bonspiel in New Jersey. (Pictures are up in my photo album.) The trip was a lot of fun, but always nice to get home from far away. Being my first trip to the East Coast (besides Florida, which everyone agrees does not count), it was quite a bit of fun. I need to go back to NYC sometime soon.

Curling wrapped up another year of fun and excitement. I curled in three different leagues this year, and my respective teams did reasonably well in all three of them. My Sunday night team was runner-up in the B division, which was a victory considering how bad we did the first half of the season. My Thursday night team won the C division, and my Friday night team won the A division. [A note about the divisions: the general pattern for curling leagues are that at the beginning of the season, teams are randomly assigned into pools and play teams in their own pool. Half way through the season, for a two-division league anyway, the teams in the top half of each pool are put into the A division, and the bottom-half of each pool become the B division. That way in the second half, theoretically you're playing teams that more closely match your skill level. Still, winning the B division is vastly preferred to, say, coming in 5th in the A division. :)]

Now that curling is done, I'm finding myself with quite a bit of spare time on my hands... which is both nice and not. It gets a bit boring sitting at home all the time, so I have to find other things to do. My current goal is to go to the driving range at least once a week and get my golf skills a step-up from deplorable to respectable. :)

I've had such a terrible track record seeing movies I want to see. I think I'm going to get NetFlix for a few months and catch up on my movie watching. For the past, oh, 2 years or so I've consistently had movies that I've seen previews for and been "I want to see that", but never did. And considering I NEVER seem to go rent movies, I think having NetFlix will convince me to actually watch them occasionally and catch up seeing movies I've wanted to. The big challenge will be setting up my queue and trying to remember all the movies I've wanted to see. We'll try it for a month or so and see how it works out.

Last week I went and saw The Light in the Piazza at the Paramount. This will be an abbreviated review, which is probably what the show deserved. I think this show is hit-or-miss as far as the audience goes... and I think it had its fair share of misses. I've determined there are really three distinct audiences for the theatre... first, people who see theatre as an art form, meant to inspire, intrigue, and promote intellectual discussion on a social commentary of the world. Second, people who want to be entertained, whether in comedy, music, lavish scenery, fantasy reality, or any combination of those. And third, people who have such low standards they would give Rachael Ray microwaving a hot pocket a standing ovation.

I definitely fall firmly into the second category, but if the show crosses-over to cover both the first and second categories, I'm just as satisfied. I don't mind the occasional inspiration, but I definitely want to be entertained or awed by a show. I WANT to be humming a tune for a week after the show. The Light in the Piazza missed the mark with a lot of the audiences. While the show loosely may have inspired or intrigued someone, I don't think that's what it was trying to do, and if it was it failed miserably. I sat next to an older lady who came in by herself, and not to stereotype, but appeared definitely to be in the first category of audience I described. About halfway through the first act I looked over and she appeared to be in the most excrutiating agony and/or half asleep. She did not return for the second act. The music was very operatic in nature, which in turn made it difficult to understand a lot of the words during the songs, as well as just wasn't toe-tapping or hummable music. I think it missed the #1 or #2 audience hits, but there are plenty of #3 audience types who were on their feet at the end as usual.

As for my ratings:

Cast - 4 stars. My lackluster satisfaction with the show was, as usual, no discredit to the actors. Outstanding cast, and well performed.
Script - 3 stars. An interesting story, though nothing spectacular.
Music - 2 stars. The music wasn't bad, but did nothing for me. What would have been a good play without music was just muddled up with added music.
Technical - 3 stars. Not much more to say about that.
Overall - 3 stars. Probably more like 2.5 stars, but I'll round up in this case. I've seen it, it was worth seeing once, but I don't need to see it again in the future.

With that review out of the way, I'm caught up to this week. Not too much going on at all. I should get back to work, then figure out what to do with the rest of my day.

Twelve Angry Men

Broadway doesn't always mean musicals. This is the perfect example. Tonight I attended a performance of Twelve Angry Men, the story of a jury dileberating on a death-penalty homicide case. Picture if you will... one scene, no music, no intermission, and an hour and a half of non-stop dialogue. It was quite an interesting show, and oddly capivating despite the fact that I'm much more interested in the musical theatre, which this definitely was not.

The jury foreman was played by George Wendt, who will probably forever be better known as Norm from Cheers. I think everyone in the theatre was collectively ready to yell "Norm!" as soon as he walked in the door of the jury room, but fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately) no one did.

The show had all the drama of a Law and Order episode, complete with emotional outbursts and characters you love to hate. The story alone, however, was pretty predictable once you got your bearings and figured out where it was headed. This would have made for a rather boring show, except for the outstanding acting. All twelve jurors were absolutely amazing, without any weak links whatsoever.

