(To first read the original multiple choice quiz questions, click here.)
1. Which of the following shows were NOT offered to Mary Martin to originate a role?
Mary Martin was NEVER offered a role in Guys and Dolls; however, she did turn down offers to do Oklahoma!; Kiss Me, Kate; My Fair Lady; and Mame.
She doesn’t address all of them in her book, but she opted to take on an out-of-town closer called Dancing in the Streets instead of Oklahoma!, for which Rodgers and Hammerstein were extremely grateful, realizing that turning Green Grow the Lilacs into a traditional star vehicle would have ruined the show and would have ruined what they did that ended up revolutionizing the Broadway musical. For months after their show opened, they sent Martin flowers in thanks for turning the role down.
She originally thought Cole Porter wanted her for Lois Lane in Kiss Me, Kate, but he wanted her for Lilli Vanessi. The problem for Martin was, however, that all of her touring with Annie Get Your Gun had taken a toll on her soprano. She literally couldn’t sing the part and knew it. Porter, she later learned, was devastated by her turning him down.
She doesn’t say much about My Fair Lady or Mame, though I’ve read in Richard Tyler Jordan’s But Darling, I’m Your Auntie Mame that the reason she gave for turning down Mame was the music. She signed a preliminary agreement to do the show with the exit clause being approval of the score. When Jerry Herman flew to Brazil to share his fabulous score, she reportedly claimed not to like it, which has been said was her way of backing out. She had spent so much time touring and living in dressing rooms that she simply wanted to enjoy life on her farm.
2. Of all her roles, which does Mary Martin proclaim to be her favorite?
Her strongest statement of such is related to Peter Pan. This is not surprising considering the effect that show had on children around the country. She details the fanatic response the show earned from kids in the audience, as well as how people responded to her after each of the three televised airings of the show. In one touching story, Martin and friends travel through the jungles of Brazil to an acquaintance’s house, barely making it before nightfall, when it would have been dangerous to drive through the jungle. Upon arrival, the house appears to be closed, but then one of the shutters opens, and it is an elderly, senile woman who recognizes Peter Pan, saying Wendy’s line, “Peter! You’ve come to my window.”
It doesn’t get much more magical than that.
3. Which of the following statements are true of I Do! I Do!, the two-person musical which she starred in with Robert Preston.
Figuring that people were coming to I Do! I Do! for Martin and Preston, it was agreed that it would be better to cancel shows rather than to send on an understudy, so none were used. The run began with matinee performances but, as it continued to run, those were scaled back to give the stars a rest in a strenuous show where one of them always had to be on stage while the other was furiously changing.
When the Broadway run was followed by a tour, the show began to wear on Preston and Martin, and it eventually had to end because of Martin’s health.
4. According to Mary Martin, what melody cut from South Pacific was she responsible for getting used in The King and I?
The melody of “Getting to Know You” was originally written as a soft-shoe piece for Martin, and when it was cut, Rodgers and Hammerstein promised it to her. Upon seeing the dress rehearsal of The King and I in New Haven, she recommended that it would be a great melody to use as a song to help develop Anna’s character. In all the talk of “character-specific” music used to criticize shows like Hairspray, it’s interesting to see how the masters responded to character-specific music—by handing one song to another character! Cross reference this with “Losing My Mind” from Follies, which jumped characters within the show.
5. According to Mary Martin, how did she and Richard Halliday save William Talbert’s job out of town as the original Lieutenant Cable?
According to Martin, Talbert was great in the role of Lieutenant Cable, but he simply wasn’t “sexy enough.” Martin and her husband Richard Halliday had become experts on home hair coloring and permanents after all of her different roles, so they took Talbert and shook up his look a bit, giving him soft blond curls that made him look “taller, handsomer, [and] a perfect foil for dark-skinned Liat.” To complete the transformation, director Josh Logan gave Talbert tight-fitting pants, and when he next appeared in New Haven, half the cast thought he was a replacement.
6. With which of the following men did Mary Martin not star?
Mary Martin never starred with Alfred Drake. She did star with John Raitt in a later two-stop tour of Annie Get Your Gun (and he was her Frank Butler on a television production as well).
She starred with Yul Brynner in Lute Song, and even claims to have discovered him (with husband Halliday) when they invited him over to see about using him in Lute Song.
Charles Boyer was with her in the mess Kind Sir. She had always wanted to perform with Boyer, so being able to do so helped her overcome the frustrating experience of being in the show. It was directed by Josh Logan, whom she had last worked with on South Pacific. The problem was, however, that Logan was “in the throes of a breakdown.” His mis-guided psychologist said it would be okay for him to take on the project, but the cast was warned not to challenge him on anything. There are several hilarious stories related to this, but in short, you can quickly imagine what comes of a show where everyone “Yes, sir”s the director who isn’t in a right frame of mind.
7. How did Mary Martin get most of her formal dance training?
As a teenager, Mary Martin often got compliments on her dancing, so when she needed a venue to exert herself after being married at sixteen, she opened a dance school. In the summers, she traveled to California to learn new steps to teach her growing student population.
8. To which controversial location did Mary Martin take Hello, Dolly!, going so far as to persuade the cast to do it.
She took the Hello, Dolly! to Vietnam, even though most of the cast originally voted against the idea. She told them that, while she too didn’t support the war, performing for the troops would be a show of support for the men. It was a tough time for her to be in a war zone, but once all is said and done, the cast agreed that it was an amazing experience.
9. During a busy Easter shopping season, Mary Martin stopped by Saks to buy a pair of gloves. It was so busy that there were no salespeople to help her. Who ended up playing salesperson for her, even going so far as to make up a sales slip and accept her payment?
This was Beatrice Lillie. She pops up throughout the book, and what a marvelous, zany woman she appears to have been. I had always known her as Mrs. Meers in the movie Thoroughly Modern Millie, but how I wish I could have seen her on stage.
10. Mary Martin and her husband Richard Halliday found peace and relaxation in what foreign country?
Martin and Halliday had a farm in Brazil for many years, which they loved dearly. Once her husband died, however, she says in the book (copyrighted in 1976) that she could never return to it.
the Broadway Mouth
March 25, 2008
Showing posts with label Kiss Me Kate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kiss Me Kate. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Clip Me, Kate
I was digging through my programs and clippings from various shows I’ve seen over the years, and I came across this advertisement I saved from the tour of Kiss Me, Kate, which starred (at the time I saw it) Rachel York, Rex Smith, Jim Newman, Jenny Hill, and Chuck Wagner.
I loved this advertisement, which made me do a double-take. Because I had seen the show in New York as well, the poster looked eerily familiar—familiar because it not only features mostly the Broadway cast, but eerily because it features ¾ of the original stars as well.
That’s Rachel York’s beautiful face on Marin Mazzie’s beautiful body and Rex Smith’s head on Brian Stokes Mitchell’s body (though those aren’t Mitchell’s hands), twice. Interestingly enough, York on tour, just like she did in the recorded London production, had red hair.
I actually have the Broadway show poster that looks like this with the original cast hanging in Shubert Alley, my hallway with Broadway posters (not to be confused with my living room with its Broadway posters). Probably no one on the tour route would even notice the short-cuts, so it’s not a big deal, but I thought it was funny.
