Thoughts on BILLY (10/31) and EQUUS (11/1)

[matty159]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 11:49am

Well, I finally got to see two shows this weekend that I had been waiting to see for a long time. I have had the BILLY recording since it was first released (and listen to it all the time) and have wanted to see a production of EQUUS ever since I read it in my freshman year of college.

(Sorry if these are a bit long, but there is a fair amount to say about both.)

BILLY ELLIOT (10.31.08 8p.)

Let me first say that the $41 rear mezz seats are excellent. There was ample legroom and the sightlines were wonderful. I feel like we didn’t miss a thing. Sure, if I see it again, I would like to be closer, but for a last minute ticket buy, these seats were great. (Oh…and the sets were working. All that drama over that one piece? OK, it was cool how they weaved the house in and out, but seriously?)

After all that I had read and heard, I really wanted to see Kiril…and I got my wish. I don’t even know where to begin. Such an amazing kid. He brought everything to the role of Billy that I was expecting. His singing and acting was totally on point, but his dancing blew me away. I seriously was speechless at the end of Act 1.
Kiril’s Angry Dance left me spellbound and pretty much gave me the chills…the chills you get when you see something truly magnificent and transcendent. Yes, it was that great. Moments like that in the theatre come along so very rarely. Sheer perfection (though credit here has to be shared with Daldry’s staging, John’s music, Darling’s choreography, and the fantastic company too).

I am so happy to have seen Haydn Gwynne. Perfect comedic timing and a great fit for the role. Greg Jbara made an excellent Dad and Carole Shelley made Grandma a warm and tender hoot. It is a shame that these two were only given one major song a piece. I mean, it makes sense in the context of the entire piece, but they were great and I would have liked to have seen them given more (though at 3 hours, BE has more than enough going for it already). Frank Dolce was on as Michael. To play Michael to the hilt takes some daring and verve, and Dolce stepped up to the task.

As much as I rave, the show does have its issues. It wasn’t a huge issue for me as I love the show and the movie, but the two people who came with me said they felt it was definitely too long. I personally couldn’t tell them what to trim, and it is such a solid show that nothing is going to be cut, but I would wonder whether the average theatergoer would find themselves being too bogged down in such a book heavy show.

My only big complaint about the show was the curtain call. I found it unnecessary and diminished the overall emotional impact of the show. People on here have varying opinions on this matter too. I am with the camp that thinks it feels forced. But again, is this a matter of looking at the show as a die hard fan of theater or looking at it as a commercial property? As a commercial property that producers want to strike as hard as it has in other markets with the general pop, the curtain call works. I just don’t think it fits with the piece as a whole.

Overall, I loved BILLY and would like to see it again when I come up again in either December or January. Is it the coup of the season? I guess that has yet to be seen, but it is an amazing night of theater that I am glad has finally made it across the pond.

P.S. A great stagedoor. Kiril was so sweet and humble and Hadyn was equally as gracious and chatty. Great folks in a great show that are ostensibly appreciative of the support they get from their fans.

EQUUS (11.01.08 8p.)

After a minor delay for electrical issues, the show got underway. I was psyched. Then…nonplussed.

I don’t know whether it was me (it could have been) or the production itself, but I only found myself “all in” during four parts of the evening. The horses were a sight to behold and used well. The costumes and masks were great….I want one of those masks! Lorenzo Pisoni was amazing as the Horseman/Nugget. His scenes with Daniel in Act 1 were two of the four that I found myself engaged in. Indeed, all of the horses struck a very striking presence on stage when they were the focal point. One of the pull-quotes outside of the Broadhurst sums up my thought here….very “primal and electrifying”.

I thought Kate Mulgrew embodied the role of Hesther Saloman to perfection. Between her facial expressions, vocal inflections, and body language, her chilliness and connection to Dysart was perfect. The same came be said of T. Ryder Smith. The scene after he “discovers” Jill and Alan was as stirring as it was a revelation and disturbing.

The two weakest members of the company for me were Carolyn McCormick (Dora Strang) and Anna Camp (Jill). I had a hard time buying into McCormick’s accent (and hence her embodiment of Alan’s mother). It seemed very forced. As for Camp, she might as well have been chewing on those four blocks of scenery. I really felt her trying too hard and not on par with the rest of the company.

