Well I didn't want to get into it, but he's a Satanist.
Every full moon he sacrifices 4 puppies to the Dark Lord and smears their blood on his paino.
This should help you understand the score for Wicked a little bit more.
Tazber's: Reply to
Is Stephen Schwartz a Practicing Christian
Well I didn't want to get into it, but he's a Satanist.
Every full moon he sacrifices 4 puppies to the Dark Lord and smears their blood on his paino.
This should help you understand the score for Wicked a little bit more.
Tazber's: Reply to
Is Stephen Schwartz a Practicing Christian
I think the first ten minutes is stunning beautiful, sadly what follows is 110 minutes of pure boring crap
Well I didn't want to get into it, but he's a Satanist.
Every full moon he sacrifices 4 puppies to the Dark Lord and smears their blood on his paino.
This should help you understand the score for Wicked a little bit more.
Tazber's: Reply to
Is Stephen Schwartz a Practicing Christian
I love catty Brantley because even though he makes snide jokes, he brings up talking points that are still deep dives. Compared to Jesse Green, who says something is awful and then bashes it for a page.
"I think the first ten minutes is stunning beautiful, sadly what follows is 110 minutes of pure boring crap."
I agree. I think that may be what makes it so popular. There's nothing pesky, like content, to distract the audience from the colors, shapes, and movement.
I disagree with Brantley nearly completely, and think Chris Jones in the Chicago Tribune nails it.
There's little point pining for the original version, because I don't think it would play today. As Jones notes, the roles of East and West have changed and the metaphors for them in the play would seem outdated and pat. What's more, I'd argue the gender reveal would be insensitive and inappropriate today: it can't be the point of the play.
That said, the revisions do come with a price, namely the suspense of that reveal and the spell the audience falls under along with Gallimard.
And IMO Owen is underwhelming and has little stage presence and Ha is wonderful (hence why I completely disagree with Brantley.) And I found the physical production to be beautiful and expressive but had trouble giving clarity to the new complexities of the script.
Worth noting: Brantley and some others do not mention SPIDER MAN anywhere in their reviews, which I think is admirable (even if their MB reviews are negative). Also no mention of Spidey in Chicago Trib, Hollywood Reporter, Daily News, Guardian, and maybe otherrs too.
There is nothing wrong with a couple hours of "colors, shapes, and movement." The problem is one of genre; in the theatre we expect all of those things to be in the service of storytelling.