Ken Davenport on Reviving Reviewers

I have written before on why I love Ken Davenport. 

His recent post on defending & promoting theatre critics 

is just another reason to add to that list: 

"Earlier this month, up North in colder Canada, the Canadian Journalism Foundation put on a panel discussion called “The Walking Dead: Do Traditional Arts Critics Have a Future?” Tough title, no? Perhaps a bit exaggerated, but with the advent of the internet, the role of the critic in theater and all art forms has been challenged. (Just yesterday, my blog-spiration, Seth Godin, posted this gem of an entry about Critics and my production of Macbeth.) 

Will they survive? You’re probably expecting me to say, “I HOPE NOT!” Sorry to disappoint.

See while I’ve certainly got some issues with critics, especially in an industry like the theater, overall I’m a fan. Why? My mission statement as a theater pro is to amplify the conversation about the theater. The more people talking about it, writing about, discussing it, debating it, etc. the better. The louder the conversation, the more likely that the art form will not only survive over the next 100 years, but will thrive over the next 100 years. And critics help stir up that conversation. But as the title of that panel discussion tells you... even they know they’re in a tough spot. So I thought I’d come up with five ways to help bring ‘em back:

1. Why have one reviewer when you can have two? Take a cue from the late great Siskel & Ebert and instead of having one reviewer – have two & have each of them review shows side-by-side. The public will get two discerning opinions, the shows will have two chances to impress, and the competitive gamification (“I’m right!  No I’m right!”) between the two will make the reviews more fun.

2. Qualify ‘em. There are a few critic associations out there in the world, but what if papers, etc. only hired those critics that were “accredited” and had a certain amount of education in the theater arts, in writing, criticism, etc? Critics help shape the future of the theater...shouldn’t we make sure that they are well versed in what they’re doing? A Good Housekeeping seal of approval might give them even more authority than they already have, and might distinguish themselves from the hundreds thousands of other reviewers on the web.

3. Raise the profile of your critic. Would you recognize the chief critic of the NY Times if you saw him on the street or in a theater?  What about the critic for the LA Times? I’d bet money you wouldn’t. That’s because the critics have always been more “behind the curtain”-like wizards. They’ve come forward a little more in the past five years, but if I was running a paper, I’d get them out in the world like a celeb... at openings, at press events, on twitter, etc. Pull back the curtain. People will become more attached, and therefore more likely to read, and more likely to trust.

4. If you can’t make your critic a celeb, then hire one. Wouldn’t Cherry Jones make a killer reviewer? Or what about Harvey Fierstein? Yes, it’s star-casting, but if it comes with readers, then wouldn’t it be worth it? I know, I know, maybe they’re not the best writers, but you could get them some ghost writer to help. Look at this example:  Huffpo had James Franco write reviews of some shows he just saw. Admit it, when you read James Franco, you were intrigued, right? I bet most of you click this link to see what he said, just because he’s James.

5. One reviewer doesn’t fit all. I’m still shocked that our biz has critics that review Shakespeare...and Disney musicals. Do music reviewers review Opera and Pop? What if a different reviewer (or even regular person) was assigned to a show depending on what the show was, and who that person was? A mom of four for a family show. A professor of literature for the latest Ibsen reviewer. Let’s face it, if I don’t like family shows, I’m probably not reading a review on a family musical anyway. So the people reading that review might believe in it so much more if it was written by someone they can relate to.

Criticism deserves a place in our art form, just like it deserves a place in our government, and society as a whole.  But it’s going to take some 2013 ideas to prevent them from being overrun by the criticism of the masses."

ACT ONE by Moss Hart

Anyone who loves theatre needs to read this 1959 autobiography by American playwright/director Moss Hart. Besides giving insight into the trials, tribulations, & adventures of a star-struck kid trying to make it in theatre, it also provides a poignant perspective on antiquated American theatre. Moss Hart is best known for writing You Can’t Take It With You, Lady in The Dark & The Man Who Came to Dinner; he also directed Camelot and  Rex Harrison & Julie Andrews in My Fair Lady. This book did not address those big-name hits, but told the story of his life leading up to his first play’s successful opening on Broadway.

