The Mary Poppins tour is one of the few shows that came through town where a lot of people I know attended. I know people who want to see The Lion King or Wicked and aren’t able to get tickets, but here, they had the magic blending of the desire to pay the money to see the show and the availability of seats for it to happen. And the one thing each of these people who saw it had in common was that they all loved it.
I was one of them.
Of all the Disney stage shows that originated as movies, Mary Poppins is the first show to feel authentic to the stage, not dependant upon gimmicks (the video projections of Tarzan), awkward visuals (Timon and the waterfall in The Lion King), or incongruities (a teapot the size of Beth Fowler in Beauty and the Beast). Thankfully, the creators don’t attempt to replicate all the special effects of the movie—let’s hope Disney continues down this route.
And that is the strength of Mary Poppins. I had already heard that the movie differed from the original books—and the movie is fantastic—but it seems right for the stage show to return to those roots, particularly if the movie cannot be replicated. On stage, the characters are deeper, more human. The Banks family of the original movie is a Disney creation of the era, the Banks family of the stage is rooted more firmly in real life.
The biggest strength of the production—the biggest strength of any production—is that cast. God bless Disney and Cameron Mackintosh for sending Ashley Brown and Gavin Lee out on tour! They spear-headed a marvelous group of actors.
Ashley Brown imbues Mary Poppins with humor and a sauciness that differs from the Julie Andrews interpretation, which is more than fitting since stage Mary is written more than just a little differently from movie Mary. My favorite moment of the whole show is when Ashley Brown tells Mr. Banks that she doesn’t explain anything with a flirty wink that leaves him speechless.
Gavin Lee is a great Bert filled with charisma and stage presence. Other highlights of the cast include Ellen Harvey as a delectable and hilarious Miss Andrew who stops the show twice with crazy vibrato. Megan Osterhaus also shines as a prettily voiced but uncertain Mrs. Banks. The two children—Aida Neitenbach and Christopher Flaim—were wonderful.
Upon reflection, the weakest link in the show—which I am, by far, not the first one to acknowledge—are the new songs by George Stiles and Anthony Drewe. Within the show, they are very fitting and appropriate. The songs do what they should, and in that respect, they are delightful. At the same time, the Sherman Brothers have a knack with melding melody with clever and melodic lyrics that Stiles and Drewe don’t have. The Original London Cast recording, for example, doesn’t withstand multiple hearings in the same way many other recent scores do—Legally Blonde, The Drowsy Chaperone, or The Wedding Singer, for example. The best songs in the show are undoubtedly the ones that remain un-rewritten from the movie (and “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious”). Stiles and Drewe do a nice job of zapping the spark from “Jolly Holliday” and “Step in Time,” though it was important that they alter the songs to fit their new purpose.
The other weak link in the show is the choreography by Matthew Bourne and Stephen Mear. “Step in Time” is wonderful, and the spelling in “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” is a good, but songs like “Jolly Holliday” never excite (wouldn’t it be fun to think of what Susan Stroman or Kathleen Marshall might have done with them?).
The sets and costumes are by Bob Crowley, who always does such beautiful work.
In a separate note, I think it’s important to acknowledge that Mary Poppins seems to be part of the increasing trend over the past few years to get lazy on hiding the backstage. Though I paid full price, I saw several performers standing in the wings waiting for their entrance, saw a stage hand behind one of the sets during one scene, saw Mary grabbing the kite and waiting for her big entrance in Act 2, and in getting Bert ready for his specialty in “Step in Time,” the stage hands were all but on stage preparing him. Perhaps some of the Disney magic needs a little help from smoke and mirrors to mask the backstage.
Those criticisms aside, Mary Poppins is a delightful show, tons of fun, and left an audience thrilled and moved.
The Broadway Mouth
October 3, 2009
Showing posts with label Disney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disney. Show all posts
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Friday, November 14, 2008
The Wicked Effects
When the great Michael Kantor PBS documentary Broadway: The American Musical first aired, many of the Broadway base took issue with his focus on Disney and Wicked. The rest of the series had mostly highlighted significant shows that somehow shaped the Broadway landscape—the structure and storytelling of Oklahoma!, the deconstruction of the story in Company, the bold work of Stephen Sondheim in Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. Michael John LaChiusa, for example, took issue with the exclusion of George C. Wolfe, and I was personally disappointed to see no reference to LaChiusa and Jason Robert Brown.
But in hindsight, I think we have to compare Wicked to the success of shows like Kiss Me, Kate or Guys and Dolls. No, it didn’t change the landscape of the Broadway musical like a West Side Story or Rent, but its status as a phenomenon speaks for itself. Perhaps the greatest impact it and Beauty and the Beast will have (though Wicked is infinitely smarter and should not be put on the same level as that show, as charming as the former is) is that it creates an audience for Broadway. Plus Wicked will continue to inspire writers, producers, and investors. I think it’s safe to say that people invested in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, 13, and Shrek with vision of green witches dancing in their heads.
There is a second effect Wicked has had on the Broadway landscape, and that, I believe, is to block the machine of Disney in the Broadway market. I take no issue with Disney being on Broadway, but Disney has in essence forced a certain cannibalism of its own product by creating competition with itself. Because of Julie Taymor, The Lion King was able to rise above the family audience, but Mary Poppins and The Little Mermaid are essentially competing for the same audience that still hasn’t been quenched in their thirst for Wicked. Furthermore, Wicked is a show whose story, marketing, and presentation appeals equally to adults and families. In fact, I think its safe to say that Wicked is marketed to adults, knowing that kids are already attracted. I can’t help but feel that most marketing for Mary Poppins and The Little Mermaid is geared toward attracting families. If I was an adult tourist on Broadway, I would not be instantly attracted to either of the Disney titles. It’ll be interesting to see what happens as Shrek opens and runs.
the Broadway Mouth
November 14, 2008
But in hindsight, I think we have to compare Wicked to the success of shows like Kiss Me, Kate or Guys and Dolls. No, it didn’t change the landscape of the Broadway musical like a West Side Story or Rent, but its status as a phenomenon speaks for itself. Perhaps the greatest impact it and Beauty and the Beast will have (though Wicked is infinitely smarter and should not be put on the same level as that show, as charming as the former is) is that it creates an audience for Broadway. Plus Wicked will continue to inspire writers, producers, and investors. I think it’s safe to say that people invested in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, 13, and Shrek with vision of green witches dancing in their heads.
There is a second effect Wicked has had on the Broadway landscape, and that, I believe, is to block the machine of Disney in the Broadway market. I take no issue with Disney being on Broadway, but Disney has in essence forced a certain cannibalism of its own product by creating competition with itself. Because of Julie Taymor, The Lion King was able to rise above the family audience, but Mary Poppins and The Little Mermaid are essentially competing for the same audience that still hasn’t been quenched in their thirst for Wicked. Furthermore, Wicked is a show whose story, marketing, and presentation appeals equally to adults and families. In fact, I think its safe to say that Wicked is marketed to adults, knowing that kids are already attracted. I can’t help but feel that most marketing for Mary Poppins and The Little Mermaid is geared toward attracting families. If I was an adult tourist on Broadway, I would not be instantly attracted to either of the Disney titles. It’ll be interesting to see what happens as Shrek opens and runs.
the Broadway Mouth
November 14, 2008
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Musings on ElleTV and The Little Mermaid Gossip Machine
Legally Blonde on MTV
Whenever you endeavor to do something new or different, it’s a major risk. Safety rarely brings about change or innovation. It was a risk to open a show with an old bat churning butter instead of leggy chorus girls stepping away. Thank God for Oklahoma!, right? It was a risk to cast film star Angela Lansbury in a major singing and dancing role, but she won the Tony (and everyone’s hearts) in Mame. It was a risk for Andrew Lloyd Webber to put a bunch of poems to music, but Cats has entertained how many?
