Hamilton: The American Revolution

Nothing else currently on Broadway both honors our country's history and speaks to the ugly state of the Union today than Hamilton. Resist and revolt. It's how we were born, and it's how we will survive.

Have a safe, relaxing 4th of July. And fight.

"Immigrants. We get the job done!"

When "The Best" Isn't Your "Favorite"

POSE!

Over 35 years (gulp!) of theater-going, I've developed my own tastes and set of standards when it comes to what I like, love and hate in shows. I've learned that my tastes sometimes jibe with critical and popular consensus, and many times they don't. I've learned that there are usually many things to like and appreciate in any show, love it or hate it. Most importantly, I've learned that there is enough room in my heart to truly love  shows that are a silly, feel-good time, just as much as artistic, cerebral pieces that push the art form. Yes, it is possible for me to adore Xanadu and Mamma Mia!  just as much as I adore Next to Normal and Fun Home.

Accepting that self-truth is very freeing - it virtually wipes away any predispositions I have, and it definitely lets me attend each show with as open a mind as I can.  But it also opens up a bigger chance for disappointment come awards season.  I mean that often the "fun" and marginally acclaimed shows are wholly dismissed, ignoring the fact that even a complete flop can have award-worthy elements. (There are exceptions, of course, particularly in a weak season, but my generalization is largely still true.)

POSE!

Case in point: The 2015-2016 Season: The Year of Hamilton.

Now, don't misunderstand. I respect Hamilton for everything it is and how it has become a permanent part of popular culture.  It earned and deserved all 16 of its Tony-nominations, and maybe a few more.  It is groundbreaking in several ways, not just its casting, and the sheer detail in its staging is impressive.  It speaks to our past, certainly, and it is exceptionally timely for today. It clearly strikes a nerve for most people.  I enjoyed it very much.

But I was also frustrated by it. Much of the sound of the score is a too-close rehash of In The Heights, a show I enjoyed more than Hamilton, and it feels repetitive even when you know it probably isn't.  Maybe that's because, as thoroughly staged as it is, the choreography consists of about a dozen or so moves played out in endless variations. (Cats did that decades before.)  And again, because it is so relentlessly staged, I began to realize that every song in this through-composed piece was treated like a "big number," where every single movement, inflection and lighting change is calculated only to get us to the next "button": the cast goes into a defiant stance, with a jutted chin and smug, self-congratulatory smirks, add a light pulse....and POSE! Applause. Sing. Repeat. In short, it is an impressive, but ultimately cold machine. (Though there is, I'll admit, a comfort and pleasure in a show that does all of the work for you.)

... and...POSE!

GREED

Even as Hamilton continues to pop up daily in conversation (heck, when my dad knows it exists, you know it is big) and elsewhere - sitcom references, Jeopardy categories, Wheel of Fortune puzzles, etc. - all these years later, that is not the show that I think of frequently. My absolutely favorite show of that season wasn't even nominated for Best Musical. It didn't compete in any of the "major" categories, either.  I'm talking about the amazing American Psycho.

If Hamilton proves you can make a bygone era a relevant, sexy and stylishly fashionable celebration of what is good, American Psycho proved a bygone era could be a relevant, stylishly terrifying reminder of all that was bad with our society may still be bad. Like Hamilton, American Psycho also fully committed to its concept, in this case, a sterile world that shocked as it jerked the audience between an excessive reality and a demented alt-reality, part drug induced haze, part psychotic break.  Sometimes the shifts were humorous, others were jarring and disorienting, still others were downright scary.  But all served the story and the point of view of the main character.  It left you wondering what, if anything you just witnessed "really" happened.  It is that uncertainty that was the thrill for me.  Leaving a show feeling that exhilaration that you've just gone somewhere you've never gone before is what I hope for every time I take my seat and the house lights dim. (There is, for me, an even greater comfort in a show that asks the audience to be fully present and thinking.)

PRIVILEGE

With Hamilton, distance lends enchantment and perspective.  Applying modern conventions - hip hop, rap, rock and theater music, and rather poignant (and pointed) non-traditional casting - heightens the need to recall our country's founding, to celebrate the diversity that makes our country truly great, and to recognize how much further we have to go.  American Psycho was also a cautionary tale, that, sadly, prophesied that the future was about to repeat itself.  Looking back on it, the cast was decidedly "traditional," and in a setting not that far in the past, it was a scathing commentary on white male privilege, greed and excess.

EXCESS

By the time it was over, we saw nearly naked, perfectly toned bodies bathed in blood which seemed crazy and a little hard to witness.  Uncomfortable laughs greeted these scenes - you laughed so you didn't scream, and/or so you could put off the nagging thought that maybe upper class had/has it coming.

