Let’s Make a Musical (From a Film)
May 31, 2011
In London, one of the shows that’s opening this summer seems to be getting most of the attention. That show is a musical version of the hit film GHOST with a book and lyrics by Bruce Joel Rubin who won an Oscar for his original film screenplay and music and additional lyrics by Dave Stewart and Glen Ballard who have been fixtures in the music world for quite some time. Word of mouth is that it’s excellent and will no doubt follow in the footsteps of BILLY ELLIOT, SISTER ACT, and PRISCILLA QUEEN OF THE DESERT and will be seen on American shores soon. When I heard about this show, I began to realize that there has been a trend, a somewhat unsettling trend if one thinks about it, in musical theatre lately. Although there are still totally original shows, there are far more musicals, especially in London, that spring from non-musical films.
This is not a new phenomenon – over the past few years Broadway has seen it in shows such as DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRALS, LEGALLY BLONDE – THE MUSICAL, and SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS, but there just seems to be more of them now. Not only are there shows based on live action films, but stage musicals based on animated features like SHREK – THE MUSICAL and THE LION KING are popping up with more frequency.
While I was thinking of this, I realized that a recent trend that is fortunately dying out was the “and then we wrote” musical where a show was cobbled together about a singer or group using their music. Shows like BUDDY and JERSEY BOYS have been around for a while, but this type of show was generally in a revue format. Often, when a story is imposed on a group of songs like this, it is either extremely weak or superfluous; It’s only there to frame the songs. Since people are basically going to hear the music anyway, audiences don’t seem to miss plot. BUDDY is one such musical, the brief story only linked songs by The Crickets and people like Richie Valens and the Big Bopper. It ran for 13 years in London while other, much better musicals failed. Many audience members made annual pilgrimages to see the show because they loved the music so much. It wasn’t so much a “musical” as it was a concert, often with the audience singing along – obscuring the “show” for anyone who was there for the joy of a book show. JERSEY BOYS is a better for us “traditionalists,” but it is still not a “musical” in the truest sense. Here, the show is only a reason to hear the songs.
MAMMA MIA! is different. The music ABBA made famous has been interestingly interpolated into an existing story. This story was adapted from a 1968 film and a failed 1979 musical. The original film, BUONA SERA, MRS. CAMPBELL, was written by Melvin Frank, Denis Norden, and Sheldon Keller and was then taken by Alan Jay Lerner and Joseph Stein for CARMELINA, a Broadway musical that ran for only 17 performances. They got it right with MAMMA MIA!, and the show is currently playing in eight cities around the world and touring on three continents. Here, a way has been found for the ABBA music to be a part of the story, and it works beautifully. Of course, it is wonderful music, and that doesn’t hurt.
…But I digress.
Now, we’re facing more movies being adapted for the stage as musicals. This is moderately risky since even film musicals adapted for the stage haven’t always worked. Productions of SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS, STATE FAIR, GIGI, and CALAMITY JANE all failed at the box office although they sometimes do well touring. However, adaptations such as BILLY ELLIOT and SISTER ACT are mostly intelligently done, so they work. ELLIOT is the more successful of the two from an artistic standpoint because all aspects of the music (with the excepting of one number that is cheap in comparison – a song and dance done with large dresses that just doesn’t fit with the rest of the show) are more intrinsically combined. The nuns in SISTER ACT are sublime as is their music by Alan Menken and Glen Slater; however, the music for the secondary characters, especially the “thugs” gets tiring and is just too silly and trite. On the whole, however, the show is joyous and leaves one’s face sore from smiling so much.
The other films to musicals that started in Britain include: DIRTY DANCING (which is closing soon in London and has no new music, just rehashed “classics.”), MARY POPPINS (which seems a little long but is still fun and wonderfully staged – especially Burt tap dancing around the proscenium.), and PRISCILLA. The United States has added its share with THE LION KING (currently in seven cities around the world.), LEGALLY BLONDE, SHREK: THE MUSICAL, and XANADU (which was more of a nostalgic comment on the trendy elements of an era – sweat bands, roller disco, and leg warmers) than it was an attempt to retell the original film’s story), and the latest film to musical on Broadway which is receiving good notices, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN. Terrence McNally based his book on the 2002 film and Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman of HAIRSPRAY (Oh, wait… I forgot about that well adapted John Waters film to musical – There are far more than I first thought! IT’S AN INVASION!) fame did the songs. It’s received five Tony nominations and mixed reviews.
