I was browsing through some old bookmarks and came across the trailer for Rob Marshall’s upcoming film version of Nine, Arthur Kopit and Maury Yeston’s musical based on Frederico Fellini’s 8½:
I really, really, really want this film to be phenomenal. I don’t just want something that’s OK or pretty good; I want something that’s absolutely fantastic. The cast looks great – Daniel Day-Lewis, Nicole Kidman, Marion Cotillard, Penélope Cruz, Sophia Loren, Judi Dench, Kate Hudson and Stacy Ferguson. And Marshall seems to have proved that he knows what he’s doing when it comes to musicals. The one thing that makes me pause is that some bits in the trailer look an awful lot like what Marshall did in Chicago and I honestly don’t know how I feel about that. At the very least I feel somewhat ambivalent about it. Is Marshall forcing Nine into a concept where, as in Chicago, the numbers are all diegetic? I guess I’ll have to wait until November (or whenever it’s released over here) and see…. Till then I’ll live in the hope that I’ll stop by my local cinema and be completely blown away by what’s up on the screen.
It’s hard to believe that it has been a year since our production of the Craig Lucas and Norman René-conceived Stephen Sondheim revue, Marry Me a Little, at the Intimate Theatre, in which I played the “Man” and which was directed by one of my best friends and a great colleague, Jacqui Kowen. Thinking back to that wonderful experience, I wish it could have been more extended. The great thing about Sondheim’s material is that you never seem to stop discovering new layers within the pieces as you go along and I found that this accelerated tremendously as the run continued. Even today, I’m still finding answers for things that perhaps didn’t work perfectly.
I really enjoyed performing the show, which nonetheless has some problems in the way that it’s structured: “Uptown Downtown” just seems squeezed in for the sake of it (although I think I might have thought of a way integrate better than we did) and there is a huge psychological jump from “A Moment With You” to “Happily Ever After” which, linked only by “Marry Me a Little” seems a little fast. On the plus side, the divisions between fantasy and reality are pretty clear and the more you can play with those lines, the more interesting the show becomes.
The audiences, for the most part, seemed to appreciate the show and there wasn’t a single performance where someone didn’t come up to us after the show with a a story about how he/she really identified with a particular song or lyric because of a particular experience in his/her life. For me, the fact that we were actually communicating something to people that made them reflect about their lives was something that I found profoundly moving.
There is actually an incredible amount of stage business notated in the ‘book’ – such as it is – that does very little but distract the audience from the soul-stirring words. Much of this extra business was cut in our production. While still working within the concept, we tried to find a greater level of focus that came from playing the material instead of playing with pencils that fell from the desk and flushing toilets and spending forever preparing food that there wasn’t really time to eat anyway. Ultimately this served the material far better and helped the audience to follow the journey of the characters through this one evening in their lives far more clearly.
Because there is a character arc in the material, this is something that became really important to us as a point in putting this show together creatively. How do you get an audience that lives in a primarily visual culture to respond to something that is essentially an auditory experience where not only music but also words are really important? Particularly when the culture of the audience does not necessarily include Sondheim’s work as a reference point, which might prepare them for this experience. I really think this is a huge problem with audiences unaccustomed to listening to what lyrics have to say, which is particularly necessary with Sondheim’s work.
In a sense this is why “Two Fairy Tales” works so well as an opening number – besides focusing the concept for the evening, it really makes the audience realise that they have to listen because they are faced with a number that they can understand without hearing every word but in which it becomes apparent that the more words they hear, the richer their experienced will become. And so it means that their is a greater degree of attention through the much simpler “Saturday Night” and that they are settled in for for the real playing with words that happens from “Can That Boy Foxtrot?” through much of the rest of the show.
One of the things that was said to us again and again during the run was that it took a couple of numbers for audiences to tune into the idea of listening to the lyrics and the people who came twice only really managed to fully appreciate “Two Fairy Tales,” which opens the show, the second time they came to watch because they knew they had to listen from the very beginning. And there was certainly a deeper sense of appreciation for the lyrics in people who saw the show a second time.
