If Grease has survived based upon the love people have for the movie, its original run can probably be credited to the air of nostalgia it must have created. To stand on its own two feet otherwise is almost incredulous.
Grease is a show that thrives on a meager plot plugged with songs that are high on the nostalgia factor but low on the purpose factor. That is not to say that there isn't richness in the characters--Danny, Frenchy, Marty, Patty, Kenicke, and particularly Rizzo are all vibrant personalities befitting the stage. The problem is that the plot doesn't strongly revolve around them. Sandy and Danny break up and get together without much motivation. They proclaim undying love to each other, but, as appeared on stage in the tour, there's no particular reason for them to be together or not to be together. Sandy's big transformation at the end is also without any real motivation. Though her character is weakly developed, it still seems almost entirely out of character for her to change so drastically. And with the exception of Rizzo and Kenicke, the other secondary characters could easily be excised without much of an impact on the main plot.
While I was watching Grease (and enjoying myself enough to make it worth the trip if not on the Hairspray or Les Miserables level), I couldn't help but think, "How did this show make it all these years?" Obviously, as the movie proved, there is the germ for an appealing plot in the show, but it simply isn't developed. Yes, it wasn't developed because that was not the vision of the original creators, but that doesn't make it any more fascinating of a plot for those of us who don't "Remember the good old days."
Most interestingly, seeing Grease really explained Over Here!. As a teenager, I had discovered the OBCR of Over Here! at the library and immediately picked it up since I have always enjoyed the work of Richard and Robert Sherman (who wrote music for Mary Poppins, The Happiest Millionaire, and most of the music for The Jungle Book). It's a great CD, loaded with that great 1940s sound (this was the show which starred two of the Andrew Sisters), and the songs are stupendous, even if it did take me a number of years to fully get what the VD Polka was.
The libretto for Over Here! is available through Samuel French, and when I discovered that, I immediately picked it up. I was shocked by how plotless the show was. Though the score hints at the lives of the main characters and the plot of some secondary characters, the show doesn't have a strong plot structure. The events almost just happen to happen with a funny plot twist at the end which acts as a climax, a climax that is not adequately built toward. It is, in essence, a show whose heart is "Remember the good old days." There is the promise of a really great plot with fun characters, but that was not the purpose of the show. As a result, there isn't one.
Did I mention the original production of Over Here! was produced by the original producers of Grease two years after that show's phenomenal success? Hmmm . . .
I was honestly shocked that The Wedding Singer didn't run longer because it was not far from Grease in its kitschy references to an era gone by. The big difference is that The Wedding Singer has a much stronger plot, far more interesting characters, and is extremely funny. Perhaps, as well, the producers could have played up the 80s throwbacks better (and stronger reviews would have helped too).
When Hairspray hit movie theaters with its 1960s music and energetic dancing (not to mention John Travolta), many made a connection between the success of both movies. Having seen the stage Grease, I'm not sure if there really is such a strong connection after all. Either way, Hairspray is far superior to Grease in about every way. But then, Hairspray's creators were also out to create something that told a great story with great music.
the Broadway Mouth
January 7, 2009
Showing posts with label The Wedding Singer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Wedding Singer. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Thursday, September 18, 2008
High School Musicals, Part 3: Dancing in Women’s Underwear . . . ?
Midway through The Wedding Singer, my thought was “This would be such a fun show to do in a high school. Too bad it can’t be done.”
It’s a myth that old Broadway shows were purely wholesome entertainments. I once saw a great regional production of Oklahoma! with a group of teachers who had grown up loving the movie. They were more than slightly surprised by some of the lyrics in the stage version. In the old days, though, when schools did shows like Oklahoma! or The Pajama Game, they could easily look to the film adaptations for guidance on how to incorporate alterations to make the show appropriate for their students. The lyrics were already changed by the original creators for the movies, so there was no danger is adapting those changes.
My college directing teacher told us that you could get away with taking out the swear words, but really, anything other than that, you were legally out of bounds. She taught us to respect the work of the playwright, to honor their intentions, and that if a show in its entirety wasn’t right for your actors or your audience, then it was best to pick another show.
When I saw The Wedding Singer, I knew there was no way for a high school to do the show without severely damaging the integrity of the piece. Here was a show with instant name recognition for the audience, with really catchy songs, and loads of laughs. Plus, kids would love the retro 80s factor. The Wedding Singer really would be a blast for high school students to tackle.
But from beginning to end, there’s too much material not appropriate for high school actors. Songs incorporate the f-bomb, strippers, drugs, and sexual practices. A major plot element involves a character waking up to wonder if he’s had sex with a woman he doesn’t love, not to mention her seduction of him the night before. And what would a high school do with a gay character like George (who, in song lyrics, dances in women’s underwear and professes not to like women at all).
I’ve also wondered what high schools will do with Hairspray. There’s not much inappropriate in the stage version, but there are lines about kids with condoms, a lesbian phy ed teacher taking advantage of her students, plus a few other devious lines here and there that would give administrators cause to wince. If you can easily leave a line out, that’s not so bad for a high school director to do, but to take on rewriting dialogue or lyrics is crossing the line. Hopefully, when it is licensed, the writers will provide equitable solutions for high school directors to use.
With the exception of a big, challenging show like Les Miserables, I don’t think most high school directors would opt for a “School Edition” or “Jr.” production of a show. High school directors generally do aspire to make a great show, and while “Jr.” productions are great for middle schools, to do a The Wedding Singer Jr. at a high school would be beneath most students and directors (though, there is an audience for high schools doing High School Musical, so what do I know?). The creators could re-write a PG-rated The Wedding Singer, but that would just be cheap. There’d have to be too many major changes (as opposed to changing a line of dialogue or a lyrics here or there).
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is another show that has the potential to be a heap of fun at a high school that would simply not work for a high school to produce.
Maybe that’s why the most common new shows to make it to high school are Seussical and Beauty and the Beast. They can actually be done at a high school.
the Broadway Mouth
September 18, 2008
It’s a myth that old Broadway shows were purely wholesome entertainments. I once saw a great regional production of Oklahoma! with a group of teachers who had grown up loving the movie. They were more than slightly surprised by some of the lyrics in the stage version. In the old days, though, when schools did shows like Oklahoma! or The Pajama Game, they could easily look to the film adaptations for guidance on how to incorporate alterations to make the show appropriate for their students. The lyrics were already changed by the original creators for the movies, so there was no danger is adapting those changes.