Oh, in London, there is also an upcoming production of a musical based on Roald Dahl’s MATILDA which started at the RSC in Stratford and has a score by Tim Minchin, an Australian comedic musician. The show got excellent reviews, and it will be interesting to see how it travels. Currently, on stage in London is BETTY BLUE EYES, a musical by Dave Stiles and Anthony Drewe (of HONK! fame) that has also received excellent notices. I hope to see that show soon, and I’ll let you know what it’s like. Oh, I failed to mention that it’s based the quirky 1984 film starring Maggie Smith and Michael Palin, A PRIVATE FUNCTION, that has to deal with 1947 Britain and a pig that isn’t quite up “to code.”
One last show that has come to mind is THE WIZARD OF OZ. This has been kicking around as a stage musical with varying degrees of success for generations. About twenty years ago, the RSC did a charming production featuring Imelda Staunton as Dorothy. I only wish they had recorded her instead of the following year’s cast. Now, Andrew Lloyd Webber has used this iconic film as his latest reality program to find a “star.” Previous musicals subjected to the public voting for leads were OLIVER, JOSEPH, and THE SOUND OF MUSIC. Webber drums up publicity for the show by having an extremely nasty competition for leading parts where the TV audience gets to “vote” for the winner(s). The TV shows draw huge watcher shares, and millions of Brits vote. I was told that the next one up is JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR. Is there really a need for a revival of SUPERSTAR? The last one in London was chaotic and seemed very dated even though they tried to modernize it.
In any event, my issue with OZ is that Webber did not leave this score alone. He’s cut some of the Arlen / Harburg songs and replaced them with his own. I’ve not seen this one either, but to remove “If I Were King of the Forest” is tantamount to sacrilege in my book. Also, the Wicked Witch of the West has been given a song. There was good reason why she didn’t get one in the first place. She’s the bad “person”; we don’t want to care for her. I was also told, and I will see this for myself, I hope, that the song given to her is not particularly good. One friend said it sounded more like something one would expect to hear the orphans singing in ANNIE. I think I’d like to see this.
As they say on those “as seen on TV ads,” “But wait! There’s more.” Broadway also saw some other film to musicals that only hat short stays in recent years. Shows like ELF with a book by Thomas Meehan and Bob Martin, lyrics by Chad Beguelin and music by Matthew Sklar lasted only for 57 performances. Dolly Parton’s 9 TO 5 seemed to be a hit with audiences, but it still only ran for 148 performances. Finally, WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN based on the film by Almodovar might have seemed an odd choice for a musical, and the show with a book by Jeffrey Lane and music and lyrics by David Yazbek played only 69 performances. The film itself seems to have been forgotten, and it looks like the musical will soon be forgotten too even though it boasted a cast headed by Sherie Rene Scott, Patty LuPone, and Brian Stokes Mitchell.
Are/were there new, new musicals? Yes, and many have been good according to reports. (I really must get out more.) I think I’ll just list these:
- THRILL ME, which is currently making the rounds In London and around the world it seems, is a “two-hander” about Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb with music and lyrics by Stephen Dolginoff – a disturbing story that is well told.
- BLOODY BLOODY ANDREW JACKSON got some very interesting word of mouth notices, but the show with music and lyrics by Michael Friedman only lasted 94 performances.
- NEXT TO NORMAL ran for 733 performances in New York and won the Pulitzer Prize. The book by Brian Yorkey deals with the trials of a disjointed family as the mother loses her battle with bi-polar disorder. The lyrics are by Yorkey and music by Tom Kitt.
