Severin Newell's Story

A Tribute to Lucas Klein

2009-02-10T08:43:00.000-08:00

Lucas Klein

Here’s a video that my niece Sarah helped put together:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElU6ASQQ9JM

My dog Lucas came to me from the Bide-a-Wee shelter in the spring of 1999. He was just a four-month-old puppy, but from the moment I met him, I fell in love. He seemed to know that we belonged together and over the years that bond was never broken.

As Lucas grew, he developed the traits that made him such a special dog. He was always very affectionate and even-tempered. Watching him play with other dogs, he seemed to have a real sense of fairness and decency. While Lucas liked playing with other dogs, he loved people even more. Walking down the street, if someone wanted to say hello, he would just stop and wait for them to come up and pet him. (This might have something to do with thinking they had a treat, but if they didn’t that was all right.) Lucas, usually listened to me, but he could get distracted. When we were in the dog- run and I needed to leave, all I had to do was yell ‘Lucas say goodbye, we have to go’ and only then would he would come bounding over as if to say to the other dogs ‘gotta go’.

Lucas loved water and he loved diving into our pond upstate and swimming around, chasing the stones I would throw near him. Afterward he would come out wet, tired but very happy. He also loved snow, especially when I would shovel our deck and throw the snow in his face as he jumped up to catch it.

Even though Lucas had arthritis from the age of three, he was always up for long walks whether it was the Appalachian Trail or Fire Island beaches, careful to make sure I was in sight before jumping into the Atlantic ocean or running into the woods. There was something about the joy he took in exploring that always brought a smile to my face

When in July 2004, I inherited Sam Krueger, Lucas took the little guy in his stride and I became a two dog household. They complimented each other, especially in their coloring and temperament. Whenever Sam would bark at a larger dog, Lucas would jump up and let him know it was not polite. Sam rarely got the message, but Lucas was very patient and loving with him.

In early fall 2008; Lucas developed a cancerous tumor on his foot, which made it increasingly difficult for him to move. So on January 30, 2009, at a hospital in upstate New York, Lucas passed away. He will be missed by a lot of people, but especially by his ‘brother’ Sam and I.

Again go to YouTube and enjoy some of my memories of Lucas

Love

Richard and Sam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElU6ASQQ9JM

“Billy Elliot”: Broadway’s return to the classic musical

2008-12-13T13:14:00.000-08:00

Well the first thing you should know about “Billy Elliot” is that it’s more of a play that has integrated songs and dance to make a spectacular whole theater piece. All the elements of a musical are there, but each seems to not only complement, but also enhance and expand on the other. In scope “Billy Elliot is very much like Fellini’s “Amarcord” or Bergman’s “Fanny and Alexander” where a whole youthful world is remembered and embroidered on by great artists. That is same way “Billy Elliot” is to me. It also weaves a myriad of themes so perfectly, that as a play I had to reach back to “Angles in America” to find anything as comparable. As for musical theater, I can only think of the great “Carousel” where music and dance are as well entwined.

The next thing to know is that “Billy Elliot” is a very adult play. What I mean by that is, despite having a young Billy at the center, there is lack of romanticizing or softening of his world. All the adults and children are presented as real human beings with the virtues and faults we all possess. It’s more “Great Expectations’ than “David Copperfield”. There is a clear-eyed lack of judgmental quality that permeates throughout. This also means that the language is rough-hewn, coarse and common, but true to the actual location and circumstances of the mining community in northern England.

It is also clear from the get-go that the creators of “Billy Elliot” not only know the background and lives of these people, but also this is their own story or some variation thereof, that is being told. So much of the attitudes, feelings and emotions of these characters just sound real. By the end of the play, even the minor characters seem to have a life and story that was included.

Based on the 1995 film, “Billy Elliot” tells the story of a motherless boy, growing up in the harsh world of a fading mining town, who almost accidentally discovers not only an aptitude for, but a love of ballet. (Or ‘ballie’ as they pronounce it) Of course this goes against the standard norms that are prevalent all over the western world. Billy should be practicing boxing or some other manly sport. Dancing is for girls or ‘poofs’! Importantly, Billy is never presented as lonely or an outcast, but just a kid looking to find something that actually interests him which, much to his own surprise, is ballet. All this is presented against the turbulent background of Thatcherite England where a miner’s strike has been going on for a year due to the ‘Iron Lady’ trying to break the powerful labor unions in an effort to privatize industry. (To really understand the reasons for the depth of anger and fury this action caused, just read A.J. Cronin’s “The Citadel” or Richard Llewellyn’s “How Green Was My Valley”, or at least the movie versions, to learn how exploited the people and the land were by private companies.)

Once Billy has embraced his passion for dance, with a great assist from his fey best friend Michael, his struggle then becomes between not just his own world, but with a more universal one, that of fathers and sons. In fact, I think that the other major story in “Billy Elliot” is of his father’s acceptance of his son’s aspiration to dance and the sacrifices that entails. Not only must Frank Elliot find the money to send Billy to London for an audition at the Royal Ballet School, but also he has to go against the community and fellow strikers that he lives with. To its great credit, the play gives Frank the time to express the turmoil and toll his decisions take.

“Billy Elliot” is so much about people who look to their past for the sense of who they are, but are also willing to acknowledge that change is coming. Two major dance pieces illuminate this theme; in the first act, Billy explodes with frustration at the forces that he sees as trapping him in a life that he no longer wants. No words can express his pent up emotions and desires so he does the only thing he can do, which is dance. It’s an angry and wild ride filled with steps that he can only improvise since his dance vocabulary is so limited and his inner turmoil so great.

In the second act, Billy sees his own future as a dancer and the steps are classical and glorious. Set to Peter Tchaikovsky’s most romantic music, Billy, youth and adult, do a pas de deux that is so visually stunning and moving that it literally takes ones breath away. Ending on a note of defiance, Billy crosses over from boy to young manhood and dares his own father to stop him from growing up. This is quite the coup de theatre!