Now, what of Richard and Daniel? Griffiths’ Dysart was a little too understated for my taste. I would have liked to have seen a little more passion put into the character. I know that is just how he was playing it, but I didn’t feel the internal torture he feels as much as I would have liked. His Act 2 monologue about his marriage was brilliant, as was the closing monologue. The tone there was spot-on, but I would have liked to see more of a break out of the “reserve” in other scenes. By no means did I think he was bad, but I wanted more out of Dysart based on my impressions of the play on the written page.

Daniel Radcliffe deserves every bit of praise he has gotten for this role. Simply sublime. He channels Alan Strang’s tortured soul as well as it could be channeled. The anger and denial doesn’t seem forced and it seems like he has melded really well with this character. He is a very talented man who I truly hope has a vast career ahead of him after the Potter films. If last night was any indicator, he most certainly will. To handle Alan Strang with the aplomb Radcliffe manifests is the thing of theater history.

All of that being said, I did think the show overall was pretentious and “smart” for the sake of being “smart”. Is that necessarily a bad thing? No. EQUUS is a modern classic and this production with a few minor exceptions did do Shaffer’s piece justice. (And in all honesty, as I have been writing this, thinking about the production, and referencing the script, I find myself liking the production more than I did Saturday night.)

Final say: I think I might want to see it again with my retrospective thoughts in mind, but overall it was a good night of theater…flawed, but good and worthy of seeing.

NOTE: If you stagedoor, prepare to be annoyed. It is almost an art to get to the front of the barricades (thanks, mikem) and even when you are there it takes a great amount of restraint to not want to knock out the annoying tourists, people screaming “Harry”, people who didn’t see the show, and folks who just have no appreciation for the actors and the show they just came out of. It was seriously the craziest stagedoor I have ever been at. And although I got Radcliffe and Griffith signatures, it all seemed so perfunctory. Daniel barely looked up and Richard was talking to his handler the entire time. If it hadn’t been for my best friend and this being her first weekend seeing Broadway shows and wanting to stagedoor, I might have walked without signatures.

FINAL NOTE:

A good weekend in NYC overall…good friends, good times, and good theater. And although it is kind of off-topic, try Marsailles on 9th for dinner (all three of our entrees made me melt) and Weather Up (in Brooklyn….on Vanderbilt) for cocktails (very old school and with classic cocktail making, it was a drinking and atmospheric experience that I will never forget).

[esparza 333]

Posted: 11/6/08 at 7:50pm

You saw two excellent pieces. I enjoyed reading thee reviews. Do you think it is possible that Daniel Radcliffe could win a tony.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/6/08 at 8:13pm

I read this before.

[willep]

Posted: 11/6/08 at 8:23pm

I think Daniel will definitely at least get nominated for a Tony, but I have not seen all the plays on Broadway so I can't say whether or not he will win. I sure hope he does though.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 11/6/08 at 8:40pm

A little early in the season to worry about the WINNERS. Nominated? Very possibly.

Richard Griffiths will most definitely be nominated. I thought his performance to be stellar. Among the best I'd ever seen.

I saw Equus on the 2nd and was mesmorized by it's entirety. I cried often...at times it was unstoppable. I was moved by the starkness, beauty and horror of it all.

Sorry you didn't feel the same way!

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 11/6/08 at 9:32pm

I think it's very possible that Radcliffe will be nominated.

Winning, though... I doubt it. Tony races tend to shine a light on anything in a performance that could be twisted into a bad thing: I think there will be a fair number of people who think that, as great as Radcliffe is, his role isn't far enough away from Harry Potter that he has to, to paraphrase Ben Brantley put it, "stretch himself beyond tearing."

And... I really do think this is going to be Raul's year. So far, the other contenders for Best Leading Actor (Nathan Lane and Bill Irwin in Waiting for Godot, David Hyde-Pierce in Accent on Youth, Matthew Broderick in The Philanthropist, and others) don't seem to be cast to do much beyond what we know they can do, and do brilliantly. And though some will argue that Raul was cast for the same reason... well, he hasn't won before, and unless voters are just tired of him by now (which is very possible, admittedly), I think he has a real chance. His only competition so far (and we don't know how this'll turn out) is Jeremy Irons in the new play Impressionism.

Updated On: 11/6/08 at 09:32 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 11/6/08 at 9:48pm

I totally agree that Raul will garner a nomination....he was amazing in STP.

I'm not sure you can start talking noms for shows that haven't even opened yet. They could suck....big names can certainly fall short.