That’s not to say that risk is always met with success. In My Life was a risk, which ended famously with a thud of disbelief. First time producer Rosie O’Donnell sinking her own money into the sinking Taboo was a big-time risk. The list could continue endlessly.
Broadcasting Legally Blonde on MTV is undoubtedly a gigantic risk. People like me, eager to see all the great shows, would gladly catch the broadcast on MTV then go to New York to see other shows. Of course, nothing ever replaces live theatre, but when you’re spending $60-120 and there are so many tantalizing shows on the boards, you have to spend wisely to see as much as you can.
That said, this could be the start of a major wave. The vision is there. When teens and tweens fall in love with things, they fall hard and fast. This could totally boost the Broadway box office as kids come to see Laura Bell Bundy live. Look at the High School Musical phenomenon—kids have watched the move dozens of times, bought two editions of the CD, have seen the concert, bought the concert DVD, are now running to see it on stage, and are now eating up the sequel in record numbers. This airing isn’t even a shot-in-the-dark. People like me—and those of us who post on the message boards and gobble up Playbill.com—aren’t the ones for whom this airing is intended.
The truth is that Legally Blonde will otherwise surely struggle during the winter months when vacationers aren’t coming to the city in droves. Like The Wedding Singer, it might otherwise face an end-of-the-year farewell. This MTV airing is hardly a sure bet, but it’s a calculated risk and a piece of visionary thinking.
Even if it costs the Broadway show, it will definitely set up for a popular tour and probably many successful high school productions once the show is ready for licensing. Plus, the Original Broadway Cast recording could have sales going through the roof, or at least a few feet off the floor. With such broad national attention, a successful airing is going to do something for that CD.
Two people are going to benefit the most. First of all, theatre folk. Not only will we get a free Broadway show and a lifelong remembrance of it, but the airing will do something to ignite interest in theatre among young people. We all have our own first life-changing encounter with Broadway story. For how many kids will this present a different version of the same experience? It’s MTV, and it’s sure to be a mega-hit with teen girls, at least, likely more. After all, boys dig High School Musical just as much as girls, and Legally Blonde is a beloved movie.
Secondly, it’s also possible that it’ll give a big boost to Laura Bell Bundy’s career. Again, you never do know, but this will give her attention in Hollywood, and if the airing is really successful, she’ll become popular with the teen crowd. When that happens, a beautiful, intelligent, and talented woman like Laura Bell Bundy could become very famous.
So, I’m excited for Legally Blonde on MTV, even though I don’t even have cable. I think it’ll be fascinating to see what happens and how this could affect shows in the future. I applaud the producers of Legally Blonde for thinking outside-the-box and being willing to try something new.
The Little Mermaid buzz
As word hits New York and pictures begin to surface of Ariel and friends, I think it’s important to remember a few things.
One of the recurring ideas among contemporary Broadway actors interviewed by Rick McKay for his Broadway: The Golden Age documentary and sequels (as previewed on the bonus features of the original film’s DVD) is how the stage version of Beauty and the Beast really, in the words of Tovah Feldshuh, “changed the value system [on Broadway] pretty drastically.” Now, this is not my own commentary, but I think it’s important to hear what she’s saying. To some degree, I have to agree with Feldshuh when she says, “It’s so interesting to see an actor do this in a leotard [motioning like a teapot], let us say, or in something where you can perceive that there’s a person in there rather than having the teapot being so all-encompassing that you don’t even know Beth Fowler’s in there, that it could be Beth Fowler or it could be Mrs. Clinton.”
Part of the magic of the theatre is the audience’s use of imagination. This is one thing I always taught my students. I also think this is one reason why The Lion King has been so successful. It’s not literal. The first time I saw Our Town, I still remember how magical it was because of Wilder’s creative use of the audience’s imagination. That’s magic, maybe even more so than Norma Desmond’s mansion.
It’s important to remember that Disney Theatricals head Thomas Schumacher wasn’t involved in the production of Beauty and the Beast. The productions that he has helped create are not literal interpretations of films. Obviously, The Lion King is a great example of that. Aida, while not based on a film, was not realistically Egyptian either. In my opinion, the creative team produced a concept that was far more theatrical and visually appealing. Even Tarzan, which needed help, took large and daring deliberate steps away from the film. I haven’t seen Mary Poppins yet, but from my understanding, it too attempts to create a uniquely theatrical experience and takes vast steps away from the movie.
I have a feeling that Thomas Schumacher has a more theatrical heart than his Beauty and the Beast forbearers, which will influence The Little Mermaid. That’s a good thing.
The best determination, it is important to remember, will always be the final product. Personally, I’d take a more literal Beauty and the Beast to the more imagination-based Tarzan any day, but that is based solely on the overall experience. The Little Mermaid, above all, will fail or succeed based on its storytelling. Having an imaginative design will really be secondary. Remember Follies?
Now, that is not to say that abstract costuming is the best idea, or that the show doesn’t need work—be it major or minor. I have no clue. But I think avoiding literal interpretation is at least a far more interesting take than simply taking the movie and projecting that onto the stage. If Disney were to simply present an image-by-image replica, then why not do it at Disney World?
I also take issue with Michael Riedel’s recent column on Disney’s relying on new people to help create their shows. I think that’s a mark of inventiveness. It was that same thinking that moved Thomas Schumacher and Peter Schneider to call upon Julie Taymor to take on The Lion King. So it didn’t work as well with Bob Crowley as director of Tarzan, but I think the Disney people should be applauded for experimenting. Sometimes the experimenting works, and sometimes it doesn’t; however, it is better than always taking the easy path. Opera costume designer Tatiana Noginova and director Francesca Zambello are intensely creative people with a history of very interesting ideas. What a good idea to hand-deliver their talents to Broadway. Maybe it’ll work like The Lion King, and maybe it won’t, like Tarzan. But no one is going to know until they try.
As history has shown us—Oklahoma!, Mame, and Cats, for a sampling of examples—is that taking risks can lead to something spectacular. Taking the safe route rarely does.
the Broadway Mouth
September 12, 2007
Whenever you endeavor to do something new or different, it’s a major risk. Safety rarely brings about change or innovation. It was a risk to open a show with an old bat churning butter instead of leggy chorus girls stepping away. Thank God for Oklahoma!, right? It was a risk to cast film star Angela Lansbury in a major singing and dancing role, but she won the Tony (and everyone’s hearts) in Mame. It was a risk for Andrew Lloyd Webber to put a bunch of poems to music, but Cats has entertained how many?
That’s not to say that risk is always met with success. In My Life was a risk, which ended famously with a thud of disbelief. First time producer Rosie O’Donnell sinking her own money into the sinking Taboo was a big-time risk. The list could continue endlessly.
Broadcasting Legally Blonde on MTV is undoubtedly a gigantic risk. People like me, eager to see all the great shows, would gladly catch the broadcast on MTV then go to New York to see other shows. Of course, nothing ever replaces live theatre, but when you’re spending $60-120 and there are so many tantalizing shows on the boards, you have to spend wisely to see as much as you can.
That said, this could be the start of a major wave. The vision is there. When teens and tweens fall in love with things, they fall hard and fast. This could totally boost the Broadway box office as kids come to see Laura Bell Bundy live. Look at the High School Musical phenomenon—kids have watched the move dozens of times, bought two editions of the CD, have seen the concert, bought the concert DVD, are now running to see it on stage, and are now eating up the sequel in record numbers. This airing isn’t even a shot-in-the-dark. People like me—and those of us who post on the message boards and gobble up Playbill.com—aren’t the ones for whom this airing is intended.