If you live in New York and find the picture familiar, you may recognize it from Rick McKay’s documentary Broadway: The Golden Age, flashed up when Elaine Stritch is supporting revivals.
the Broadway Mouth
March 5, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Tell My Father I Didn’t Break the Rules
“Too Darn Hot” could be entirely excised from Kiss Me, Kate without affecting the story. Entirely. First off, it doesn’t develop anything. If you look at it literally, it’s Paul and chorus singing about it being too hot, then dancing, which means that they’re actually making themselves hotter. It does nothing to advance the Fred/Lilli or Bill/Bianca plots. Paul and Hattie are there, but it does nothing for them. Second, it’s hardly even character-specific. It could be Paul singing, that chorus guy, that other chorus guy, or someone from any other show. Thirdly, it’s basically 1940s pop. Had it not been so ribald, it would’ve been a major pop hit in its day. It’s that generic.
Fortunately, though, for those of us who are fans of the show, the creation of a Broadway musical, as with any other form of artistic expression, is not a simple matter of mathematics. Kiss Me, Kate is far more than just a love story and a love story subplot with an energetic opening number, love song, dynamic Act One closer, energetic Act Two opener, love song reprise, eleven o’clock number, and exit music.
Yeah, “Too Darn Hot” is essentially disconnected from the plot, is not terribly character-specific, and is pop. But it works. It works because it’s a great song in a perfect location that affects the audience in just the right way.
It’s not math. It’s art.
Sometimes we get caught up on the rules of structure. It’s not that the rules of structure aren’t important, but it is not an end in itself. I’ve read plenty of critiques of shows—both on message boards and in publication—that focus too much on what the show “should” have rather than what it does have.
In Ethan Mordden’s thought-provoking The Happiest Corpse I’ve Ever Seen, he takes to task “Tell My Father” from The Civil War because he says the audience is expected to feel emotion for a character they’ve hardly known. Now, I only saw the tour, which was altered from the Broadway production, but the context seems about the same.
The Lehman Engel book of thought would agree with Mordden—and it certainly is a more than accurate theory in pretty much every case. If you have no emotional connection to a character, you’re not going to care two cents about their plight. If you saw the final scene of West Side Story without the rest of the show, it’d be just another girl crying over her hoodlum boyfriend. Yes, it makes complete sense.
However, it’s not math. It’s art.
To me, “Tell My Father” was extraordinarily effective because it was tapping into a character type, one that doesn’t need much to gain sympathy. I don’t have to know a person to see a story on the news and have my heart go out for the wife of a shooting victim, the daughter whose parents have been deported to Mexico, or the student who was brutally hazed. In the context of The Civil War, a piece that walked a fine line between musical theatre, concert, and mosaic, there was no need for established characters. I don’t have to know the personality of a boy killed in battle to sympathize with his last wishes. It’s an incredibly poignant song, a dying boy whose final thoughts are for earning love and respect from his father, a man who will undoubtedly have markedly different worries on his mind when the tragic news arrives.
Sometimes when the rules are broken, it flops big time. There’s a whole decade of shows Mordden details in his book whose memory has not survived past 1989. But even when you paint by the numbers, the show might thud anyway.
Then sometimes, you play with the rules, shifting things, experimenting, trying, or just doing what seems right for your story, and you wind up with Oklahoma! or Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street or Assassins.
It’s not the rule. It’s the effect.
the Broadway Mouth
January 18, 2008
Fortunately, though, for those of us who are fans of the show, the creation of a Broadway musical, as with any other form of artistic expression, is not a simple matter of mathematics. Kiss Me, Kate is far more than just a love story and a love story subplot with an energetic opening number, love song, dynamic Act One closer, energetic Act Two opener, love song reprise, eleven o’clock number, and exit music.
Yeah, “Too Darn Hot” is essentially disconnected from the plot, is not terribly character-specific, and is pop. But it works. It works because it’s a great song in a perfect location that affects the audience in just the right way.
It’s not math. It’s art.
Sometimes we get caught up on the rules of structure. It’s not that the rules of structure aren’t important, but it is not an end in itself. I’ve read plenty of critiques of shows—both on message boards and in publication—that focus too much on what the show “should” have rather than what it does have.
In Ethan Mordden’s thought-provoking The Happiest Corpse I’ve Ever Seen, he takes to task “Tell My Father” from The Civil War because he says the audience is expected to feel emotion for a character they’ve hardly known. Now, I only saw the tour, which was altered from the Broadway production, but the context seems about the same.
The Lehman Engel book of thought would agree with Mordden—and it certainly is a more than accurate theory in pretty much every case. If you have no emotional connection to a character, you’re not going to care two cents about their plight. If you saw the final scene of West Side Story without the rest of the show, it’d be just another girl crying over her hoodlum boyfriend. Yes, it makes complete sense.
However, it’s not math. It’s art.
To me, “Tell My Father” was extraordinarily effective because it was tapping into a character type, one that doesn’t need much to gain sympathy. I don’t have to know a person to see a story on the news and have my heart go out for the wife of a shooting victim, the daughter whose parents have been deported to Mexico, or the student who was brutally hazed. In the context of The Civil War, a piece that walked a fine line between musical theatre, concert, and mosaic, there was no need for established characters. I don’t have to know the personality of a boy killed in battle to sympathize with his last wishes. It’s an incredibly poignant song, a dying boy whose final thoughts are for earning love and respect from his father, a man who will undoubtedly have markedly different worries on his mind when the tragic news arrives.
Sometimes when the rules are broken, it flops big time. There’s a whole decade of shows Mordden details in his book whose memory has not survived past 1989. But even when you paint by the numbers, the show might thud anyway.
Then sometimes, you play with the rules, shifting things, experimenting, trying, or just doing what seems right for your story, and you wind up with Oklahoma! or Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street or Assassins.
It’s not the rule. It’s the effect.
the Broadway Mouth
January 18, 2008
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Every Story is a Love Story: The Great Romantic Musicals (Part 2 of 2)
And now I present Broadway Mouth’s Top Ten Most Romantic Broadway Musicals.
10. Parade—Even though they are married, Leo and Lucille’s journey forces their awkward relationship to change. She can no longer be a weak Southern Belle, and he can no longer be completely self-sufficient. Through their incredible life circumstances, they both come to love each other passionately. Because of this “All the Wasted Time” is a beautiful expression of their newly re-discovered love.
9. Bells are Ringing—There’s something irresistible about Ella Peterson. She’s extremely cute in how she wants to help everyone and manages win over everyone no matter what she does. While Jeff Moss is falling madly in love with her, it’s hard for us not to as well.
There is also a firm foundation in their relationship. They both need each other. Jeff needs her to help him write his plays, and Ella needs him to have someone to love.
Bells are Ringing has what is probably the most romantic line in any musical, when Jeff says to Ella, “You’re a girl with a lot of love to give. Instead of spreading it around all over the place, give it to me. I need it. I want it.”
That’s like “You complete me” long before Tom Cruise.
8. The Sound of Music—The film adaptation is the quintessential romantic story (and my favorite movie since childhood), and it is also the only case where the movie actually improved upon the Broadway show. But just because the film improves upon the romantic factor by adding location scenes (as well as additional material and re-organizing the songs) which helps create a stronger bond between the children and Maria as well as strengthening the bond between Maria and the Georg, it doesn’t mean that the original stage version doesn’t succeed independently.