Finally in the climatic dance “Electricity”, Billy realizes and admits what he is capable of doing and he is able to leave the only world he knows behind. His mother is dead and his town and its way of life are dying. But they will not be forgotten. Billy Elliot has great hope for the future and so do we.

MY Liza Minneli Problem

2008-12-13T13:00:00.000-08:00

A couple of weeks ago my friend Christine asked if I wanted to join her and a co-worker in seeing “Liza’s at the Palace”. I had been a fan of Liza’s from way back when, seeing her when she toured the Midwest and then on Broadway in almost all her shows including “Chicago”, “The Act” and “The Rink” (No, I was too young for “Flora, the Red Menace”) even collecting her LPs and watching every broadcast of “Liza with a Z!” each time it was on. Well I am a gayboy who grew up in the 1970’s! I was a big fan, maybe not as big as some, but still a fan.

But then sometime in the early 90’s I began to lose interest probably due to the times and my changing tastes. I was also tired of all the tabloid gossip regarding her reckless lifestyle and lack of professionalism. (The stories coming out about her behavior while in “Victor/Victoria” were ‘not kind’!) Friends of mine, who know her, said she was a perfectly sweet woman and very nice. No doubt this is true, but seeing her on TV looking haggard and sounding shrill was awfully painful. Even on “Arrested Development” the camera seemed to trying to cut away so as not to embarrass her.

With all this in the back of my mind, the three of went last Friday night a week ago. We sat in the first row of the mezzanine and the house was packed. I would say that the majority were gay men (of all ages), but certainly also lots of straight people. As the houselights went down (on time) and the orchestra started up, the intensity and excitement were reaching a fever pitch and then Liza appeared and all pandemonium broke out, the audience was screaming and jumping to its collative feet and yelling “We Love You, Liza!!!!!” I will say she looked far better then she has in years and certainly commanded that stage.

Unfortunately for me (and as it turned out Christine) the show then went off a cliff. After all her surgeries (vocal cords, hips, brain and god knows what else) Liza Minnelli can hardly walk, talk or dance. I was looking at a faded facsimile of the entertainer she once was. Firstly, I was really bothered by her diction and that sibilance that was so pronounced. I knew the lyrics to all her songs and I still couldn’t understand a word. (Why she even attempted the tongue twisting “If You Hadn’t, But You Did” is beyond logic.) Next I was put off by her heavy, rapid breathing even during her songs, but most pronounced while she talked or just waited to catch her breath, which took longer and longer as the evening wore on. She even had to sit down while she sang “Maybe This Time” which I felt undercut the whole meaning of the song!

Given all her physical limitations, it became apparent that she was still trying to be the young Liza of “Cabaret” and “The Act” when she was at her peak. (And really quite beautiful.) Her act hasn’t grown or even changed, so there was no sense of time and maturity deepening and coloring her style. Liza was trying to be that young girl excited about playing dress-up and singing for an audience even if she didn’t relate to the songs themselves. In the most ghoulish way, I was reminded of Bette Davis as ‘Baby Jane’.

But the most dispiriting part was that Liza was determined to show that she was back! An entertaining force of nature! Liza Minnelli Superstar! And to this end the audience gave her everything she craved and needed. They stood after every song and they cheered and screamed and yelled and laughed and applauded and applauded and applauded! Her need for everyone to LOVE her was palatable. For me though, it was draining. I felt that if I personally didn’t LOVE her as much as she needed me too, it was back to pills & liquor and it would have been MY fault. I guess this neediness is why “Liza’s at the Palace” came across to me as an almost melancholy act and not much of a show. All I could think during it was “What about my needs Liza? Pay attention to ME.”

Afterwards, we three left with big grins plastered to our faces, but mine was mostly so Christine wouldn’t see me as disappointed or her friend wouldn’t think I was a snob. He was so excited that he talked about going again and again and I just nodded. Saying goodbye, Christine and I went to the train together and that’s when I learned how confused she was. “What was the big deal and why all the screaming? I mean I couldn’t even understand what she was singing about.” I replied, “Well said Christine, well said.”

All the shows that I have seen lately with capsule reviews

2008-12-02T08:05:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since I have put my reviews here and I've been seeing a bunch of shows so I thought I would just put them all together in one large post starting with the oldest first so here goes;

I first saw "Forbidden Broadway" way back in 1982 at the then Paulson's Supper Club on 72nd and Broadway. It had me in stitches then. Each number was as fresh as a new bright morning. WE (everyone) had never experienced such a mean, nasty, gossipy show that expressed our love/hate of the theater. With it's over the top (maybe!) takes on theater legends like Ethel Merman and Patti LuPone and even Stephen Sondheim, this was THE insider's guide to New York Musical Theater and everyone came (including Merman, LuPone and Sondheim) to laugh.

Over the years material ripe for satire became awfully thin and an occasional visit was all that was needed. Some skits continues to work (I still laughed at their take on "Les Miz"), but others fell flat. There was just not enough humor to mine. In the past few years, the Broadway musical theater became a parody of itself. Perhaps the nadir was the show "Spamalot" which seemed to be emulating "Forbidden Broadway" itself, so much so that several recent editions used a song from that show 'whole'. "FB's" was no longer comic fringe, but mainstream. Crappy shows like "The Producers" and "Young Frankenstein" and even good shows like "Hairspray" were just extensions of the knowing, winking camp eye. Their were no outsiders, laughing at the pretension of those inside.

Now "Forbidden Broadway Goes to Rehab" is to be the last (at least for a while) and it's easy to see why. While I Loved, Loved Loved this edition, I also realized that was only funny to a dwindling group of people. In order for the satire to work most of the audience really has to not just get it, but has to care about the subjects being satirized, and that's just not the case anymore. I (we) know that Patti LuPone (again after all these years!) is a way over-the-top personality with perhaps a monstrous ego, and that's what I (we) love and adore about her, but frankly the tourists who now make up 75% of the audience have no idea nor do they care.

With very few exceptions ("Spring Awakenings" wonderfully inventive staging is perfect for parody), making fun of theater has become a harder and harder task. Now when the Broadway theater faces it's most depressing period (In Jan. 09 6-8 shows are closing and very few are coming in), maybe a long stint in rehab might just work.