The truth is that Legally Blonde will otherwise surely struggle during the winter months when vacationers aren’t coming to the city in droves. Like The Wedding Singer, it might otherwise face an end-of-the-year farewell. This MTV airing is hardly a sure bet, but it’s a calculated risk and a piece of visionary thinking.
Even if it costs the Broadway show, it will definitely set up for a popular tour and probably many successful high school productions once the show is ready for licensing. Plus, the Original Broadway Cast recording could have sales going through the roof, or at least a few feet off the floor. With such broad national attention, a successful airing is going to do something for that CD.
Two people are going to benefit the most. First of all, theatre folk. Not only will we get a free Broadway show and a lifelong remembrance of it, but the airing will do something to ignite interest in theatre among young people. We all have our own first life-changing encounter with Broadway story. For how many kids will this present a different version of the same experience? It’s MTV, and it’s sure to be a mega-hit with teen girls, at least, likely more. After all, boys dig High School Musical just as much as girls, and Legally Blonde is a beloved movie.
Secondly, it’s also possible that it’ll give a big boost to Laura Bell Bundy’s career. Again, you never do know, but this will give her attention in Hollywood, and if the airing is really successful, she’ll become popular with the teen crowd. When that happens, a beautiful, intelligent, and talented woman like Laura Bell Bundy could become very famous.
So, I’m excited for Legally Blonde on MTV, even though I don’t even have cable. I think it’ll be fascinating to see what happens and how this could affect shows in the future. I applaud the producers of Legally Blonde for thinking outside-the-box and being willing to try something new.
The Little Mermaid buzz
As word hits New York and pictures begin to surface of Ariel and friends, I think it’s important to remember a few things.
One of the recurring ideas among contemporary Broadway actors interviewed by Rick McKay for his Broadway: The Golden Age documentary and sequels (as previewed on the bonus features of the original film’s DVD) is how the stage version of Beauty and the Beast really, in the words of Tovah Feldshuh, “changed the value system [on Broadway] pretty drastically.” Now, this is not my own commentary, but I think it’s important to hear what she’s saying. To some degree, I have to agree with Feldshuh when she says, “It’s so interesting to see an actor do this in a leotard [motioning like a teapot], let us say, or in something where you can perceive that there’s a person in there rather than having the teapot being so all-encompassing that you don’t even know Beth Fowler’s in there, that it could be Beth Fowler or it could be Mrs. Clinton.”
Part of the magic of the theatre is the audience’s use of imagination. This is one thing I always taught my students. I also think this is one reason why The Lion King has been so successful. It’s not literal. The first time I saw Our Town, I still remember how magical it was because of Wilder’s creative use of the audience’s imagination. That’s magic, maybe even more so than Norma Desmond’s mansion.
It’s important to remember that Disney Theatricals head Thomas Schumacher wasn’t involved in the production of Beauty and the Beast. The productions that he has helped create are not literal interpretations of films. Obviously, The Lion King is a great example of that. Aida, while not based on a film, was not realistically Egyptian either. In my opinion, the creative team produced a concept that was far more theatrical and visually appealing. Even Tarzan, which needed help, took large and daring deliberate steps away from the film. I haven’t seen Mary Poppins yet, but from my understanding, it too attempts to create a uniquely theatrical experience and takes vast steps away from the movie.
I have a feeling that Thomas Schumacher has a more theatrical heart than his Beauty and the Beast forbearers, which will influence The Little Mermaid. That’s a good thing.
The best determination, it is important to remember, will always be the final product. Personally, I’d take a more literal Beauty and the Beast to the more imagination-based Tarzan any day, but that is based solely on the overall experience. The Little Mermaid, above all, will fail or succeed based on its storytelling. Having an imaginative design will really be secondary. Remember Follies?
Now, that is not to say that abstract costuming is the best idea, or that the show doesn’t need work—be it major or minor. I have no clue. But I think avoiding literal interpretation is at least a far more interesting take than simply taking the movie and projecting that onto the stage. If Disney were to simply present an image-by-image replica, then why not do it at Disney World?
I also take issue with Michael Riedel’s recent column on Disney’s relying on new people to help create their shows. I think that’s a mark of inventiveness. It was that same thinking that moved Thomas Schumacher and Peter Schneider to call upon Julie Taymor to take on The Lion King. So it didn’t work as well with Bob Crowley as director of Tarzan, but I think the Disney people should be applauded for experimenting. Sometimes the experimenting works, and sometimes it doesn’t; however, it is better than always taking the easy path. Opera costume designer Tatiana Noginova and director Francesca Zambello are intensely creative people with a history of very interesting ideas. What a good idea to hand-deliver their talents to Broadway. Maybe it’ll work like The Lion King, and maybe it won’t, like Tarzan. But no one is going to know until they try.
As history has shown us—Oklahoma!, Mame, and Cats, for a sampling of examples—is that taking risks can lead to something spectacular. Taking the safe route rarely does.
the Broadway Mouth
September 12, 2007
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
“When you’re listening to this, try to ignore the lyrics. I know it’ll be difficult, but block them out. They’re not the best . . ."
The full title: “When you’re listening to this, try to ignore the lyrics. I know it’ll be difficult, but block them out. They’re not the best. But the tune is beautiful.” or . . . Upon Finally Buying the Tarzan OBCR
The fact that it took me eleven months to buy the Original Broadway Cast recording of Tarzan says a lot. I consider buying the cast recording an essential part of attending a Broadway show. You’ve just doled out $50-$125 (or maybe even $450) for a show, and listening to the CD is one of the best ways of remembering what you saw. The only other Broadway recording to get such a delay from me was Brooklyn, which was a length of about seven months.
I detailed some of my thoughts on Tarzan in a June blog entry entitled “Broadway Funk: Overhauling Tarzan,” so no fear, I’m not going to go into that here.
Upon hearing the new songs again for the fist time since last August, two observations come to mind. First of all, the lyrics are as bad as I remembered them. The songs from the original film are great, but of all the new songs, only the lyrics of “Who Better Than Me” rival those of the original songs. Even the lyrics of its reprise fall short.
But I’m also struck by how beautiful Collins’ music is and how the songs truly communicate important ideas in the story. Take “I Need to Know,” young Tarzan’s aching lament about his between-two-worlds life. The lyrics, yes, are dopey, but the concept is dead-on with what the character is experiencing, and its unusual melody is both melancholy and searching. It helps that Alex Rutherford has a strong voice but is also vulnerable in communicating the character’s predicament. Because of the lyrics, the song is almost un-listenable, but if you can block them out, the tune is very fitting.
Another great tune is Jane’s “Waiting for This Moment,” which, in its music, effectively expresses Jane’s excitement and wonderment around her. I honestly don’t know how much of that credit goes to Collins’ original music or to Doug Besterman’s orchestrations, but I can honestly say I love hearing that song.
“Different” is another example of this phenomena. It has a strange melody, but when you listen to what the lyrics are pounding into your head, that melody is very fitting. I have also fallen in love with Jane and Porter’s “Like No Man I’ve Ever Seen,” which is so whimsical in its orchestrations that it makes for a fun listen . . . despite the lyrics. It suits the characters perfectly . . . musically, that is.
The songs from the film make for excellent listening in their new arrangements, and I would actually be satisfied with my purchase with those songs alone.
This recording really makes me long for the Tarzan that might have been. If you watch the bonus features of the Brother Bear DVD, for which Phil Collins wrote songs that rival his film Tarzan songs, he addresses his experience co-writing the film’s underscore. When asked to write songs for Brother Bear, he expressed his desire to Disney to tackle the film underscore, so they paired him up with Mark Mancina, who has written a number of film scores. On the DVD, Mancina talks about hearing Collins’ first attempt at scoring. Collins thought it was great, but then Mancina used it as a learning experience to show him the many places where it needed improvement. By the end of the film, there wasn’t one ounce of bad underscore, and you can’t tell where Mancina’s work ends and Collins’ begins.