My college directing teacher told us that you could get away with taking out the swear words, but really, anything other than that, you were legally out of bounds. She taught us to respect the work of the playwright, to honor their intentions, and that if a show in its entirety wasn’t right for your actors or your audience, then it was best to pick another show.
When I saw The Wedding Singer, I knew there was no way for a high school to do the show without severely damaging the integrity of the piece. Here was a show with instant name recognition for the audience, with really catchy songs, and loads of laughs. Plus, kids would love the retro 80s factor. The Wedding Singer really would be a blast for high school students to tackle.
But from beginning to end, there’s too much material not appropriate for high school actors. Songs incorporate the f-bomb, strippers, drugs, and sexual practices. A major plot element involves a character waking up to wonder if he’s had sex with a woman he doesn’t love, not to mention her seduction of him the night before. And what would a high school do with a gay character like George (who, in song lyrics, dances in women’s underwear and professes not to like women at all).
I’ve also wondered what high schools will do with Hairspray. There’s not much inappropriate in the stage version, but there are lines about kids with condoms, a lesbian phy ed teacher taking advantage of her students, plus a few other devious lines here and there that would give administrators cause to wince. If you can easily leave a line out, that’s not so bad for a high school director to do, but to take on rewriting dialogue or lyrics is crossing the line. Hopefully, when it is licensed, the writers will provide equitable solutions for high school directors to use.
With the exception of a big, challenging show like Les Miserables, I don’t think most high school directors would opt for a “School Edition” or “Jr.” production of a show. High school directors generally do aspire to make a great show, and while “Jr.” productions are great for middle schools, to do a The Wedding Singer Jr. at a high school would be beneath most students and directors (though, there is an audience for high schools doing High School Musical, so what do I know?). The creators could re-write a PG-rated The Wedding Singer, but that would just be cheap. There’d have to be too many major changes (as opposed to changing a line of dialogue or a lyrics here or there).
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is another show that has the potential to be a heap of fun at a high school that would simply not work for a high school to produce.
Maybe that’s why the most common new shows to make it to high school are Seussical and Beauty and the Beast. They can actually be done at a high school.
the Broadway Mouth
September 18, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
20 Great Broadway Songs of the Past 10 Years: “Not That Kind of Thing”
A critic whose name I don’t remember wrote that the score of The Wedding Singer was an attempt to mimic mediocre pop, leaving audiences with a score that was itself mediocre pop.
I heartily disagree.
Given the synthesizer/80s pop treatment, “Luck Be a Lady” or “Wheels of a Dream” wouldn’t be any less great as theatre songs; they’d just sound like 80s-influenced theatre songs. Most of the songs in The Wedding Singer could easily have been given the traditional Broadway arrangements; for the direction of the show, however, it was natural that they would be given the grand 80s treatment.
So, Matthew Sklar and Chad Beguelin’s score for The Wedding Singer may sounds retro, but the songs themselves are 100% classic musical comedy, ripe with very funny lyrics and catchy melodies. My favorite of the score is “Not That Kind of Thing,”
To begin with, you have to love the song’s very funny lyrics, which are typical of the score as a whole. The following interchange was laugh-out-loud funny in the theatre and a favorite to revisit on recording:
Crystal
You get stuck with them for better
Julia
Or worse
Crystal and Julie
No matter which way you stack it
Robbie and Mookie
It’s emasculating holding a purse
Robbie
And it doesn’t match my jacket.
But after the comedy, we are left with a catchy, pleasing song that perfectly fits the characters, carefully showing how they are falling in love with each other (the flirtations, the joking) without fully admitting it to themselves. In a way, it’s an “If I Loved You” of a new era. Instead of the Peter Stone-titled conditional ballad of Oscar Hammerstein II, “Not That Kind of Thing” is the Stephen Sondheim-infused subtext-laden version of “I’ll say one thing, but really mean another,” wrapped in a light-hearted and hum-able melody.
“Not That Kind of Thing” isn’t the only great song in the show—“It’s Your Wedding Day,” “A Note From Linda,” “Pop!,” “If I Told You,” and a host of others are all exceptional for their strong melodies, laugh-out-loud funny lyrics, and/or their perfection in storytelling.
No wonder The Wedding Singer gets a lot of play on my stereo.
the Broadway Mouth
July 9, 2008
I heartily disagree.
Given the synthesizer/80s pop treatment, “Luck Be a Lady” or “Wheels of a Dream” wouldn’t be any less great as theatre songs; they’d just sound like 80s-influenced theatre songs. Most of the songs in The Wedding Singer could easily have been given the traditional Broadway arrangements; for the direction of the show, however, it was natural that they would be given the grand 80s treatment.
So, Matthew Sklar and Chad Beguelin’s score for The Wedding Singer may sounds retro, but the songs themselves are 100% classic musical comedy, ripe with very funny lyrics and catchy melodies. My favorite of the score is “Not That Kind of Thing,”
To begin with, you have to love the song’s very funny lyrics, which are typical of the score as a whole. The following interchange was laugh-out-loud funny in the theatre and a favorite to revisit on recording:
Crystal
You get stuck with them for better
Julia
Or worse
Crystal and Julie
No matter which way you stack it
Robbie and Mookie
It’s emasculating holding a purse
Robbie
And it doesn’t match my jacket.
But after the comedy, we are left with a catchy, pleasing song that perfectly fits the characters, carefully showing how they are falling in love with each other (the flirtations, the joking) without fully admitting it to themselves. In a way, it’s an “If I Loved You” of a new era. Instead of the Peter Stone-titled conditional ballad of Oscar Hammerstein II, “Not That Kind of Thing” is the Stephen Sondheim-infused subtext-laden version of “I’ll say one thing, but really mean another,” wrapped in a light-hearted and hum-able melody.