NYMT's "Play It Cool"; At Long Last Love

2008-10-06T12:32:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to give a shout out to “NYMF’s “Play it Cool” which I saw yesterday (Sunday Oct.5). Since this recent theater season began with the lame [title of show] and through the awful “13”, I began to despair for a decent new musical. (This includes some of the crap I saw at ‘Fringe’ this year.) Then some friends talked me into seeing “Play it Cool” and I am so glad they did! With no set to speak of and simple costumes, this show relied on a superb cast and a terrific period jazz score to tell it’s slight story about the effects of homophobia on a small group of Hollywood types in the early 1950’s. Best was Sally Mayes as the lesbian owner of a small jazz club living in fear of being closed down by the police. This Broadway musical veteran was a real vocal standout. Her bluesy voice shook the tiny TBG Theater on 37th street. Also excellent was Josh Strickland as the young gay man not willing to play the Hollywood ‘straight’ game. The other three cast members were equally good.

What made “Play it Cool” so enjoyable, was that here is a small, but extremely smart show with a clear point of view and a very cohesive jazz score by Phillip Swann and Mark Winkler, well sung. Book wise, there were some problems that could use a little tightening up, but that’s a minor quibble. In contrast to the junk I’ve been seeing lately (with the exception of “Fela!”), this show gave me real satisfaction and pleasure as well as hope. I’m only sorry that yesterday was its last performance (as well as the end of this year’s NYMF) so I could have let other friends know about it. Oh well, that’s the nature of festivals.

One last thought about “Play it Cool”, is that while not as ‘full bodied’ a show, it was thematically similar and as professionally done, as “Yank”. If that gives you any idea of how good it was.

“13”; My “A Clockwork Orange” moment.

2008-10-02T07:13:00.000-07:00

A few years ago I would be watching TV and idly changing channels when I would hit on “Saved By the Bell” a ‘80’s artifact that starred the pre-super buff Mario Lopez and a pre-slutty Elizabeth Berkley. It was an inane comedy that took place in the kind of high school only bad TV could invent. After a few minutes of idiotic chatter, I’d change the channel. The ‘90’s brought “Beverly Hills 90210” which substituted juvenile humor with puerile melodrama among a shallow group of high schoolers. Now we seem to have a show called “Gossip Girl” about the same high schoolers only much richer and far more tech savvy. Being much older, none of these shows, or their various knockoffs, interest me in the least, with the exception of “Everwood”.

As I sat watching the new musical “13” by Jason Robert Brown, I felt like I was Alex Delarge, the Malcolm McDowell character in “A Clockwork Orange”, as he was being given criminal aversion therapy by having his eyes tapped open and forced to watch the worst atrocities known to man. In my case it was watching this display that was basically a 90-minute ‘musical’ version of those aforementioned shows. In Alex’s case, he ends up trying to commit suicide only to find himself in a full-body cast and paralyzed for the rest of his life. Me, I lucked out when after 4 hours (or 90+ minutes in real time), I was able to race out of the Jacobs Theater (really the Royale) and onto 45th street where I was able to regain my equilibrium. The #104 bus uptown never seemed like such a sanctuary!

The plot, such that it is, revolves around Evan, living on Manhattan’s upper west side, (literally three blocks from where I live) who is about to have his Bar Mitzvah. The only thing on his and the minds of his friends though is who is going to have the best party. (To be absolutely honest, this did ring true, especially since I remember my Bar Mitzvah and I invited Howie Burnett, whom I didn’t like, just so I could go to his party. BTW, mine was a swim party at the local JCC and a major success, but I digress) Quicker than you can bring Dorothy back to Kansas, Evan is whisked to a very gray Indiana, (don’t ask!) and he has to befriend a new group of cool kids or risk having a crappy Bar Mitzvah party. Very, very, very standard complications ensure, but in the end Evan learns a valuable life lesson. (Sorry for the spoiler.)

Also embedded in the plot is a real stench of Anti-Semitism, which stems from the idea that all Jewish kids think about is the cool, expensive parties they can have, devoid of any religious content. As I can attest to, there is a lot more to a Bar Mitzvah than just a party. It is a lot work and study. The party is fun, but the achievement of being part in long tradition in ones heritage is the best reward. In “13” it’s all party.

The young cast is talented but exceptionally unexceptional. They all seem to have spent WAY too many summers at ‘Camp Musical Theater’ or whatever it’s called. As performers they are so generic that according to their bio’s, almost all of them are understudies for each other. In the lead, Graham Phillips as Evan was charming and at least looked Jewish, but as the jock, Eric M. Nelsen couldn’t shine the shoes of the great Chris Pratt as jock extraordinaire, Bright Abbott on the far superior show about teenage angst, “Everwood”.

If this show becomes a hit perhaps next we will see “15”, where in Los Angeles, 14 year old Marisol is eagerly waiting for her Quinceañera, when suddenly she is whisked to Vermont….

"Equus"; Peter Shaffer's hot box of crazies!

2008-09-26T05:57:00.000-07:00

I originally saw “Equus” on Broadway in the spring of 1975 when I had just moved to New York City. The same week I also went downtown to the Public Theater to see for the first of my 14 times, “A Chorus Line”. For a young man from a small town in southern Illinois(Carbondale), these shows were the avatar of theater. How could it get any better?

What I remember most about “Equus” was not only its seemingly simplistic staging and stylized horses but also the grand acting of such theater stalwarts as Frances Sternhagen and Marian Seldes. I also developed a crush on the actor playing Alan Strang, Peter Firth. (He must have been a lot older than I thought, because watching him now on BBC-America’s “MI5”, he looks older than Anthony Hopkins, his Dr. Dysart, does today.) At the time I found both “A Chorus Line” and “Equus” to be absolutely thrilling theater, but what I didn’t grasp at the time was how similar thematically they were. Both plays are rooted in the mid 70’s ethos of societal group norms versus freedom for the individual.