I preferred the 1st half of the book, even though the 2nd half was more enriching. Hart opened by painting the picture of his destitute upbringing in Bronx, highlighted only by Broadway dreams & a loving, imperfect family. The first door that opened for him was as an office boy in a theatre’s office; he went on to spend his summers as the social director at adult summer camps, continually climbing the ladder until he found great respect at the top of this field. While working this position, Hart persevered at the art of playwriting. His first script that showed potential toured but was ill-received & the tour cut short. His hit finally came when he realized comedic writing was a better fit for him than drama. He wrote Once in a Life Time [the emphasis of the book’s 2nd half] which underwent months of tedious re-writes in collaboration with George S. Kaufman & eventually opened on Broadway to rave reviews.

Moss Hart wrote with unassuming & natural tone that was refreshing & entertaining. It read like a man telling you his extremely interesting life story over a cup of coffee. He answered questions as they popped in my head & recounted the minute details that truly paint a scene. I wish Mr. Hart had written Act Two as a sequel to this book. I’m glad to know what led up to his success, but I also wish I had the same insight on the rest of his career. The novel ends the day after Once in a Life Time’s smash opening on Broadway with the phrase Intermission, which makes me think that was his intention as well. Unfortunately, Moss Hart passed away from a heart attack only 2 years after the publication of Act One at age 57.

 let's remember 2004...when stamps were 7 cents cheaper....

A FEW LITTLE LESSONS from ACT ONE

• Take children to the theatre: Hart’s love for theatre would have disappeared into an abyss of untapped talent had his aunt had not insisted on attending the theatre despite a startling lack of funds. While her motivation was partially selfish, the end result of taking a little boy to plays was a man who forever impacted American theatre.  
• The power of coincidence in the arts: Hart’s 1st job was as an office boy in a theatre that he obtained purely by coincidence & being in the right place at the right time. From there, he worked hard, met the right people, & made his own success. He earned his success, but the coincidental aligning of those stars commenced his career. 
• Laughter is important: There is a reason that Moss Hart finally found success when he decided to stop being so serious & write a comedy. I would never undermine the powerful, political, & social effects that theatre can conjure, but there is nothing wrong with an audience who leaves laughing. 
• The making of good theatre is tedious: The reason why I preferred the first half of the book to the second was that the second half was almost as frustrating as it was engaging. The dedication Hart & Kaufman displayed….the hot & hungry summer afternoons of writing in a stagnant 3rd floor apartment, the joy at a successful first act & devastation at a lackluster second & third, & the incessant obsession of being so close to success you can taste it. That notion is the backbone of the guts & glory of theatre that Moss Hart so embodied in his work & work ethic. 

Big Fish: World Premiere

I didn't love this movie, but also hadn't seen it in so long that I forgot why. Luckily, the movie was on TV the other day, so it gave me a chance to remember the cause for my distaste. It wasn't that the movie was so bad; a cast comprised of Ewan McGregor, Alison Lohman, Jessica Lange, Billy Crudup, & Albert Finney with direction by Tim Burton couldn't really be that bad. It’s that Daniel Wallace’s short story was not a great cinematic fit; luckily this short story was created for a musical theatre adaptation; the artistry, interpretation, & performance quality of this production not only exceeded my expectations, but set a new Broadway bar in my book. The grandiose story-telling & picture-painting in this musical is reason why the musical exists: sometimes there are moments & emotions so substantial that nothing short of a song preformed in a setting of suspended reality will suffice to communicate them. 

10 REASONS WHY BIG FISH RULED: 

• PRE-BROADWAY WORLD PREMIERE: It is a rare & awesome opportunity to see a pre-Broadway tour that everyone should take advantage of whenever possible. 
• REMINISCENCE OF CLASSIC MUSICALS: Musicals are not islands. A Great American Musical cannot exist without influence from an authentic theme & its’ predecessor musicals. Big Fish’s most notable musical influences derived from: the schmoozy traveling salesman dynamic + all-American, Pleasantville set from The Music Man; Side Show’s freak-show/circus dynamic; Whistle Down the Wind’s sad,  Southern, & hopeful sound; & the contemporary sound/energy of Spring Awakening. 
• WATERLAND by GRAHAM SWIFT: Waterland is one of my favorite novels of all time. The basic premise is that, just as our bodies are 90% water & 10% mass, our beings are 90% past & 10% present. Will Bloom [Edward's son] presented a similar metaphor: 10% of an iceberg shows over the ocean while 90% still swims under the sea. It is strange how the imagery surrounding swamps, cycles, & water consistently serves to force us to re-visit our pasts & picture our futures, but it is an effective & dynamic image that was utilized impeccably in this production. This water/reality is a interesting theory in which I have always found truth & I was excited to find one of my universal truths present in this bright, new musical. Go read this book after you see the show!