“Not That Kind of Thing” isn’t the only great song in the show—“It’s Your Wedding Day,” “A Note From Linda,” “Pop!,” “If I Told You,” and a host of others are all exceptional for their strong melodies, laugh-out-loud funny lyrics, and/or their perfection in storytelling.
No wonder The Wedding Singer gets a lot of play on my stereo.
the Broadway Mouth
July 9, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
From the Mouth of Harvey Fierstein
I love being a genius. It’s hard going undiscovered for so long and all, but I’ll take that over never having been a genius any day.
How can you tell if you’re a genius? If smart people say things you have been holding firmly to for some time or have put into words that which you’ve already written, then you are a certifiable genius without ever having to take an IQ test. Trust me. Being an undiscovered genius, I’m an expert on these things.
Barbara Hoffman’s interview with Harvey Fierstein in The New York Post contains just one of those genius-inducing quotes:
Why turn a creaky flick like A Catered Affair into a musical?
That's why. I don't believe that you take something incredibly great and finished and then make something else out of it. I'm always asked to write a new version of Stage Door. But that film is genius. You can't do better than that cast—Katharine Hepburn, Lucille Ball, Ginger Rogers, Ann Miller. Leave it alone! I saw Catered Affair and I loved how human it was. Paddy Chayefsky's like that. Think of Marty. But Marty is perfect - a dance number isn't going to make it better. A Catered Affair had all this humanity and didn't quite go as far. I thought I could take it to the next level. Debbie Reynolds [one of the film's stars] came to our opening in San Diego and said, "Honey, it's a much better musical than it ever was a movie!"
To steal Hal Prince’s phrasing, there are some exceptions—big ones, like Mame and Les Miserables—but Fierstein has spoken something I have felt for a long time. It’s difficult for me to pull many concrete examples from big musicals simply because I don’t usually bother with the source material, which is often hard-to-find or just not of interest, but I have often contemplated this when thinking of source material to adapt. If you’re just going to plug in songs, then it’s kind of a why-bother proposition. If the adaptation is super faithful, I earnestly wonder where’s the fun in it for the writer, though I’m sure cashing big royalty checks is delightful.
A case in point: I loved The Wedding Singer, but even though I had never seen the film, the second act didn’t feel much like a stage musical. It felt like an after-school special plotted on a stage. I then acquired a copy of the movie and was surprised how literal the musical’s book was, including the whole “Julia thinks Robbie’s slept with Linda” drama which, in part, prevented the second act from lifting from the stage.
Of course, you don’t want to take a beloved work and screw it up either. Mame, Les Miserables, and Jane Eyre are all examples of shows that remained faithful to their source works that not only worked well but would have been doomed had any other direction been taken. I admired the creators of Little Women for attempting some of their own touches, but with a work so beloved, you risk the “Jo never took Beth to the sea!” reaction or the “I want to see Beth die on stage in song!” cliché they worked so hard to avoid but for which the audience, at least I, was craving.
Perhaps it’s like on American Idol. You have to not only follow what the judges tell you but also understand how to apply it. Many a singer has taken a risk at the behest of the judges, only to fail because they took the wrong risk or didn’t have enough of a mastery of their talents to fully grasp how to change. You have to be able to inherently know when and when not to change.
Let’s also address the idea of change. Changes should not be made for the sake of making changes. I always admired Thoroughly Modern Millie for not simply duplicating the movie, but the changes from it are, at times, perfunctory. The fact that Dorothy doesn’t choose Trevor Graydon in the end or that Jimmy starts out a rude jerk isn’t necessary, but giving Mrs. Meers a clear motivation for her dirty deeds or Graydon’s delightful typing test for Millie are. There are changes that are required for the sake of structure, to adjust for the medium of the stage, to flesh out the work, to incorporate musical moments, or to develop or change theme—those are the important ones. Tacking on alterations for the sake of making an interpretation your own isn’t enough.
Even in a strong source work, I would say that it’s important to have some sort of interpretation, something to focus on or add. I recently wrote about this in an entry quoting Arthur Miller.
So, in the end, I guess the best that can be said is that musical theatre is an art, not a formula. Master your art, and you have a better chance of making the choices that lead you to success. Master your art, and you also know when to break the “rules.” Perhaps that the best kind of genius of all.
the Broadway Mouth
March 26, 2008
(Note: Interestingly and contradictorily enough, I think film versions of books and plays must fight to be faithful in order to be great. I won’t go into detail on theories why except to say that the best movie adaptations of books and plays are almost always the ones that are the most faithful.)
How can you tell if you’re a genius? If smart people say things you have been holding firmly to for some time or have put into words that which you’ve already written, then you are a certifiable genius without ever having to take an IQ test. Trust me. Being an undiscovered genius, I’m an expert on these things.
Barbara Hoffman’s interview with Harvey Fierstein in The New York Post contains just one of those genius-inducing quotes:
Why turn a creaky flick like A Catered Affair into a musical?
That's why. I don't believe that you take something incredibly great and finished and then make something else out of it. I'm always asked to write a new version of Stage Door. But that film is genius. You can't do better than that cast—Katharine Hepburn, Lucille Ball, Ginger Rogers, Ann Miller. Leave it alone! I saw Catered Affair and I loved how human it was. Paddy Chayefsky's like that. Think of Marty. But Marty is perfect - a dance number isn't going to make it better. A Catered Affair had all this humanity and didn't quite go as far. I thought I could take it to the next level. Debbie Reynolds [one of the film's stars] came to our opening in San Diego and said, "Honey, it's a much better musical than it ever was a movie!"
To steal Hal Prince’s phrasing, there are some exceptions—big ones, like Mame and Les Miserables—but Fierstein has spoken something I have felt for a long time. It’s difficult for me to pull many concrete examples from big musicals simply because I don’t usually bother with the source material, which is often hard-to-find or just not of interest, but I have often contemplated this when thinking of source material to adapt. If you’re just going to plug in songs, then it’s kind of a why-bother proposition. If the adaptation is super faithful, I earnestly wonder where’s the fun in it for the writer, though I’m sure cashing big royalty checks is delightful.