Regarding “Equus", I knew it was a crazy psycho-sexual drama, but I didn’t realize the extant that it was a homo-psycho-sexual play bordering on homophobia. (Maybe not even bordering, but deep in the terrain of queer self-loathing.) I’m sure everyone who saw it could never forget Alan symbolically masturbating on his favorite horse Nugget, played by the beautifully equine Everett McGill. “Equus”, the play, had some weird sexual attitudes, but John Dexter’s direction was breathtaking.

After a year or so, the play ran its course and would have closed if the producers had not put in Anthony Perkins as the lead. (Opposite another crush of mine, Keith McDermott.) Talk about your ‘hot box of crazy’! I mean, here was a man who was so fucked up sexually, that he made Montgomery Clift look positively ordinary. Too old to play Alan Strang, Perkins played the self-doubting shrink Martin Dysart! No wonder the critics went wild with this peculiar role reversal. The show lasted another two years, even moving from the Plymouth to the now demolished original Helen Hayes Theater.

I saw the show again there from a stage seat, but it was with Richard Burton, and I don’t remember much other than being enthralled watching the ‘great man himself’ up close. Since that time, “Equus” seemed to have faded into the maw of theatrical history with only a great logo “to remind me of my first heady theater experiences. (Well that and the recent revival of “A Chorus Line”.)

This of course brings me to the new revival of “Equus” which I saw in London last year. At that time I was a little nervous about seeing it again, since I had heard that the play itself was being viewed as a ‘period piece’ and starring Daniel Radcliffe, who had never acted on stage before in a very complex part. (Shades of Julia Roberts!) I mean his bio says that he did a walk-on in “Stones in my Pocket” but as himself! Also the thought of watching a 17-year-old walking around ‘nakid’ made me feel just a little pervy.

Well all that trepidation was allayed when both Radcliffe as Alan Strang and Richard Griffiths as Dr. Martin Dysart walked on stage (in a new set design by the man who did the original, John Napier), and I realized they were both in complete control of the play.

”Equus” is of course the story of a young man, who after tending horses at a local stable, goes bonkers one night and blinds them with a spike. This includes his favorite horse, Nugget. The reasons, the aftermath and the effect of this heinous crime form the basis of the play, not just the way they impact the young man and his family, but also the psychiatrist who is assigned to ‘help’ him.

As a consequence of Radcliffe’s youth and intensity, the play shifts its focus, and Dysart becomes almost secondary. Radcliffe's Alan is angry, despairing, shamed and deeply guilt-ridden. I really wondered how this boy could survive if he faces the unspeakable horrors of his crime. What’s really infuriating about Dysart is that he speaks a lot of psychobabble mumbo jumbo about conformity verses intense passions without ever realizing the deep-seated root of Alan’s despair. Not once does Dysart consider the homosexual panic of a young man raised in a repressive religious environment.

To their credit, both the director Thea Sharrock and Radcliffe do emphasize the effect homophobia has on a young psyche almost in spite of Shaffer’s text. Alan’s masturbatory ride with Nugget is so homoerotic that I almost had to turn away. This is also where Radcliffe, being only seventeen when I saw him, really scores big time. He was still just a post-pubescent young man, completely unaware of his body and the hormones racing through it. A good deal of the time he’s either in a state on undress or completely nude. It seemed to me that neither Strang nor Radcliffe are even conscience of their own inherent sexuality. This is why the melding of character and actor is so powerful.

What Radcliffe does know is that Alan is very, very attracted to the masculine and strong figure of the horses. In London, the virile dancer Will Kemp played Nugget, and the other five horses were almost as Adonic. Rather than the melodramatic meeting of Alan and his father at a porno theater that the plot suggests is part of his breakdown, Sharrock implies the perceived lack of maleness of his father is what provokes his outrage. This then invokes strong homosexual feelings in him, combined with his lust for the picture of Jesus originally over his bed, that it has to be destroyed. Thus the beautiful horses are blinded so they don’t see his unnatural love.

This contemporary rendition of “Equus” is what makes Alan Strang the central character rather than Martin Dysart. I thought that Daniel Radcliffe was amazing for someone so young who had never been on stage before. But even more surprising was that Peter Shaffer’s play after 35 years had such resonance and the power to provoke such strong emotions. Though written for a different era and with a lot of out-dated psychiatric notions, the play still works on so many other levels. That’s the sign of a true classic.

"FELA!"

2008-09-22T09:19:00.000-07:00

I saw “Fela!” the other night and I was just blown away by the spirit, music and all-around joy that this new musical ignited in me. The vividness in which the life and times of Fela Anaikulapo Kuti, Nigerian musician and political dissident are created by choreographer Bill T. Jones on stage at the tiny 37 Arts theater is more then astounding. It’s almost a miracle. I’ve seen plenty of musical bios before (“Will Rodgers Follies” anyone), but never one that has matched the intensity of exuberance of life and mixed with such despair with the world at large.

The genius of Bill T. Jones is that this mixture is never jarring or forced. He goes from the wild and frenetic hip swiveling sexuality of ‘Teacher Don’t Teach Me Nonsense’ (replete with having the entire audience participate in the hip swiveling) to the mournful ‘Sorrow Tears and Blood’ sung by the ethereal figure of his mother before she is brutally murdered by a regime intent on keeping a tight grip on power.

After the contribution that Jones made to help make “Spring Awakening” a success, he has complete artistic control with “Fela!” and boy, does he score. Other then perhaps some slow sections in the second half (I’m convinced everything can lose 15 minutes), “Fela!” moves like a Japanese bullet train. As with “Passing Strange” and “In the Height’s” both on Broadway last year, seeing different artists willing to try musical theater as an avenue for their craft, I finally am beginning to think that musicals can adjust to the 21st century.

"Beast"

2008-09-16T09:16:00.000-07:00

“Beast”
By Michael Weller at the New York Theater Workshop, is a very strange, disconcerting, extremely disturbing, play. In fact its subtitle is ‘A Fever Dream in Six Scenes’ and that’s what it feels like. (No I didn’t fall asleep, but at times I was drifting.) Two army buddies just back from the war in Iraq and not only badly maimed, (together they one right arm and one left arm) but also severely disfigured, travel around the country on some quest to make sense of the America they were fighting for. The fact that one of them is probably dead doesn’t seem to stop them from getting into some unusual situations, like an encounter with two blind prostitutes or an epiphany at the base of Mt. Rushmore where the stone heads of the presidents talk to them. This all leads to a very funny climax in Crawford, Texas and a private meeting (against his will) with GW.