It’s a tragedy that that didn’t happen here. Listen to the music! It’s wonderful music. Had Collins’ been paired with a theatrical lyricist, such as David Zippel, something great could have evolved from what we have here. From the interviews on the DVD, Collins seems like a true artist, more concerned about the result rather than ego. I bet he would have been open to working with and learning from a collaborator.
I also can’t possibly talk about the Tarzan OBC recording without addressing the talent. Holy cow, I love hearing these voices! I was so thrilled to get beloved Merle Dandridge on CD, and I can’t get enough of her “You’ll Be in My Heart.” I also love hearing her in “No Other Way” because you hear a hint of her great interpretation of Aida in her passionate stance for her adopted son. Her amazing voice always rises above all those lyrics she’s given.
A pleasant surprise is Jenn Gambatese. Wow! I can’t get enough of hearing her sing on the CD. What a pretty voice in a traditional theatre sense. I love her playful line “I’m not following you, Daddy,” and her “Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no.” Yes, I know the latter is pretty pathetic lyrically, but she’s so cute when she says it.
Josh Strickland, whose great voice I vividly recalled from seeing the show, is in strong form on the CD. I do hope he gets a shot at a role in a better show. Chestor Gregory II is also in fine voice.
No shocker, Shuler Hensley sounds great. He makes for a strong but human ape leader.
I also think Disney should be applauded for giving both talented actors who portrayed Young Tarzan a chance to sing on the CD. You know darn well it cost them a pretty penny to do that when they didn’t need to, but how generous of them considering how one of those kids would have felt at not having the chance to record.
So, maybe I’m just another Man in Chair (and you know many of you are, too), but he describes the Tarzan CD best when he says:
Broadway Mouth
July 18, 2007
The fact that it took me eleven months to buy the Original Broadway Cast recording of Tarzan says a lot. I consider buying the cast recording an essential part of attending a Broadway show. You’ve just doled out $50-$125 (or maybe even $450) for a show, and listening to the CD is one of the best ways of remembering what you saw. The only other Broadway recording to get such a delay from me was Brooklyn, which was a length of about seven months.
I detailed some of my thoughts on Tarzan in a June blog entry entitled “Broadway Funk: Overhauling Tarzan,” so no fear, I’m not going to go into that here.
Upon hearing the new songs again for the fist time since last August, two observations come to mind. First of all, the lyrics are as bad as I remembered them. The songs from the original film are great, but of all the new songs, only the lyrics of “Who Better Than Me” rival those of the original songs. Even the lyrics of its reprise fall short.
But I’m also struck by how beautiful Collins’ music is and how the songs truly communicate important ideas in the story. Take “I Need to Know,” young Tarzan’s aching lament about his between-two-worlds life. The lyrics, yes, are dopey, but the concept is dead-on with what the character is experiencing, and its unusual melody is both melancholy and searching. It helps that Alex Rutherford has a strong voice but is also vulnerable in communicating the character’s predicament. Because of the lyrics, the song is almost un-listenable, but if you can block them out, the tune is very fitting.
Another great tune is Jane’s “Waiting for This Moment,” which, in its music, effectively expresses Jane’s excitement and wonderment around her. I honestly don’t know how much of that credit goes to Collins’ original music or to Doug Besterman’s orchestrations, but I can honestly say I love hearing that song.
“Different” is another example of this phenomena. It has a strange melody, but when you listen to what the lyrics are pounding into your head, that melody is very fitting. I have also fallen in love with Jane and Porter’s “Like No Man I’ve Ever Seen,” which is so whimsical in its orchestrations that it makes for a fun listen . . . despite the lyrics. It suits the characters perfectly . . . musically, that is.
The songs from the film make for excellent listening in their new arrangements, and I would actually be satisfied with my purchase with those songs alone.
This recording really makes me long for the Tarzan that might have been. If you watch the bonus features of the Brother Bear DVD, for which Phil Collins wrote songs that rival his film Tarzan songs, he addresses his experience co-writing the film’s underscore. When asked to write songs for Brother Bear, he expressed his desire to Disney to tackle the film underscore, so they paired him up with Mark Mancina, who has written a number of film scores. On the DVD, Mancina talks about hearing Collins’ first attempt at scoring. Collins thought it was great, but then Mancina used it as a learning experience to show him the many places where it needed improvement. By the end of the film, there wasn’t one ounce of bad underscore, and you can’t tell where Mancina’s work ends and Collins’ begins.
It’s a tragedy that that didn’t happen here. Listen to the music! It’s wonderful music. Had Collins’ been paired with a theatrical lyricist, such as David Zippel, something great could have evolved from what we have here. From the interviews on the DVD, Collins seems like a true artist, more concerned about the result rather than ego. I bet he would have been open to working with and learning from a collaborator.
I also can’t possibly talk about the Tarzan OBC recording without addressing the talent. Holy cow, I love hearing these voices! I was so thrilled to get beloved Merle Dandridge on CD, and I can’t get enough of her “You’ll Be in My Heart.” I also love hearing her in “No Other Way” because you hear a hint of her great interpretation of Aida in her passionate stance for her adopted son. Her amazing voice always rises above all those lyrics she’s given.
A pleasant surprise is Jenn Gambatese. Wow! I can’t get enough of hearing her sing on the CD. What a pretty voice in a traditional theatre sense. I love her playful line “I’m not following you, Daddy,” and her “Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no.” Yes, I know the latter is pretty pathetic lyrically, but she’s so cute when she says it.
Josh Strickland, whose great voice I vividly recalled from seeing the show, is in strong form on the CD. I do hope he gets a shot at a role in a better show. Chestor Gregory II is also in fine voice.
No shocker, Shuler Hensley sounds great. He makes for a strong but human ape leader.
I also think Disney should be applauded for giving both talented actors who portrayed Young Tarzan a chance to sing on the CD. You know darn well it cost them a pretty penny to do that when they didn’t need to, but how generous of them considering how one of those kids would have felt at not having the chance to record.
So, maybe I’m just another Man in Chair (and you know many of you are, too), but he describes the Tarzan CD best when he says:
When you’re listening to this, try to ignore the lyrics. I know it’ll be difficult, but block them out. They’re not the best. But the tune is beautiful.
Broadway Mouth
July 18, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
Broadway Funk: Overhauling Tarzan
As Peter Stone wrote in "How Did They Build Titanic?" from Titanic: The Complete Book of the Musical:
I have had great experiences at many of the Disney shows. The national tour of Beauty and the Beast with Kim Huber as Belle was the second Broadway show I saw, and I was elated every moment. That gut reaction you get to at great Broadway show—from the emotional response to the awe and wonder that lasts in your memory forever—was there for me that evening.
For The Lion King, I got to see it with the original cast—Tsidii Le Loka, Heather Headley, the late Jason Raize, Samuel E. Wright, et. al—from front row, center. Yes, I was awed and inspired every moment, particularly from those thrilling performances.
I even saw On the Record with Emily Skinner and the future Mary Poppins herself, Ashley Brown. I walked in hoping for a smashing presentation of great Disney songs, and I was never disappointed, particularly with such an amazing cast and fun staging by Robert Longbottom.