A case in point: I loved The Wedding Singer, but even though I had never seen the film, the second act didn’t feel much like a stage musical. It felt like an after-school special plotted on a stage. I then acquired a copy of the movie and was surprised how literal the musical’s book was, including the whole “Julia thinks Robbie’s slept with Linda” drama which, in part, prevented the second act from lifting from the stage.
Of course, you don’t want to take a beloved work and screw it up either. Mame, Les Miserables, and Jane Eyre are all examples of shows that remained faithful to their source works that not only worked well but would have been doomed had any other direction been taken. I admired the creators of Little Women for attempting some of their own touches, but with a work so beloved, you risk the “Jo never took Beth to the sea!” reaction or the “I want to see Beth die on stage in song!” cliché they worked so hard to avoid but for which the audience, at least I, was craving.
Perhaps it’s like on American Idol. You have to not only follow what the judges tell you but also understand how to apply it. Many a singer has taken a risk at the behest of the judges, only to fail because they took the wrong risk or didn’t have enough of a mastery of their talents to fully grasp how to change. You have to be able to inherently know when and when not to change.
Let’s also address the idea of change. Changes should not be made for the sake of making changes. I always admired Thoroughly Modern Millie for not simply duplicating the movie, but the changes from it are, at times, perfunctory. The fact that Dorothy doesn’t choose Trevor Graydon in the end or that Jimmy starts out a rude jerk isn’t necessary, but giving Mrs. Meers a clear motivation for her dirty deeds or Graydon’s delightful typing test for Millie are. There are changes that are required for the sake of structure, to adjust for the medium of the stage, to flesh out the work, to incorporate musical moments, or to develop or change theme—those are the important ones. Tacking on alterations for the sake of making an interpretation your own isn’t enough.
Even in a strong source work, I would say that it’s important to have some sort of interpretation, something to focus on or add. I recently wrote about this in an entry quoting Arthur Miller.
So, in the end, I guess the best that can be said is that musical theatre is an art, not a formula. Master your art, and you have a better chance of making the choices that lead you to success. Master your art, and you also know when to break the “rules.” Perhaps that the best kind of genius of all.
the Broadway Mouth
March 26, 2008
(Note: Interestingly and contradictorily enough, I think film versions of books and plays must fight to be faithful in order to be great. I won’t go into detail on theories why except to say that the best movie adaptations of books and plays are almost always the ones that are the most faithful.)
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Amazing Broadway Performer: Tina Maddigan
I walked into The Wedding Singer disappointed that I wouldn’t see Laura Benanti because of her physical ailment, but I walked out madly in love with Tina Maddigan.
When you think of a great Broadway performance, you think of not only the ability to act the character but also stage presence—that intangible magic “it” factor—and stage charisma. It’s when you are watching someone up on that stage, and they are alight like a fluorescent bulb, and you can’t take your eyes off of them. That was Tina Maddigan as Julia Sullivan.
I think Julia is a more challenging character than people give credit for. In some ways, she is the type of woman men don’t particularly understand, the woman who lives to get married and plan the wedding. Her attraction to Glen almost seems perfunctory—he’s got the right chromosomes and is willing to pop the question. It’s only when she understands what a man is really supposed to be like, in the foil of Robbie Hart, that she learns about what her current situation is lacking.
This, I don’t believe, is an easy character to pull off because of her naiveté early in the show; however, Maddigan made me fall in love with Julia, particularly during “Pop!” because you see her emotional foibles so clearly. Tina Maddigan created a real character out of those frustrations, not an emotionally empty one.
Plus, her Julia was so perky and cute. She was so sweet to Robbie and so supportive of him during the high times and low times, all while singing so beautifully.
In my own life, I never fall for the woman whose sole goal in life is to be the pretty pretty princess at her wedding, but I fell for Julia Sullivan and Tina Maddigan.
I mentioned this once before, but had I been a producer in Hollywood, the night I saw The Wedding Singer, I would have snapped up Tina Maddigan and Stephen Lynch to star in a romantic comedy. They had such great chemistry, and that’s how good she was.
Website: http://www.tinamaddigan.com/homepage.htm
the Broadway Mouth
September 18, 2007
When you think of a great Broadway performance, you think of not only the ability to act the character but also stage presence—that intangible magic “it” factor—and stage charisma. It’s when you are watching someone up on that stage, and they are alight like a fluorescent bulb, and you can’t take your eyes off of them. That was Tina Maddigan as Julia Sullivan.
I think Julia is a more challenging character than people give credit for. In some ways, she is the type of woman men don’t particularly understand, the woman who lives to get married and plan the wedding. Her attraction to Glen almost seems perfunctory—he’s got the right chromosomes and is willing to pop the question. It’s only when she understands what a man is really supposed to be like, in the foil of Robbie Hart, that she learns about what her current situation is lacking.
This, I don’t believe, is an easy character to pull off because of her naiveté early in the show; however, Maddigan made me fall in love with Julia, particularly during “Pop!” because you see her emotional foibles so clearly. Tina Maddigan created a real character out of those frustrations, not an emotionally empty one.
Plus, her Julia was so perky and cute. She was so sweet to Robbie and so supportive of him during the high times and low times, all while singing so beautifully.
In my own life, I never fall for the woman whose sole goal in life is to be the pretty pretty princess at her wedding, but I fell for Julia Sullivan and Tina Maddigan.
I mentioned this once before, but had I been a producer in Hollywood, the night I saw The Wedding Singer, I would have snapped up Tina Maddigan and Stephen Lynch to star in a romantic comedy. They had such great chemistry, and that’s how good she was.
Website: http://www.tinamaddigan.com/homepage.htm
the Broadway Mouth
September 18, 2007
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Amazing Broadway Performer: Stephen Lynch
In compiling this list, I wanted to focus on folks who had dedicated a significant portion of their career to Broadway and not go off on stunt-casting tangents. However, not only did Stephen Lynch originate a role on Broadway, but he packed it with such punch and energy, I chose him in hopes that he would someday soon return home where he belongs.
In my blog entry “Broadway-Themed Bonus Feature Details,” I paraphrase The Wedding Singer director John Rando as saying that Stephen Lynch’s touring comedy career was to his modern performance what touring the vaudeville circuit was to great performers of the past, which probably really explains why Lynch was so amazing. He ate up every comedic moment on the stage and played his audience to draw out every laugh. Very different from Adam Sandler’s creepy Robbie Hart, Lynch transformed the character into charm and stage presence. He was no longer Julia’s ideal choice because he wasn’t Glen Gulia; he was Julia’s ideal choice because he was a great romantic lead.