• SUSAN STROMAN: Ms. Stroman is an all-star who has won 5 Tony Awards for direction & choreography, most notably nabbing a record-breaking 12 Tony Awards for a little show called The Producers (which also made its’ pre-Broadway debut in Chicago). But, more importantly, she & I share Wilmington, DE as our home-town. Thank you for representing women in theatre from the greatest little city in the world, Ms. Stroman! [if you are reading this, Ms. Stroman, let’s go get some meatball sandwiches from Wawa, Italian ice from Rita’s, or a Bobbie from Capriotti’s…anytime, my treat.]
• CHOREOGRAPHER/DIRECTOR DYNAMIC: Playwrights frequently turn director, but the case is not so frequent for choreographers turned director. Personally, I think that choreographers make excellent directors: they make their staging choices are more inventive, exotic, excellent, & (above all) GRACEFUL. That grace was especially necessary for a show with such extensive sets.
• THE SETS: Seriously, there were 30 sets & they weren’t cop-out sets that incorporated slight changes to differentiate…they were fulfilling, imaginative, differing sets that used every inch of stage space & every application of creative & contemporary innovations. We were taken to the inside the belly of a giant fish, a daffodils field, a circus ring, split-set hospital rooms, a witch’s woods, scooping elephant’s poop behind the circus curtain, the list goes on & on & on...

• KATE BALDWIN as Sandra Bloom: In the film, the role was shared by Alison Lohman & Jessica Lange, but Ms. Baldwin played the role in it’s entirety in the musical adaptation. She is a truly stunning woman & almost reminded of me a young Glenn Close [I’d also like to see her play Mother in Ragtime]. She belted beautifully & performed with an ageless grace that lit up the stage every time she appeared. 
• NORBERT LEO BUTZ as Edward Bloom: In the movie, Albert Finney played old Edward & Ewan McGregor played young Edward; in the musical, Butz played the role alone in its’ entirety. Butz made his Broadway debut in the original cast of Rent & grew into something of Broadway royalty. He has won 2 Tony Awards [Catch Me if You Can & Dirty Rotten Scoundrels] & originated the role Fiyero in Wicked. Edward Bloom is an extremely demanding role that only a seasoned actor like Butz could conquer & conquer it he did. His singing was strong, his acting was poignant, his storytelling was engaging, & his performance was overall impeccable. I predict Mr. Butz will be adding a trophy to his collection this year. 

• ANDREW LIPPA: Mr. Lippa won me over with his score for The Wild Party & re-affirmed by love with The Addams Family (another pre-Broadway Chicago opening).  His musicals tend to have an upbeat, almost jazzy, borderline rocker vibe that always remain true to classic musical theatre sound. 
• THE FATHER DYNAMIC: Tim Burton's [movie director] father died from a heart attack,which was a motivating force in his choice to make this film. Andrew Lippa [music/lyrics], & John August [book] both lost their fathers to cancer. So did I; as the child of a cancer-killed father, it was difficult to sit through the final minutes of this production, but I have to applaud their authentic interpretation of this intense, insane, & indescribable personal hell. It was difficult, shocking, & beautiful musical finale, but don’t the adjectives difficult, shocking & beautiful describe every quality musical you've ever seen?

Both John August & I lost our fathers to cancer a few years apart. So when we wrote the final scene of the play we withheld that scene from ourselves & let the desire to write that scene build up over a very long period of time. One day, we were in a hotel room, I cannot even recall where because we used to meet all over the country & work on the show. We sat in the room & John said, “This is what I want you to do, I want you to talk about your relationship with your father, things that made you sad & things you wish you had done or said.” We both started talking about our fathers & burst out crying & became incredibly emotional, and then he looked at me & said, “Okay, go write the song right now.” And I did, right there with John in the room. He was working on the scene & I was working on the song, it’s called ‘How It Ends.’ It speaks to a truth about how we feel about our own lives & how we feel about our fathers.