I can’t say I liked this much, but given what I have seen recently at NYTW, at least it’s a play worth seeing and talking about. Logan Marshall-Grant as one of the physically maimed vets was almost unrecognizable from the last time I saw him in Kevin Kline’s version “King Lear” and Dan Butlar was priceless as our Head Cheerleader in Chief.

"A Tale of Two Cities" Best of the year, but which year?

2008-09-11T16:58:00.001-07:00

In the exposition-laden, opening first 30 minutes or so of the new musical “A Tale on Two Cities”, one line jumped out at me, and that’s when Lucy (our heroine) gets this bit of news: ‘Lucy, after seventeen years your father’s been found in France. And he’s alive!’ My first thought was well thank god, if he had been found dead that would have been a pretty rotten corpse. Lucy and her small coterie of guardians then travel from London to Paris where there’s lots more exposition. Downtrodden peasants, mean condescending aristocrats and those in the middle with a conscience but no ability to affect change. It’s a rather dizzying array of those Dickens characters with either colorful or funny names. Also on display are a great number of wigs to help us delineate who’s who. (The hair and costume budget alone would have fed those peasants for at least a year)

Now don’t get me wrong. As I was watching “A Tale of Two Cities”, I kept thinking that this was perhaps ‘the best new musical of the year.’ But, but unfortunately the year is 1985. Just imagine if it had come out then; Goodbye “Big River”, hello “Tale…”. All the trappings of a great musical are there. Big story, big themes, great sets, loud bombastic music with singers demanding you to PAY ATTENTION. In 1987 “Les Misérables” did just that and so much better. I know, I know this was a different revolution by a different author, but frankly for me one French peasant in the later 1700’s is very much like another in the early 1800’s. I’m shallow that way. Even the first act in “Tale…” ends the same way as “Les Miz”, with its anthem of strength and solidarity in numbers and the whole cast on stage yelling, screaming, and exhorting us to march along with HISTORY. In “Les Miz” it’s “One More Day”, here it’s “Until Tomorrow”. At Musical Mondays at Splash, patrons jump on their bar stools waving their drinks and tee shirts to sing with “Les Miz.”. Somehow I don’t see the same patrons wanting to shout along again. (Bar stool jumping is usually reserved for only special moments, maybe once or twice a night, like Idina Menzel wailing “Defying Gravity”,)

There is nothing terribly bad about “Tale…”. It is just so, so retro. Certainly there have been worse shows based on famous books. (“Copperfield”, Jekyll and Hyde” etc.) And as I said, if it had opened before “Les Miz.” who knows?

I try not to comment too much on acting, since I think I look at the whole show more than its parts, but I couldn’t help notice Katherine McGrath as Lucy’s steadfast guardian Miss Pross. Here was a role that cried out for Mary Stout, but I guess she was still incapacitated by her run-in with a hot dog cart; instead we got a very weak version of Barbara Bryne. OH, How I miss having her in the show. As Sydney Carton, the hero of the play, James Barbour seems to have taken the concept of louche and runs with it. Sometimes he is so laid-back that he can’t stand up straight. I get that Sydney is a drunk; boy do I get it, but come on James, drink from the cup of Mandy Patinkin and give us a little pizzazz. I will grant his singing was terrific and I especially liked his “I Don’t Recall” number in the first act. (Of course I also liked it in “The Happy Time” when it was called “I Don’t Remember You” or “Sometimes A Day Goes By” from “Woman Of the Year” or even Maltby and Shire’s “I Don’t Remember Christmas”.) And by the end, he was very moving, culminating with his “far, far better thing I do” speech. I only wish the other actors had reached his level.

Overall I have to say that “A Tale of Two Cities” really felt like the kind of show that had been running for decades and the producers decided to spiff it up with a new cast, refurbished costumes and sets and a new sound system. Everyone in New York has already seen it when it first opened and the ‘why Patti Cohenour lost to Leilani Jones in the best supporting actress category (there was no best actress category that year) and why didn’t Howard McGillan win for best actor debates’ have long since receded in memory.

My newest boy (and I do mean boy) friend.

2008-09-02T08:31:00.000-07:00

I know he's young, and perhaps a little too scruffy and thinks he straight, but give him a good haircut and a shave and you have the makings of a hot man-child. Of course I'll have to wait a few years until the baby and marriage thing has played out, but by that time he'll be ready for New York and I want to be the first to welcome him here. There will always be the nay sayers who'll scoff, but that's because there're jealous. Well at the end of the first month I'll turn him free, because I'm that kind of guy.

Fringe: “The Fabulous Kane Sisters…” An unexpected, but happy surprise.

2008-08-20T07:39:00.000-07:00

“The Fabulous Kane Sisters in BOX OFFICE POISON” is a tribute to a style of theater I haven’t seen in New York in decades. That of Charles Ludlum and ‘The Ridiculous Theater’. From the late 1960’s until his death from AIDS in 1987, Ludlum and his company helped create some of the most hilarious, campiest, sexiest, most erudite and eclectic theater to be seen in New York. I will never forget his spot-on hysterical love letter to Maria Callas in “Galas” or his hirsute, but ultimately extremely moving, Marguerite Gautier in “Camille” and of course his most famous play, performed with only his lover Everett Quentin, the ‘penny dreadful’ “Irma Veep”.

Now writers Marc Geller (also the director) and Bill Roulet (who also play the ‘Fabulous Kane Sisters’, Nova and Lana) have given us their salute to this great playwright and his large unforgettable company. While Mr. Geller might be channeling his inner Charles Busch in his Joan Crawford/Greer Garson style, the rest of the large ensemble is pure ‘Ridiculous’. This is especially true of Elizabeth West who as Romane, the costume mistress, who was formally ‘Miss Naughty Nipples’, comes out swinging her pasties-covered breasts. I swear if Black Eyed Susan weren’t still alive, West would be her reincarnation. Near nudity along with hot-bodied men, very well here played by David A. Rudd and Christian Pedersen, were once staples of Ludlum and Co.