As a side note, I must say that I cannot believe how badly the original cast recording represents the show, with the song order rearranged and the poor performances. It’s even more disappointing once you’ve seen the show in action, so to speak, than when you first hear the recording and you’re just trying to make sense of it.
Casting has been announced for Daniel Zaitchik‘s musical adaptation of Picnic at Hanging Rock that will take place at the Eugene O’Neill Theater Center later this month. Whitney Bashor, Charlie Brady, Matt Doyle, Jessica Grove, Veronica Kuehn, Hannah Laird, Anne Letscher, Anne Nathan, Lauren Nolan, Laila Robins, Sarah Shahinian, Nick Sullivan, Kate Wetherhead, Jessica-Snow Wilson, Lauren Worsham and Valerie Wright will appear in the production, which will be directed by Joe Calarco.
The 1945 Original Broadway Cast Recording of CAROUSEL
Where to begin? Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II’s Carousel, which first premiered in 1945, has been recorded several times over: both the original Broadway and London cast performances were preserved, and since then we’ve had numerous revival and studio cast recordings. But perhaps it’s prudent to go back to the beginning… and then spend some time looking at a few of the major recordings of the score.
The 1945 Original Broadway Cast Recording is something special, preserving the original cast performances and providing enough of the score so that one gets a relatively good idea of the show. Yes, some songs are shortened (like “If I Loved You”), but the only song that gets left out completely is “Geraniums in the Winder”. The other cut material comprises mostly reprises and dance music. The principal cast members are all good singers. John Raitt’s baritone rounds out the songs nicely, Jan Clayton gives a moving reading of Julie’s songs, and Murvyn Vye is fun as Jigger. We did get a reminder of the original Julie and Billy’s performances on a TV special in 1954. Watching that performance reveals how masterful Rodgers and Hammerstein’s work on the show was and also gives us some idea of how fantastic Raitt and Clayton must have been when the show premiered 9 years earlier.
Looking at the same scene as it appears in the disappointing 1956 film – well, it just doesn’t compare. Neither does the 1956 Soundtrack, although it does give one a better impression of the film than it deserves. Overall, it’s too polished: the sound of the bigger orchestrations sound more generic, more Hollywood than the New England setting of the material. Gordon Macrae and Shirley Jones, while delivering highly listenable covers of the songs, are a bit too light in the central roles. There’s also not enough contrast in vocal colour between them and the other leads. Logically enough, this makes Barbara Ruick and Robert Rounseville stand out to a greater extent – and of course, this means that the balance in the cast is somewhat off-kilter. Regarding its completeness, there is more material here than on the OBCR: the ballet music is included but “Geraniums in the Winder” and “The Highest Judge of All”, which were cut from the film, are not.
Another recording that often gets mentioned in discussions about the show is the 1987 Studio Cast Recording. Some folks love it, but it’s not really one of my favourites. Although it’s almost complete, cutting only the Act 2 ballet music, there’s a bit too much tiptoeing around the roles on the part of the singers for everything to settle completely. Samuel Ramey’s singing of Billy is impressive, but he doesn’t get the character to move through the material in his interpretation of the pieces. To a lesser extent, the same is true of Barbara Cook, whose work I genuinely adore elsewhere. I suppose my major beef with this album is that it is a typical studio recording, albeit an excellent one and far more successful than most, but it never really catches alight in the way Carousel should.
The 1996 Broadway Revival Cast Recording of Carousel
My personal favourite recording of Carousel is the 1994 Broadway Revival Recording. What is really fantastic about this recording is that there is such a fantastic balance between acting and singing. While the principals have enough voice to serve the material, they also communicate the stakes of what’s going on dramatically in the score and in the show as a whole. The “Carousel Waltz” is played so beautifully on this recording – it’s heartbreaking. Michael Hayden’s idiosyncrasies as both an actor and a vocalist force you to engage with Billy and the journey of his character. Sally Murphy sings to your heart and completely gets the arc of the character from “If I Loved You” through “What’s the Use of Wond’rin'” all the way to the end of the show. One of the highlights of the recording is Audra MacDonald’s Carrie, an interpretation that really reveals her versatility as both an actress and a vocalist. She is perfectly matched by Eddie Korbich, and their rendition of “When the Children are Asleep” is unmatched. (I’d definitely pick this one over its counterpart, the 1993 Royal National Theatre Cast Recording, although I really enjoyed Joanna Riding’s Julie on that disc.)