- THE BOOK OF MORMON is wowing audiences in typical Trey Parker and Matt Stone fashion, and it garnered 14 Tony nominations. The book by Robert Lopez, Matt Stone, and Trey Parker deals with two young Mormon missionaries who are sent to Uganda, and they try to bring scripture to a people who are more concerned with staying alive in a world run by a brutal warlord and are overwhelmed by extreme poverty and diseases like AIDS. The missionaries aren’t the brightest pair, but they somehow survive. Robert Lopaz of AVENUE Q fame joins Parker and Stone in creating the music and lyrics.
- THE PEOPLE IN THE PICTURE stars Donna Murphy as a grandmother who looks back at her life in a resilient Yiddish theatre troupe and the horrific events of the Holocaust. Murphy is also up for a Tony.
- THE STORY OF MY LIFE ran for only five performances. Neil Bartram’s and Brian Hill’s musical followed two friends from the age of six to thirty-five. It was described by some as a “sweet little show” and, as such, was derided by many critics. It’s difficult for a two-hander to survive on Broadway with negative to dismissive reviews. Many, however, thought it an incredibly moving show.
- THE SCOTSBORO BOYS was the last collaboration for Broadway legends John Kander and Fred Ebb. The book by David Thompson deals with the infamous trial and injustices done to the nine young black men in Alabama. As with many musicals and shows that deal with sensitive issues, audiences and critics were divided. Some thought it brought the issues into new light; others thought it trivialized a horrible event and period in American history. As a result, the show ran for only 49 performances.
- I don’t think I have to go on about WICKED based on Gregory Maguire’s novel with a book by Winnie Holzman and songs by Stephen Schwartz which continues to do well on Broadway and in England and Australia. There are also two touring companies in the United States and two in Canada. Is there anyone remotely interested in musicals who doesn’t know that the leading character, Elphaba (a.k.a. The Wicked Witch of the West), got her name from the name of her creator, L. Frank Baum? However, shouldn’t it have been Elphraba?
My little tirade is over. Don’t get me wrong; I love most of these shows, and I love musicals in general. It just scares me to think that this may be the trend, and we’ll see fewer original shows on Broadway or in the West End. I just finished an argument with someone regarding these being “original” shows, but this just doesn’t ring true somehow. I know it takes the same amount of effort to write these shows as it does those with original books, but I’ve seen these stories already. I think audiences deserve more than the same stories with songs added.
I know I’ve missed some, and for “re-hashed music,” I didn’t mention WE WILL ROCK YOU which has defied the odds and played for ten years at London’s Dominion Theatre. It’s a futuristic story with some of Queen’s best known and loved songs woven into it much like MAMMA MIA! but with a little more difficulty. It’s still great fun.
I’ll get off of my soapbox now – for a little while.
Review: THE HOW AND THE WHY
February 22, 2011
I wanted to post this review of THE HOW AND THE WHY after we saw it, but after reading it, I felt that it might cause people not to go see the play. New plays need audiences, especially during talkbacks and the like, so I decided to hold back on the posting. Unfortunately, life got in the way, and I am very late in getting it on the blog. In any event, these are my views of this new play and the recent McCarter Theatre production.
Two women faced many unanswered challenges in Princeton’s McCarter Theatre Center’s world premier production of Sarah Treem’s THE HOW AND THE WHY in their intimate Berlind Theatre which ran through February 13. The main difficulty facing this script is that there is more “how” than “why,” and the unanswered questions overwhelm the situation. It is not a bad play, and it offers a great deal of information and impetus for discussion; however, it simply does not offer the audience any kind of cohesive sense regarding why it happened.
This two-hander featuring Mercedes Ruehl as Zelda and Bess Rous as Rachel Hardeman begins with the extremely uncomfortable first meeting of a mother and daughter twenty-eight years after the mother gave the daughter up for adoption. Rachel has become an evolutionary biologist like her mother and the man by whom she was impregnated – he never knew about Rachel. Coincidences multiply rapidly as the two women talk, and it is revealed that they both developed theories concerning menstruation in humans. Zelda’s theory, which came when she was twenty-seven, is based on an actual 1957 theory by George C. Williams called the Grandmother Hypothesis which outlines that women go through menopause in order to become caregivers in the community and ensure its continuation.