There is something incredibly romantic about a love story that includes incredible children. It’s probably part of the happily ever after factor (or in love forever factor) which is so important for a romantic story because here we have one giant happy family when all is said and done. It’s beautiful.
7. Fiddler on the Roof—In our society, we value the concept of love and romance, and yet, we have a huge percentage of love-based relationships ending in divorce. I love in Fiddler on the Roof when Tevye presses Golda to answer, “Do you love me?”
Her response sums it up quite well. She sings, “Do I love him? / For twenty-five years I’ve lived with him, / Fought with him, starved with him. / Twenty-five years my bed is his. / If that’s not love, what is?” Despite my postulations on what makes for a great romantic story, Golda has pretty much summed it up—It’s the daily expressions and motions, the shared experiences, and the drawing closer together that is really what love is about.
The romantic story is also augmented by the experiences of the three daughters. While they are young, they each make severe choices in following their loves, choices rooted in cause and purpose, rather than emotion and whims. You can safely assume that each of these daughters will live with a measure of struggle but also with a life companion to share her pains.
6. The Music Man—You have a conman wanting to take advantage of a seemingly simple small-town woman, even going so far as to praise Hester Prynne for her scarlet letter. However in attempting to woo her in order to deceive her, he falls head-over-heels for her Irish imagination, her Iowa stubbornness, and her library full of books.
Marion is no foolish small town chickie, so when she accepts him for what he’s done for the community in spite of his con, she’s making a conscious decision and not one rooted in romantic notions. It is only when he changes that she really falls for him.
Above all, we love Harold Hill despite his con, and we love Marion for her stubbornness. You can help but cheer for them in the end.
5. Kiss Me, Kate—Here are two titanic personalities who clearly love each other deeply but can’t risk the gamble to admit it. Because of their mutual hard-headedness (or maybe their mutual insecurities), they almost miss out on their chance to have each other forever. Their song “Wunderbar” is beautiful for what it develops, their relationship when they have their guard down. “So In Love” then becomes icing on the cake.
4. Aida—Opposites attract, and when those opposites become not-very-opposite and fall deeply in love, it’s romantic.
Like many great love stories, it starts with the characters. Aida is a wonderful character, and her strength and determination is sexier than however the woman may look who is playing her. Though Radames starts out a jerk, his change is heart makes him a respectable guy (also, we need to remember his kindness to a young Mereb which attests to his inner nice-guys beginnings).
Because we are presented with these two characters we inherently like, we root for their love. It begins as something physical, but it becomes a union of similar personalities, a one-in-a-kind sort of love. Their love is deep, which is defined through several songs, most powerfully “Written in the Stars,” which is passionate even though it is about parting forever.
And yes, I can hardly resist the ending in which they die in each others’ arms.
3. 1776—Here we have a peripheral love story of a married couple separated by many miles, and yet, Edwards and Stone give us several very romantic moments.
John and Abigail Adams have a relationship firmly founded on mutual love and respect, which is always sexy. He huffs and fumes, and she picks on him; it’s a relationship that can only be formed through years of marriage and love. And theirs is a love that has survived separation and strife, only to grow stronger. It’s beautiful when Abigail asks John about the women in Virginia, obviously troubled by the months apart, and, knowing his wife so well, he basically says, “Don’t worry. These women can’t hold a candle to you.” Similarly, when he is in his moment of desperation and everything seems to be caving in, she is there to build him up as well. When she ends the reprise of “Yours, Yours, Yours” with the sending of saltpetre, the subtext of the action is “I love you and believe in you.” That’s more romantic than a kiss or a touch.
If most stories with romance portray the much-desired search for love, then 1776 gives us the love we hope to have forever.
2. Guys and Dolls—While it’s not written as a love song, “Luck Be a Lady” is probably one of the most romantic songs ever to appear on a Broadway stage.
First of all, there’s a romance that develops from dishonorable circumstances which could forever split apart the lovers (and almost does). Sarah Brown is a very sweet and passionate woman who sincerely intends to go great things. I would argue that she is a very modern character. Sky Masterson, while a gambler, is a respectable and honorable fellow. He does take Miss Sarah to Havana and even gets her drunk (unintentionally I believe), but he never intends for it to be harmful. After he realizes that she has downed too many drinks, he takes care of her and keeps her from harm or embarrassment.
When Sarah thinks that Sky has used her and leaves him once they’ve both fallen in love, the audience’s heart aches for these two who people who earnestly love each other but could be forever parted because of a misunderstanding.
That’s why “Luck Be a Lady” is such a romantic song, because of the desperation in which it is sung. Sky realizes he has screwed things up (with Nathan’s help), and this is his one chance to fix things up and get her back.
1. Jane Eyre—I know this’ll be controversial, but I can’t think of a more romantic story ever (and I saw the stage version before I ever picked up the novel, so I didn’t enter the Brooks Atkinson with any novel-based expectations).
It starts with two strong characters. Jane may be ugly, but she is one of the most beautiful women in all literature. I love how strong Jane is. I admire greatly how she refuses to give in to her passions because she realizes that it would betray her conscience and her sense of self-worth. I stand in awe of how she refuses the Rochester family jewels as a sign of her independence and her refusal to lose herself in the signs of wealth. I also adore Jane for her love of knowledge and learning and how that has shaped her view of the world.
Rochester, while certainly flawed, is also a very endearing character in how he treats his women. This complex topic could be discussed in a multi-page analysis, which I’ll forgo, but the fact that he has done his best to take care of Bertha Mason and to honor his wedding vows despite the difficult circumstances in a time when the insane were discarded and locked up under cruel circumstances is very honorable. And while he does attempt the dishonorable by wedding two women, his intentions are pure in his desire to keep both respectable (in a “what you don’t know won’t hurt you” way) and in violating only his own soul.
There’s also romance at the heart of how they meet and live. They both deeply love each other but cannot express it out of fear—Jane’s fear for her appearance and lowly position and Rochester’s fear of his dark secret and Jane’s youth. Then when they finally cross that hurdle, they are almost torn apart forever—each still singularly attached to the other—until a Providential intercession unites them forever. Their love for each other is rich and rooted. Even when circumstances change—Rochester is disfigured and Jane inherits great wealth—their love survives because it springs from their equality in spirit and intellect, their enjoyment of the company of the other.
It doesn’t get much better than this. It really doesn’t.
the Broadway Mouth
October 10, 2007
10. Parade—Even though they are married, Leo and Lucille’s journey forces their awkward relationship to change. She can no longer be a weak Southern Belle, and he can no longer be completely self-sufficient. Through their incredible life circumstances, they both come to love each other passionately. Because of this “All the Wasted Time” is a beautiful expression of their newly re-discovered love.
9. Bells are Ringing—There’s something irresistible about Ella Peterson. She’s extremely cute in how she wants to help everyone and manages win over everyone no matter what she does. While Jeff Moss is falling madly in love with her, it’s hard for us not to as well.
There is also a firm foundation in their relationship. They both need each other. Jeff needs her to help him write his plays, and Ella needs him to have someone to love.
Bells are Ringing has what is probably the most romantic line in any musical, when Jeff says to Ella, “You’re a girl with a lot of love to give. Instead of spreading it around all over the place, give it to me. I need it. I want it.”
That’s like “You complete me” long before Tom Cruise.
