Bullets Over Broadway

I was moderately entertained.  Indeed, I was.  However, knowing what I know, I feel a bit cheated.  If I didn't know any better (as most of the out-of-towners who attend these sorts of big productions), I guess nothing would seem to of place.  In his new musical this season, Woody Allen chose to not create any original music for the stage adaptation of his film by the same name.  Seems odd to me.  Such a prolific and arguably successful director, actor, and writer - why would he omit such a core ingredient from a new "musical".  Oh yes, there was music, but it was all existing and just carefully selected, recycled, re-arranged, and plopped into the story.   It frankly hit a sour note in my book.  That aside, the music chosen seemed stylistically appropriate.  Nothing too bad.  Just not original.  Not fresh.

If music were the only problem with the show, I'd be inclined to overlook the issue mostly.  However, when you combine it with the problem of casting - Houston, we've got a problem.  Don't get me wrong, Zach Braff turned in a decent performance and I can honestly say that even for a Wednesday evening performance (after a matinee) it seemed he gave it his all.  But it just wasn't enough.  His character, playwright David Shayne, cries out for a performance by none other than the goof-ball Matthew Broderick.  The entire performance, from beginning to end, was delightful, but not excellent.  It was as if Zach himself invested in the show, so they felt obliged to give him the lead over much more appropriate choices (you'll get the reference once you see the show).  I don't really even know if the part was even offered to Mr. Broderick, but it certainly seemed to me that it should have been.

Nick Cordero turned in a tortured and hysterical performance as Cheech the gangster with a penchant for writing - including one steal-the-show number.  Vincent Pastore may have appeared as goomba Johnny on The Sopranos, but his stage presence is about as engaging and entertaining as a wet sponge.  Marin Mazzie's (Helen Sinclair) star power out-shinned just about everyone else in the production except, perhaps, for Karen Ziemba, whose talents seemed utterly wasted on Eden Brent, the adorable dog-carrying actress to whom that had to give a solo number in Act II just to make sure she didn't quit.   Helene Yorke (Olive) turned in a great performance, but once again, you felt the part was perhaps written for someone else - maybe, let's speculate, Katie Finneran.  Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.  The show had a spectacular chorus of male dancers (think gangsters) and female dancers (think The Rockettes) both sets of whom dazzled throughout the entire show.

Uneven casting and poor choices by Woody with respect to music detract from what would otherwise have been another smash hit just like The Producers.  Maybe next time Ms. Stroman.  Given these challenges, this show is destined for mediocrity.

Carrie

Re-imagined.  Re-invented.  Resurrected.  Remarkable!

OK, so i have never seen the cult movie (shame on me, i know).  I also didn't get to see the prior incarnation on Broadway that cost over $8 Million and lasted a sum total of 16 previews and 5 performances (all sold out, i note) before closing to scathing reviews which caused the backers to pull their money out.  It was so bad in its last incarnation that it drove Ken Mandelbaum to name his book of musical flops, Not since Carrie, Forty Years of Broadway Musical Flops, after it.

Ladies and Gentleman, this new production is nothing like its predecessor.  Nothing!   It's young, fresh, easy on the eyes, less bloody and bat-shit-crazy, and employs some pretty nifty video projection technology to enhance the story.  Religion is present, but not overplayed.  The true story of love, bullying, fear, friendship, and forgiveness shines thru like a beacon in the fog.  The music and lyrics by Michael Gore and Dean Pitchford fill the entire theatre (yes, that absolute dump on Christopher Street).  Choreography by Matt Williams is light, modern, and engaging, although everything with high school kids seems to remind me of Spring Awakening these days.

Without a single doubt, Molly Ranson (Carrie White) and Marin Mazzie (Margaret White) are both engaged in Tony-worthy performances (if, of course, an off-Broadway show could indeed be nominated!).   As a matter of fact, although this show is off-Broadway at the Lortel Theatre (the aforementioned dump), if i didn't actually know that, I'd come out suggesting multiple Tony noms for this production.