Ratings for this will be short and to the point, yet somewhat counterintuitive.

Cast - 5 stars. These are top-notch actors with a top-notch performance.
Script - 3 stars. A good story, but the strength is really in the character depth.
Overall - 2 stars. It was a good show, but I probably wouldn't go see it again, nor would I have sought it out had I not had season tickets. Ironically enough, the overall rating wasn't saved by the strong marks for cast and script.

Buddy: The Buddy Holly Story

Tonight I attended Buddy: The Buddy Holly Story at the 5th Avenue Theatre. One day after returning from an extended vacation, I nearly decided not to go--what a mistake that would have been!

Buddy is based on the life of Buddy Holly, famed rock and roll pioneer who died tragically in a plane crash on tour with The Big Bopper and Ritchie Valens in 1959. I was expecting a good show, considering the quality and familiarity of many Buddy Holly songs, but was skeptical of this recent example of the aptly dubbed "jukebox musical" which have left me less than satisfied in the past. Complete enjoyment of such musicals rely heavily on one's recognition and familiarity with the associated songs. Fortunately for Buddy, it would be a challenge to listen to any oldies radio station for an hour and not hear at least one tune used in the show.

Understandably, the quality of the performance depends heavily on the quality of the music and musicians. There was absolutely no disappointment. If you came expecting above-average cover band material as I did, you would be completely blown away. Every one of the actor/musicians was absolutely amazing. Combined with the excellent script and production yielded an unexpectedly outstanding overall performance. My only real complaint was that the majority of the second act became just a rock concert. It was as if the writers had a set lineup of songs they wanted to fit in, but ran out of story halfway through, so decided to write one scene and just throw everything else in it. I was momentarily disappointed by this, but was quickly re-energized by the once again amazing musical performance.

As for the ratings:

Music - 5 stars, without any reservations whatsoever.
Technical - 3 stars, good all-purpose sets and lighting, without interfering with the great music.
Cast - 4 stars, at least half the cast were obviously accomplished musicians in addition to being excellent actors. It's always nice to see musicians out of the pit and on the stage.
Script - 3 stars. Good avenue for telling the Buddy Holly story.
Overall - 4 stars. The 4 that's closer to 5, rather than closer to 3.

"Buddy" was a late substitution in the 5th Avenue's season lineup after the Broadway-bound "Cry-Baby" was delayed out to next season, and as such I think has suffered a bit in its promotion. Quite a few different ticket deals have been released in an apparent effort to fill seats after lackluster ticket sales thus far, but it should be a crime to have empty seats for this show. Its three-week run continues through March 4th, and I highly recommend finding some tickets if you have the chance.

25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee

Tonight I went to see The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee at the Paramount Theatre. Despite having one of the longest titles of any musical I've ever seen, it was quite the atypical musical experience.

The whole plot of the musical was basically, well, just what it sounds like--a spelling bee. That's pretty much it, nothing more, nothing less. Sure, they added a few musical numbers where we delved into the personal lives of these middle school-aged kids; amusing little ditties but merely accessories to the rest of the dialogue. The 2-hour production had no intermission, though an intermission-like scene was built into the show that gave the audience a break from the seriousness (and I use that in the loosest sense of the word) of the spelling bee.

Reading my recap thus far you might be led to believe it was a disappointing performance, but you'd be wrong. It was absolutely hilarious! Much credit for the comedic brilliance needs to be given to both the writers and equally the actors. A great deal of improvisation was involved in various parts of the show, including bringing four members of the audience on stage as additional spellers at the beginning of the show. (Those audience members were relatively quickly eliminated through the use of obscure or ridiculously impossible-to-spell words.) Rather than applause, laughter was the prevailing sentiment from the audience.

I considered whether this show would work better as a play than a musical, based on the relative unimportance of the musical numbers' contribution to the overall plot, but concluded that it's best as is. The music really is the glue that holds it all together. While it doesn't really add a lot to the overall picture, it's adds greatly to the structural foundation of the show.

As for my much awaited ratings...

Cast - 4 stars. A small, yet outstanding cast with great comedic talent.
Script - 5 stars. Inspired genius, and we'll give the credit for the improvised customizations here.
Technical - 3 stars. All you'd expect from a Broadway-caliber production, but nothing remarkable.
Music - 2 stars, and no discredit to the singers or musicians, all of whom were outstanding. I considered giving it 3 stars, but couldn't justify it. It's just not the focus of the show.

Overall - 4 stars. Worth seeing perhaps more than once, because I'd doubt it's ever quite the same show twice. Definitely an unconventional style of musical, but nothing wrong with that.