8. The Sound of Music—The film adaptation is the quintessential romantic story (and my favorite movie since childhood), and it is also the only case where the movie actually improved upon the Broadway show. But just because the film improves upon the romantic factor by adding location scenes (as well as additional material and re-organizing the songs) which helps create a stronger bond between the children and Maria as well as strengthening the bond between Maria and the Georg, it doesn’t mean that the original stage version doesn’t succeed independently.
There is something incredibly romantic about a love story that includes incredible children. It’s probably part of the happily ever after factor (or in love forever factor) which is so important for a romantic story because here we have one giant happy family when all is said and done. It’s beautiful.
7. Fiddler on the Roof—In our society, we value the concept of love and romance, and yet, we have a huge percentage of love-based relationships ending in divorce. I love in Fiddler on the Roof when Tevye presses Golda to answer, “Do you love me?”
Her response sums it up quite well. She sings, “Do I love him? / For twenty-five years I’ve lived with him, / Fought with him, starved with him. / Twenty-five years my bed is his. / If that’s not love, what is?” Despite my postulations on what makes for a great romantic story, Golda has pretty much summed it up—It’s the daily expressions and motions, the shared experiences, and the drawing closer together that is really what love is about.
The romantic story is also augmented by the experiences of the three daughters. While they are young, they each make severe choices in following their loves, choices rooted in cause and purpose, rather than emotion and whims. You can safely assume that each of these daughters will live with a measure of struggle but also with a life companion to share her pains.
6. The Music Man—You have a conman wanting to take advantage of a seemingly simple small-town woman, even going so far as to praise Hester Prynne for her scarlet letter. However in attempting to woo her in order to deceive her, he falls head-over-heels for her Irish imagination, her Iowa stubbornness, and her library full of books.
Marion is no foolish small town chickie, so when she accepts him for what he’s done for the community in spite of his con, she’s making a conscious decision and not one rooted in romantic notions. It is only when he changes that she really falls for him.
Above all, we love Harold Hill despite his con, and we love Marion for her stubbornness. You can help but cheer for them in the end.
5. Kiss Me, Kate—Here are two titanic personalities who clearly love each other deeply but can’t risk the gamble to admit it. Because of their mutual hard-headedness (or maybe their mutual insecurities), they almost miss out on their chance to have each other forever. Their song “Wunderbar” is beautiful for what it develops, their relationship when they have their guard down. “So In Love” then becomes icing on the cake.
4. Aida—Opposites attract, and when those opposites become not-very-opposite and fall deeply in love, it’s romantic.
Like many great love stories, it starts with the characters. Aida is a wonderful character, and her strength and determination is sexier than however the woman may look who is playing her. Though Radames starts out a jerk, his change is heart makes him a respectable guy (also, we need to remember his kindness to a young Mereb which attests to his inner nice-guys beginnings).
Because we are presented with these two characters we inherently like, we root for their love. It begins as something physical, but it becomes a union of similar personalities, a one-in-a-kind sort of love. Their love is deep, which is defined through several songs, most powerfully “Written in the Stars,” which is passionate even though it is about parting forever.
And yes, I can hardly resist the ending in which they die in each others’ arms.
3. 1776—Here we have a peripheral love story of a married couple separated by many miles, and yet, Edwards and Stone give us several very romantic moments.
John and Abigail Adams have a relationship firmly founded on mutual love and respect, which is always sexy. He huffs and fumes, and she picks on him; it’s a relationship that can only be formed through years of marriage and love. And theirs is a love that has survived separation and strife, only to grow stronger. It’s beautiful when Abigail asks John about the women in Virginia, obviously troubled by the months apart, and, knowing his wife so well, he basically says, “Don’t worry. These women can’t hold a candle to you.” Similarly, when he is in his moment of desperation and everything seems to be caving in, she is there to build him up as well. When she ends the reprise of “Yours, Yours, Yours” with the sending of saltpetre, the subtext of the action is “I love you and believe in you.” That’s more romantic than a kiss or a touch.
If most stories with romance portray the much-desired search for love, then 1776 gives us the love we hope to have forever.
2. Guys and Dolls—While it’s not written as a love song, “Luck Be a Lady” is probably one of the most romantic songs ever to appear on a Broadway stage.
First of all, there’s a romance that develops from dishonorable circumstances which could forever split apart the lovers (and almost does). Sarah Brown is a very sweet and passionate woman who sincerely intends to go great things. I would argue that she is a very modern character. Sky Masterson, while a gambler, is a respectable and honorable fellow. He does take Miss Sarah to Havana and even gets her drunk (unintentionally I believe), but he never intends for it to be harmful. After he realizes that she has downed too many drinks, he takes care of her and keeps her from harm or embarrassment.
When Sarah thinks that Sky has used her and leaves him once they’ve both fallen in love, the audience’s heart aches for these two who people who earnestly love each other but could be forever parted because of a misunderstanding.
That’s why “Luck Be a Lady” is such a romantic song, because of the desperation in which it is sung. Sky realizes he has screwed things up (with Nathan’s help), and this is his one chance to fix things up and get her back.
1. Jane Eyre—I know this’ll be controversial, but I can’t think of a more romantic story ever (and I saw the stage version before I ever picked up the novel, so I didn’t enter the Brooks Atkinson with any novel-based expectations).
It starts with two strong characters. Jane may be ugly, but she is one of the most beautiful women in all literature. I love how strong Jane is. I admire greatly how she refuses to give in to her passions because she realizes that it would betray her conscience and her sense of self-worth. I stand in awe of how she refuses the Rochester family jewels as a sign of her independence and her refusal to lose herself in the signs of wealth. I also adore Jane for her love of knowledge and learning and how that has shaped her view of the world.
Rochester, while certainly flawed, is also a very endearing character in how he treats his women. This complex topic could be discussed in a multi-page analysis, which I’ll forgo, but the fact that he has done his best to take care of Bertha Mason and to honor his wedding vows despite the difficult circumstances in a time when the insane were discarded and locked up under cruel circumstances is very honorable. And while he does attempt the dishonorable by wedding two women, his intentions are pure in his desire to keep both respectable (in a “what you don’t know won’t hurt you” way) and in violating only his own soul.
There’s also romance at the heart of how they meet and live. They both deeply love each other but cannot express it out of fear—Jane’s fear for her appearance and lowly position and Rochester’s fear of his dark secret and Jane’s youth. Then when they finally cross that hurdle, they are almost torn apart forever—each still singularly attached to the other—until a Providential intercession unites them forever. Their love for each other is rich and rooted. Even when circumstances change—Rochester is disfigured and Jane inherits great wealth—their love survives because it springs from their equality in spirit and intellect, their enjoyment of the company of the other.
It doesn’t get much better than this. It really doesn’t.
the Broadway Mouth
October 10, 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Revivals and Revisals: Paint Your Wagon Any Color You Want
Most recently, there has been some talk of a new production of Paint Your Wagon in which the story has apparently been rewritten to remove the polygamy elements while keeping the characters and basic elements of the original story.
I love my Paint Your Wagon CD. There are so many wonderful Lerner and Lowe songs (I can’t get enough of Olga San Juan’s “How Can I Wait?”), but when I read the libretto a couple years ago, it didn’t quite leave me with the same feeling.