Timing, they say, is everything.  Had the show opened in the fall of 2016 or later, maybe American Psycho would have fared better.  Never meant to be easy on the audience, the show would not likely be a long runner in any event, but he onus of not having to fight the PR for Hamilton might have helped this unique production from getting lost in the shuffle.

More importantly, when the show was on the boards, we were in the throes of the ugly presidential campaign, and we naively thought there was just no way the very symbol of 80's excess and white privilege could actually win the election, let alone unleash conservative hell upon us.  The Trump jokes elicited hearty laughs. We got the joke. Had the show opened 6 months later, it would have been truly terrifying because then we'd know we were living it all over again. For real.

It's all about perspective...

SIDE NOTE: Had I been reviewing shows when I saw them: Hamilton (A) and American Psycho (A+)

REVIEW: Amazing Grace

Review of the Sunday, July 12 matinee preview performance at the Nederlander Theatre in New York City. Starring Josh Young, Erin Mackey, Tom Hewitt, Chuck Cooper, Chris Hoch, Stanley Bahorek, Harriett D. Foy, Laiona Michelle, Rachael Ferrera, and Elizabeth Ward Land. Book by Christopher Smith and Arthur Giron. Music and lyrics by Christopher Smith. Choreography by Christopher Gattelli.  Direction by Gabriel Barre. 2 hours 40 minutes, including one intermission.


Although it is the best part of the whole show, Amazing Grace is not really about the song and how it was created.  No, it is about John Newton, a real scum of a guy, who, if we are to believe the story that opened last night at the Nederlander Theatre, was brought into the light of righteousness by a bolt of lightning while strapped to a ship mast.  Divine intervention? I doubt it, since in real life Newton continued his scumbag ways as a clergyman/slave trader long after the incidents portrayed on stage.  But it sure makes for some drama and - at the Sunday matinee I attended, anyway - cause for some religious calls to glory.  Unfortunately, the show by newbie Christopher Smith (music, lyrics and co-book writer with Arthur Giron), is yet another one of those where you can see flashes of "what could have been" coupled with a ton of playing it safe.  The result is an alternately interesting, pleasant, and (mostly) boring production.

First, let's give credit where credit is due.  First and foremost, the title number has probably some of the best vocal direction/orchestration elements in any show currently on the boards - the cast sings it perfectly, and it is rousing.  Not rousing enough to warrant people standing and applauding while it goes on (a disturbing and decreasingly effective trend in audience adoration), but it is music to the ears, for sure.  The downside is the straight-on delivery of the company who look less reverent and more smug and self-satisfied than they should.  Most of the music in the rest of the score, too, is appropriately moody and definitely interesting to hear.  (I'll be kind and simply say that the lyrics (title song excepted) rhyme like a child's book of poetry, with nothing clever or profound to add to the show. At. All.) And Smith doesn't shy away from the unpleasantness of the topic, including a rather frank examination of the slave trade very often overlooked in history classes: that the British and American colonists (largely absent here) were not the only bad guys.  The book offers several scenes that depict the African royalty as complicit in sending their own people on to those ships. Also, the technical elements are quite good, especially Toni-Leslie James' lovely period costumes, Ken Billington and Paul Miller's exciting lighting, and Jon Weston's clear-as-a-bell sound.

As I said, there are a few moments where you can see just how great this show could have been.  There is the chilling opening visual: dancers in silhouette against the Union Jack, who morph startlingly into captive slaves.  And the gritty confrontation between a life-long slave (the always amazing - and woefully under-utilized - Chuck Cooper) and his absolution-seeking master (more on Josh Young later) is a stirring, brilliantly acted scene.  No one in the cast is really bad, actually; most of them are doing the best they can with the material they were given.

The set by the legendary Eugene Lee and Edward Pierce, however, must have looked good on paper, but the massive brown-ness and austerity of it is boring to look at, its scope and purpose likely diminished by the inconsistency of director Gabriel Barre, who at times seems to be directing an epic adventure, then an intimate chamber piece, then campy send-up of epic adventures/chamber piece.  This lack of unity forces the design to be an everyman workhorse, satisfying rarely, and mostly at odds with the story.

Barre has staged some scenes very effectively, bringing clarity to scenes that take place in different locales simultaneously.  Similarly, he has guided his actors to compartmentalize their performances.  The result is efficient, but lacking any real bite or depth.  Cooper is sympathetic from the get-go, the lovely Erin Mackey is a feisty ingenue, but her character's "smarts" are at odds with her actions - it is never entirely clear why she sticks with such a jerk (I'm being kind) as John Newton when he embodies all that she loathes about society.  And, despite wonderful performances from both (you can't help but like them), the evil princess played by Harriet D. Foy, and the priggish dandy officer played by Chris Hoch are little more than campy fun in a deadly serious world. And, as expected, Tom Hewitt is playing yet another tired iteration of his Scar from The Lion King.