In this world, not only is any word spared from being used as a double, triple or quadruple entendre, but no innuendo, no matter how old and hoary, is left untouched. (Sample; Lana Kane: We lost our cattle ranch in Wyoming because I couldn’t keep my calves together! Be yump bump.) Still for every two or three bad jokes and asides, there were four or five that were wildly outrageous and funny. The entire company of 15 (!) is completely up to the task of making this loving tribute so enjoyable. I especially want to commend Nicholas Gorham, who plays ‘Stinky’ the assistant stagehand without a tongue. His exposition scenes with Nova Kane were pure genius.

While “Kane Sisters…” is a little bit long at times, I seem to remember some of Ludlum’s plays dragging a bit here and there. So in that respect Geller and Roulet are giving him their due.

Thanks guys for not only writing, directing and performing a ‘divinely funny’ new play, but reminding me of the glory days of one of the great theater companies New York has ever produced: ‘The Ridiculous Theater’!

Now the bad news; “The Fabulous Kane Sisters…” has only one more performance on Friday the 22nd at 4:45. Rush the Cherry Lane Theater. It’s that good.

Upcoming Meryl Streep movies

2008-08-17T20:47:00.000-07:00

After her triumph in "Momma Mia!" Meryl is going to be in the movie version of "Doubt" Certainly a far cry from the über boss from hell in "The Devil Wears Prada" or the ABBA singing hotel keeper in "MM!"

I found this photo of Meryl Streep in costume for her up coming movie "Julie and Julia" where she plays Julia Child and Amy Adams the writer, Julie Powell, who decides to cook all of Child's recipes over the course of a year. The shoes, I assume, are to make the shorter Streep into the 6"1' french chief. It sounds like it's a comedy. (I hope)

For those of you who want to see Ms Streep in real life, here's a photo I took last April 14th 2008 at the Lincoln Center Salute to her.

"Damn Yankees" A very sexy show

2008-08-17T09:19:00.000-07:00

Ever since I was a little boy growing up on the South Side of Chicago, I've always thought of Damn Yankees as a very sexy musical. The idea of magically turning into the 22-year-old Tab Hunter, and having men and women idolize me, was a fantasy that kept me awake many a night. There was clearly a homosexual subtext going on in both the play and my mind, but I was too young to know it at the time. What I couldn't understand was how gorgeous Joe Hardy could even be interested in Gwen Verdon's Lola with her vampy 'Whatever Lola Wants' number, wearing those black toreador tights while jumping around and rolling on the floor. Of course, he wanted to go home to his nice, safe wife Meg. That kind of blatant, vulgar sexuality was just yucky. To me, only near the end, when we learn that Lola was previously 'The ugliest girl in Providence, Rhode Island', did I relent and allow myself to root for this mismatched couple. Finally when Joe Hardy (or Tab Hunter) turns back to his middle-aged self and he and Meg are reunited, was I really happy, and, of course, in tears. I got to be handsome, virile, Tab Hunter for a while, but now I'm home safe with Mom and Dad. For all its flagrant sexiness, "Damn Yankees" is really just a very tender story about true love between a husband and wife.

Years later (summer 1993 to be exact), I was tricked into joining the chorus of a production of Damn Yankeeson Fire Island (don't ask how I was tricked) which became one of my happiest memories of my seasons in 'The Pines'. All at once the homosexual subtext came roaring to the forefront. We had one of the best looking and well-built man I ever met playing Joe Hardy (replete with cut-away pants and shirt so it was HE who ended almost nude during Lola's strip). A smashing, beautiful guy played Lola absolutely straight and spot-on perfect. (He had been in the off-Broadway hit Pageant.) Very contemporary looking gay men played the other baseball players. (I don't think that nipple rings and other piercings were around in the baseball of the fifties.) And YET, YET, for all its campyness and gaiety, it was still the love story of Joe and Meg Boyd, formerly of Hannibal, Missouri, now living childless, in Washington, DC that really resonated with the Fire Island crowd. Damn Yankees is a very erotic musical about marriage and commitment to one another, no matter what.

The very next year, the Broadway revival opened and many of us from the Fire Island production got together to see it. Our disappointment was palatable. Bebe Neuwirth was miscast as Lola, Victor Garber was only adequate as Mr. Applegate, the devil, (despite, being the lead, he was so under-used that the director took away the song 'Two Lost Souls' from Joe Hardy and gave it to him. That didn't work!), and Jarrod Emick as Joe was just too slight and callow to be a real hero. The rest of the ball players were of the generic chorus types. Jack O'Brien's revamped book and his less-then-solid direction just didn't work. Later in the run, the producers decided to throw the whole venture under the bus (in the now popular parlance) and installed Jerry Lewis as Applegate. Even with a free ticket, I lasted only the first act and then fled.

Now, the 'Summer Stars series of Encores' has given us a terrific Damn Yankees, which for me, combines the romantic love story from my youth with the lustiness and fun of my Fire Island days. It also, much to its credit, dispenses with the homo-erotic element and camp that mar too many musicals these days. (Don't get me wrong, I loves the homo element just as much as the next gay, just not where it needn't be) At its core , Damn Yankees is a musical comedy about loneliness, passions thwarted or overlooked, feelings of alienation and ultimately trying to answer the eternal question: "How in the hell did I ever get to be this old?". (Hmmm, now I see how I got that gay subtext!) Mixing this up with baseball, a Marilyn Monroe stand in, the Devil, a clear, concise George Abbott book and the great Bob Fosse choreography, director John Rando has given us a pitch-perfect production for a New York City summer night.