Very few of the revivals to hit Broadway do so without some alteration. In Kiss Me, Kate, John Guare was tapped to make some ghost alterations to the Spewack’s original book, including making major changes to the Ron Holgate character as well as interpolating “From This Moment On” from another Porter show. According to Donna Murphy, there were some nips and tucks to Wonderful Town, while the producers of Bells are Ringing brought in Comden and Green to make some lyrics changes. In addition to her usual new orchestrations to open up shows for more dance, Susan Stroman switched around the order of things for The Music Man. Trevor Nunn got the Rodgers and Hammerstein organization to allow for some changes to Oklahoma!, and The Sound of Music revival added the two songs from the film.
Throughout Ken Bloom and Frank Vlastnik’s Broadway Musicals: The Greatest Shows of All Time, Bloom and Vlastnik make a case for keeping classic musicals just as they are, no re-writes, no updates, no edits. For a long time after reading this book for the first time, I felt strongly about that.
But now, I’m honestly torn.
Broadway musicals, in my mind, are like the plays of Tennessee Williams, the novels of Willa Cather, the short stories of Nathaniel Hawthorne. You don’t mess with great pieces of literature. They act as the signature of the writers, and they should be enjoyed and studied without alteration.
But then the truth is that musicals are collaborative pieces. It’s not just Jule Styne and Leo Robin’s songs, it’s also Joseph Fields and Anita Loos’ book, not to mention John C. Wilson’s direction which no doubt guided the whole effort, plus Agnes DeMille’s choreography. Without any one of those pieces, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes could have become a very different piece.
What changed my mind about Bloom and Vlastnik’s assertions was The Boy Friend. I saw the Julie Andrews tour. I was very excited to see it. Because Julie Andrews was on the CD, I had checked it out of the library several times in high school and copied three of the best songs onto a mix tape. Once I got into Broadway musicals, I bought the CD.
There are a lot of fun songs in that show, and from reading the plot synopsis in the liner notes, I had imagined it to be a funny and romantic show along the lines of Guys and Dolls. I even mentioned this to a friend of mine as a possible show I could direct when I was directing high school plays. She had seen the show and said, “I saw that at a high school once, and there was just nothing to it.” I figured she had just seen a dopey production.
Nope. Nope, she didn’t.
I know the show has fans, but when I finally saw it in production, whatever charms it had on the 1950s audience intimately familiar with the 1920s shows to which it was a valentine, was completely lost to the 2000s me. The plot is paper thin and the characters ½-dimensional.
A show simply must appeal to a modern audience. Theatre is not a museum. So, if that show contains sexist or racial caricatures no longer acceptable or jokes and plotting that wouldn’t connect with a modern audience, then the show needs to either be shelved or altered.
The problem is either when the music is so good or the book is so good except for “that one element” (or is great in summary but not in execution). One could argue that these are the exact reasons why Encores or Reprise exists, to showcase great music from shows that don’t get much play anymore, usually because of out-dated or clunky books.
However, there are millions upon millions of people without access to Encores or Reprise, yours truly being one of them. In its short run, more people saw the Sweet Charity revival (myself included) than could have ever have seen it in an Encores or Reprise production.
That is not to say that all changes are necessary. There is a big difference when “I’m an Indian Too” is excised because it requires Native American stereotypes that will turn off the wealthy, well-educated audience that supports Broadway, and when new songs are inserted in The Pajama Game for no apparent reason.
Honestly, there are many changes made for artistic interpretation of the director. That’s where I have issues. Nobody takes a great modern play, like The Crucible, and begins to add re-writes and switch things around because of their own artistic interpretation. This classic piece of literature, particularly now that Arthur Miller has died, is considered “locked.” Tennessee Williams isn’t around to makes alterations to Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, so nobody else will be allowed to. The director works to interpret what the playwright has given him or her. Like all great literature, it still leaves room for interpretation—is Brick gay or is he straight?—but it does so within the intents of the playwright.
I think of the Trevor Nunn Oklahoma! preserved so beautifully on DVD. As far as I can tell, the changes to that production were essentially interpretative changes—Trevor Nunn saying, “If I had originally directed this, here’s what I would have done.” But, I would say, “You didn’t, and you are compromising the playwrights’ intentions.”
That is really one of the key problems with much of the criticism on message boards. The harshness often comes not from “Where did this production go wrong” as much as “Here’s what I would have done, which is obviously infinitely better.” The problem arises when it results in the compromising of great American works of art.
But then you do have a problem when the shows become museum pieces. Should no one ever hear those great Cy Coleman and Carolyn Leigh Wildcat songs live because the libretto is reportedly weak?
A good example of this is with Richard M. and Robert B. Sherman’s Over Here!, which has a libretto by Will Holt. If you read the synopsis in the liner notes, the show sounds like tons of fun. However, if you read the libretto—published by Samuel French, so you can actually order it and read it—the show is written to the people who lived during World War II. It has a “remember the good old days” aura about it.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t remember the good old days. The good old days to me are Saved by the Bell. And, I don’t think there are tons of people who remember those good old days left to fill a theatre for a long run.
It would be my dream to write a modern musical comedy libretto for Over Here! using the old songs (and probably needing a few more added) to make it palatable for modern audiences, allowing audience to hear that great music again.
Did I mention I would love to see Paint Your Wagon on stage in an entertaining form?
But there I go contradicting myself. Bad, bad Broadway Mouth.
In the end, it’s all about money. Who wants it and who is willing to sacrifice grandpa’s work to get more of it? If I ever get a show or eight on Broadway, I hope to God my grandchildren aren’t bastardizing my work to send their children through college. But then, I also hope I write shows that are timeless enough to survive decades untouched.
the Broadway Mouth
September 26, 2007
I love my Paint Your Wagon CD. There are so many wonderful Lerner and Lowe songs (I can’t get enough of Olga San Juan’s “How Can I Wait?”), but when I read the libretto a couple years ago, it didn’t quite leave me with the same feeling.
Very few of the revivals to hit Broadway do so without some alteration. In Kiss Me, Kate, John Guare was tapped to make some ghost alterations to the Spewack’s original book, including making major changes to the Ron Holgate character as well as interpolating “From This Moment On” from another Porter show. According to Donna Murphy, there were some nips and tucks to Wonderful Town, while the producers of Bells are Ringing brought in Comden and Green to make some lyrics changes. In addition to her usual new orchestrations to open up shows for more dance, Susan Stroman switched around the order of things for The Music Man. Trevor Nunn got the Rodgers and Hammerstein organization to allow for some changes to Oklahoma!, and The Sound of Music revival added the two songs from the film.
Throughout Ken Bloom and Frank Vlastnik’s Broadway Musicals: The Greatest Shows of All Time, Bloom and Vlastnik make a case for keeping classic musicals just as they are, no re-writes, no updates, no edits. For a long time after reading this book for the first time, I felt strongly about that.
But now, I’m honestly torn.
Broadway musicals, in my mind, are like the plays of Tennessee Williams, the novels of Willa Cather, the short stories of Nathaniel Hawthorne. You don’t mess with great pieces of literature. They act as the signature of the writers, and they should be enjoyed and studied without alteration.
But then the truth is that musicals are collaborative pieces. It’s not just Jule Styne and Leo Robin’s songs, it’s also Joseph Fields and Anita Loos’ book, not to mention John C. Wilson’s direction which no doubt guided the whole effort, plus Agnes DeMille’s choreography. Without any one of those pieces, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes could have become a very different piece.