The unrivaled Disney show for me has always been Aida. I don’t think I could fully express how thankful I am that I got to see that show with the original Broadway cast. I vividly remembered how powerful Heather Headley had been in The Lion King, so I could hardly wait to catch her in Aida. From the moment she opened her mouth, saying, “Release them,” I had chills. Then, if that wasn’t enough, there was Adam Pascal and Sherie René Scott, plus Damian Perkins, John Hickok, and Schele Williams—You’d think God Himself cast the show. Everything about Aida was amazing, and I saw it twice on tour, once with Simone as Aida, then with understudy extraordinaire Merle Dandridge, and Kelly Fournier as Amneris and Patrick Cassidy as Radames.
Tarzan, which recently announced its closing, was a very unique experience for me. It’s been a show that has been an easy target for many people, and I think that just because its Disney, Tarzan has had too many people happily tap dancing on its red-inked grave, so I’d like to take a moment to recognize some great things.
First of all, I think it’s important to acknowledge Thomas Schumacher, head of Disney Theatricals, for the daring steps he took with Tarzan. A big critique Michael John LaChiusa had of many recent shows in his Opera News article, which I discussed in my first blog entry, was that they didn’t step far enough away from the source material. With Tarzan, David Henry Hwang’s libretto immediately starts branching away from the film and with several gigantic steps, such as Kerchak sending Tarzan (and then by her own choice, Kala) away from the family. For Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, there were elements added—more gradual changes for the enchanted objects, songs to fill out scenes and characters—but with Tarzan (and later with Mary Poppins), the story takes off in different directions. This stems from an apparent and admirable desire to take the material deeper.
It’s also important to praise Disney for keeping the spectacle in check. I always admired the set for Aida because it looked so simple, yet it was stunning. I don’t think Tarzan’s set was all that simple, but it appeared to be that way. The creators could have thrown in a lot of do-dads and theatrical gadgets, but they risked it with the more simple set, which they altered periodically through the evening to (successfully, as far as I’m concerned) keep it from looking monotonous. For all the complaints about the tire in Cats and the engulfing costumes of Beauty and the Beast, under Thomas Schumacher’s guidance, Aida, On the Record, Mary Poppins, and Tarzan avoided excess to keep in touch with the human story.
Can we also take the time to give Disney a hand in discovering and casting such amazing talent? Look at people who got a big break in a Disney show—Susan Egan, Jason Raize, Heather Headley, Ashley Brown, Josh Strickland, and now someone new in The Little Mermaid. If that weren’t enough, admire the list of people who were either in original or replacement casts—Terrence Mann, Gary Beach, Beth Fowler, Burke Moses, Tom Bosley, Samuel E.Wright, Mary Stout, Chuck Wagner, Kerry Butler, Andrea McArdle, Matt Bogart, Idina Menzel, Maya Days, Mandy Gonzales, Rebecca Luker, Daniel Jenkins. They have not only selected established talents for their original casts, but they have sought out great people as replacements. And while they have pulled the stunt casting card (most sadly to the detriment of Aida), they’ve done it far less than other successful shows, like Chicago and Cabaret. Some of their stunt casting has even been respectful, such as pulling in Broadway vets Christy Carlson Romano and Donny Osmond for Beauty and the Beast, or giving a genuine talent like Anneliesa van der Pol her Broadway debut.
Look at the cast for Tarzan—Jenn Gambatese, Merle Dandridge, Tony-winner Shuler Hensley, Chester Gregory II, and newcomer Josh Strickland. They didn’t skimp.
They also deserve an ovation for the creative talent they’ve utilized. Disney has done first class Broadway shows using first class Broadway talent. The choice of Bob Crowley to direct Tarzan should be applauded. Whether it resulted as a wise choice or not, Thomas Schumacher did what should happen more on Broadway—He took a gamble with an extremely talented person and gave him the reigns to create. That doesn’t mean his work shouldn’t be evaluated just as stringently as a more experienced director, like a Hal Prince or a Susan Stroman, but we should at least applaud him for the guts for his choice.
And it happens. Yes, sometimes you have the recipe right, the oven temp right, the right-sized pan, and the angel food cake still overflows and gets encrusted on the oven’s heating coils. Creating a great show is an art, not a recipe. Even the greatest of producers and directors have those shows that somehow overflow and leave a charred mess, and they still need to go before the media to put on a happy face to protect the investors’ interests.
The Problems
(Please note: If you were somehow involved with the show, and you were kind enough to read my blog, I would encourage you to now scroll down and re-read my entry entitled “If They Could See You Now.” There is so much negativity on Broadway, as Peter Stone said, and I prefer to focus on the positives, except this time. Though I will endeavor to have a positive critique of the show, a critique in general implies that I could end up hurting your feelings, which is most definitely not my aim. I love Broadway and Broadway people. So, as Grover once so aptly said, there is a monster at the end of this blog entry, so please don’t turn the page.)
Everybody with a computer has a solution to every single show ever produced. If they had only been there, the libretto would have included this, the composer would have written that, and that actor would have gestured like this instead. And we all know that the number one (and most important) qualification to being able to create on Broadway is to have an opinion and a Broadway Mouth loud enough to get it out there, right? And nobody else could possibly be correct, obviously.
And if they had been there, that stupid show Guys and Dolls would have lasted much longer than it did. If only . . .
So I would like to take a moment to acknowledge that, firstly, it is easier to fix rather than to create one from the ground up. Secondly, hindsight is always perfect. Thirdly, these ideas are take it or leave it. I’m throwing them out there as a creative exercise for myself and nothing else.
Many people go into shows hating them, sitting there challenging the people involved to make them like the show. It’s like they have a checklist, and they’ll only leave the theatre happy if every item on that general checklist is marked off, no matter what the genre or goals of the show are.
I love theatre too much to do that. I go in and enjoy myself, and I only form critiques when I realize that I’m not enjoying myself or, after a show, when I try to figure out why I didn’t enjoy myself as much as I could have. As a writer, it is, for me a way, of learning and stretching my own skills.
For Tarzan, boredom set in pretty quickly. I have honestly never sat in a theatre with such an amazingly hard-working cast resulting in so little energy. Thirty minutes into the show, it was like a black hole had settled in at the back of the Richard Rodgers Theatre, sucking all energy into it.
The first symptom of Tarzan was that here was an amazing cast—Shuler Hensley won the Tony and is amazing on the Oklahoma! DVD, Merle Dandridge was an outstanding Aida, and I have heard so many great things about Jenn Gambatese—and they had so little with which to work that the performances never lifted. I walked away from Merle Dandridge’s Aida gaping, in awe of her talent, and here, I wouldn’t have left realizing her talent had I not already known. Josh Strickland, because he has an awesome rock voice, came off the strongest, but he still didn’t have enough to work with.
The next big problem was there was no humor. Poor Chester Gregory II tried so hard, but for a comedic character, he was given lines that held absolutely no humor, and he was forced to try to milk the humor with an Eddie Murphy dialect. Three cheers for him because he was out there trying the whole night I saw the show, and for the little response he got, he still kept going. It wasn’t his fault! Even Elaine Stritch couldn’t pull a laugh out of her script in Monster-in-Law. It’s impossible for a comedian to rise above laugh-less material.
I don’t ascribe to the philosophy that every Broadway musical needs to be another How to Success in Business Without Really Trying. Just like in movies and on television, there are theatrical stories that don’t require a ton of humor to be entertaining—Jekyll and Hyde, Jane Eyre, and The Civil War come to mind. But Tarzan needed it. The film was constructed for humorous characters, and since those characters were included on stage, the humor was needed as well.
Henry David Hwang is so very talented, as I have already gushed over in my mention of Aida, but just as he doctored Linda Woolverton’s book for that show, he really needed someone to come in on Tarzan. Besides his lack of humor, the show doesn’t skillfully accomplish all that he attempts to do. In the film, for example, Jane Porter sheds layers of clothing throughout the movie, indicating the shedding of her Victorian repression. In the stage version, Jane just arrives, blinks, and is experiencing a sexual awakening, which gets expressed in song, staging, and dialogue. There are a number of elements in the show that get handled that way—such as Kala’s separation from Kerchak.