[matty159]

Posted: 11/6/08 at 10:17pm

dramamama - The funny thing about EQUUS, and as I noted in the review, is that the more I think about it, the more I realize that it was much better than my initial impression. Actually, I have myself talking about it much more than BILLY ELLIOT when people ask about my trip.

Posted: 11/8/08 at 2:26am

I was also at the Billy Elliot performance of 10/31. My opinion is excellent cast, TERRIBLE show. The material is substandard, at best. Terrible songs that go nowhere, musical numbers that occur for no reason. (What was up with the little girls and the feather fans and the entire boys dressing up like girls sequence?) and at the end the last thing we see is Billy's best friend sitting on a bike as the curtain falls? the last thing we should see is BILLY! He's the title character! DUH!

I think the issue here is that it's a musical written by a group of people who don't know how to write musicals. I know! I know! "But Elton john Wrote Aida and Lestat!" True, but can you remember a single tune from Aida? And Lestat was a huge failure. (Whatever happened to that cast album they recorded but was never released?) The production team didn't follow the rules of musical theater! To me it seemed like a decent first draft that needs a lot of work. The second act was, long, slow and ineffective. I saw this show in London and felt the same way then, the Bway version just confirmed my feelings. The audience loved it and I'm sure it will have a healthy run but good it ain't. Disappointing? Definitely!

[Mamie]

Posted: 11/8/08 at 6:30am

"The production team didn't follow the rules of musical theater"

"The audience loved it and I'm sure it will have a healthy run but good it ain't."

This kind of argument defies logic. Perhaps the 'rules of musical theater' need to be changed?

[MamasDoin'Fine]

Posted: 11/8/08 at 6:35am

Splendero3 you just don't get it- you make some ridiculous comments there- stick to Disney movies!

Posted: 11/8/08 at 10:00am

What don't I get? I thought there was a lot about Billy Elliot that didn't work at all.

The cast is stepping out of reality to push the scenery as the scene is shifting? that's absurd! Most of the songs were very clunky and badly written. This is the same Elton John who wrote Goodbye, Norma Jean, Rocketman, and Benny and the Jets? You could have fooled me.

In the grandmothers song the men doing the slow motion dance behind the grandmother as she sang the song were very distracting. I spent more time watching them than listening to her telling her story. The dialogue scene that followed had no sense of place. I had no idea where they were because the stage was littered with chairs. It was confusing.

Why in the world does the number "Expressing Yourself" (I believe that's it's title.) turn into a star turn for the teacher? As it went on it got more and more absurd? Why do the girls have fans? It just didn't work in my opinion.

Billy's dead mother coming in and out of the scenes was totally confusing. I had no idea that she was dead, especially when she hugged Billy. Isn't she supposed to be a ghost or a vision he's seeing? How can he hug something that's not there? Just wondering.

The entire scene and subsequent musical number where the boys dress up like girls didn't seem to have anything to do with the plot. I realize it was in the movie but turning it into a major production number seemed gratuitous to me.

There should have been a blackout at the end of Act I. It would have more dramatic impact and get bigger applause.

The entire Second Act was very slow and meandering. We have to get the information fast and move on to the next scene. Jerry Mitchell said on Down Stage Center, "I don't want to be bored!" I WAS BORED!!!!!

What really upset me was the use of recorded music during Billy's "dream ballet" in the second act. A recording of Swan Lake!? Come on! THAT'S CHEATING! You mean to tell me Elton John or his orchestrator couldn't write something original?! With all the press in the last couple of years about live orchestras versus canned music and "virtual orchestras" I'm AMAZED the members of AFM local 801 allowed them to do this. It is unconscionable and I was really disappointed in the creative team. And what was up with Billy being hooked up to a rope and swung up in the air? I thought they whole thing was silly. I also thought the entire sequence where Billy goes to London with his father to audition for the Royal Ballet was very clunky and played for cheap laughs. Jokes about a male ballet dancer's crotch!? Really? We're all smarter than that!

It was a full house on Oct 31, the audience loved it and it got a standing ovation. All the producers want to do is make money. They're not interested in making something artistically satisfying. It is the commercial theater after all. The show comes to Broadway after running to sold out houses for over three years in London so the producers know it will have a huge advance sale and all the producers care about is getting butts in seats for the long term so they can make money. Unfortunately, most Broadway shows are less about art and more about making money.

On the positive side, the cast was EXCELLENT, the orchestra flawless and there was definitely a sense of being present at a major event. The show itself, the material the actors had to work with, was bad. It's not the first time and it's not the last. I could point to a few other shows that fit the same category. (Legally Blonde, All Shook Up to name two.)