Like the best of performances, there are so many moments he had on stage that are glued in my mind that I wonder how the tour will survive without him.
And he wasn’t just a comedian. Lynch sang that role very nicely. In theatre history, there were plenty of people who were cast in large musical roles because of charm, stage presence, and acting talent but struggled to handle the singing. Lynch was a true triple threat and could not only act (with great stage charisma) and dance but possessed a great voice.
After seeing Lynch perform opposite Tina Maddigan (during Benanti’s unfortunate medical leave), the show left me with such energy and excitement (not to mention in awe of the two lead performers), I wished I was a Hollywood producer. Right then and there, I would have cast the two of them in a good romantic comedy. That’s how good he is.
So, I hope The Wedding Singer is just the first stop in a long Broadway career for Stephen Lynch, filled with roles requiring massive amounts of talent and stage presence.
Website: http://www.stephenlynch.com/
the Broadway Mouth
August 1, 2007
In my blog entry “Broadway-Themed Bonus Feature Details,” I paraphrase The Wedding Singer director John Rando as saying that Stephen Lynch’s touring comedy career was to his modern performance what touring the vaudeville circuit was to great performers of the past, which probably really explains why Lynch was so amazing. He ate up every comedic moment on the stage and played his audience to draw out every laugh. Very different from Adam Sandler’s creepy Robbie Hart, Lynch transformed the character into charm and stage presence. He was no longer Julia’s ideal choice because he wasn’t Glen Gulia; he was Julia’s ideal choice because he was a great romantic lead.
Like the best of performances, there are so many moments he had on stage that are glued in my mind that I wonder how the tour will survive without him.
And he wasn’t just a comedian. Lynch sang that role very nicely. In theatre history, there were plenty of people who were cast in large musical roles because of charm, stage presence, and acting talent but struggled to handle the singing. Lynch was a true triple threat and could not only act (with great stage charisma) and dance but possessed a great voice.
After seeing Lynch perform opposite Tina Maddigan (during Benanti’s unfortunate medical leave), the show left me with such energy and excitement (not to mention in awe of the two lead performers), I wished I was a Hollywood producer. Right then and there, I would have cast the two of them in a good romantic comedy. That’s how good he is.
So, I hope The Wedding Singer is just the first stop in a long Broadway career for Stephen Lynch, filled with roles requiring massive amounts of talent and stage presence.
Website: http://www.stephenlynch.com/
the Broadway Mouth
August 1, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Amazing Broadway Performer: Amy Spanger
My first encounter with Amy Spanger was when a little slip of paper fell out of my Kiss Me, Kate Playbill to tell me she was out. I was still a wee theatre-goer then, so I didn’t know who Amy Spanger was. However, when I got the revival cast recording, I quickly came to admire her talent. So after all those years of hearing her declare her unique brand of faithfulness to Bill Calhoun, I was excited to finally get to see her when I saw The Wedding Singer.
What wowed me immediately was what a versatile performer she is. On the CD of Kiss Me, Kate, she’s sexy and seductive, with a smooth voice that is both contemporary theatrical and reminiscent of the 1940s. Here she was in The Wedding Singer as this loveable (but very un-sexy) STD poster child of a character, belting out songs in the style of Cyndi Lauper. Had I not known who she was, I never in a million years would have guessed that she was the same person I had heard a billion times as Lois Lane.
The fact that she’s an excellent dancer is icing on the cake. It was such a thrill to see her electrifying the stage with her movement, full of verve and spunk. She gave us a 100% Broadway performance, not just fully in character but loaded with “it.”
Getting to Know You Interview: Can anyone explain to me why there are NO interviews with Amy Spanger?
the Broadway Mouth
July 26, 2007
What wowed me immediately was what a versatile performer she is. On the CD of Kiss Me, Kate, she’s sexy and seductive, with a smooth voice that is both contemporary theatrical and reminiscent of the 1940s. Here she was in The Wedding Singer as this loveable (but very un-sexy) STD poster child of a character, belting out songs in the style of Cyndi Lauper. Had I not known who she was, I never in a million years would have guessed that she was the same person I had heard a billion times as Lois Lane.
The fact that she’s an excellent dancer is icing on the cake. It was such a thrill to see her electrifying the stage with her movement, full of verve and spunk. She gave us a 100% Broadway performance, not just fully in character but loaded with “it.”
Getting to Know You Interview: Can anyone explain to me why there are NO interviews with Amy Spanger?
the Broadway Mouth
July 26, 2007
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Broadway-Themed Bonus Feature Details: The Wedding Singer: and Circuit City Hairspray: Preview DVD
It’s taken me five months, but after a long waiting list at the library, I finally got The Wedding Singer: Totally Awesome Edition on DVD which has, as a bonus feature, “A Backstage Look at The Wedding Singer on Broadway,” identified on the back of the case as a featurette.
I had never seen the original Adam Sandler/Drew Barrymore movie when I fell in love with the Broadway show. When I finally saw it afterwards, I was reminded why I didn’t see it originally since watching Adam Sandler makes me want to gouge my eyes out with oven mitts on. However, even I would buy the DVD if there were some primo stuff on the bonus feature.
So, here are the details. The featurette is a 10-minute look at the show featuring interviews with the creative team, Stephen Lynch, and Laura Benanti. Each person gets a chance to talk about their thing, such as set designer Scott Pask describing his rubics cube squares as part of the set design. The footage seems to have been shot largely during the rehearsal period before the first preview out-of-town. There are a few snippets of chorus members getting make-up on, shots of the set, close-ups of costume design drawings, but most of the footage is of the promotional photo shoot for the picture which adorned the poster, including Lynch in the ‘80s wig he wasn’t wearing by the time I saw him in the show.
One really interesting observation made on it is from director John Rando who compares Stephen Lynch’s touring comedy career to the old days when actors refined their craft on the vaudeville circuit, which probably helps explain why Lynch was so amazing.