What changed my mind about Bloom and Vlastnik’s assertions was The Boy Friend. I saw the Julie Andrews tour. I was very excited to see it. Because Julie Andrews was on the CD, I had checked it out of the library several times in high school and copied three of the best songs onto a mix tape. Once I got into Broadway musicals, I bought the CD.
There are a lot of fun songs in that show, and from reading the plot synopsis in the liner notes, I had imagined it to be a funny and romantic show along the lines of Guys and Dolls. I even mentioned this to a friend of mine as a possible show I could direct when I was directing high school plays. She had seen the show and said, “I saw that at a high school once, and there was just nothing to it.” I figured she had just seen a dopey production.
Nope. Nope, she didn’t.
I know the show has fans, but when I finally saw it in production, whatever charms it had on the 1950s audience intimately familiar with the 1920s shows to which it was a valentine, was completely lost to the 2000s me. The plot is paper thin and the characters ½-dimensional.
A show simply must appeal to a modern audience. Theatre is not a museum. So, if that show contains sexist or racial caricatures no longer acceptable or jokes and plotting that wouldn’t connect with a modern audience, then the show needs to either be shelved or altered.
The problem is either when the music is so good or the book is so good except for “that one element” (or is great in summary but not in execution). One could argue that these are the exact reasons why Encores or Reprise exists, to showcase great music from shows that don’t get much play anymore, usually because of out-dated or clunky books.
However, there are millions upon millions of people without access to Encores or Reprise, yours truly being one of them. In its short run, more people saw the Sweet Charity revival (myself included) than could have ever have seen it in an Encores or Reprise production.
That is not to say that all changes are necessary. There is a big difference when “I’m an Indian Too” is excised because it requires Native American stereotypes that will turn off the wealthy, well-educated audience that supports Broadway, and when new songs are inserted in The Pajama Game for no apparent reason.
Honestly, there are many changes made for artistic interpretation of the director. That’s where I have issues. Nobody takes a great modern play, like The Crucible, and begins to add re-writes and switch things around because of their own artistic interpretation. This classic piece of literature, particularly now that Arthur Miller has died, is considered “locked.” Tennessee Williams isn’t around to makes alterations to Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, so nobody else will be allowed to. The director works to interpret what the playwright has given him or her. Like all great literature, it still leaves room for interpretation—is Brick gay or is he straight?—but it does so within the intents of the playwright.
I think of the Trevor Nunn Oklahoma! preserved so beautifully on DVD. As far as I can tell, the changes to that production were essentially interpretative changes—Trevor Nunn saying, “If I had originally directed this, here’s what I would have done.” But, I would say, “You didn’t, and you are compromising the playwrights’ intentions.”
That is really one of the key problems with much of the criticism on message boards. The harshness often comes not from “Where did this production go wrong” as much as “Here’s what I would have done, which is obviously infinitely better.” The problem arises when it results in the compromising of great American works of art.
But then you do have a problem when the shows become museum pieces. Should no one ever hear those great Cy Coleman and Carolyn Leigh Wildcat songs live because the libretto is reportedly weak?
A good example of this is with Richard M. and Robert B. Sherman’s Over Here!, which has a libretto by Will Holt. If you read the synopsis in the liner notes, the show sounds like tons of fun. However, if you read the libretto—published by Samuel French, so you can actually order it and read it—the show is written to the people who lived during World War II. It has a “remember the good old days” aura about it.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t remember the good old days. The good old days to me are Saved by the Bell. And, I don’t think there are tons of people who remember those good old days left to fill a theatre for a long run.
It would be my dream to write a modern musical comedy libretto for Over Here! using the old songs (and probably needing a few more added) to make it palatable for modern audiences, allowing audience to hear that great music again.
Did I mention I would love to see Paint Your Wagon on stage in an entertaining form?
But there I go contradicting myself. Bad, bad Broadway Mouth.
In the end, it’s all about money. Who wants it and who is willing to sacrifice grandpa’s work to get more of it? If I ever get a show or eight on Broadway, I hope to God my grandchildren aren’t bastardizing my work to send their children through college. But then, I also hope I write shows that are timeless enough to survive decades untouched.
the Broadway Mouth
September 26, 2007
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Amazing Broadway Performer: JoAnn M. Hunter
Here was another one of those cases of the understudy making you forget you were seeing an understudy. JoAnn M. Hunter, who later took over the role, was my Lois Lane when I saw Kiss Me, Kate on Broadway.
It was an electric performance, her Lois Lane a comedic delight full of stage presence and charm. Like I had mentioned in an earlier blog, this was the first Broadway show I saw where it featured significant dancing of this type—numbers that weren’t largely driven by an entire chorus on stage. It was awesome to see JoAnn M. Hunter doing her thing with such skill and flair.
I laughed so hard at her Lois, whom she made not only a few seats short of a full house but charming and sympathetic as well. Her “Always True to You (In My Fashion)” was a comedic delight.
When I met Ms. Hunter outside the stage door, I still remember how in awe I was of her talents. Plus, she was incredibly kind, which is always a bonus.
The Internet Broadway Database indicates that in recent years, the uber-talented Ms. Hunter has moved into taking on creative roles behind-the-scenes. I hope that doesn’t signal an end to her great career onstage.
Getting to Know You Interview: Why hasn’t anyone interviewed this amazing talent?
the Broadway Mouth
September 11, 2007
It was an electric performance, her Lois Lane a comedic delight full of stage presence and charm. Like I had mentioned in an earlier blog, this was the first Broadway show I saw where it featured significant dancing of this type—numbers that weren’t largely driven by an entire chorus on stage. It was awesome to see JoAnn M. Hunter doing her thing with such skill and flair.
I laughed so hard at her Lois, whom she made not only a few seats short of a full house but charming and sympathetic as well. Her “Always True to You (In My Fashion)” was a comedic delight.
When I met Ms. Hunter outside the stage door, I still remember how in awe I was of her talents. Plus, she was incredibly kind, which is always a bonus.
The Internet Broadway Database indicates that in recent years, the uber-talented Ms. Hunter has moved into taking on creative roles behind-the-scenes. I hope that doesn’t signal an end to her great career onstage.
Getting to Know You Interview: Why hasn’t anyone interviewed this amazing talent?
the Broadway Mouth
September 11, 2007
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Amazing Broadway Performer: Michael Berresse
I was mesmerized when walking out of Kiss Me, Kate on Broadway. What a fantastic show! And Michael Berresse, what a fantastic performer!
Prior to this, I don’t think I had really seen a Broadway show where it featured significant dancing of this type—numbers that weren’t largely driven by an entire chorus on stage. Michael Berresse was phenomenal as Bill Calhoun, and I left the (then) Martin Beck Theatre in awe of his multiple talents.
First of all, what a dancer! Unfortunately, our society nowadays—due to inaccurate stereotypes from all sorts of sources—characterizes male dance as less-than-masculine, despite the obvious physicality required to pull off lifts and all those crazy things dancers do that I can’t name. I loved that Michael Berresse gave Bill Calhoun a distinct masculinity in his movement. Even excellent dancers can lose character in their great desire to have perfect form. Somehow, Michael Berresse blended form and characterization perfectly. In watching the DVD in which Michael Berresse recreates his New York role, he truly comes across as one of those great dancers from “back in the day.” It was like he danced right out of one of those wonderful Technicolor musical spectaculars and onto the Martin Beck stage.