YES, the audience LOVED it and cheered accordingly. Despite it's flaws the show has a wonderful heart and really connects with the audience or it wouldn't be a hit over in London. I have no doubt it will have a healthy run, probably not as long as in London, but it will run.

I'm sorry you don't all agree with me, but I'm free to express my opinion just as you are free to disagree with me. Just remember that no show is perfect and there will ALWAYS be someone who is going to disagree with you.

[Just_John]

Posted: 11/8/08 at 10:09am

"The cast is stepping out of reality to push the scenery as the scene is shifting? that's absurd!"

They're also stepping out of reality to sing! Is that also absurd? It's a musical! It's not supposed to be real.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 11/8/08 at 10:37am

"Why in the world does the number Expressing Yourself (I believe that's it's title)..."

You believe (and punctuate) incorrectly - the title of that number is Shine.


"How can he hug something that's not there? Just wondering."

That's the sort of thing I would have written when I was 10. If you keep wondering and thinking really hard you may just understand by the time you grow up.


"The entire scene and subsequent musical number where the boys dress up like girls didn't seem to have anything to do with the plot."

But it had a lot to do with character development and the sub-plot.


"The production team didn't follow the rules of musical theater!"

Thankfully nor did Oscar Hammerstein, Stephen Sondheim and others too numerous to list.


"We're all smarter than that!"

You're not.

[Billy Whiz]

Posted: 11/8/08 at 12:24pm

"I'm sorry you don't all agree with me, but I'm free to express my opinion just as you are free to disagree with me. Just remember that no show is perfect and there will ALWAYS be someone who is going to disagree with you."

I don't agree at all with your sentiments about the show but I most certainly agree with your last paragraph which is quoted above".

[TBD2]

Posted: 11/8/08 at 6:47pm

"How can he hug something that's not there? Just wondering."

Two thoughts on this one -- Perhaps it's something an 11 year old under a lot of stress CAN experience? Maybe it WOULD be an improvement if she just TRIED to hug him? Not saying either way is "best", just a thought.

"Jokes about a male ballet dancer's crotch!? Really?"

Really! Remember, it's about what the characters might do, not what YOU would do...



Updated On: 11/9/08 at 06:47 PM

Posted: 11/9/08 at 1:47am

Interesting comments, scripps2.

Sorry for getting the song title wrong.

I thought the dead mother wandering on was clunky and unclear. If I were not already familiar with the film I might not have any clue who she is. Clarity should be of the utmost importance.

the scene where the boys dress up as girls. "had a lot to do with character and sub-plot." Well, maybe. The scene should be there, I'll agree, BUT I don't think it merits a production number not in keeping with the tone of the rest of the show. those giant clothes on hangers reminded me of those weird puppets in Wicked. It just made no sense.

The production team didn't follow the rules of musical theater. Thankfully nor did Oscar Hammerstien, Stephen Sondheim and others too numerous to mention."
If you'll read your musical theater history you will see that Rodgers and Hammerstein pretty much CREATED the rules by which all Great American Musicals are governed when they wrote Oklahoma in 1943 thus ushering in the Golden Age of American Musical Theater which ended arguably in 1966 with Cabaret. And it was Hammerstein who told Stephen Sondheim that "the audience has to know within the first ten minutes what the show will be about." In fact, it was Hammerstein who taught the rules of musical theater writing to Sondheim. Any of Rodgers and hammerstein's "Big 5" musicals can be used as a template for constructing a well crafted, coherent show. Any young composer or lyricist worth his salt should study them in great detail.

As to your comparing me to a 10-year-old, I will have you know that I am an actor, vocalist, teacher and artistic director of a regional theater. I think I am entitled to my opinions as much as the next person.

So, yes, I AM smarter than that!

[Scripps2]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 6:21am

Ofcourse you are entitled to your opinions - I never said otherwise. Equally I am entitled to analyse them, scrutinise them and take them apart if they are found wanting.

"I thought the dead mother wandering on was clunky and unclear. Clarity should be of the utmost importance."

I have noticed incresing complexity in modern media. The increasing use of flashbacks within flashbacks in film and TV drama and also deliberately structuring drama so that the pieces of the jigsaw fall into place much later in the work than they would previously have done, are two of the ways authors and producers are challenging audiences. I like being stimulated and challenged in such a way.

