It really is like, a legitimate national artistic tragedy that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue survives only in neutered (and vocally inappropriate) "cantata" form. Much like Candide it does suffer from the usual dramatic shortfalls of a pageant-style show, but so much of it is so absolutely phenomenal that I can't imagine some flop rehab couldn't fix it up to be narratively robust enough to support the magnificent score. It's also politically ahead of its time (no su
It's funny, people always say Hairspray, but I actually found it to be the reverse - the musical just can't stand up to the grimy, funky, legit doo-wop and motown of the original. I know I'm a minority opinion on that front, though.
Anyways, La Cage aux Folles comes to mind, at least the original 1978 film. The movie is fine, pleasantly frothy, but though the musical isn't necessarily a heavy-hitter, it adds a certain dimension and elevates the story. The plac
Just stay home and listen to the fabulous 1973 revival recording, which is the only version that's ever made functional dramatic sense to me, mostly by virtue of being short and zippy.
First time for Apr 30
2018, 04:17:53 PM
Hearing all the responses here makes me sad because it shows they clearly missed the connection on this production. I think it was the NYT review that said it was a “sexy” Carousel and that what drew Julie and Billy together was an erotic attraction too powerful to ignore, which, imho, is not really the point of the show at all. It’s a difficult show in some respects because Julie is a mysterious character in many ways that aren’t communicated outside of the script’s directions, and Billy needs
I agree on the weird cuts in the second act, particularly losing Geraniums in the Winder (put it back and cut the endless Blow High dance break, tia). As for what the show's "about", there are a lot of ways that it's purposefully conflicted and cloudy. Carrie and Julie are, in a sense, opposites, and their relationships are contrasted to illustrate two sides of love and how Carrie's "acceptable" marriage has just as many hurtful undertones as Julie's more c
Saw this here in Seattle tonight and mostly enjoyed it. The actress playing Jane Doe was, unexpectedly, the stand-out, maybe because her character is so genuinely mysterious (the power of a good wig?), but Constance was also very funny and there weren't any particular weak spots, though the Ukranian guy felt kind of hammy. My biggest issue was that it was overamplified - the ACT Falls Theater is so tiny, is it necessary to blow it up? The instruments were amplified, so the voices had to b
The OP should've asked for a different seat or accepted that the theater is a social occasion and not everybody's brains are housed in bodies you might find acceptable. A fat person who can't afford two seats or is unable to buy an aisle seat should...be banned from seeing the show? As for the "reasons" of obesity, it's rarely as dully simple as too much food and not enough exercise, because that's ignoring all the experiences that produce a person's personal
Well, there's a few things that can happen when a person of a gender that's different than the one of a role plays it, and it depends on how they play it and what the genders are. A woman can play a male role as a "pants role", where they simply blend into the masculine role (these can also be the roles as written, particularly in opera where a woman's voice might be required). A woman can play a male role as a female, in which case you have, indeed, gender-bent the role
Like most major entertainment forms, Broadway is about making money, particularly the wads of tourists that make up the majority of the audience. When it comes to trends, one of which could be considered "the acceptance of people who aren't white heterosexuals", the huge machinery of what is functionally corporate art is slow to move and picky about what it moves on. Broadway is not for experimentation, and since it's in the curious position of being both relatively cultural