I'm dreaming of a White Christmas...

Last night I went to see the musical adaptation (for once, the movie came first) of White Christmas playing at the 5th Avenue Theatre. I took my sister Amy with me, mainly because she has seen the movie probably 124 times, and besides the complete song montage she sang while we were waiting for the show to start, it wasn't too bad. :)

As for the musical, an excellent performance. Most of the cast was outstanding... the chorus was excellent, the leads were entertaining, with the possible disappointment of the actress who played Judy Haynes, who did not impress me at all. Not bad in general or vocally, but she was a bit sloppy on the dance numbers which really stood out next to the outstanding performance of the rest of the ensemble.

I have to avoid trying to compare this production to the movie, because the movie is an American classic, to which there just is no comparison. Though in short, as in any adaptation, various changes had to be made, in this case some of the minor subplots and edges were rearranged or changed to be more usable on the stage rather than the screen. But the overall story remained intact.

On the technical aspects, the sets were impressive. The orchestra was outstanding. Breaking down the rating:

Cast: 4 stars - no Bing Crosby, but who is?
Script: 3 stars - too used to the movie, hard to handle many changes.
Technical: 5 stars - great sets and lighting and everything else.
Music: 4 stars - All the classic songs, with a great orchestra to back it up.

Overall Rating: 4 stars. I'd see it again... actually enjoyed it quite a bit. Nothing really to complain about here... more than that, lots of good things about it. A holiday classic worth seeing. I can't give it 5 stars though, because I've seen better.

Sweet Charity

Tonight I went with my sister Amy to go see the musical Sweet Charity starring Molly Ringwald at the Paramount. I had no real expectations going into this musical, but figured if it was a touring production at the Paramount, it's bound to be good.

Boy was I wrong.

If there was a genre of "classical musicals" this would firmly fit in. In fact, the original musical opened on Broadway in 1966. I usually enjoy the classic musicals, just as I enjoy most of the more contemporary musicals. It includes several classic tunes such as "Hey, Big Spender" and "If They Could See Me Now", but even the music couldn't save this show. It's hard for me to dedicate even much time reminiscing of this musical, other than to express my extreme disappointment.

My first warning should have been that the theatre was probably 1/2 to 2/3 empty. The 3rd mezzanine was almost completely empty, and probably most of the people in the theatre were actually season ticket holders who had nothing better to do. I have never been to such an empty performance at the Paramount.

The show was plagued with 15-minute long song and dance numbers (which shouldn't be surprising considering the original production was choreographed by Bob Fosse). I nearly fell asleep a couple of times, which is very atypical for me as well.

At intermission I considered it a 2-star performance on my rating scale... I should have left at intermission, the second act was only worse... overall it rates as a lonely 1-star out of 5. I would not recommend it, nor voluntarily go see it again.

On a related rant, some would argue that there should not be courtesy applause after a poor performance. I actually believe that courtesy applause is only customary at the conclusion of a show. Good or bad, the actors who performed are doing a service and should be applauded for their performance. HOWEVER... there is NO such thing as a courtesy standing ovation. If the conclusion of the show doesn't make you want to spring to your feet and cheer, then don't. There are some people who rise to their feet with a standing ovation at the conclusion of nearly every performance, especially the bad ones. Tonight's show was no exception... though more annoying is the fact that most of those people seem to always sit in the 1st row. As a result, you have several other involuntary standing ovations:

1) standing because the person in front of you is standing and you can't see if you don't stand too.
2) standing because other people are standing, and if they're standing it probably means you should too.
3) standing because you're trying to get out as fast as you can

I REFUSE! It cheapens the impact of a standing ovation when it is overused. If you aren't compelled by the performance to leap to your feet, THEN DON'T! DO NOT BE TEMPTED!

Tonight was the perfect demonstration. At the conclusion of the show, a mild courtesy applause arose for the cast taking their bows, and of course, 4 people sitting in the row immediately in front of me stand in ovation. I refuse, but in a strange change of scenery, I glance to the sides and behind me, and most everyone else is refusing to stand as well. The result was basically everyone who was standing looked like idiots-- either idiots for standing at the end of a performance that obviously did not merit it, or idiots for believing that the performance actually did merit it.

RESIST THE COURTESY OVATION!

Yet another not too exciting month

Well September is nearly over... another month goes by. Since it's been nearly a month since my last completely random and uneventful blog, I'll throw out a "what's been happening" update blog.