While the look of the show is strictly summer stock, that element added a lot to my enjoyment (and precisely the reason I didn't care for last years Gypsy). Damn Yankees is a show that really can't sustain a full-scale revival like, say South Pacific. What's there is there and digging too deep will not yield more gold. The twenty-five piece orchestra didn't make the songs richer, but it was sure great hearing them though. Regarding the cast, almost all got up to bat and hit the ball out of the park! (cue the fireworks and ad copy)

I do want to start with the guys playing the Washington Senators. For the most part they looked like they could actually have been real ball players in that pre-steroid era. They danced the rather masculine Fosse dances like men and not chorus boys. Blatant hetero-aggressiveness has its place, especially in the 'I Thought About the Game' number which actually came off sweeter than it might have.

Randy Graff always has that slight edge of irony which adds interest to her characters. Her Meg is no longer a left- behind victim, still lonely, but able to move on. This makes her duets with Joe Hardy all the more heartbreaking. I felt sad for Meg, but not sorry for her.

Sean Hayes as Mr. Applegate, the Devil, was nothing less than astonishing when you consider this is his New York theater debut. Here is one of the few times that television acting really translated well to the stage. He got all the laughs and really seemed to be enjoying the other actors. Looking relaxed and comfortable, his version of 'Those Were the Good Old Days' brought the house down.

The veteran stage actress, Jane Krakowski as Lola looked so stunning and sang and danced with such bravado that it was almost a shock to realize how vulnerable this woman really was. In the second act, her scene with Joe makes you realize that she is just a lonely woman who never had love in 170 years. Truly touching.

Finally, Cheyenne Jackson, as the man-child Joe Hardy, was just not there yet. I saw the third preview and he was still trying to find his core, at least in the first act. All the characters in "Damn Yankees" are 'who they say they are' with the exception of Joe Hardy. Don't forget that while we see young Joe Hardy, inside is Joe Boyd, a middle aged insurance salesman. The confused young man is there, but not the knowing older man. I needed to see both Joes. Still, like Ms Lupone last summer, I have no doubt that Mr. Jackson (who looked and sang like my dream version of myself) will eventually nail it. (Hey, he was starring in Xanadu only last week, so I'm giving him all the time he needs!)

Dare I say it: This production of Damn Yankees wins the World Series of Summer Musical Theater!

[title of show]. My view: a very cynical show

2008-08-17T08:44:00.000-07:00

   Last night’s [title of show] (last row, orchestra dead center; thank you David). Having seen it at the Vineyard Theater, I was curious to see if this tiny show, in both scope and concept, could make the leap to a large B’way house. Nope, no cigar. My friend and I noted that “tos” had nothing to say except what’s on its mind right now. (I was thankful the actors didn’t mention me, or David, as coming to see the show last night.) Yes, I was charmed in the beginning with the obscure insider show-biz references. (My favorite was the one referring to Betty Buckley as ‘a hot box of crazy’.) Also as someone who did summer stock with Mary Stout way back in the mid-seventies, I felt I was in the unique position to actually know who she is. (By the way, Mary was terrific as Fraulein Schneider in our production of “Cabaret”.)

   Soon, though, I began to be aware of what was being told and what was being left out. At first the two actors were purporting to show us their process in writing “tos” along with bits of biography. They ask us to see them as ‘Show-Mo’ geeks (Show-Mo being their shortening of show-tune loving homosexuals; clever, I guess.), with lists of failed musicals as their reference repartee. After awhile though, this listing begins to curdle and starts coming across as disdain, not only for the failed shows, but of the effort it took to write them. They seem to saying why do you need real talent if you have hopes and dreams?

   What I find doubly cynical is no mention of who else is helping the writers achieve their goals. For instance, I found it interesting at the Vineyard to see that the director was Michael Berresse, a Broadway actor with a long list of credits. (Much longer than the four actors on stage combined.) How did he get involved and how did it help the writers? Just before the show started last night, my friend David turned to me and said that Michael Berresse and Jeff Bowen were longtime boyfriends (as per OUT magazine). For two guys giving us the minutia of their daily lives, I think this factoid would have been helpful. ‘Kids, don’t lose hope. You too can get a show on Broadway with only a modicum of talent. All you need is stars in your eyes, hope in your heart and make sure you are young and pretty enough to get a boyfriend well situated in the profession.’ Gee, maybe they aren’t the slackers they’d like everyone to think they are?

   Do you think I’m being too harsh? Last night on stage, I didn’t see anyone that special (there’s a good reason Heidi never got beyond the under-study roles and Jeff was in bus ‘n’ trucks), nor, did I hear anything more then cut-rate cabaret. Just plain ole’ fashion sexual politics.

"HAIR" the Lite-FM Musical

2008-08-17T08:37:00.000-07:00

   In 1967 the musical “HAIR” burst onto Broadway from the downtown Public Theater. It was hailed as a breath of fresh air in contrast to the increasingly moribund musicals that were playing ‘The Great White Way’. Whereas at one time the pop songs that dominated the airwaves in America mostly came from Broadway shows, perhaps only the title tunes from “Hello Dolly” or “Cabaret” had had any mainstream success by the mid to late sixties. Since the late fifties, most popular music came from rock ‘n’ roll, Motown, folk or dozens of other styles that the ‘Baby Boom’ generation found and embraced. Young people had their music and their parents had “Fiddler on the Roof”. (The ‘soundtrack’ of many a Jewish household, including my own.)

   “HAIR” brought the generations together for a communal love fest of peace and, perhaps, understanding. Those middle-class parents, who worried that their sons were letting their hair get too long and their daughters were wearing outfits too skimpy, could see that beneath it all, they were the same children going though a healthy rebellious phase. Why the music they thought of as ‘just noise’ was actually very pretty and melodic, even if the lyrics were slightly naughty. Was it any coincidence that the hit songs from “HAIR” were popularized by ‘The Cowsils’, a band made up of family members, and ‘The Fifth Dimension’, with its two married couples? In 1967, “HAIR’s” most provocative claim to fame was that it featured some of these kids taking off all their clothes on stage! (Gasps and titters, ‘Look Maude, boobs!’)