The songs imported from the film work extremely well. While they are not inherently theatrical songs, they are great songs, and when blasted into the audience by voices like those of Josh Strickland and Merle Dandridge, they gave the show its only real energy. The songs written for the stage, however, only deserve an A for effort. I once made an ill-fated attempt at being my own lyricist, and I can honestly say my stuff was on par with “Sure as Sun Turns to Moon.”
My Fixes
I have always wished I was in New York while a show was previewing and the word was bad. I really wished I could have gone into the Richard Rodgers Theatre, then said, “Mr. Crowley, if you give me a copy of the libretto, I’d love to fix it up for you. If you like it, great. Use it. If not, you’ve wasted no money and no time.” Of course, if that fantasy ever actually happened, I would have really been shot down and put in my place.
If that had actually happened and if Bob Crowley hadn’t hung me by one of those vines, some of the changes I made would have been these. I do think that, while not necessarily the best choice for a Broadway show because animation was the best medium for the story, Tarzan does hold much potential because of the emotional core of the story.
I should also insert here that it has been almost a year since I saw the show, and I never bought the CD (the only Broadway show I’ve never bought the CD for—I will eventually, but I have the movie CD, and those were the best songs in the show), so I know I won’t be addressing all of the things I thought about after seeing it.
Before I touch on any changes I would have made to the libretto, I would have recommended Disney bringing in a lyricist to salvage Phil Collins’ new music. I remember thinking the lyrics for one or two songs worked, but that was it. Disney has had a successful relationship with David Zippel, who is very talented. I bet he would have been a great choice.
1. When the situation arises that Tarzan makes a spear and Kerchak kicks him out of the family, it seems so random. I’m a big believer in the need to foreshadow big plot twists. Face it, this is pretty big. Not only is he kicking a boy out, but it sends Kala away, which clearly disturbs him. I would have written into the stage directions that, during “Two Worlds,” Tarzan’s father attempts to spear a gorilla while Kerchak is watching. That way, when Kerchak sees the homemade spear, the audience would instantly sense his fears. It would feel integrated into the plot, unlike so many moments in the show. There wouldn’t even have to be any exposition worked into the dialogue; it would be in the visuals.
2. I remember the book trying to take the story a level deeper by creating a parallel between Kerchak and Kala’s relationship struggles and that of separated parents. It was a great idea, but I remember feeling like it never fully came together.
3. As mentioned above, Jane’s transformation happens way too quickly. Part of what works so well in the film is that Tarzan’s openness changes Jane. There is a change in each character as a result of knowing the other. Like I said before, here she blinks and is losing all her Victorian repressions.
4. The Ice Capades called and wants its spider back. Which is fine, because it’s not very threatening. But there’s actually a further problem beyond its appearance. On stage, directors can play with time and spacing. Dolly Levi can be eating in Harmonia Gardens, then stand up and address a judge in court. But in this case, none of it made sense; it was too severe of a leap. How did Jane look up and realize that she’s in the middle of a spider web, which was spun around her by a giant Day-Glo spider? If we were to stretch our imaginations, how did she fall into a web and not realize it had happened until she looked up from her notepad. Perhaps her sexual awakening distracted her, but I’m not buying it.
Here’s a case where it would be impossible to top the film, which has an exciting and hilarious baboon chase that is visually thrilling and emotionally involving.
However, there had to be something better than a large spider. Perhaps she is walking through thick foliage and finds herself falling over a cliff, a wire attached to Jenn Gambatese’s back, and, with strobe lights making for slow motion, Tarzan swings in and saves her. Perhaps Clayton is down below, and, hearing a scary sound, he shoots first and asks questions later, and right after Tarzan saves her, a non-purple bird falls from a very nearby branch to show how close she had been to death on several levels.
Maybe this isn’t the best idea, but there had to be something better than a large spider.
5. Clayton didn’t work as a Southerner. Kudos to the creative team for trying something different, but it didn’t work. The character in the film was very theatrical—just listen to that voice—but I also agree that it would have been a mistake to have re-created that in the Broadway show.
Perhaps they could have taken a page out of the Hercules handbook, and Clayton could have been a humorous, fast-talking, car salesman type with an edge. He’s could be a mercenary for a Most Dangerous Game-inspired nutcase who wants him to bring back to England some unusual prey for the hunt. Clayton first goes after Kerchak, then realizes that Tarzan would be the most challenging prey of all.
I honestly don’t remember the ending of the show—what led to the climax or how it all unfolded—but this would involve the apes, then his violence would become directed solely at Tarzan. Because of my lack of memory, I don’t know if this would solve the ending, but it would at least provide for a vivacious and more theatrical characterization.
A really daring move would have been to remove the villain altogether, and leave the story one about these two cultures coming together, perhaps a parable for inter-racial relationships.
6. Porter needed his personality back. Again, the character in the movie was distinctly animated. I doubt he could have been translated directly onto the stage, but the character needs a distinct personality and a distinctive character actor to play him. I’m unfamiliar with the man who originated the role on Broadway (I saw his understudy), but perhaps Robert Morse could have been brought in to make him into a joyous Santa Claus type character, boisterous and charming, delighted at everything he sees (like the in the film) but perhaps a little less child-like (because I think that would be hard to do on the stage).
7. What “Jungle Funk” was accomplishing was quite unclear. It came across as an inserted dance break and not an integral part of the story. I honestly don’t remember that part of the show well enough to make a strong recommendation, but I do know it needs to be more related to the events on stage.
8. Nothing kills a show like projecting a movie, which, when juxtaposed next to living, breathing actors, stops the show for all the wrong reasons. The song is supposed to illustrate Tarzan’s development from boy to animal-man, and there are enough specific ideas in the lyrics with which to work in staging humans. I would have recommended energetic vignettes that illustrate mini-conflicts that Tarzan rises above, with an actor or two taking on intermediate Tarzans between boy Tarzan and Josh Strickland.
9. “Trashin’ the Camp” opened the second act but, like “Jungle Funk,” seemed disconnected from everything, as if it was included because it had to be there rather than because it fit. Again, my remembrance of the show isn’t strong enough to recall what happened after, except that it seemed very disconnected.
10. Terk needs some great one-liners.
Obviously, a show is more than a list of ingredients, and a needy show is more than a list of fixes. As I’ve said, it’s been almost a year since I saw the show, so these are derived from fragments of my remembrances, though I’m sure if I had actually seriously attempted to doctor the show, a fresher experience would have yielded more thoughts.
It’s always a happy time when a show has a good run, even if it doesn’t break even, because it has employed great actors and other theatre folk, then leaves so another production can fill the theatre. Instead of taking malevolent delight in Disney’s first major failing, let’s learn from it for ourselves, then focus on the great things Disney has done and admire the honorable steps they took with Tarzan and all their shows.
Broadway Mouth
June 25, 2007
Because there is, unhappily, a very large contingent of the New York theatre people and journalists . . . who pray devoutly, with all of their being, that any new show is a disaster. And in the case of Titanic, a title synonymous with disaster, this malevolent hope reached new heights—or plumbed new depths, depending on whether you’re rooting for the passengers or the sharks.
I have had great experiences at many of the Disney shows. The national tour of Beauty and the Beast with Kim Huber as Belle was the second Broadway show I saw, and I was elated every moment. That gut reaction you get to at great Broadway show—from the emotional response to the awe and wonder that lasts in your memory forever—was there for me that evening.