As I’ve noted above, there are many other recordings of the show, some of which are not yet available on CD. Nonetheless, I think these recordings represent the main players of a musical that provides a truly emotional experience not only when seen live in the theatre, but also when appreciated musically on your CD player or iPod in your own time.
Fela! will be opening on Broadway later this year. I must admit I haven’t particularly followed the show’s journey prior to this announcement, but it looks as though Fela! might become one of the major musicals of this season – hopefully not only because of the lack of much else that’s exciting, but also because it ends up being a great show within itself. The press release for the show describes it as follows:
Audiences are welcomed into the extravagant, decadent and rebellious world of Afrobeat legend Fela Anikulapo Kuti. Using his pioneering music (a blend of jazz, funk and African rhythm and harmonies), [Fela!] explores Kuti’s controversial life as artist, political activist and revolutionary musician.”
The show has a book by Jim Lewis, who also provided additional lyrics for the show) and Bill T. Jones (who also serves as the show’s director-choreographer). Following a limited engagement Off-Broadway last year, which received incredibly positive reactions from critics and the public, Fela! is aiming to make it’s official Broadway bow on 23 November, with previews starting October 19th.
Having revisited Dreamgirls this weekend, I’ve been browsing around the ‘net a little and saw a few comments from people who were surprised that the film was passed over for a Best Picture nomination at the Oscars. I know this is a little after the fact, but since I never keep my mouth shut and this is, after all, my blog – here goes.
Let’s face it – the Academy doesn’t always get it right. Let’s look back a couple of years where Crash took home the award that really belonged to Brokeback Mountain. That’s just one instance.
But…
I wasn’t surprised that Dreamgirls didn’t get a “Best Picture” nomination at the Academy Awards. At the end of the day, I think the film has a couple of fundamental flaws that denied it from the privilege of being nominated as “Best Picture”. One of these is that director Bill Condon didn’t quite manage to get the non-diagetic singing to work as it should have – there’s stuff in “Stepping to the Bad Side” and “Family” that ultimately just doesn’t work. Sometimes the screenplay doesn’t quite seem to know where it sits stylistically. I certainly wasn’t distracted by the changes made to the play, but the film wants to have its cake and eat it in terms of what it chooses to use or discard. And although the film has some amazing moments and although it is an immensely emotional experience, these aren’t don’t make up for the gaps left by other elements of the production.
Insofar as comparing Dreamgirls to the most recent musical Best Picture winner, Chicago, I think that Chicago is a far more successful film in the way it is executed as a film production. You can, I suppose, debate the adaptation but I think that the transition from stage to screen is excellently conceptualized. Within reason, a film adaptation shouldn’t be about how literally faithful or not the movie is to a stage production of a show. Chicago, for me, hit the nail on the head in capturing the metaphor that is inherent in the text of the show and adapting that to the medium of film. Sure, it isn’t the emotional experience that Dreamgirls is. But it isn’t meant to be. Chicago itself is a colder, more intellectual musical that, like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, that is presented in a form that appears more comfortable and appeasing. But Dreamgirls is intended to be an emotional rollercoaster, which it certainly is – just not one where every part of the equation adds up to equal “Best Picture”.
Over the weekend, I watched Dreamgirls on DVD with some friends. It’s been a while since I saw it and I think part of me had forgotten how much I enjoy the film. At one point, we were all discussing how glad we were that Jennifer Hudson won the Oscar for playing Effie White. As my friend Jacqui says, there are bits (like “And I Am Telling You (I’m Not Going)”) that are even better than Barbra Streisand on the steamboat in Funny Girl. Personally, I don’t think la Streisand even comes close.
(Digression: I also remember how annoyed I was when not one of the three nominated songs – “Love You I Do”, “Patience” and “Listen” – won the Academy Award for Best Song. The performance of those three songs was the highlight of the Oscars. But political correctness won out when the song from An Inconvenient Truth took home the trophy. I’m all for green issues but, when it comes to music, motown-inspired showtunes beat out rock-styled message songs any day.)