Naturally, this fragmentation is not entirely Barre or his casts' fault, either, as Smith and Giron's book is all over the map to begin with, hovering somewhere between a safe Wonderful World of Disney live-action historical drama, a Hallmark Hall of Fame "important" drama, and, rarely, a hard-hitting expose on one of history's darkest chapters (the branding of slaves is pretty realistic here and hard to forget).  So it's no wonder that there seems to be 4 different shows going on at the same time.

The one constant through-thread of the piece is John Newton, and, to be frank, I just didn't care about him.  As written, he is a self-involved, self-pitying asshole of a guy who was all about himself centuries before it was the cool thing to be.  And by the time it finally gets around to his big "redemption," I simply didn't care.  Or believe him.  A lot of that has to do with a script that paints him as an evil bastard all the way until the last scenes, when all of a sudden we are supposed to see the sinner reversed and the saint shine through.  Too rushed, and too little, too late. (Tacking on the biggest contribution to the world he made as an after-thought/finale number doesn't help, since we are supposed to think what we saw made him write such a profound song, but all I kept thinking was, "what a great way to get out of all the crap you did for most of your life.")

Book and direction issues aside, the biggest problem with the show is a leading man who is so one-note, it is almost laughable.  Josh Young sings every song perfectly, and you can hear the money notes coming a mile away.  And he swaggers about the stage with a fierce seriousness, and an unrelenting earnestness. When he's angry, he shouts, when he's beaten down, he cowers, etc.  And, having sat in the second row (great rush seats, btw!), I can tell you Young is an excellent crier.  In fact, there were tears in his eyes in nearly every scene, justified or not.  The performance was exactly what most people have come to expect - sing it loud, with a decent vibrato and strut in fun costumes, and you deserve a standing-o and all "whaoo!"s a body can scream, right?  The truth is, this is a performance that TV shows like Saturday Night Live conjure when they are doing a parody of a Broadway leading man.  Only he's not doing a send up.  He's just less than amazing.

JKTS GRADE GRID: AMAZING GRACE
WRITING		25 pts
Book (10)		5
Score: Music (5)		4
Score: Lyrics (5)		2
Orchestrations (5)	16	5
DIRECTION		25 pts
Staging (15)		10
Choreography (10)	16	6
ACTING		20 pts
Leading Roles (7)		3
Supporting Roles (7)		6
Ensemble (6)	15	6
TECHNICAL ELEMENTS		20 pts
Scenery (5)		3
Costumes (5)		4
Lighting (5)		5
Sound (5)	16	4
ARTISTIC IMPRESSION		10 pts
Unity of Concept (5)		2
Entertainment Value (5)	5	3
FINAL GRADE	68	D+

Photos by Joan Marcus

Jeff

MEDIA MONDAY: The Amazing Grace Logo

With the first new musical of the 2015 - 2016 season beginning previews this week, I thought it would be a great time to look at its logo.  Amazing Grace sets sail at the Nederlander Theatre this Thursday, and I wonder if the logo on the marquee will entice theater-goers (and tourists in general) passing by.  Of course, I hope so, but I'm not so sure.

I actually find the logo itself interesting.  It looks very nautical, especially against the ocean blue background. And it certainly looks historical.  Majestic, even.  And only if you look at it closely, does it look somewhat religious.  The title aside, the compass point, with its southerly end longer than its northern end, does look like a cross. Is it a "moral compass"?

But, really, what does the title suggest beyond the obvious?  All I picture is a church full of solemn parishioners, swaying with emotion as their voices raise as one to sing the admittedly moving song.  In fact, the tagline addresses it head on (an admirable thing).  How you see it in print might affect your interest, too.  I like how, in the version below, "The Song the World Knows" is smaller - we know this already - and "The Story It Doesn't" is much bigger.  It emphasizes that this might just not be what you expect. BUT is "A New Broadway Musical" a selling point or afterthought?

Any other season, the epic look of the production photos might entice, too.  But this year, colonial is definitely in.  Problem is, the other historical musical - opening next! - has the same costumes, but somehow looks waaaayy more hip,  In the summer heat (or the winter freeze), will audiences flock to a museum piece or an edgy stomp through history?

Probably the biggest thing Grace has going against it has nothing to do with its logo or production photos.  Religious-themed musicals lately have had trouble drawing crowds - ask the folks at Leap of Faith and Scandalous.  The time of year and the other colonial musical already make it a tough sell; the religious aspects might seal its fate.

I hope I'm wrong.  I'm going to see it in a few weeks (I hope).  Will it be truly epic?  Or will it come and go as quickly as a summer thunder storm?

