Profile for chrissly

"hey hey hey, I didnt put the picture there because i liked the show its because i think its HOT! lol" No arguments there...

HA! So do I!

"oy vey, leave it alone people. Let it impress you/not impress you when you see it LIVE" Says the person with a pic from the show as their avatar. Looks like you've already judged. If these people are going to try to produce a such a safe show – a musical based on a popular '80's movie set in an in vogue decade – then I don't see why we can't judge it based on the clips we've seen. Clips presumably OK'd by the producers (those cameras were far to close to be "archival." Sure, theatre is a liv...

. . . but I always felt it would work better if it was less literal. making the story take place in Toby's mind makes it less literal. It becomes about the themes, the emotions, the trials of these characters... not about the time period, the setting, the specific circumstances. so this story takes place in toby's head? did you read that somewhere, some program note i missed? is there something indicative of that, other than toby beginning and ending the piece? i don't disagree that that migh...

i saw the production this past wednesday, and i gotta say this production is textbook "concept." those who are decrying the use of "concept" to criticize this show need to read up a little on dramatic theory. in theory i liked the idea. when i heard about it i was very excited to see it. ultimately, though, the thing just doesn't work. first off is the insane asylum conceit. why? how does this inform the story? by that, i mean the story of the show, not the story of sweeney todd. i don't see ...

Do you think the scenic designer had any sense of the irony of a GIANT LEMON decending the from flies?

i'm curious; what can you POSSIBLY get out of seeing this show four perfomrnaces in a row. i assume you have seen it before once or twice.

the cast may have seen the writing on the wall (or in the empty seats) but they got notice yesterday, just like you. never assume a producer has anything resembling a heart.

Wow. What an awesome post about an awesomely awesome experience. With such an awesome critical eye, you should write for the NYTimes. That would be awesome.

Once when I was bartending I told this joke: "What's the difference between ALW and and Uzi? An Uzi only repeats itself one hundred times a minute." One of my customers responded by singing the following to the tune of "Send in the Clowns:" "Aren't I rich?/Aren't I queer?/Writing this dissonant sh!t, year after year." My personal opinion, though, is that one hundred years from now there will be more productions of SS than of ALW.

Stepping back from the Maureen bashing for a bit, the original post's subject was "Why do performers of today have no STAR quality?" I'm always very interested whenever anyone brings up this "star quality" thing. To answer the original question, I think Star Quality needs to be defined. Saying it's "that certain something" isn't good enough. To know something is to be able to define it. If you can define it (and here's a hint, it's not album sales) then you can begin to ponder why it may not ...

LA is a "great" theatre town because the 99 seat plan allows actors to be bent over. Know why there isn't a 99 seat plan in other cities? 'Cause Equity learned from the mistake of LA. There are theatre companies out there that require actors to PAY THEM to be members, and of course there's no guarantee of being cast. Not that there can't be great theatre made in any adverse environment. Just don't confuse a large number of store-front companies producing sub-standard productions with a "great...