New look, new attitude, new rules, unfinished review, responding to some comments, a schedule of sorts, and a challenge.

As you can see, I changed the look of the blog.  Thought I'd make it pretty.  With this new look come other changes.  Sit back and relax...there's lots to cover in this post.

1. New Attitude - I need to be more diligent in getting these reviews posted.  Summer is a season of shows that only last two weekends, so I have challenged myself to see the show opening night and post a review before the first performance the next week.  I saw Cyrano de Bergerac last Saturday and wanted to get a review up before this weekend.  Well, time and life (the ethereal concepts, not the publications) got in the way.  So, while I still plan on getting a review up, let me preview it by advising you to spend your money elsewhere.  David Lindley, the director, missed the purpose of the translation he used, and managed to suck the humor out of it.  There were some dicey acting choices, but overall, the fault is to be laid at Lindley's front door. Part of the new attitude is that I am going to be more demanding in terms of what I hope to see in local theatrical productions, and less forgiving of those shows that don't really try.
2. New Rules - I have always allowed anyone to post their comments to my reviews.  Even if they call me a scoundrel or besmirch my reputation with vicious barbs, I let them post.  However, this recent spate of "so-and-so is so-and-so's mom" junior high-school crap is wrong, and serves no purpose.  So, the new rule is:  If you want to post anonymously, go ahead.  But I reserve the right to censor any parts of the message that I consider libelous, slanderous or outright falsehoods.  Yep, my blog...my rules.  You can take shots at me all you want.  If you want to say something about other comments, that's fine.  But when you start commenting on the posters themselves, then you have to own up to it with your name.  I put mine out there, they put theirs out there, and if you're going to take a shot at someone, you have to own up to it too, so they can, if they care to, face their accuser.  Perhaps now is a good time to tell you I found an application that can log the IP addresses of all comments.  I promise not to use the log as long as people follow the rules.  Children, don't make me turn this blog around and go home.
3. Unfinished review -  I attended a performance of Over The River And Through The Woods during the third weekend of its run.  I never got the review posted.  By the time I got around to writing it, the show had closed at Village Theatre of Glen Ellyn, so what was the point.  But as I thought about it, I felt it was fair to share some of what I thought, since the director, who knows me and my blog, came over and personally said she hoped I enjoyed the show.  So, here's what I thought:  The script contains just about everything I dislike in a script.  It's contrived, superficial and the characters lack depth.  It is driven by ethnic stereotypes and reeks of being a sitcom.  It is, in the words of another critic, a bad take on Everybody Loves Raymond.  It is written by the same guy who wrote the script for the musical, I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change. I disliked that script also.  That one was a bad episode of Love, American Style set to music.  The guy (yeah, I threw away the program since I wasn't reviewing it, so I'm at a loss) who played Frank had no emotional investment in the character and his eyes said that no one was home.  He was slow on his cues and derailed the timing in a number of scenes.  Joann and Stan, who played the other set of grandparents were OK.  Vince (who played Nick) did a pretty good job, but lacked something...not sure what.  Maybe his portrayal was a bit distant.  The girl who played his blind date left me feeling cold.  There was no warmth to her character or portrayal, but I suspect much of that comes from the writing.  The best part of the show was the woman who played Frank's wife (again. no program to refer to).  She was outstanding.  She was fully committed to her choices and played them with nuance and shading.  And she reminded me of my Mom, who always greets me lovingly with the words, "You want something to eat?"  Let me make you a little something.  No?  You sure?  OK, I'll make you something anyway, in case you get hungry."  As I said, I hated the script...and yet, I found myself laughing and smiling through most of it.  Go figure.  Carla Mutone, the director, went broad with the comedy and light with the humanity.  The show is banal, but it hit me just right on that particular night.
4. Responding to some comments - I promised myself that I would not respond to the comments.  But the last round of comments gave off a malodorous stench of something being rotten in the state of Denmark.  After writing my first review, I put out the following statement:  "Whatever you think, I would like local theatre to succeed, so I will continue to push for something better than what I'm getting when its value is not on par with what I'm being asked to pay."  And I still feel that way.  I think it's a holy grail worth pursuing.  But I'm starting to wonder if anyone else does.  Here are some snippets of statements made in emails concerning the last show I reviewed:  "...as close to professional as you're going to get in community theatre...I thought it was great, for community theatre...some actors are just doomed to being what I would call 'community theatre' actors...you play the cards you're dealt (refers to casting a show based on the talent pool that auditions for community theatre)...she (the choreographer) did what she could with the cards she was dealt."  