BlueWizard sees the WICKED tour- Page 2

[eslgr8]

Posted: 3/20/05 at 3:33pm

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

If you've seen the show, now read on. Bluewizard, there are two surprises at the end of the show. I agree with you absolutely about the first one, Elphaba's parentage. I figured that out just listening to the CD, the voice of her father being quite recognizable as another character. But #2, Elphaba's fate, I had absolutely no idea of (luckily!) so yes, like the others described above, I did gasp (with joy) because I LOVE HAPPY ENDINGS! (Well, Floyd Collins doesn't have a happy ending, but I loved it too. I guess it depends on the show.)

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 3/20/05 at 11:25pm

SPOILERS SPOILERS

The gripe my companion and I had with the ending was that it seemed to go against the emotional and thematic undercurrents of the story. If Elphaba died, the audience would truly feel sorrow that "no one mourns the wicked"; her death would drive home the postmodern idea that truth is but a perception, and how submissive we really are to what we're told.

However, the fact that she fakes her death is a cheap way out: the themes are deflated because Elphaba lives happily ever after: there's no longer a lesson to be learned. The audience just celebrates because everything sorted itself out in the end. I think it's a contrived ending (and a bit insulting, too -- you mean Elphaba just gives up the good fight and runs away?) that goes against some of the more truthful elements of the show.

[eslgr8]

Posted: 3/21/05 at 2:59am

I GUESS THIS IS STILL A SPOILER OF SORTS:
BlueWizard, I can absolutely see your point. Even so, this is still a show I'd prefer to see with its happy ending, even if it was a kind of miracle (and to a certain extend didn't make sense). So sue me for being an incurable romantic. By the way can you or anyone else tell me if the novel ends the same way?

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 3/21/05 at 3:23am

Of course I won't deny you a happy ending.

I haven't read the book, but from what I've heard, it ends as WOZ ends, with the death of the Wicked Witch of the West; however, there's some ambiguity due to some prophesy that she might come back when the time is right.

[Tigger]

Posted: 3/21/05 at 9:09am

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

I have a different interpretation of the ending (as I'm sure many others do) so BlueWizard I have to disagree with yours when you say"

"...the themes are deflated because Elphaba lives happily ever after: there's no longer a lesson to be learned. The audience just celebrates because everything sorted itself out in the end. I think it's a contrived ending (and a bit insulting, too -- you mean Elphaba just gives up the good fight and runs away?) that goes against some of the more truthful elements of the show."

The show culminates in a montsrous set-up perpetrated on Elphaba to make her the focus of everyone's hate when she realises what the show's true villains are up to. The perpetrators who "thrust wickedness" on Elphaba eventually get ousted (one gets banished back to whence he came the other is made captive) by Galinda who now takes power in Oz. She seems to get what she has always wanted in the end but ends up alone in her bubble. Elphaba who has never had a chance at being happy and accepted also is compromised in the end. Luckily for her she was blessed with the loan of a castle that has lots of places to hide in and the ability "to look at things in a different way" which will allow her a measure of happiness. It's telling too when Elphaba is asked if Galinda should know that she's alive and replies no. Could it be that because Elphaba has seen Galinda betray her before that maybe it suits her purpose to have her believe her dead for now? The book does say that she might come back when the time is right.

I think the ending is better described bittersweet as opposed to "happy" which is also why I think the show resonates so much with a huge share of its audiences.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 4:36pm

First- very well written reviw BlueWizard. @ndly VERY much agree w u Tigger on the points u raised. I actually prefered David Garisson from Joel Grey who I found too wispy & fey. Garisson seemed almost Salieri like in his malevelent meddling mediocrity! As I have said in other places Daryl is very pretty & a pleasant enough singer but when i think of Norbert- no question who is the better actor. And I still feel acting is neccessary for this role. I had no problem w Kendra - I can't speak to her breathlessness but I heard no problems the night I was there & I also see her Galinda as a bit less of an airhead than Kristen's. I also feel Kristy needs more power ( a job for ToolTime?) but musically she is an excellent singer- still I prefer Idina as an actress.
Tigger, I really like your interp of a bittersweet ending- I found myself remembering the words in Thank Goodness about there being "a kind of a cost & some of the things get lost" still .... I couldn't be happier!!!