For The Lion King, I got to see it with the original cast—Tsidii Le Loka, Heather Headley, the late Jason Raize, Samuel E. Wright, et. al—from front row, center. Yes, I was awed and inspired every moment, particularly from those thrilling performances.
I even saw On the Record with Emily Skinner and the future Mary Poppins herself, Ashley Brown. I walked in hoping for a smashing presentation of great Disney songs, and I was never disappointed, particularly with such an amazing cast and fun staging by Robert Longbottom.
The unrivaled Disney show for me has always been Aida. I don’t think I could fully express how thankful I am that I got to see that show with the original Broadway cast. I vividly remembered how powerful Heather Headley had been in The Lion King, so I could hardly wait to catch her in Aida. From the moment she opened her mouth, saying, “Release them,” I had chills. Then, if that wasn’t enough, there was Adam Pascal and Sherie René Scott, plus Damian Perkins, John Hickok, and Schele Williams—You’d think God Himself cast the show. Everything about Aida was amazing, and I saw it twice on tour, once with Simone as Aida, then with understudy extraordinaire Merle Dandridge, and Kelly Fournier as Amneris and Patrick Cassidy as Radames.
Tarzan, which recently announced its closing, was a very unique experience for me. It’s been a show that has been an easy target for many people, and I think that just because its Disney, Tarzan has had too many people happily tap dancing on its red-inked grave, so I’d like to take a moment to recognize some great things.
First of all, I think it’s important to acknowledge Thomas Schumacher, head of Disney Theatricals, for the daring steps he took with Tarzan. A big critique Michael John LaChiusa had of many recent shows in his Opera News article, which I discussed in my first blog entry, was that they didn’t step far enough away from the source material. With Tarzan, David Henry Hwang’s libretto immediately starts branching away from the film and with several gigantic steps, such as Kerchak sending Tarzan (and then by her own choice, Kala) away from the family. For Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, there were elements added—more gradual changes for the enchanted objects, songs to fill out scenes and characters—but with Tarzan (and later with Mary Poppins), the story takes off in different directions. This stems from an apparent and admirable desire to take the material deeper.
It’s also important to praise Disney for keeping the spectacle in check. I always admired the set for Aida because it looked so simple, yet it was stunning. I don’t think Tarzan’s set was all that simple, but it appeared to be that way. The creators could have thrown in a lot of do-dads and theatrical gadgets, but they risked it with the more simple set, which they altered periodically through the evening to (successfully, as far as I’m concerned) keep it from looking monotonous. For all the complaints about the tire in Cats and the engulfing costumes of Beauty and the Beast, under Thomas Schumacher’s guidance, Aida, On the Record, Mary Poppins, and Tarzan avoided excess to keep in touch with the human story.
Can we also take the time to give Disney a hand in discovering and casting such amazing talent? Look at people who got a big break in a Disney show—Susan Egan, Jason Raize, Heather Headley, Ashley Brown, Josh Strickland, and now someone new in The Little Mermaid. If that weren’t enough, admire the list of people who were either in original or replacement casts—Terrence Mann, Gary Beach, Beth Fowler, Burke Moses, Tom Bosley, Samuel E.Wright, Mary Stout, Chuck Wagner, Kerry Butler, Andrea McArdle, Matt Bogart, Idina Menzel, Maya Days, Mandy Gonzales, Rebecca Luker, Daniel Jenkins. They have not only selected established talents for their original casts, but they have sought out great people as replacements. And while they have pulled the stunt casting card (most sadly to the detriment of Aida), they’ve done it far less than other successful shows, like Chicago and Cabaret. Some of their stunt casting has even been respectful, such as pulling in Broadway vets Christy Carlson Romano and Donny Osmond for Beauty and the Beast, or giving a genuine talent like Anneliesa van der Pol her Broadway debut.
Look at the cast for Tarzan—Jenn Gambatese, Merle Dandridge, Tony-winner Shuler Hensley, Chester Gregory II, and newcomer Josh Strickland. They didn’t skimp.
They also deserve an ovation for the creative talent they’ve utilized. Disney has done first class Broadway shows using first class Broadway talent. The choice of Bob Crowley to direct Tarzan should be applauded. Whether it resulted as a wise choice or not, Thomas Schumacher did what should happen more on Broadway—He took a gamble with an extremely talented person and gave him the reigns to create. That doesn’t mean his work shouldn’t be evaluated just as stringently as a more experienced director, like a Hal Prince or a Susan Stroman, but we should at least applaud him for the guts for his choice.
And it happens. Yes, sometimes you have the recipe right, the oven temp right, the right-sized pan, and the angel food cake still overflows and gets encrusted on the oven’s heating coils. Creating a great show is an art, not a recipe. Even the greatest of producers and directors have those shows that somehow overflow and leave a charred mess, and they still need to go before the media to put on a happy face to protect the investors’ interests.
The Problems
(Please note: If you were somehow involved with the show, and you were kind enough to read my blog, I would encourage you to now scroll down and re-read my entry entitled “If They Could See You Now.” There is so much negativity on Broadway, as Peter Stone said, and I prefer to focus on the positives, except this time. Though I will endeavor to have a positive critique of the show, a critique in general implies that I could end up hurting your feelings, which is most definitely not my aim. I love Broadway and Broadway people. So, as Grover once so aptly said, there is a monster at the end of this blog entry, so please don’t turn the page.)
Everybody with a computer has a solution to every single show ever produced. If they had only been there, the libretto would have included this, the composer would have written that, and that actor would have gestured like this instead. And we all know that the number one (and most important) qualification to being able to create on Broadway is to have an opinion and a Broadway Mouth loud enough to get it out there, right? And nobody else could possibly be correct, obviously.
And if they had been there, that stupid show Guys and Dolls would have lasted much longer than it did. If only . . .
So I would like to take a moment to acknowledge that, firstly, it is easier to fix rather than to create one from the ground up. Secondly, hindsight is always perfect. Thirdly, these ideas are take it or leave it. I’m throwing them out there as a creative exercise for myself and nothing else.
Many people go into shows hating them, sitting there challenging the people involved to make them like the show. It’s like they have a checklist, and they’ll only leave the theatre happy if every item on that general checklist is marked off, no matter what the genre or goals of the show are.
I love theatre too much to do that. I go in and enjoy myself, and I only form critiques when I realize that I’m not enjoying myself or, after a show, when I try to figure out why I didn’t enjoy myself as much as I could have. As a writer, it is, for me a way, of learning and stretching my own skills.
For Tarzan, boredom set in pretty quickly. I have honestly never sat in a theatre with such an amazingly hard-working cast resulting in so little energy. Thirty minutes into the show, it was like a black hole had settled in at the back of the Richard Rodgers Theatre, sucking all energy into it.
The first symptom of Tarzan was that here was an amazing cast—Shuler Hensley won the Tony and is amazing on the Oklahoma! DVD, Merle Dandridge was an outstanding Aida, and I have heard so many great things about Jenn Gambatese—and they had so little with which to work that the performances never lifted. I walked away from Merle Dandridge’s Aida gaping, in awe of her talent, and here, I wouldn’t have left realizing her talent had I not already known. Josh Strickland, because he has an awesome rock voice, came off the strongest, but he still didn’t have enough to work with.
The next big problem was there was no humor. Poor Chester Gregory II tried so hard, but for a comedic character, he was given lines that held absolutely no humor, and he was forced to try to milk the humor with an Eddie Murphy dialect. Three cheers for him because he was out there trying the whole night I saw the show, and for the little response he got, he still kept going. It wasn’t his fault! Even Elaine Stritch couldn’t pull a laugh out of her script in Monster-in-Law. It’s impossible for a comedian to rise above laugh-less material.