Seems pessimistic, yes?  It feels similar to putting an asterisk on Roger Maris' 61 homers.   As I think more on the comments made on this blog, there is, in my opinion, a miasma emanating from the core of community or local theatre patrons and members.  There is a pall of complacency that needs to be quashed, or mediocrity will soon be perceived as the gold standard.  Let's look at the comments I received on my most recent review of Chicago:  The Musical.  Anonymous said, "... And hey Fosse chorography is really stylized and super hard to do. I can't imagine trying to find people in community theater who are talented enough to dance Fosse style plus sing and act. The chorographer did a great job with what she had and it was fun to watch.  I give it $20, your a little too rough on shows, especially where everyone is having fun up there and it shows. And their not getting paid for it."  I find this statement disturbing, and not because of the misspellings.  It is based on dangerous and insulting assumptions.  Anon is basically saying:  1)  Fosse-styled choreography is so super hard, you'll not find anyone in the talent pool in community theatre who can do it, so why try?  Really?  So, if you're in local theatre, or have family and friends in it, Anonymous just told all of you and them to not even try, because, to be blunt, you or they just don't have the talent.  The big myth, of course, is that Fosse-style choreography is super hard.  I'm sorry, but it's not hard.  It's a style.  Just like Twyla Tharp has a particular signature look, so does Fosse.  Neither is hard.  It's mostly attitude, some isolated movements tight to the body, looks, poses, and internalized fire.  Or, it's a finger snap or two.  Whatever it was, it is recognizable.  I've seen it done at every dance studio recital my kids were in, which is quite a few.  Little kids can do it.  And the women (not so much the men) in the show could have done it, if they were challenged.  I thought they were strong, but underused.  An attempt should have been made, especially with the show going back to the vaudeville roots that Fosse envisioned.  Instead, we got chaotic and repetitive bumps and grinds, and at one point, some West Side Story.  Again, this is just my opinion.  But I do think for too long we've had it drilled into us that community theatre should get a pass on negative criticism, and instead should be approached as,  "Let's be nice to the community theatre people, because they...uhmmm...have learning disabilities.  Just smile and nod." I have more faith in community theatre talent than those who claim to be defending it.  2)  No one is getting paid, so don't be so critical.  It's obvious they are having fun, so leave them be.  Really?  I would accept that argument, except that theatres are asking me for my money and time to watch them have fun.  They are under an obligation, then, to give me something that rivals the value of my payment and time.  Seeing theatres and patrons hide behind the mantle of "community theatre" in order to excuse mediocrity is really starting to piss me off.  I'm not there out of obligation to support friends or family, or because I'm a member of the theatre.  I'm a patron of theatre with no vested interest, as are many others, and we are looking for a couple of hours of entertainment for our dollars.  I'm there hoping to be engaged in something on stage and to review the show.  This fallacy about no one getting paid so they should be immune to criticism is a load of bullshit, and begs the question:  If unpaid actors are criticism-proof, how much do you have to pay an actor to remove that protective shield?  A dollar a show?  $5?  How about $25 a show?  Where is the threshold?  And, if no one is calling attention to local theatres providing mediocre productions, there will be no accountability and the bar will always be set low.  It will always be easy for a show to exceed audience expectations, because, as they say, it's only community theatre and the audience doesn't expect much.  If you're in local theatre, that reality should get you mad.
5. A Schedule, of sorts - I'm already late on my Cyrano review.  I hope to get it posted this evening.  Tonight I'm seeing the musical Tommy at Theatre On The Hill in Bolingbrook and Saturday night I'm seeing The Sleeper at The Riverfront Playhouse in Aurora.  If anyone knows of shows I should be reviewing, let me know.  Early July I'll be looking at WDI's Sylvia and Summerplace's Lend Me A Tenor.
6. A Challenge - I challenge every local theatre, actor, staff and crew to set the bar higher for your audience and try to excel and take some risks.  Help lay to rest the myth that community/local theatre is second best to...I'm not sure what, but there is a palpable sense that people have lower expectations of community theatre.  Think about what you may have done that has contributed to that lowered expectation.  Give it some honest thought.  Money is still tight, and many smaller theatres in Chicago are offering deals so that they can drink heartily from your revenue stream.  I just bought tickets for Equus at Red Twist Theatre, 1044 W. Bryn Mawr, for this Sunday's matinée.  $13.50...paid actors, small theatre, low prices, cutting-edge material...a combination rarely seen in the burbs.  I'll let you know how it goes.