Rachel’s theory in the play is based on the 1993 theory by Margie Profet which contends that menstruation is a woman’s body’s defense against “pathogens transported by sperm.” In other words, a woman cleanses herself against the onslaught of germs carried by sperm in order to survive. Shortly after Rachel and Zelda discuss this near the opening of the play, the first “why” question begins to form. Why, if Rachel’s theory deals with the concept that a woman’s body is repelling germs introduced by a man and is, in a sense, protecting itself from that man, does Rachel’s character sublimate herself to a man, her boyfriend Dean who is also an evolutionary biologist, and is willing to give him half of the credit for this discovery so that she can keep him?
The insight that could have come from the discussion between these two women as to why the woman who developed the theory regarding nurturing gave up her child and never married and the woman who looks at menstruation as a defense against the invasion of men seems desperate to keep one would have been so much more interesting than some of what is discussed but never answered here. The psychology which would have given these two characters so many more shades of meaning is sadly never approached.
Zelda gave up Rachel when Rachel was six days old. No reason was given. It is intimated by Rachel that Zelda put her career first, and, I suppose, that a lack of denial from Zelda is supposed to stand as affirmation. However, there is so much missing from this back story. Zelda was twenty-eight, unmarried, and because of complications with the birth, had to have a hysterectomy – which also seems coincidental – so she might not have felt that she could keep Rachel. She might have felt that she was not the right mother. The audience never knows. No, it is not necessary for all questions to be answered because life does not offer answers for everything, but it does offer answers for some things. Zelda knows why she gave up Rachel. Couldn’t the audience?
Rachel appears in Zelda’s life a short while before a major conference is to occur at the college where Zelda teaches. In fact, Zelda is on the board of the conference to which Rachel applied but was not accepted. Rachel tells Zelda that she “called” the adoption agency and found out who Zelda was which seems highly unlikely, possible, but unlikely, and all of this occurred after Rachel was rejected from the conference. Did Rachel know who Zelda was and only now chose to find her for her own gain? Rachel is filled with anger towards the woman whom she says “gave her birth” but is not her mother, and their meetings are terse with Rachel being highly uncommunicative except about her theory. Also regarding Rachel’s theory, it was supposedly championed by a former student of Zelda’s who then attacks Rachel when she delivers her paper. Was it championed so that this third woman could also make a case for her theory which has something to do with menstruation in other animals such as chimpanzees?
One last why, although there are several others, is why Zelda worked to get Rachel a conveniently vacant spot in the conference. Zelda seems neither happy nor upset with Rachel’s arrival. Could this, however, be Zelda’s way of punishing Rachel for ferreting her out after twenty-eight years? Zelda sees some possible problems within Rachel’s theory and briefly mentions them but does not stress Rachel’s need to address them. Rachel does not, of course, and she suffers from the attack as a result. Rachel loses Dean because Zelda tells her to deliver her theory alone, and Rachel believes she has been ridiculed by the conference attendees. She is demoralized, but Zelda does not seem to mind.
Treem seems to be trying to use the biology the way Tom Stoppard has used math, science, and physics in plays such as ARCADIA and JUMPERS. They are similar here in that the biology seems to be the reason for this reconnection and all that follows. However, the characters are not realized deeply enough to be able to fully understand them. Even their basic motivations seem shrouded in too much mystery. It’s difficult to root for a character one doesn’t know or fully understand. Rachel just seems to be a miserable woman who never matured. Zelda is a true cipher who seems, at times, to enjoy manipulating Rachel only to offer caring advice. Which is it?
Rous does a creditable job with Rachel. She does look for levels and variety in the character which is mostly written to skulk around the stage in fits of pique. Rous does work to make her vulnerable and agreeable at times. On opening night, Ruehl seemed a bit unfocused and often had to struggle for lines, so it was difficult to tell what her motivations were. Perhaps those motivations and some of my whys were cleared up when Ruehl became more comfortable with the role. As it is, the pacing of the evening lurches as Ruehl works to retrieve a line. She does, however, have some excellent moments which seem to center around some of Treem’s more “Neil Simon-esque” lines.
The star of the evening is the set by Daniel Ostling. The first act set of a university office, not unlike Princeton’s in feel, is extremely well detailed and beautifully realistic as is the second act “seedy bar” set that even includes cluttered tables and mismatched furniture.