Yes, I know it really sounds odd that a musical about a Stephen King book might be a good idea, but at its core, this show has heart.  Lots of it.  And now that we have some decent technology, nobody has to actually attempt to blow up the stage 8 times a week.  Mean kids, bullying, a jock with a heart, and a beautiful girl hidden behind her fears take this former flop to great new heights.  Don't miss your chance to see the a makeover every producer of HGTV programming would be jealous of.  Carrie looks like the surprise musical sensation of the season!

Enron

It may have been a smashing success in London, but here in New York, a bit "closer to home" as they say, it probably won't fare as well.  The Brits probably enjoy laughing at our moments of weakness just a bit more than we do.  A monumental undertaking by playwright Lucy Prebble, Enron attempts (and quite frankly succeeds) at telling the story of Jeffrey Skilling and his downfall at the Company we all know as Enron.

As the play unfolded, she (and the actors) all did a remarkable job at keeping in "interesting".  Lighting, music, dance numbers, and sophisticated digital looking sets all contributed to the "wall street" atmosphere.  Norbert Leo Butz nailed Skilling.  Gregory Itzin and Stephen Kunken as Kenneth Lay and Andy Fastow both turned in remarkable performances.  Marin Mazzie was superb as one of the few fictional (or more correctly stated, composite) characters.

The trouble is - they wove a complex tale.  There was no hero to route for.  While your senses were being bombarded with business terms, facts, figures, and jargon - the story simply lacked anyone or anything redeeming in the end.  My personal feeling is that they could have "created" (i.e. taken literary license) a "whistle blower" (which, in reality would not have been that difficult as the real story had the makings of one anyway).

Overall - I (an accountant by trade) loved it, understood it, and appreciated what they had to say.  I am guessing that as brilliant as the storytelling efforts were, most people walked out of the theatre confused or angry at a time when the economy is once again in the toilet - hence resurfacing old thoughts of anger, resentment, and ill will towards corporate America in general.  At a minimum, some might wonder if Ben Brantley's mutual funds took a nose-dive the day before he reviewed it.

Spamalot

OK, if you're a Monty Python Fan - that goes a long way to enjoying Spamalot. However, as I've seen before, once a play gets "old", you are on the 16th cast change, the director is long gone, the producers are no where to be found and the stage manager is running the show - this is what you get. Garbage-a-lot!

My friend commented during the show - "This won the Tony? I guess it was not up against much competition in 2005!". (for the record it was up against Spelling Bee, Light in the Piazza, and Dirty Rotten Scoundrels). I see the attempt at humor - it's clever in concept, yes. Act II much more so than Act I, for sure. Plenty of marginally funny and stale one-liners abound. The plot is thin, to say the least. Even the "Python-esque" fun and frolicking seems muted and lethargic.

Well - let's look back at the point of this show - - Put on a low budget looking (they spent $11m, by the way) show that perpetuates and extends the cultural phenomenon of Monty Python: The Holy Grail. Entice a new theater audience, perhaps? Have these people gone on to be inspired by the performance and see other deeper shows? (there couldn't be any less deeper shows). I think not.

Lest not we mention the current day annoying, dumb, and culture-less tourists that packed the theater. The requisite gay jokes got many-a-laugh. Of course they would. The mostly white, homophobic, middle American, suburban seat-fillers who paid upwards of $200 for a mezzanine ticket (see, i told you they were stupid) seemed more than willing to accept what they saw as "good theater". Again, I think not.

Let's just say that there are some good "theater" jokes in the book - (of course there would be, it's a Broadway musical!) - but not a one of the idiots that packed the theater laughed at the Wicked parody, the West Side Story music, or the Company spoof. At least the parents (not the kids) got the Fiddler joke - i mean it was a whole scene - how could they miss it?! And then there were all the references to popular culture. They had a big long reference to Senator Craig and the bathroom stall scandal. I think it took a full 5 minutes for the morons (or is that Mormons?) in the audience to get it!! And at that, they didn't like it much. ("He's not gay, you know").

I'm not a Monty Python fan - but let's just say I was less than pleased with what i found both on stage and in the audience at the Shubert Theater. I was right to not see this in 2005 and wrong to see it now.