Best of all, Berresse is a triple threat. As you can tell, I love triple threats (though, don’t we all). I love hearing him on the Kiss Me, Kate CD, and he knocked that role out of the park in acting it. I vividly recall seeing him deliver just the first few lines and having a strong grasp of Bill Calhoun’s character.
After I saw the show, there was quite a line of people outside the stage door. If I wasn’t already in awe of Michael Berresse, he was also so incredibly kind outside of the stage door. There were all these dance girls on vacation, Broadway fanatics like myself, and average Joes in the audience all wanting to meet him, and he was so incredibly kind, gracious, and genuine to everyone.
I actually sat through all of A.I. to see Michael Berresse, who was great in his small role. If anyone reading this saw that movie, they know what a sacrifice that was!
Likewise, I’m not super-interested in seeing A Chorus Line as a show (though, maybe that community theatre production I experienced just didn’t do the concept justice), but I would go in a heartbeat for the chance to see Michael Berresse dance (and sing and act) in person again.
Getting to Know You Interview: http://www.playbill.com/celebritybuzz/article/97702.html
the Broadway Mouth
September 8, 2007
Prior to this, I don’t think I had really seen a Broadway show where it featured significant dancing of this type—numbers that weren’t largely driven by an entire chorus on stage. Michael Berresse was phenomenal as Bill Calhoun, and I left the (then) Martin Beck Theatre in awe of his multiple talents.
First of all, what a dancer! Unfortunately, our society nowadays—due to inaccurate stereotypes from all sorts of sources—characterizes male dance as less-than-masculine, despite the obvious physicality required to pull off lifts and all those crazy things dancers do that I can’t name. I loved that Michael Berresse gave Bill Calhoun a distinct masculinity in his movement. Even excellent dancers can lose character in their great desire to have perfect form. Somehow, Michael Berresse blended form and characterization perfectly. In watching the DVD in which Michael Berresse recreates his New York role, he truly comes across as one of those great dancers from “back in the day.” It was like he danced right out of one of those wonderful Technicolor musical spectaculars and onto the Martin Beck stage.
Best of all, Berresse is a triple threat. As you can tell, I love triple threats (though, don’t we all). I love hearing him on the Kiss Me, Kate CD, and he knocked that role out of the park in acting it. I vividly recall seeing him deliver just the first few lines and having a strong grasp of Bill Calhoun’s character.
After I saw the show, there was quite a line of people outside the stage door. If I wasn’t already in awe of Michael Berresse, he was also so incredibly kind outside of the stage door. There were all these dance girls on vacation, Broadway fanatics like myself, and average Joes in the audience all wanting to meet him, and he was so incredibly kind, gracious, and genuine to everyone.
I actually sat through all of A.I. to see Michael Berresse, who was great in his small role. If anyone reading this saw that movie, they know what a sacrifice that was!
Likewise, I’m not super-interested in seeing A Chorus Line as a show (though, maybe that community theatre production I experienced just didn’t do the concept justice), but I would go in a heartbeat for the chance to see Michael Berresse dance (and sing and act) in person again.
Getting to Know You Interview: http://www.playbill.com/celebritybuzz/article/97702.html
the Broadway Mouth
September 8, 2007
Monday, August 27, 2007
Amazing Broadway Performer: Brian Stokes Mitchell
I don’t know how a theatre can contain Brian Stokes Mitchell. All these years after getting to see him in Kiss Me, Kate, I still remember how his characterization filled the (then) Martin Beck Theatre. Seeing him perform as Fred Graham was electrifying, particularly to someone like myself who, at the time, was not used to witnessing a performance of that magnitude. Hearing him belt out those magnificent Cole Porter tunes, making me both laugh out loud and feel strongly for his relationship with Lilli, was an unforgettable experience.
It was only when looking at his Playbill credits that I realized I had encountered Mitchell before, singing for Danny Glover the outstanding Stephen Schwartz song “Through Heaven’s Eyes” in The Prince of Egypt. His voice has the grandeur that the character requires but pulls out the warmth and intimacy the song needs. The CD is filled with great Stephen Schwartz music, but Mitchell’s “Through Heaven’s Eyes” is definitely a highlight.
The only other performance of Brian Stokes Mitchel’s that I’ve been fortunate enough to see was in Ragtime through the Lincoln Center theatre archives. What a powerful performance. The OBCR is a fantastic keepsake of that awesome performance, but getting to see the whole performance—wow. It was one thing to hear Coalhouse acquiesce to Booker T. Washington, but to see the character agonizing over the decision, to feel the tension in the air . . . It’s no wonder that his performance in Ragtime propelled Mitchell into Broadway super-stardom.
Website: http://www.will-harris.com/stokes.html
the Broadway Mouth
August 28, 2007
It was only when looking at his Playbill credits that I realized I had encountered Mitchell before, singing for Danny Glover the outstanding Stephen Schwartz song “Through Heaven’s Eyes” in The Prince of Egypt. His voice has the grandeur that the character requires but pulls out the warmth and intimacy the song needs. The CD is filled with great Stephen Schwartz music, but Mitchell’s “Through Heaven’s Eyes” is definitely a highlight.
The only other performance of Brian Stokes Mitchel’s that I’ve been fortunate enough to see was in Ragtime through the Lincoln Center theatre archives. What a powerful performance. The OBCR is a fantastic keepsake of that awesome performance, but getting to see the whole performance—wow. It was one thing to hear Coalhouse acquiesce to Booker T. Washington, but to see the character agonizing over the decision, to feel the tension in the air . . . It’s no wonder that his performance in Ragtime propelled Mitchell into Broadway super-stardom.
Website: http://www.will-harris.com/stokes.html
the Broadway Mouth
August 28, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Amazing Broadway Performer: Rachel York
What’s so great about Rachel York, among many other things, is the versatility in her voice. She has the big Broadway soprano sound that allows her to do the classic shows like Kiss Me, Kate, but she’s also got the belt that allows her to give passion to contemporary roles like Marguerite in The Scarlet Pimpernel or to do a comedic role like her turn as Christine Colgate in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.
I saw Rachel York in Kiss Me, Kate on tour, and I love revisiting that performance on the DVD recording of the London production. First of all, she’s just so beautiful, but then she has the comedic bite to tear into Lilli Vanessi and pull out all the laughs and the romance.
One of my favorite listens is her songs on the encore CD of The Scarlet Pimpernel. Her “I’ll Forget You” is loaded with such passion and longing that it makes me wish shows with such epic scores were still being produced to give York a chance to do more of those sorts of roles.
Website: http://www.rachelyork.net/
the Broadway Mouth
August 22, 2007
I saw Rachel York in Kiss Me, Kate on tour, and I love revisiting that performance on the DVD recording of the London production. First of all, she’s just so beautiful, but then she has the comedic bite to tear into Lilli Vanessi and pull out all the laughs and the romance.
One of my favorite listens is her songs on the encore CD of The Scarlet Pimpernel. Her “I’ll Forget You” is loaded with such passion and longing that it makes me wish shows with such epic scores were still being produced to give York a chance to do more of those sorts of roles.