I hope to get a single to Stefanie when she returns
Do u think they will still cont w the special effect knowing the risk?

[Tigger]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 10:07pm

Who knows? I would think they would probably ensure that the special effect works safely before they attempt to try it again.However since it was never done in the show before no one is really going to miss it.

Tigger

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 11:21pm

Here's the review that I've written for my college newspaper. Tell me what you think! I'm trying to learn the fine art of writing theatre reviews.

------------------------------------------------------

Undoubtedly the hottest ticket of the Toronto theatre season, the Broadway megamusical WICKED finally begins its highly-anticipated North American tour at the Canon Theatre with much pomp and circumstance. Does the show live up to its hype? Well, despite its weak book script, bland score and banal lyrics, WICKED is surprisingly enjoyable. This is not a great musical, but a good enough one, and the extravagant production values and razzle-dazzle will charm you into forgiving the severe shortcomings in the material.

Based on Gregory Maguire’s novel, WICKED is the untold backstory to THE WIZARD OF OZ and chronicles the life and times of Elphaba, the misunderstood Wicked Witch of the West. Smart and righteous, yet taunted because her emerald skin, Elphaba arrives as a young woman at Shiz University (which bears a remarkable resemblance to Hogwart’s of Harry Potter fame) and meets Glinda, portrayed as a ditzy blond socialite who always gets what she wants. The two iron out their differences and eventually become best friends, and Elphaba begins to explore her mysterious magical powers. Meanwhile, trouble is brewing in the land: civil unrest grows as Oz’ talking animal citizens are disappearing and a totalitarian power slowly casts its shadow over the nation. After her favourite mammalian professor loses his job and is silenced, Elphaba heads to Emerald City with Glinda to seek help from the Wizard. Exposing the truth of events before Dorothy arrives, WICKED positions itself as a parable of how one should not so easily believe what one is told.

Unfortunately, the darker themes of WICKED aren’t adequately explored in this unabashedly commercial show. Provocative issues raised by the story, ranging from genocide to the construction of truth, are glossed over and ultimately abandoned. Sometimes WICKED too readily panders to a spectacle-loving mainstream audience, with contrived plot twists, cheesy dialogue and a mundane love triangle that culminates in a generic and wholly unnecessary love duet titled, “As Long as You’re Mine.” While WICKED proposes to be THE WIZARD OF OZ’s prequel, the ill-crafted book script occasionally contradicts the events in Frank L. Baum’s narrative. The script does succeed, however, in developing a strong relationship between the two central women of the story: Elphaba and Glinda’s lives intertwine in unexpected ways, especially when the story finally meets up with the events in THE WIZARD OF OZ.

WICKED’s weakest feature is its disappointing score. The story should inspire a rich musical interpretation, but instead composer Stephen Schwartz (Godspell, Disney’s Pocahontas) has saddled the show with unmemorable, generic pop songs that have the melodic monotony of an American Idol competition, complete with unnerving vocal aerobics and overblown, synthetic orchestrations. More dreadful still are the cringe-inducing lyrics, brimming with clichés and forced rhymes. Some of the lyrics are downright banal; my personal favourite is, “there are bridges you cross you didn’t know you crossed until you’ve crossed.” Such songwriting represents some of the sloppiest in a high-profile musical in recent memory.

Yet, despite all these faults, WICKED is still a very enjoyable night at the theatre, being an exercise in just how satisfying spectacle can be. The artists on the production team have outdone themselves in diverting attention away from the poor writing with lavish sets, a fantastic lighting design, glittering costumes and other such eye candy – and for the most part, they succeed (though the choreography is awkward and campy). WICKED is undeniably fun to gawk at, a big-budget extravaganza with expensive smoke and mirrors. Joe Mantello’s direction impressively makes use of the full dimensions of the Canon’s massive stage. And WICKED does have several moments that soar, such as the Act I closing number, “Defying Gravity,” which brings down the house. The attempts at relaying a message may be flimsy and unsubtle, but why argue with flashy entertainment?