The second interesting observation is a brief interview with Laura Benanti. After reading about her on Broadway message boards for all these years, I was really surprised to see that she’s not the Loch Ness Monster. Not only is she extremely beautiful and talented, but she seems like, gasp, a really cool person. And I don’t think it was all in the editing.
The only footage from the show ends the featurette, with a one-minute look at “Come Out of the Dumpster,” which seems to be from a rehearsal with audience applause mixed in at the end (since there is no laughter on some of the big laugh lines).
I honestly don’t know if I would buy the DVD just for the featurette. It is always interesting to see people’s vision for a beloved show and to hear them discuss their work, but it is really lacking in meat—show footage. Oddly enough, I think footage from the show would have been their best bet in getting audiences to see it.
I often pop in such things to watch while I’m eating lunch on a Saturday or need some inspiration. My guess is that a year or two from now will tell whether this featurette is enough to get me to buy it when I am either craving the chance to see it again or have no interest.
Remember that this footage is only available on the Totally Awesome Edition, which features a close-up of Sandler and Barrymore against a white backdrop. The earlier edition is readily available, but it is lacking the “Behind the Scenes” look.
It’s of interest to note that in the Hairspray movie preview DVD available for free from Circuit City when you buy any CD or DVD (limited supply of the preview DVD are available), there is a $2 off coupon for several New Line romantic comedies (only good at Circuit City), of which The Wedding Singer: Totally Awesome Edition DVD is listed. The coupon is good through the end of August 2007. This seems like the type of movie that goes on sale, often for under $10.
Also included in the preview DVD is a coupon for $3 off several other New Line movies, including Antonio Banderas in Take the Lead with America’s sweetheart, Laura Benanti. It also indicates that specially-marked packages of the DVD The Last Mimzy have a Hairspray move voucher. I do remember from a preview trailer that The Last Mimzy seemed to me like The Exorcist For Kids. I’m sure we all want to rush out and buy it.
And, if interested—I know it’s been posted elsewhere—the Circuit City preview DVD features the “Ladies’ Choice” music video with Zac Efron and the dance stylings of Nikki Blonksi. It’s presented more as a scene from the movie than a regular music video, which is cool. There’s also a really great preview to the movie featuring interviews with the key creative staff and the main film stars, illustrated with lots and lots of footage from the movie. The packaging says it “INLCUDES OVER 30 MINUTES OF CONTENT!” As the packaging also states, the Behind-the-Scenes footage is 15 minutes (that includes credits), and the music video isn’t even three minutes. The other 12+ minutes of exclamation mark-worthy content is the must-see New Line previews for such high-interest movies as Rush Hour 3, Monster-in-Law, and The Notebook, the commercial for which, FYI, always pushes me near to vomiting. I recommend you skip over that one, too.
For free, though, the DVD is great to have, particularly since I’m already dying to see the movie again. If you don’t get the DVD, I have a feeling the bonus footage and music video will be included as bonus features on the Hairspray DVD, so “please don’t have a cow” if you miss it.
I had never seen the original Adam Sandler/Drew Barrymore movie when I fell in love with the Broadway show. When I finally saw it afterwards, I was reminded why I didn’t see it originally since watching Adam Sandler makes me want to gouge my eyes out with oven mitts on. However, even I would buy the DVD if there were some primo stuff on the bonus feature.
So, here are the details. The featurette is a 10-minute look at the show featuring interviews with the creative team, Stephen Lynch, and Laura Benanti. Each person gets a chance to talk about their thing, such as set designer Scott Pask describing his rubics cube squares as part of the set design. The footage seems to have been shot largely during the rehearsal period before the first preview out-of-town. There are a few snippets of chorus members getting make-up on, shots of the set, close-ups of costume design drawings, but most of the footage is of the promotional photo shoot for the picture which adorned the poster, including Lynch in the ‘80s wig he wasn’t wearing by the time I saw him in the show.
One really interesting observation made on it is from director John Rando who compares Stephen Lynch’s touring comedy career to the old days when actors refined their craft on the vaudeville circuit, which probably helps explain why Lynch was so amazing.
The second interesting observation is a brief interview with Laura Benanti. After reading about her on Broadway message boards for all these years, I was really surprised to see that she’s not the Loch Ness Monster. Not only is she extremely beautiful and talented, but she seems like, gasp, a really cool person. And I don’t think it was all in the editing.
The only footage from the show ends the featurette, with a one-minute look at “Come Out of the Dumpster,” which seems to be from a rehearsal with audience applause mixed in at the end (since there is no laughter on some of the big laugh lines).
I honestly don’t know if I would buy the DVD just for the featurette. It is always interesting to see people’s vision for a beloved show and to hear them discuss their work, but it is really lacking in meat—show footage. Oddly enough, I think footage from the show would have been their best bet in getting audiences to see it.
I often pop in such things to watch while I’m eating lunch on a Saturday or need some inspiration. My guess is that a year or two from now will tell whether this featurette is enough to get me to buy it when I am either craving the chance to see it again or have no interest.
Remember that this footage is only available on the Totally Awesome Edition, which features a close-up of Sandler and Barrymore against a white backdrop. The earlier edition is readily available, but it is lacking the “Behind the Scenes” look.
It’s of interest to note that in the Hairspray movie preview DVD available for free from Circuit City when you buy any CD or DVD (limited supply of the preview DVD are available), there is a $2 off coupon for several New Line romantic comedies (only good at Circuit City), of which The Wedding Singer: Totally Awesome Edition DVD is listed. The coupon is good through the end of August 2007. This seems like the type of movie that goes on sale, often for under $10.
Also included in the preview DVD is a coupon for $3 off several other New Line movies, including Antonio Banderas in Take the Lead with America’s sweetheart, Laura Benanti. It also indicates that specially-marked packages of the DVD The Last Mimzy have a Hairspray move voucher. I do remember from a preview trailer that The Last Mimzy seemed to me like The Exorcist For Kids. I’m sure we all want to rush out and buy it.