Website: http://www.rachelyork.net/
the Broadway Mouth
August 22, 2007
Monday, August 20, 2007
Amazing Broadway Performer: Marin Mazzie
I think heaven will be full of angels singing like Marin Mazzie. I have a feeling they won’t be singing “I Hate Men” (or I hope they won’t), but they’ll probably sound something like her.
Kiss Me, Kate was my second show on Broadway, and Marin Mazzie blew me away. First of all, let’s just be frank, she looks amazing. She doesn’t even have to sing to take your breath away.
But then when she does sing, she’s so powerful and has such a beautiful quality. I think it’s a testament to the amazing quality in her voice that she can sing “I Am Ashamed That Women Are So Simple,” and you can ignore the sentiment of the lyrics and get swept away by the beauty of the language and the melody.
Plus she’s so versatile. In Kiss Me, Kate, she was a comedic tour de force, coupled with genuine romantic appeal. But then in Ragtime, which I viewed at the Lincoln Center archives, she gave an entirely different type of performance, a moving dramatic portrayal filled with nuance. Her rendition of “Back to Before” is one of my favorite Broadway songs ever. I’ve often been known to skip to that track and blast it in my car, allowing Mazzie’s huge voice and passion to fill me. How I wish I could have seen that performance live!
Fortunately, I’ve also been able to see Marin Mazzie in the DVD of Stephen Sondheim’s Passion, another beautifully sung and brilliantly acted performance we should all be thankful was preserved for repeated viewing.
I can’t mention Marin Mazzie without remembering the performances preserved for the two My Favorite Broadway DVDs. She sings four times on the two DVDs, each an awesome performance, but my particular favorites are getting to see her sing “So In Love” on The Love Songs and “Unexpected Song” from the Lloyd Webber Love Trio on The Leading Ladies, brilliantly performed solo and then with Audra McDonald and Judy Kuhn. You can’t die without hearing that performance.
Website: http://www.marinmazzie.com/
the Broadway Mouth
August 20, 2007
Kiss Me, Kate was my second show on Broadway, and Marin Mazzie blew me away. First of all, let’s just be frank, she looks amazing. She doesn’t even have to sing to take your breath away.
But then when she does sing, she’s so powerful and has such a beautiful quality. I think it’s a testament to the amazing quality in her voice that she can sing “I Am Ashamed That Women Are So Simple,” and you can ignore the sentiment of the lyrics and get swept away by the beauty of the language and the melody.
Plus she’s so versatile. In Kiss Me, Kate, she was a comedic tour de force, coupled with genuine romantic appeal. But then in Ragtime, which I viewed at the Lincoln Center archives, she gave an entirely different type of performance, a moving dramatic portrayal filled with nuance. Her rendition of “Back to Before” is one of my favorite Broadway songs ever. I’ve often been known to skip to that track and blast it in my car, allowing Mazzie’s huge voice and passion to fill me. How I wish I could have seen that performance live!
Fortunately, I’ve also been able to see Marin Mazzie in the DVD of Stephen Sondheim’s Passion, another beautifully sung and brilliantly acted performance we should all be thankful was preserved for repeated viewing.
I can’t mention Marin Mazzie without remembering the performances preserved for the two My Favorite Broadway DVDs. She sings four times on the two DVDs, each an awesome performance, but my particular favorites are getting to see her sing “So In Love” on The Love Songs and “Unexpected Song” from the Lloyd Webber Love Trio on The Leading Ladies, brilliantly performed solo and then with Audra McDonald and Judy Kuhn. You can’t die without hearing that performance.
Website: http://www.marinmazzie.com/
the Broadway Mouth
August 20, 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
Amazing Broadway Performer: Chuck Wagner
People say that they don’t make ‘em like John Raitt anymore. Actually they do. His name is Chuck Wagner.
Now, I don’t mean to cheapen Chuck Wagner’s immense talent by comparing him to other talented performers, but what I mean is that he’s got that classic booming baritone voice, spot-on acting talent, and classic masculinity.
In addition to seeing him on the video of Into the Woods, I have been very fortunate that Chuck Wagner tours. I was first introduced to him in Jekyll and Hyde, opposite the formidable talents of Sharon Brown and Andrea Rivette. I was still a young, uneducated theatre-goer, but I remember the impression his performance left on me, that his Jekyll/Hyde was amazing. Even then, I could appreciate the magnitude of his performance. I hoped beyond hope that he’d get to do the show on Broadway by the time I made my first trip there. He didn’t get the chance, but whenever I listen to the OBC, I can’t help but remember Chuck Wagner’s great performance.
My most recent experience with Chuck Wagner was as Harrison Howell in the tour of Kiss Me, Kate, where he stole the show nightly with Rachel York in “From This Moment On.” Here was the same man playing a character completely different from Jekyll/Hyde in a show that was completely different from Jekyll and Hyde. As Harrison Howell, he was a hilarious buffoon, completely different from the tortured, sensuous character I’d seen prior. It was the producers’ sad loss that he was not cast as Fred Graham, where his amazing voice would have rightfully filled the theatre.
Whenever I play the dream casting game in my head, Chuck Wagner seems to always find a role—opposite Marla Shaffel in a tour of Jane Eyre, as Carl-Magnus in the revival of A Little Night Music, as a replacement King Triton in The Little Mermaid on Broadway, as someone in a regional production of 1776, Officer Lockstock in Urinetown, and others.
His self-named solo album is an exceptional recording, seeking to present great contemporary theatre songs with character-driven interpretations. Until he gets a shot at that next great role, it’ll have to suffice.
Website: http://www.chuckwagner.com/
Broadway Mouth
July 12, 2007
Now, I don’t mean to cheapen Chuck Wagner’s immense talent by comparing him to other talented performers, but what I mean is that he’s got that classic booming baritone voice, spot-on acting talent, and classic masculinity.
In addition to seeing him on the video of Into the Woods, I have been very fortunate that Chuck Wagner tours. I was first introduced to him in Jekyll and Hyde, opposite the formidable talents of Sharon Brown and Andrea Rivette. I was still a young, uneducated theatre-goer, but I remember the impression his performance left on me, that his Jekyll/Hyde was amazing. Even then, I could appreciate the magnitude of his performance. I hoped beyond hope that he’d get to do the show on Broadway by the time I made my first trip there. He didn’t get the chance, but whenever I listen to the OBC, I can’t help but remember Chuck Wagner’s great performance.
My most recent experience with Chuck Wagner was as Harrison Howell in the tour of Kiss Me, Kate, where he stole the show nightly with Rachel York in “From This Moment On.” Here was the same man playing a character completely different from Jekyll/Hyde in a show that was completely different from Jekyll and Hyde. As Harrison Howell, he was a hilarious buffoon, completely different from the tortured, sensuous character I’d seen prior. It was the producers’ sad loss that he was not cast as Fred Graham, where his amazing voice would have rightfully filled the theatre.
Whenever I play the dream casting game in my head, Chuck Wagner seems to always find a role—opposite Marla Shaffel in a tour of Jane Eyre, as Carl-Magnus in the revival of A Little Night Music, as a replacement King Triton in The Little Mermaid on Broadway, as someone in a regional production of 1776, Officer Lockstock in Urinetown, and others.
His self-named solo album is an exceptional recording, seeking to present great contemporary theatre songs with character-driven interpretations. Until he gets a shot at that next great role, it’ll have to suffice.
Website: http://www.chuckwagner.com/
Broadway Mouth
July 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