The assembled cast for this new tour is a strong one. Lead actress Stephanie J. Block was absent from the performance I attended (she had suffered an injury during rehearsals), and the producers have brought in New York understudy Kristy Cates to play the Wicked Witch until Block recovers. Fortunately, Cates delivers a fine performance as Elphaba. Her singing is more controlled than other actresses who have wailed through this role, and her classically trained voice gives a certain luster and prettiness to the otherwise dull songs.

Kendra Kasselbaum, however, lacks the stage charisma needed to pull of an affecting Glinda. Her performance verges on annoying, and she struggles through her most vocally-tricky number, “Popular.” Finer performances come from the charming Carol Kane as Shiz University’s matron, Madame Morrible, and particularly David Garrison as the Wizard; he is so natural onstage that it feels like the role was written for him. Also wonderful is Jenna Leigh Green as Elphaba’s sister Nessarose; I’ve previously seen Green in a tiny off-Broadway musical called Bare last May, and she is blessed with a powerhouse voice. She makes the most of a small role here, but it is her take on Elphaba I’d like to see most.

I’ve been told by several people who have read Maguire’s novel that the musical takes many liberties with both the plot and tone. My companion for the evening enjoyed WICKED very much, but found several moments “hokey.” WICKED seems to suffer, then, from the same pitfalls as another high-profile Broadway show, Disney’s retelling of AIDA, which similarly takes dark source material and makes it palatable to a family audience. Both are highly entertaining but ultimately-flawed works of theatre, and I wonder how much more effective these two shows would be if they went for emotional truth rather than glitz and glamour. But I suppose there’s something satisfying about ignoring the feeble man behind the curtain and reveling in the dazzling pyrotechnics before you.

Updated On: 3/25/05 at 11:21 PM

[StephanietheStar]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 11:35pm

BlueWizard--according to the stage manager it was during rehearsal for "No good Deed" that Stephanie was hurt...she now flies in on her broom for that song.

[admanrich]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 12:04am

Has anyone seen Stephanie as Elphaba yet?? I'm dying to hear about it!

[Tigger]

Posted: 3/28/05 at 4:53pm

My sister saw Stephanie in it at yesterday's matinee (sunday) and said she was fantastic and that she reminded her of a young Barbra Streisand. I'm going again to the final Toronto performance on April 24th.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 3/28/05 at 4:58pm

Lucky you! The show is officially sold out now. SRO and the lottery are the only chances.

[broadwaybelter]

Posted: 3/28/05 at 5:05pm

yay stephanie, nice article!! but i disagree about the tunes being unmemorable...quite the contrary my friend...they are the types of songs that get stuck in your head....
ric

[bettyschaefer]

Posted: 3/28/05 at 6:00pm

Question. Why does it say that Wicked doesn't "officially" open until this Thursday? I thought they pushed back the date until Stephanie returned, but it sounds like she has. I am going to Toronto this weekend in hopes of getting some lottery tickets. Blue Wizard, did you see the lottery and.or know anything about how it works at the Canon Theater?

[Tigger]

Posted: 3/28/05 at 6:14pm

They pushed the opening to this thursday to give Stephanie a chance to have a few shows under her belt before she gets reviewed by the press. As for the lottery here is the information that I copied from the Mirvish (Toronto producers of the show) Website :

A lottery for $25.00 box seats is initiated for WICKED!

These are the details. A day-of-performance lottery for $25 box seats will be held daily for WICKED, which will be performing from March 8 through to April 24, 2005 at the Canon Theatre.

Each day, 2 hours prior to show time, people who present themselves at the Canon Theatre box office will have their names placed in a hat and then thirty minutes later, names will be drawn for 20 box seats at $25 each, cash only. This lottery is available only in-person at the box office, with a limit of two tickets per person.

Hope this helps!

ps: I also have to completely disagree with BlueWizard's assertion that the score is unmemorable. In fact it is the catchiest score that's come out of Broadway in years which is why the CD is selling like hot cakes.