And, if interested—I know it’s been posted elsewhere—the Circuit City preview DVD features the “Ladies’ Choice” music video with Zac Efron and the dance stylings of Nikki Blonksi. It’s presented more as a scene from the movie than a regular music video, which is cool. There’s also a really great preview to the movie featuring interviews with the key creative staff and the main film stars, illustrated with lots and lots of footage from the movie. The packaging says it “INLCUDES OVER 30 MINUTES OF CONTENT!” As the packaging also states, the Behind-the-Scenes footage is 15 minutes (that includes credits), and the music video isn’t even three minutes. The other 12+ minutes of exclamation mark-worthy content is the must-see New Line previews for such high-interest movies as Rush Hour 3, Monster-in-Law, and The Notebook, the commercial for which, FYI, always pushes me near to vomiting. I recommend you skip over that one, too.
For free, though, the DVD is great to have, particularly since I’m already dying to see the movie again. If you don’t get the DVD, I have a feeling the bonus footage and music video will be included as bonus features on the Hairspray DVD, so “please don’t have a cow” if you miss it.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Announced for Next Season: The Second Golden Age
When I saw Jane Eyre, I saw next to a woman who cried throughout the whole show. She had seen it seventeen times, if I recall correctly, and she was overcome with emotion because of how wonderful it was and how the show made her feel. I have a friend who made it to New York to see Aida starring Simone, and she told me how she cried at the end. I have another friend who balled at The Color Purple.
I, on the other end, almost lost it during The Wedding Singer. I’m not kidding. I had flown in on a moment’s notice to interview for a job. One day, I was sitting at home hoping for the next phase of my life to jump start, and two days later, I’m sitting in seat D115 in the Al Hirschfeld Theatre watching my first Broadway show on Broadway since my second visit to The Music Man in 2001.
I’m not even a crier. Honestly. But to be sitting there watching an awesome number like “It’s Your Wedding Day” in person on Broadway after watching it over and over from the Tony Awards, I was overcome with emotion. Even though I had seen every show that was even decent on tour, I told myself, “No matter what happens, I have to make it back here again soon. It’s been too long.”
I had a great time seeing lots of fun shows on that trip, The Wedding Singer, Tarzan, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee, The Drowsy Chaperone, Hairspray (which I had seen once on tour), and The Color Purple.
I thoroughly enjoyed my time at every single one of those shows except one. However, when all was said and done, I realized that as strong as these shows were, the only one that could really hold a candle to the great shows of the past was Hairspray. Don’t get me wrong; I really enjoyed myself at all of these shows except one. I laughed heartily at Spelling Bee and felt so bad for Celia Keenan-Bolger’s poor Olive Olstrovsky. I cheered at the turn of events in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. I was glued to Sutton Foster in The Drowsy Chaperone, and so on.
On my life game of Broadway Star Bingo, I finally got to check off a number of amazing performances from people I had always wanted to see or to see again—Jose Llana, Amy Spanger, Merle Dandridge, Schuler Hensley, Sutton Foster, LaChanze, to name just a very few.
At the same time, I wouldn’t say that as a whole, the shows I saw were as good as shows from previous trips which consisted equally of revivals and new works. I don’t want to join in on the chorus of people proclaiming the death of Broadway or lamenting how it’s not like in “the good old days.” Like I said, I thoroughly enjoyed my time at almost all of those shows, and I think that is all that we can ask of a Broadway musical, to be entertained thoroughly. The rest is, as Sherie Rene Scott said, too wonderful to be true.
I don’t find this disheartening, however. I really don’t. I do think it is important to acknowledge that I didn’t see anything as hilarious and poignant as Kiss Me, Kate or as enrapturing as The Music Man or as moving as Les Miserables, but I don’t find it disheartening.
Again, I saw performances as great as any on the Broadway stage ever—look at the original casts and replacement casts in that list. As far as I’m concerned, Sutton Foster is the next Marilyn Miller but with more talent, Felicia P. Fields as sweet as Gwen Verdon, and Stephen Flaherty as charming as Robert Morse. I couldn’t have paid big bucks to see better talents.
Something we all need to remember is that rarely did the great writing talents of the previous Golden Age hit a homerun their first times at bat. For example, we are all looking forward to the revival of Guys and Dolls, but I’ve never even heard of a contemporary production of Frank Loesser’s Where’s Charley. We all love Oklahoma!, but how many of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s older shows do we see today? Other than Show Boat and Pal Joey, not many. Stephen Sondheim had Anyone Can Whistle before Company. For Kander and Ebb there was Flora, the Red Menace. Cole Porter had written a number of duds, and he was written off until Kiss Me, Kate. If I were to take a look on ibdb.com, I’m sure I could find similar early flops (or even popular hits that by modern standards aren’t very good) for librettists.
We live in a time when artists get very little chance to develop their craft before their works hit the big time. When I went through a mini-Tennessee Williams kick this past spring, I was surprised to learn that he had actually written an early shorter play that became A Streetcar Named Desire. He had had many opportunities to write and have his work seen before The Glass Menagerie, his first big hit. Composers and lyricists might have had songs here and there in revues, where they could earn money to support themselves as they developed their crafts. As a result, these people learned by doing and failing.
Today, it’s harder to break in. People have to learn by doing in college or in programs like BMI instead of in front of authentic audiences. They have to work tirelessly to get their music into anyone’s hands then pray fervently that someone will pop the CD in and actually listen. All the while, living costs in New York City have skyrocketed, and they must balance living with developing their craft. Very few people write their first produced songs in the early 20s anymore. To be produced at 22, for example, allows you a lot of time learning from your audience and learning from a creative team. These days, people are getting produced when?—often their 30s and 40s.
It is my belief that we are on the cusp of a second Golden Age. When the time comes, I doubt anyone will acknowledge it because to some, nothing will ever be as grand as the past, but our time today shares a number of key similarities with Broadway prior to the Golden Age.
We have many young talents cutting their teeth on their first shows. Listen to the scores of The Wedding Singer and The Color Purple—there’s real talent there! Look at the ingenuity of The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee—that’s hilarious and so fresh. Admire the boldness of Tarzan’s concept and visuals. How clever was the conceit of The Drowsy Chaperone. If Lisa Lambert and Greg Morrison can write the score to The Drowsy Chaperone now, think of how great their fifth Broadway show will be. If Winnie Holzman—new to Broadway if not to writing—can produce Wicked her first time around, how great will her fifth show be? That’s real promise.