Grade: B (for the look), D (for the outlook)

Jeff

THEATRESCENE THURSDAY: The Hamilton Dilemma

I'll bet that if you are reading this blog, you probably had the same immediate thought I did when the U.S. Treasury made their big announcement regarding the $10 bill.

"Oh my God! What is Lin-Manuel Miranda going to do now?" His "10 Dollar Founding Father" lyric is in jeopardy, right?

Like the coolest guy that he is, he wittily Tweeted about it, with his usual smart and sharp sense of humor.  (ICYMI: Read HERE!)

Then, being the complete theater nerd that I proudly am, my thoughts immediately went to this:

"What Broadway diva should replace Alex on the sawbuck?"  (You know you did, too...)  I figure that she has to be American and already dead.  Sorry, Audra... (but she'd look great, right?)  Sorry, Idina... (on the plus side, we already know what she looks like green!) Sorry, Angela (not completely American, but certainly worthy!)...

So, how about Mary Martin?  Lorraine Hansberry?  Ethel Barrymore?  All three are certainly historically-significant...

No matter how it turns out, it's about time a woman was on a bill of any size.  Sacajawea got screwed on that quarter dollar coin.  And I am positive that Lin-Manuel will be just fine.  Unless... this is just the beginning of the inevitable Hamilton backlash.  Conspiracy theories abound.

Finally, I must give full disclosure: My actual first though was, "Damn! Could this news makes Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson somehow less significant?"  You can guess how often I have a $10 bill in my hands.

Jeff

(Photos by J. Marcus)

TheatreScene Thursday: Friends of JKTS Working Hard

With a slight lull in Tony mania this week, the TheatreScene was more about future shows and friends of this blog getting some high profile press.  But first, a little Tony business:

Don't forget to vote for the #MissingTonyAward (Best Ensemble in a Play and Musical)! Click the icon to your left! Polls close on May 18th.

And my Broadway pic of the week, from the Tony Nominee press event!

History meets the future: two of my favorite
Broadway gals, Chita and Sydney (NYT)

One of the big news stories of the week was/is the continuing saga of Rebecca.  What a mess.  It leads me to the Question of the Week:

If Rebecca ever makes it to the Broadway stage, will anyone even care about this epic musical?

Related question: Have we learned nothing from Dr. Zhivago?

Another more likely (and happier) future show announced this week was Tuck Everlasting.  I have high hopes for this one.  It looks enchanting in that Secret Garden/Finding Neverland kind of way.  And it features a good friend of this blog, Andrew Keenan-Bolger.  I just love this former Newsie!  Check out his interview from awhile back by clicking his pictures to the right (depending on your screen, you might need to scroll down a little).  I wish him the best of luck with this new endeavor!

Speaking of the Keenan Bolger clan, congratulations to Celia and husband John Ellison Conlee (who was awesome in The Full Monty), who welcomed their new son, William Emmet into the family on April 29.

You certainly can't say that Virginia's Signature Theatre doesn't do enough press!  They've gone all out for their production of Cabaret.  It seems to be everywhere on the Broadway sites.  I'm really happy for a great friend of this blog, Wesley Taylor, who stars as the Emcee.  Check out these simply marvelous photos:

Wesley Taylor as the Emcee and Barrett Wilbert Weed as Sally Bowles

(C. Mueller)

Who knew leather lederhosen could be so sexy?
(T. Ranson)

Here's a link to a great interview Wesley gave to Metro Weekly.  Check out the dish on Smash, Rock of Ages and The Addams Family.  HERE

Have a great week, theatre fans!
Jeff

MEDIA MONDAY: A New Broadway Marquee

Installing a new marquee at Studio 54

The 2015 - 2016 season is already underway, with An Act of God already in previews, and the first new musicals starting up in June and July (Amazing Grace and Hamilton, respectively).  Out with the old and in with the new, they say.

Part of that circle of life, the changing of marquees on Broadway theaters, has always fascinated me, though this is probably no surprise to those of you familiar with this blog.  I love studying the icons created to draw us into a show by creating visual interest and excitement.  But how they do it also intrigues me.

How do they get signs up on crowded city streets?  What are they made of?  How do they get installed so they don't blow away and withstand the elements at the same time?  Until now, I've only been able to see how it's done via on-the-scene photos - I don't live in NYC, so seeing it first hand isn't very likely.  (I have seen them install the "hangers" - those signs under the marquee that announce stars, awards, or brief critical quotes.  No mystery there: a couple of ladders and some eye hooks!)

A complete installation for Hamilton.
There's even a "hanger"!

Now, at least, I have some idea how it all happens with this video from the people behind Amazing Grace.  I'll save my thoughts about the actual logo for another column.

What is your favorite show logo?  Let me know via Twitter (@jkstheatrescene), e-mail (jkstheatrescene@yahoo.com), or leave a comment below.

Jeff