The other ‘revolutionary’ thing about “HAIR” was that it had no real plot to speak of, just a series of charming, sometimes off-color ditties, kinda addressing the major dilemma of the time, the Vietnam War. Should our nominal hero, Claude, burn his draft card in protest or will he give in to parental pressure and shape up? Mix nudity, soft rock music, and a provocative theme together, and Broadway finally had its entre into the ‘Baby Boom’ generation. Of course, it couldn’t offend its core audience too much or else they would stay away, insulted and hurt. “HAIR” has it both ways. Sort of a Toostie Roll pop musical.

                  I remember thinking this, when I first saw “HAIR” in Chicago in 1968 at the Shubert Theater, with my then girlfriend Paula. There was a real inconsistency with what was happening onstage (and in those scary aisles where dancers would approach us in character), and the fact I had paid $11.50 a ticket to sit in a beautiful gold rococo auditorium in deep blue velvet cushioned seats. By the end though, I had given in to the cheerfulness and camaraderie of “HAIR” and Paula and I ended up on stage singing and dancing ‘Let the Sunshine In’ with pure joy and excitement. Several months later, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated and the Democratic National Convention was rocking my Chicago. The next year “Woodstock” took place (no I was not there) and the real ‘soundtrack for a generation’ came about. “HAIR” quickly became a period piece. Last year’s news.

                  Now “HAIR” is playing in Central Park at the Delacorte Theater where I caught it last Friday night. Because it was not only free, but also a beautiful summer night, I was able to sit back and look at “HAIR” as a revival of a famous Broadway show, much like “No No Nanette” was.

The ‘story’ revolves around two friends, Berger, the rebellious high school senior, played by Will Swenson (straight from the ‘Stockard Channing High School’) and cautious Claude, performed beatifically by Jonathan Groff in his most disarming boyish style. They, along with their friends, hang out in Washington Square Park, singing and dancing the joys and woes of being young and pretty in a turbulent world. Perhaps the most non-traditional aspect of “HAIR” is the fact that there isn’t a love story that the audience could focus on, no matter how tangentially. (Zack and Cassie anyone?) Smartly, the director Dianne Paulus, has not tried to link the ’67’ Vietnam Conflict with the current war in Iraq. Instead what we get is a large group of youngish good-looking actors playing their version of 60’s ‘hippies’. They are all adorable. For most of the time it was like watching “The Puppy Bowl” (Each year, on the day of the Super Bowl, Animal Planet shows lots of puppies playing in a yard constructed to look like a stadium. The effect is very calming.)

Galt MacDermot’s music with lyrics by Gerome Ragni and James Rado hark back to a time when Broadway actually thought it was being radical by giving us a soft rock beat with bawdy, racy words. (Though the other night I found myself singing Claude’s first act finale song “Where Do I Go” and ended up with “Sweet Charity’s” big second act number “Where Am I Going?” Try keeping those separate in your mind, I dare ya.) It was a pleasure listening to all the familiar hit tunes like some kind of K-Tel record ‘Treasures from the Summer of Love’. (Missing only ‘When You’re Going to San Francisco’)

I loved looking at all the sixties-style costumes that have since gone in and out of fashion several times over in the last forty years, and it was cool to see the same bell-bottomed jeans with flower patches that I remember wearing in high school. (In full disclosure, my parents owned the largest bead and novelty store in Chicago and this exploding fashion allowed them to go from lower middle-class to a very comfortable middle-class, thank you “HAIR” very much!)

The great Modern choreographer, Karole Armitage, creates dances that are a wonderful merging of innocent street-life and high Broadway style. Her way of grouping the large cast made me wish that the movie producers of “Momma Mia!” had spent a few bucks and done the same to those flat-footed island villagers.

Like the recent “Damn Yankees”, “HAIR” doesn’t have much more on its mind then giving us an enjoyable summer night, this time in Central Park. Unlike forty years ago, I didn’t feel the same queasy condescension, though there were two discordant notes that seem to be inherent in any production of the show. First, the second act begins to slow down to a crawl, as our puppies start tiring out. Secondly, the heavy-handed irony of the protagonist, Claude, whose first act anthem is “I Got Life”, becomes representative of all the young men who decide that it’s better to man-up and go to war than to live in a confusing world of moral ambiguities and decadence. This leads to his death, and Claude’s body on an American flag is the last visual we see. He is alone under a spotlight, devoid of friends and family.

Could this be the response of the creators of “HAIR” to America’s inability to separate the Viet Nam War from its soldiers in the sixties and early seventies? Gee thanks guys, I’m feeling crappy. Fortunately the moment passes very quickly and we are back to ‘Let The Sun Shine In’. And, wouldn’t you know it, just like I did forty years ago in Chicago, I and my friends rushed onto the stage, sang loudly, danced badly and left the Delacorte Theater happy.

“HAIR” really didn’t change much in the world of Broadway. The winner of best musical the year it opened was “1776” and the next year it was “Applause”!!! Musicals were determined to stay put, smack in the middle of the 20th Century, and it’s only recently that they are being dragged into the 21st.. But “HAIR” is still a pleasant way to spend a warm summer night under the stars.

The Worst of the 'Fringe': "Naked Dead Elephant..."

2008-08-14T08:06:00.000-07:00

Since 'Fringe' shows only last for 5 performances, I usually don't like to comment on them, but last weekend I saw what had to be the bottom of the barrel for even the 'Fringe' (and that's going some). Titled "The Naked Dead Elephant in the Room" and written (?) and directed (??) by someone named Larson Rose, this piece of sixth grade garbage manages to be not only sexist and very racist, ultimately homophobic. (Perhaps Mr Rose couldn't figure out Anti-Semitism.) His point of reference is clearly [title of show] and he even manages to bungle that. The plot, such that it is, is about a young playwright pounding on his laptop and talking to an unseen audience (us). He has to write a play quickly and doesn't know what to write about. How's that for original! His sex fantasies keep interrupting him and, yes, we see them played out. Rose seems to not only have contempt for his intended audience (I presume old gay men), but for actors also. What he seems to be saying in his own inept way, is that gay men will see anything with 'Naked' in the title and actors are such whores that they will agree to do anything (really anything!) to be cast. At 45 minutes, this show manages to be utterly offensive and deadly, deadly dull!