Right now, everything is in place for not only thoroughly enjoyable shows, but shows that are practically perfect in every sense—like Oklahoma!, Guys and Dolls, The Pajama Game, Wonderful Town. They may be dramatic like The Color Purple, they may be rock like Spring Awakening, or they may be full of spectacle like The Pirate Queen, but if we can get these people venues for writing, support them in their success and in their learning experiences (also known as failures), Broadway won’t just post record revenue but record attendance as well.
Broadway Mouth
June 14, 2007
I, on the other end, almost lost it during The Wedding Singer. I’m not kidding. I had flown in on a moment’s notice to interview for a job. One day, I was sitting at home hoping for the next phase of my life to jump start, and two days later, I’m sitting in seat D115 in the Al Hirschfeld Theatre watching my first Broadway show on Broadway since my second visit to The Music Man in 2001.
I’m not even a crier. Honestly. But to be sitting there watching an awesome number like “It’s Your Wedding Day” in person on Broadway after watching it over and over from the Tony Awards, I was overcome with emotion. Even though I had seen every show that was even decent on tour, I told myself, “No matter what happens, I have to make it back here again soon. It’s been too long.”
I had a great time seeing lots of fun shows on that trip, The Wedding Singer, Tarzan, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee, The Drowsy Chaperone, Hairspray (which I had seen once on tour), and The Color Purple.
I thoroughly enjoyed my time at every single one of those shows except one. However, when all was said and done, I realized that as strong as these shows were, the only one that could really hold a candle to the great shows of the past was Hairspray. Don’t get me wrong; I really enjoyed myself at all of these shows except one. I laughed heartily at Spelling Bee and felt so bad for Celia Keenan-Bolger’s poor Olive Olstrovsky. I cheered at the turn of events in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. I was glued to Sutton Foster in The Drowsy Chaperone, and so on.
On my life game of Broadway Star Bingo, I finally got to check off a number of amazing performances from people I had always wanted to see or to see again—Jose Llana, Amy Spanger, Merle Dandridge, Schuler Hensley, Sutton Foster, LaChanze, to name just a very few.
At the same time, I wouldn’t say that as a whole, the shows I saw were as good as shows from previous trips which consisted equally of revivals and new works. I don’t want to join in on the chorus of people proclaiming the death of Broadway or lamenting how it’s not like in “the good old days.” Like I said, I thoroughly enjoyed my time at almost all of those shows, and I think that is all that we can ask of a Broadway musical, to be entertained thoroughly. The rest is, as Sherie Rene Scott said, too wonderful to be true.
I don’t find this disheartening, however. I really don’t. I do think it is important to acknowledge that I didn’t see anything as hilarious and poignant as Kiss Me, Kate or as enrapturing as The Music Man or as moving as Les Miserables, but I don’t find it disheartening.
Again, I saw performances as great as any on the Broadway stage ever—look at the original casts and replacement casts in that list. As far as I’m concerned, Sutton Foster is the next Marilyn Miller but with more talent, Felicia P. Fields as sweet as Gwen Verdon, and Stephen Flaherty as charming as Robert Morse. I couldn’t have paid big bucks to see better talents.
Something we all need to remember is that rarely did the great writing talents of the previous Golden Age hit a homerun their first times at bat. For example, we are all looking forward to the revival of Guys and Dolls, but I’ve never even heard of a contemporary production of Frank Loesser’s Where’s Charley. We all love Oklahoma!, but how many of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s older shows do we see today? Other than Show Boat and Pal Joey, not many. Stephen Sondheim had Anyone Can Whistle before Company. For Kander and Ebb there was Flora, the Red Menace. Cole Porter had written a number of duds, and he was written off until Kiss Me, Kate. If I were to take a look on ibdb.com, I’m sure I could find similar early flops (or even popular hits that by modern standards aren’t very good) for librettists.
We live in a time when artists get very little chance to develop their craft before their works hit the big time. When I went through a mini-Tennessee Williams kick this past spring, I was surprised to learn that he had actually written an early shorter play that became A Streetcar Named Desire. He had had many opportunities to write and have his work seen before The Glass Menagerie, his first big hit. Composers and lyricists might have had songs here and there in revues, where they could earn money to support themselves as they developed their crafts. As a result, these people learned by doing and failing.
Today, it’s harder to break in. People have to learn by doing in college or in programs like BMI instead of in front of authentic audiences. They have to work tirelessly to get their music into anyone’s hands then pray fervently that someone will pop the CD in and actually listen. All the while, living costs in New York City have skyrocketed, and they must balance living with developing their craft. Very few people write their first produced songs in the early 20s anymore. To be produced at 22, for example, allows you a lot of time learning from your audience and learning from a creative team. These days, people are getting produced when?—often their 30s and 40s.
It is my belief that we are on the cusp of a second Golden Age. When the time comes, I doubt anyone will acknowledge it because to some, nothing will ever be as grand as the past, but our time today shares a number of key similarities with Broadway prior to the Golden Age.
We have many young talents cutting their teeth on their first shows. Listen to the scores of The Wedding Singer and The Color Purple—there’s real talent there! Look at the ingenuity of The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee—that’s hilarious and so fresh. Admire the boldness of Tarzan’s concept and visuals. How clever was the conceit of The Drowsy Chaperone. If Lisa Lambert and Greg Morrison can write the score to The Drowsy Chaperone now, think of how great their fifth Broadway show will be. If Winnie Holzman—new to Broadway if not to writing—can produce Wicked her first time around, how great will her fifth show be? That’s real promise.
Right now, everything is in place for not only thoroughly enjoyable shows, but shows that are practically perfect in every sense—like Oklahoma!, Guys and Dolls, The Pajama Game, Wonderful Town. They may be dramatic like The Color Purple, they may be rock like Spring Awakening, or they may be full of spectacle like The Pirate Queen, but if we can get these people venues for writing, support them in their success and in their learning experiences (also known as failures), Broadway won’t just post record revenue but record attendance as well.
Broadway Mouth
June 14, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