"If you'll read your musical theater history you will see that Rodgers and Hammerstein pretty much CREATED the rules by which all Great American Musicals are governed when they wrote Oklahoma in 1943"

Oh dear! I'd better tear up my ticket to see the Pulitzer Prize winning Of Thee I Sing which I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) pre-dated Oklahoma.

Your comment actually reveals your subconcious prejudice: Billy Elliot is not an American musical and does not pretend to be. That is why the Broadway production has been seen as being a risk: would American audiences be able to accept it on its own terms? The giant dresses echo traditional British forms of live entertainment from Pantomime to Music Hall. These forms of entertainment have often been considered inferior by American musical theatre professionals, and I'm not going to pass comment on whether they are or they aren't, but they were hugely popular in their time. That is why other comments you make don't bear my scrutiny or others'; what you didn't like, though you may not realise it, was the musical's inherent Britishness. That's OK - you're allowed - it's not a crime - we don't have to be PC about it: but let's not disguise it either.

Updated On: 11/9/08 at 06:21 AM

Posted: 11/9/08 at 10:16pm

I didn't say that composers and lyricists before Rodgers and Hammerstein didn't know how to write musicals. I was saying that R and H ushered in the Golden Age of Musical Theater with Oklahoma. They were able to combine all the elements of musical theater in such a way that the story could be clearly told without having to stop for songs and production numbers that had nothing to do with the advancement of the plot.

Billy Elliot is British in that it was written by Brits and produced in the West End. Otherwise, it is a show written in the American musical theater idiom and therefore should be structured like all other american musicals. The Boyfriend, written in the 1950's, was meant to be a pastiche of the old 1930's British Musical which were their own breed having grown out of the British Music Hall. Through-sung shows, aka the British Musical Theater Invasion of the 1980's, grew out of Jesus Christ Superstar which started life as a concept album not unlike Tommy. Evita, Joseph, Les Miz, Miss Saigon, etc. followed this model and were also their own Breed.

Billy Elliot is a typical book musical. As such, it should be constructed like any other book musical. Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote a show called The Beautiful Game that was atypical for him in that it had dialogue scenes, songs and production numbers. It wasn't very good (I saw it in London.), it had a short run and never made it to the states. It was obvious that he, too, didn't follow the rules.

Billy Elliot, in my opinion is a flawed show. It certainly seems to be entertaining a lot of people and that's the point at the end of the day. Sorry you feel the need to discard my opinions without giving them some consideration.

P.S. you need to check your spelling before you post.

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 8:37am

Thank you for the reviews I hope to get to see both shows next time I get to the City.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 1:56pm

"Billy Elliot is British in that it was written by Brits and produced in the West End. Otherwise, it is a show written in the American musical theater idiom and therefore should be structured like all other american musicals"

Is it? Should it? You obviously know little about British performing traditions, unlike someone else on this thread who has already dismissed your criticisms. Billy is actually a not-so-subtle hybrid of both the American idiom and British performing traditions, and your ignorance of those traditions and associated British working class culture means you can't see or understand this, yet you are assuming to have some knowledge of them.

Your comments about The Beautiful Game are irrelevant to what we are debating here. Incidentally, I didn't bother going to see The Beautiful Game because it had a book and lyrics by Ben Elton (not Andrew Lloyd Webber as you suggest) and, being familiar with his other work, I therefore expected it to be rubbish.

"Sorry you feel the need to discard my opinions without giving them some consideration."

I'm not discarding them and it's perfectly obvious I'm considering them, and finding them all too easy to dismiss due to the bog-standard text book analysis you are inappropriately applying to Billy Elliot. I'm not saying it's a groundbreaking masterpiece - I'm just saying you don't understand it.

PS Try to ignore my use of the working-class Brtish colloquialism in the above paragraph.
Updated On: 11/10/08 at 01:56 PM

Posted: 11/11/08 at 1:51am

my point has nothing to do with british performing traditions or british working class traditions. My point is that in my opinion Billy Elliot is a badly written show performed by an outstanding cast. The book/lyric writer wrote the screenplay, the stage director also directed the film and the writer of the music is a composer of pop songs, albeit, very successful songs but not theater songs. None of these people have extensive experience writing musicals for the stage and the show suffers for it. I understand the show just fine. It's the quality of the material I take issue with.

I brought up The Beautiful Game because it seems to be an example of an englishman writing a typical book musical but for whatever reason misses the mark. the comment seemed relevant to me at the time.