I don’t ascribe to the philosophy that every Broadway musical needs to be another How to Success in Business Without Really Trying. Just like in movies and on television, there are theatrical stories that don’t require a ton of humor to be entertaining—Jekyll and Hyde, Jane Eyre, and The Civil War come to mind. But Tarzan needed it. The film was constructed for humorous characters, and since those characters were included on stage, the humor was needed as well.
Henry David Hwang is so very talented, as I have already gushed over in my mention of Aida, but just as he doctored Linda Woolverton’s book for that show, he really needed someone to come in on Tarzan. Besides his lack of humor, the show doesn’t skillfully accomplish all that he attempts to do. In the film, for example, Jane Porter sheds layers of clothing throughout the movie, indicating the shedding of her Victorian repression. In the stage version, Jane just arrives, blinks, and is experiencing a sexual awakening, which gets expressed in song, staging, and dialogue. There are a number of elements in the show that get handled that way—such as Kala’s separation from Kerchak.
The songs imported from the film work extremely well. While they are not inherently theatrical songs, they are great songs, and when blasted into the audience by voices like those of Josh Strickland and Merle Dandridge, they gave the show its only real energy. The songs written for the stage, however, only deserve an A for effort. I once made an ill-fated attempt at being my own lyricist, and I can honestly say my stuff was on par with “Sure as Sun Turns to Moon.”
My Fixes
I have always wished I was in New York while a show was previewing and the word was bad. I really wished I could have gone into the Richard Rodgers Theatre, then said, “Mr. Crowley, if you give me a copy of the libretto, I’d love to fix it up for you. If you like it, great. Use it. If not, you’ve wasted no money and no time.” Of course, if that fantasy ever actually happened, I would have really been shot down and put in my place.
If that had actually happened and if Bob Crowley hadn’t hung me by one of those vines, some of the changes I made would have been these. I do think that, while not necessarily the best choice for a Broadway show because animation was the best medium for the story, Tarzan does hold much potential because of the emotional core of the story.
I should also insert here that it has been almost a year since I saw the show, and I never bought the CD (the only Broadway show I’ve never bought the CD for—I will eventually, but I have the movie CD, and those were the best songs in the show), so I know I won’t be addressing all of the things I thought about after seeing it.
Before I touch on any changes I would have made to the libretto, I would have recommended Disney bringing in a lyricist to salvage Phil Collins’ new music. I remember thinking the lyrics for one or two songs worked, but that was it. Disney has had a successful relationship with David Zippel, who is very talented. I bet he would have been a great choice.
1. When the situation arises that Tarzan makes a spear and Kerchak kicks him out of the family, it seems so random. I’m a big believer in the need to foreshadow big plot twists. Face it, this is pretty big. Not only is he kicking a boy out, but it sends Kala away, which clearly disturbs him. I would have written into the stage directions that, during “Two Worlds,” Tarzan’s father attempts to spear a gorilla while Kerchak is watching. That way, when Kerchak sees the homemade spear, the audience would instantly sense his fears. It would feel integrated into the plot, unlike so many moments in the show. There wouldn’t even have to be any exposition worked into the dialogue; it would be in the visuals.
2. I remember the book trying to take the story a level deeper by creating a parallel between Kerchak and Kala’s relationship struggles and that of separated parents. It was a great idea, but I remember feeling like it never fully came together.
3. As mentioned above, Jane’s transformation happens way too quickly. Part of what works so well in the film is that Tarzan’s openness changes Jane. There is a change in each character as a result of knowing the other. Like I said before, here she blinks and is losing all her Victorian repressions.
4. The Ice Capades called and wants its spider back. Which is fine, because it’s not very threatening. But there’s actually a further problem beyond its appearance. On stage, directors can play with time and spacing. Dolly Levi can be eating in Harmonia Gardens, then stand up and address a judge in court. But in this case, none of it made sense; it was too severe of a leap. How did Jane look up and realize that she’s in the middle of a spider web, which was spun around her by a giant Day-Glo spider? If we were to stretch our imaginations, how did she fall into a web and not realize it had happened until she looked up from her notepad. Perhaps her sexual awakening distracted her, but I’m not buying it.
Here’s a case where it would be impossible to top the film, which has an exciting and hilarious baboon chase that is visually thrilling and emotionally involving.
However, there had to be something better than a large spider. Perhaps she is walking through thick foliage and finds herself falling over a cliff, a wire attached to Jenn Gambatese’s back, and, with strobe lights making for slow motion, Tarzan swings in and saves her. Perhaps Clayton is down below, and, hearing a scary sound, he shoots first and asks questions later, and right after Tarzan saves her, a non-purple bird falls from a very nearby branch to show how close she had been to death on several levels.
Maybe this isn’t the best idea, but there had to be something better than a large spider.
5. Clayton didn’t work as a Southerner. Kudos to the creative team for trying something different, but it didn’t work. The character in the film was very theatrical—just listen to that voice—but I also agree that it would have been a mistake to have re-created that in the Broadway show.
Perhaps they could have taken a page out of the Hercules handbook, and Clayton could have been a humorous, fast-talking, car salesman type with an edge. He’s could be a mercenary for a Most Dangerous Game-inspired nutcase who wants him to bring back to England some unusual prey for the hunt. Clayton first goes after Kerchak, then realizes that Tarzan would be the most challenging prey of all.
I honestly don’t remember the ending of the show—what led to the climax or how it all unfolded—but this would involve the apes, then his violence would become directed solely at Tarzan. Because of my lack of memory, I don’t know if this would solve the ending, but it would at least provide for a vivacious and more theatrical characterization.
A really daring move would have been to remove the villain altogether, and leave the story one about these two cultures coming together, perhaps a parable for inter-racial relationships.
6. Porter needed his personality back. Again, the character in the movie was distinctly animated. I doubt he could have been translated directly onto the stage, but the character needs a distinct personality and a distinctive character actor to play him. I’m unfamiliar with the man who originated the role on Broadway (I saw his understudy), but perhaps Robert Morse could have been brought in to make him into a joyous Santa Claus type character, boisterous and charming, delighted at everything he sees (like the in the film) but perhaps a little less child-like (because I think that would be hard to do on the stage).
7. What “Jungle Funk” was accomplishing was quite unclear. It came across as an inserted dance break and not an integral part of the story. I honestly don’t remember that part of the show well enough to make a strong recommendation, but I do know it needs to be more related to the events on stage.
8. Nothing kills a show like projecting a movie, which, when juxtaposed next to living, breathing actors, stops the show for all the wrong reasons. The song is supposed to illustrate Tarzan’s development from boy to animal-man, and there are enough specific ideas in the lyrics with which to work in staging humans. I would have recommended energetic vignettes that illustrate mini-conflicts that Tarzan rises above, with an actor or two taking on intermediate Tarzans between boy Tarzan and Josh Strickland.
9. “Trashin’ the Camp” opened the second act but, like “Jungle Funk,” seemed disconnected from everything, as if it was included because it had to be there rather than because it fit. Again, my remembrance of the show isn’t strong enough to recall what happened after, except that it seemed very disconnected.
10. Terk needs some great one-liners.
Obviously, a show is more than a list of ingredients, and a needy show is more than a list of fixes. As I’ve said, it’s been almost a year since I saw the show, so these are derived from fragments of my remembrances, though I’m sure if I had actually seriously attempted to doctor the show, a fresher experience would have yielded more thoughts.
It’s always a happy time when a show has a good run, even if it doesn’t break even, because it has employed great actors and other theatre folk, then leaves so another production can fill the theatre. Instead of taking malevolent delight in Disney’s first major failing, let’s learn from it for ourselves, then focus on the great things Disney has done and admire the honorable steps they took with Tarzan and all their shows.
Broadway Mouth
June 25, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