It's Football Season
So what does that mean? Well, yet another year of Husky Football, for one. The Dawgs through some miracle are currently 3-1 overall. Somehow this team manages to win football games, though certainly not without some abysmal playing in the first half of most of their games. Those 3 wins are equal to the sum of the total number of wins in the past two seasons combined. All goes to show that there's light at the end of the tunnel for the Huskies. I marched the Varsity/Alumni game with the band, which was fun. All in all, just like everything else has been.

It's Curling Season
Yes, another curling season is getting ready to begin. My second year curling stands to be even more fun and exciting than the first. Today I helped at an open house at the curling club. I was teaching people how to curl, but so few people showed up it wasn't too much work other than just sitting around today. But there are at least 5 more open houses that I'll work at in the coming weeks, so I'm not too disappointed. Alas, the sport of curling's best advertising is when you see it on TV during the Olympics, and outside of that, you just have to be lucky enough that someone stumbled onto it in the newspaper or online.
I'll be curling in three leagues this winter, on Sunday, Thursday and Friday nights. As usual it will be a very busy time, but it's not like I have much else exciting to do most of the time, so it will be fun.

Shows and Concerts
This week was incredibly busy... somehow all my tickets lined up on the same week. On Tuesday night I went to see the musical "Bombay Dreams" at the 5th Avenue. I'd describe the plot, but I've since determined it was vastly irrelevant. The show revolves around the world of Bollywood in India, and Bollywood stars, and of course, bizarre Indian pop music. But it was entertaining, worth the price of admission, and without having much more to say about that, it received 3 out of 5 stars on my entirely-subjective, non-scientific scale.

Speaking of, I should better define my entirely-subjective, non-scientific scale which shall remain nameless until I come up with a witty and creative name for it.

5 stars - Amazing! Among the finest performances you'll find anywhere. Worth the price of admission, whatever the cost.
4 stars - Outstanding. Certainly not a disappointment, but I wasn't compelled to leap to my feet at the end of the performance.
3 stars - Entertaining. Nothing spectacular, but nothing disappointing either.
2 stars - I came. I saw. I left. Worth the price of admission, if admission were free.
1 star - Someone might like this, but not I. I wouldn't go back by choice, but not quite bad enough I'd get up and walk out.
0 stars - "Make it stop!" "Now there's two hours of my life I won't be getting back." Deporable. Nobody should be subjected to this.

Back to my week... on Wednesday night I went and saw the touring production of Wicked, the musical based on the book that is sort of a prequel to the Wizard of Oz. This show was absolutely amazing. This show had a 10 night run in Seattle and has been completely sold out for months, and there's a very good reason why. Absolutely one of the finest musicals I've seen come through town. An unconditional 5 out of 5 stars.

And last night I went down to Benaroya Hall for the Seattle Symphony's pops concert with all George Gershwin music. The highlight was the performance of Rhapsody in Blue with the guest pianist who was fabulous. The rest of the performance was also very good. This is a tough call on how many stars to give it... so I'm going to give it 4-stars. The Rhapsody in Blue performance was easily a 5-star performance, but the others were good, and didn't disappoint, though not as amazing. I need to reserve my 5-star rating, it just wouldn't be right to give it out too often. :)

With that, I've had enough to say now. There, I blogged, everyone who reads this happy now? Good. :)

Dirty Rotten Musical

Tuesday night I had the excitement of going to see the musical Dirty Rotten Scoundrels playing at the Paramount. One of the differences I've found between having season tickets and buying tickets for select shows is that with season tickets you're much more likely to go to a show not having the slightest idea what the show is about. This was the case with Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. The one advantage is that usually the touring musicals that come to Seattle never cease to disappoint. This was definitely no exception.

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels was probably the most thoroughly entertaining musical I've seen. The audience laughed almost non-stop throughout the over 2-hour musical. One indication of this should have been that in the original Broadway production the lead role was played by John Lithgow. Unlike most musicals which may mix some comedy along with dramatic scenes... this had no drama of the sort. Sure, some suspense I guess, but pretty much just non-stop comedy for the sake of comedy.

Hard for me to talk about a musical without actually discussing the music... the music was adequate. I didn't run out and buy the soundtrack when I left the theatre... but that's not to say it wasn't entertaining. There were a few memorable numbers, and one showstopper, but this musical isn't about the music. It's about the hilarious script and outstanding character acting.


In other less-exciting news, today I cleaned the bathtub, with a little help from my friends... the scrubbing bubbles. After at least an hour with a scrubbing sponge, I managed to make the thing sparkle. I didn't realize how nasty it was until I started cleaning it and found the clean white below. In fact, there were some marks on the floor of the bathtub that have been there since I moved in several years ago, and I had just assumed that they were part of the tub itself. Not so! They are gone now too! Now we'll just see how long it stays that way.