Is THE HOW AND THE WHY a bad play? No, definitely not. There are many positives in this evening that still make it interesting. It is, however, a play that needs development and focus. For some in the audience on opening night, it was a thought-provoking exercise. For others, it was “tedious” and “un-eventful.” I found it interesting and filled with promise which it doesn’t quite deliver – yet.
Review: Off-Broadstreet Theatre – SOUTHERN COMFORTS
August 30, 2010
The Off-Broadstreet Theatre in Hopewell, NJ has been a part of the regional theatre family for the past twenty-six years. It was the first dessert theatre in New Jersey, and its fare generally leans towards the lighter side of the spectrum. One such play is currently on stage through October 2. SOUTHERN COMFORTS by New Jersey playwright Kathleen Clark is an enjoyable two-hander that is a bit above the usual slight comedies one generally expects in regional theatres. The evening also boasts a splendid performance by local actress Lois Carr.
Aging is an unavoidable aspect of life; aging alone is not, but it is often a difficult choice. SOUTHERN COMFORTS is the story of a widow and widower who meet by accident and work through their various difficulties in the hopes that they might have a future together. Into the sparse Victorian home of Gus Klingman (Dennis McGeady) in Morris County, NJ sweeps an irrepressible Tennessee grandmother named Amanda Cross (Carr). Gus’ life is a spare as his home. Gus and his wife never seemed to get along in their 45 year marriage, and he never brought himself to ask why. He has an estranged son who may stay away from him for the same reason his wife moved into a separate bedroom: Gus is a difficult man who is sedentary and set in his ways.
Where Gus would never let his wife into his world, Amanda was shut out of her husband’s. Both men brought the terrors of the war back with them, but Amanda’s husband could not cope with nor talk about his. He was killed in a car accident, and Amanda has made herself believe that it was an accident, but the audience is lead to believe otherwise. Amanda who loves to travel now spends her time driving from her home in Tennessee to her daughter’s family in New Jersey. She loves to travel; besides the war, Gus has never really left his home town. He and his wife lived in the house next door to this one until his childhood home became available, and they moved into the house where the evening takes place. He sees no need to travel; he has everything he needs.
There is something about the energy Amanda exudes that awakens something in Gus. At first, he resists, but he cannot help succumbing to his feelings for her. However, it is not all smooth going. Amanda brings her furniture into Gus’ house along with all of her books with which she cannot live. Gus feels trapped and rebels. Amanda sees change as a necessary part of living; Gus abhors change, and the difficulties begin.
Clark’s dialogue is telling; she must have known these people. There is a naturalism to the dialogue that makes these people easily recognizable, and the difficult Gus is understandable and even likeable.
McGeady has a difficult task with Gus because he could be immediately disliked. His performance on opening night was a bit wooden and cautious, but he may loosen up enough to find some levels to Gus that will keep him human and still be the curmudgeon he has become. Carr, on the other hand, is simply charming from her first entrance throughout the evening. Her accent is consistent and spot on, and she has found many nuances to this woman whom Gus compares to “a good cup of coffee” because she keeps him “awake.” McGeady does loosen up a bit when the conversation turns to sex, a topic with which he apparently thought he was through. Carr’s contortions as Amanda tries to broach this difficult subject are wonderful.
The evening is a relatively short one coming in at about 100 minutes with an intermission, but it’s 100 minutes spent with two charming people for whom one really wants the best. This doesn’t happen often in theatre today.
SOUTHERN COMFORT runs weekends through Oct. 2. Friday and Saturday evenings doors open at 7 p.m. for dessert, with curtain at 8 p.m. Sunday matinees feature dessert at 1:30 p.m. with curtain at 2:30 p.m. Admission Friday and Sunday is $27.50, Saturday is $29.50 and there is a senior rate of $25 available on Sundays only. Admission includes dessert and show. For reservations contact the Off- Broadstreet Theatre at 5 South Greenwood Ave., PO Box 359, Hopewell, NJ, 609-466-2766. Visit online at www.off-broadstreet.com.