One of the things we chatted about was whether she was nominated in the wrong category. After all, Effie is a lead role. Personally, I would even go so far as to say that it’s the lead role. The plot revolves around her: everything else in the show from the Dreams, to Deena, to Curtis is related through her experience. And even the subplot involving Lorelle and Jimmy is, in some ways, a mirror of what’s going on in the main plot. One of my friends mentioned that maybe it’s because the film is called Dreamgirls and not Effie – but even the title highlights the role because ultimately, as the action of the play unfolds, Effie is pushed out and excluded from the Dreams. She is conspicuous because of her absence.
The balance is thrown out a little in the film with the addition of “Listen” in an attempt (I assume) to give Deena a moment that is as dramatic as “And I Am Telling You (I’m Not Going)” but of course it doesn’t come close to having the dramatic impact that the earlier number has.
So why was Hudson nominated as a supporting actress? Who actually knows? Marketing? Fancy footwork? Her billing? The fact that the producers knew there was no way she would win in the “Best Actress” category? Whatever the reason, it all boils down to movie-making politics rather than anything to do with the film itself. But what a super film it is to revisit!
West Side Story: I won’t lie. West Side Story was the revival I was most excited about this season. Not only do we get to revisit one of the great Broadway musicals of all time, we get to explore it in a new way because of a bilingual approach to the material conceived by Arthur Laurents. Now West Side Story has a lot going for it: a fantastic score by Leonard Bernstein, some great lyrics by Stephen Sondheim and some fantastic Jerome Robbins choreography that really pulls everything together. Oh yes, it also has a book by Arthur Laurents – but it’s really the contribution to the show that is least touched by genius and I guess to compensate for that Laurents has fiddled with the show here and there – cutting a good portion of the “Somewhere” ballet along the way. Tut, tut, tut, Mr Laurents – the “Somewhere” ballet was a beautifully conceived piece of choreographic storytelling and your staging with the cutesy little boy just doesn’t measure up. Fortunately, we were spared that bastardization at the Tony Awards and were treated to a magnificent “Dance at the Gym”. What a pity Robbins could not have supervised the final edit of this for the film – the thematic and storytelling motifs in the choreography come through on stage in a way that they never do in the movie and here every second is fantastic – not only because it’s entertaining but also because it manages to keep the narrative and its themes in the foreground. The “Dance at the Gym” is no simple diversion here; it’s an essential piece of storytelling in a show where – apologies to Mr Laurents – the score and choreography do far more than words alone ever could.
Guys and Dolls: I’ve been in two minds about this revival. I really wanted it to work, but nothing I’ve heard about it has indicated that it does. Watching this clip, the first thing that hits me – besides the sound problems – is that the projections just don’t work. It makes the whole thing look like something out of a (rather cheap) revue. I’m also reminded what a great number this is. But this arrangement doesn’t work as well for me as the one used in the 1992 revival. Sure, Tituss Burgess can sing crazy high, as they say, and Mary Testa cuts loose (in a way that I don’t think works for the period or the character). But I don’t think this really makes the number – or the show, for that matter – any better. Oh well..
Rock of Ages: It took me a while to find this clip. At first, all there was to see was a multitude of clips showing how Bret Michaels walked upstage into a descending piece of scenery. As for the show itself…. hmmm… it’s fun! But it looks more like a rock concert transposed to Broadway than a musical and I don’t know how a narrative finds the space to fit in with such big numbers. Still, looking at the synopsis of the show, it seems like it might work much better than We Will Rock You – probably the most similar jukebox musical in terms of the musical material used. Of course, that’s no big chore: We Will Rock You is one of the most poorly conceived shows I’ve ever seen – even by jukebox musical standards…. Getting back to Rock of Ages, I did like the guy who narrated the segment – his bit with Liza is really the best bit of the performance – and it’s so easy to be seduced by the energy of it all, so I guess I can understand the nomination better than I did this morning. Until I saw the clip, I was wondering how this show got nominated instead of 9 to 5. The part of me that still does is the bit that just isn’t all that interested in a jukebox musical built around rock hits from the 1980s – but which loves a bit of Dolly anytime!
Musical Cyberspace 