I'm reminded of an interview Maria friedman gave on Downstage Center where she said that Americans are much better at writing musicals than Brits. While Andrew Lloyd Webber has been very successful it has been in the through-sung genre of musical theater, not the book musical. It seems to be most successfully realized in the U.S. where it was developed and came into full bloom.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 4:07pm

Usually, when you've dug yourself into a hole, it's better to stop digging.

Posted: 11/12/08 at 12:46am

I don't think I'm digging myself into a hole at all, just debating my point of view. Last I checked we could still do that here in the US. I'm entitled to my opinion and I feel as though I've debated it in an intelligent, educated manner.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 11/12/08 at 10:05am

A few things.

First off, matty159, thanks for your reviews. I always respect your thoughts, and it's nice to hear you weigh in on what were two of the most anticipated shows this season.

I thought EQUUS was brilliant, with one exception. There seems to be about a 50/50 split in opinions on this one aspect of the show. Kate Mulgrew. I think -- I know that she is a marvelous stage actress. I have seen her in other shows and always thought she had a stunning presence and knew how to command an audience like no other. I feel Ms. Mulgrew has a STAR PRESENCE among the likes of Patti LuPone. The problem with her performance in EQUUS is that her character is not the star. She is a supporting character. EQUUS -- this production of EQUUS, at least -- relies on a complete ensemble contributing carefully understated performances that as a whole delivers a quiet, low down, deep, unexpected PUNCH to the audience. Ms. Mulgrew appears to be performing in a completely different show. During her scenes, she took me out of this play and into some overdramatized production of a completely different play. She just didn't fit in with the rest of the cast. She stood out like a sore thumb. A sore thumb in a completely different level of brilliance than the rest of the show, but a sore thumb, no less.

Daniel Radcliffe blew me away. I've never seen any of the Harry Potter films, so I can't compare. His performance in EQUUS was so carefully detailed, and I just couldn't take my eyes off of him for a moment.

Richard Griffiths turns in a fine performance, though nothing particularly memorable, in my opinion. I would give a Tony nomination to Radcliffe over Griffiths in a heartbeat.

Radcliffe has the potential to be a true stage star, and I look forward to seeing what he can contribute to the stage in future shows.

Now, as for BILLY ELLIOT, I saw it this past Monday night and let me preface by saying that I am open to all styles of musical theatre. I love being presented with something fresh or unexpected. I very much anticipated this show from all of the raves it had received in London.

I have to say that I pretty much agree with the sentiments of splendero03 in regards to this show. The four of five dance sequences were pretty great, if not spectacular, but the book is choppy and uninteresting. As someone who had never heard any of the music prior to entering the theatre Monday night, I can't say that any of it was particularly memorable. I'll say that I am fan of and regularly listen to Elton John's score for AIDA. I also really liked what he offered with LESTAT. His score for BILLY ELLIOT just seems like a rehash to me.

Like splendero03 said, I felt like a lot of the musical numbers didn't do much to further the plot or character development. A comparison that comes to mind is the song "My Favorite Suit" in AIDA, which, while it's a really catchy, fun song, it kind of sheds this bizarre, ditzy light on Amneris for no good reason, when later in the show we're supposed to take her completely seriously.

Also, like splendero03, I was truly blown away by many of the performances. Trent Kowalik was on for Billy, and he was just terrific. Great dancer and actor. He kind of spoke-sang-shouted his songs, though, however it seemed like they were written to be performed that way, oddly enough. Gregory Jbara turns in a damn fine performance here, especially considering the so-so material he's being given to work with. Haydn Gwynne basically throws the sub-par book out the window and pulls out all the stops to prove that she is a really a gem of a performer. It's also nice to see Carole Shelley originating a role again, even if it's not much of a role here. She's a real legend, and it's nice to see that she is still up and kicking -- literally, at times -- at her age.

The dances were all fine. Just fine. I kept waiting to be wowed, and I just wasn't. It's not a cohesive musical. It's sloppy entertainment, which there is nothing wrong with at all, but this show is far from the next coming.

I also agree that the curtain call feels unnecessarily tacked on, and takes away from any emotional impact left with the audience when the actual musical ends.

It should be interesting to see what the critics say. The audience did love it, and I know this is going to be another harmless, long-runner on Broadway, and I am certainly not complaining. The show has a heart, and it's nice to know that the vague themes of acceptance will be shared with many audiences, young and old, for years to come.

I do hope that we have some more promising new musicals coming in this season, though. I haven't seen SHREK yet, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed for 9 TO 5.