New City 4.4.13 Dennis Polkow 

Jekyll & Hyde: pre-BROADWAY tour

JEKYLL & HYDE: NOW BACK ON BROADWAY

This production disappointed & does not deserve its' current space on Broadway. I've long loved Jekyll & Hyde & saw it twice during its’ original Broadway run [1997-2001]. That production provided a pounding & powerful ensemble, thoughtfully-cast & high-quality performers, & perfectly intimate theatre for this moody, gothic piece. This musical was created for an inventive revival, so this production’s lack of an innovative interpretation & application of its' artistic opportunity was especially disappointing. What would I have done differently? Contemporized the entire production. The script is clearly period-British, but could easily be re-imagined to a contemporary time-period; the themes of addiction & obsession seem more applicable today than ever. For being a revival, there was no fresh infusion of musical development, artistic re-imagining, or any distinct improvements from the original Broadway production. The original production was not so long ago & there are going to be a lot of audience members from the original Broadway audience [like me] who will definitely not experience any shock or awe at this attempt at a revival. The main factor missing from this production is Robert Cuccioli as Jekyll & Hyde. His Dr. Jekyll was an intense, intelligent, sophisticated gentleman; as Edward Hyde, he completely transformed his voice, physicality, and created an entire new & terrifying character. This role was out of Constantine's league...

THE PLAYERS

Constantine Maroulis as Jekyll & Hyde: Constantine's weaknesses were most clearly exhibited in The Confrontation: This song provides Jekyll’s climactic battle with Hyde. It was written to be performed as an argument between his two dueling sides with the actor forced to switch roles quickly in the number. The production 100% copped-out by having Hyde’s presence projected in a painting over the fireplace, which allowed Constantine to only actually perform the role of Jekyll. The effect was not necessarily bad, but I’m betting the reasoning behind the choice was that his Jekyll & Hyde were far too similar to be presented back-to-back since his acting chops weren't up to par. He has an undoubtedly beautiful voice, but that wasn't enough to carry this performance. Plus, his Irish/British/Australian accent was very distracting.

Teal Wicks as Emma Carew:  I have a fondness for this role because it has served as a stepping stone for some of my favorite actresses: Carolee Carmello originated the role & went on to play Lucille Frank in my very favorite musical PARADE. Christiane Noll played Emma in the Original Broadway Cast & went on to play Mother in the revival of my second favorite musical RAGTIME. Those are difficult broads to hold a candle against, but Teal Wicks held her own & was the brightest spot in this production. Ms. Wicks is best known for playing Elpheba in LA, San Fran, & Broadway productions of WICKED. She was too good for this production, but hopefully this role will serve as a stepping stone for her as well.

Deborah Cox as Lucy: The role of Lucy belongs to composer Frank Wildhorn's ex-wife Linda Eder the same way Christine Daaé belongs to Andrew Lloyd Webber's ex-wife Sarah Brightman. However, Deborah Cox was completely competent in the role. I wasn't expecting much from Ms. Cox except lungs of steel. I also didn't realize she had made her Broadway debut as the title role in AIDA. Both Aida & Lucy require killer voices with quality acting ability behind the voice. Deborah Cox’s Lucy was a downtrodden, hopeful, relatable character that reminded me of Sally in Oliver!. I’m glad Ms. Cox has made the leap from a recording star to Broadway actress; it’s a great fit & her high-quality presence was a breath of fresh air.

THE MUSIC 

The leads could definitely sing, but their skills were not enough to mask the deterioration of this musical score. This music was a skeleton of its’ former self & was infused with a contemporary rocker quality that overrode Mr. Wildhorn’s original musical meets gothic sound. It seemed a terrible decision to re-introduce songs in the revival that were cut from the original Toronto production [I Need to Know & Bring on The Men]; they were cut for a reason & re-introduced in subdued & watered-down adaptations. His Work & Nothing More used to be a powerful quartet that ended with loud & beautiful harmonies but drizzled away with a soprano’s quiet solo. Worst of all, the ensemble’s skimpy sound diluted the two great ensemble numbers [Façade & Murder, Murder] into the greatest disappointments of the show. It is surprising that the infusion of rock did not provide a simultaneous infusion of energy. To the contrary, the energy of the original & revived numbers seemed sucked out of this production. I love this musical & enjoyed some numbers, but the music (and musical as a whole) was not done justice.