Review: "Chicago: The Musical" Wheaton Drama, Wheaton, IL 5/28/2010

This was a tough one to write.  There are a number of things I loved about this production, and some exceptional performances.  There were also performances that I found disappointing.  The overall show is good, but it didn't sizzle for me.  I have realized that my disappointment with the show came from my expectations.  It was not the show I wanted to see.


A brief history:  When this show was first released on Broadway in 1975, it was called Chicago:  A Musical Vaudeville.  It was not a financial or critical hit.  During it's two-year run, it flirted with closing a number of times.  Each number was an homage to a specific vaudeville/burlesque act or personality, and had the heavy touch of Bob Fosse.  In 1996, a stripped-down version of the show was revived on Broadway, and started garnering the awards and the hype.  The show took on a dark red/black tone and concentrated more on the dance.  It was a concert, more than a show.  Even the name was changed to Chicago: The Musical and re-choreographed in the style of Bob Fosse by Ann Reinking,  I'd seen the former, but not the latter.


I'm not sure why it was that I thought I would be seeing the more "modern" version.  Maybe it was because I hoped to, or it was the fact that Vaudeville was not in the title of this production.  Maybe it was the poster design, which displays a modern skyline of Chicago and is done in the newer representation of black/red/shadows that led me to believe I would see something different than what I knew.  So, because of my expectations, things didn't come together for me.  And I couldn't review a show based on that.  It's not fair.  I have to judge it by what I actually saw on stage.


Here's what I saw:  Julie Bayer was brilliant as Velma.  Spunky, energetic, and a voice that hits all the right notes and timing that enhances, rather than detracts from, the comedy. I was somewhat disappointed in Heather Miller's version of Roxie, primarily because she fell flat during the ends of phrases in her songs.  I don't know enough about why that happens:  breath control, support, whatever it was, but the night I saw her, big finishes to songs felt under-sung.


The girls outshone the men in the chorus functions.  Men were put primarily in the back to hide them, which is often the case in community theatre.  Many times, however, it felt as if they were place holders, and not in the same show with the other cast members.  Some of my favorite numbers were Cell Block Tango and Razzle Dazzle.  I have to be honest, though:  I really missed the presence of Bob Fosse in the choreography.  Again, that's probably based on a perception, but his style is synonymous with the show, and I found myself wanting to see some of that.


I liked Billy Flynn as portrayed by Garret Ard.  He had a nice blend of sleazy, smarmy and controlling.  He was fun to watch.  Reneisha Jenkins gave a nice portrayal of Mama Morton.  I did feel that the low notes of her signature song were a little out of her range and she had a hard time pushing them out.  However, her duet of Class with Velma in Act 2 is one of the best songs I've heard on stage in quite some time.  Based on her biography, I really wanted to see dance more in the show.


I would be remiss if I didn't mention Jamie Sandoval's performance as Amos Hart.  Heart-wrenching and innocent, he did a great job with Mister Cellophane.  I believed every moment of his performance.  He committed to a character and stayed with it.  I was not as happy with E.L. Dunsanek as Mary Sunshine.  Besides problems staying on key, the character seemed to have trouble staying on task and seemed to start performing for a few in the audience rather than the whole.


Director Craig Gustafson did a nice job with what he wanted to present.  It wasn't what I wanted to see, but that's my issue, not his.  Looking past that, it's a fun production, with some wonderful performances.  And the clever set that is a series of rotating panels and channeled side drapes was designed by him.  


I did have an issue with hearing the band, especially the overture that comes from behind the curtains.  It's a musical, dammit...I want to hear the music.  Then, when I did hear them, there seemed to be some trouble finding notes and slow tempos on songs that should have sparkled.  Finally, while I usually don't mention costumes because I'm not one to notice them, I did notice these and thought most of the costumes were ill-fitting and unflattering on the women, especially the chorus.


Paid:  $21
Worth:  $16.80  (based solely on what I saw, and not what I wanted to see)


2 hours 24 minutes, with intermission