Tigger

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 3/28/05 at 8:57pm

I'm sure it's completely subjective as to whether WICKED's score is catchy -- mostly I just find it banal and lacking in personality. But you're free to think as you please.

I really, really want to see Stephanie, so as soon as my studies subside I'm trying the lottery over and over again! I'll keep you guys updated as to my luck.

[SimpleJoysHaveSimpleVoice]

Posted: 3/28/05 at 11:52pm

BlueWiz...you are making strong points against a score that is the hottest show on broadway. Such a strong opinion deserves more than a few sentences and lines from a song. Justify the shows popularity against the poor score. It is a musical, therefore, if the music is not good then the show must fall short. Explain, please.

Personally, I diagree with you. I think the score and lyrics push the storyline along like few musicals do these days. The score is Wicked's strength. Being a huge Schwartz fan, I realize in the broadway community I am in the minority, and yet I can't realize why? After years of being away from the scene it was Wicked that brougth me back.

My first director shared this test for good music:
A song is good and firm if....#1. You can whistle the whole song...#2. If you can play it for a child and that child, without teaching him/her, could sing the song on it own, and does so randomly. Well, my 4 kids could perform Wicked as a dinner show, which they do after many of our meals(along with selected songs from Rent,Pippin, and Ragtime).

[DefyGravity23]

Posted: 3/29/05 at 12:19am

Can you guys help me out?

I'm planning on visiting Chicago this summer for some college visits and of course, I decided to make a stop to see Wicked. My problem is, I don't know whether I should go see the National Tour in early June, or wait until July or August for the Chicago cast. I really would like to see Stephanie as Elphaba, but I don't know.

It'll be very difficult for me to get there in early June, but it might still be possible. Is it worth it to change around my schedule to get there? Or will it be just as good if I wait? I know they've only announced a small portion of the Chicago cast so I guess you guys probably won't be able to tell me much, but I should probably decide within the week...

I saw Wicked just last week in New York and it was incredible! Although we missed a good portion of it (about 45 min, it was totally out of my hands). I don't know if I'll be able to see it again anytime soon so I want to make it a good experience!! Any advice would be great, I'm kinda new to the broadway world. (I'm not that close to Chicago or NY, last week was my first broadway show)


Updated On: 3/29/05 at 12:19 AM

[SimpleJoysHaveSimpleVoice]

Posted: 3/29/05 at 12:27am

Defy...please explain how you missed 45 minutes of the show. I need to know.

By the way, see the tour, it sounds like you will more than ample time to see the Chicago production.

[commasplice]

Posted: 3/29/05 at 12:32am

I would suggest waiting until the sitdown begins, because if you don't have tour tickets already, it will be hard to get them. I haven't fiddled with Ticketmaster lately (you can check the site for possible dates you could go to see if they have tickets for those days), but from what I understand it's pretty much sold out (plus, from the sound of your post, it would be easier for you to attend later in the summer). Tickets for the sitdown go on sale April 4, so you would be able to buy those right away.

Welcome to the board!

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 3/29/05 at 12:37am

Justify the shows popularity against the poor score. It is a musical, therefore, if the music is not good then the show must fall short. Explain, please.

That's not true at all. Popularity and box office success does not necessarily mean artistic merit, much less a strong score. In fact, there is an endless list of musicals with poor scores that have nevertheless done very well, financially. CATS, for example, has a horrible score (with the exception of "Memory"), in my opinion. As does most of THE LION KING, the other hottest ticket on Broadway (could Elton John & Tim Rice have written worse new songs?). WICKED isn't selling out because it has the best music on Broadway; it's selling out because it has visual spectacle. If a good score guaranteed success for the show, CAROLINE OR CHANGE would still be running.

The requirements you listed for a good song (that it be instantly hummable, and that a child could sing it) are ludicrous -- it would negate most, if not all, of Sondheim's scores. I shudder to think what kind of scores we would have in musical theatre if they all pandered to the tastes of children.

Updated On: 3/29/05 at 12:37 AM

[SimpleJoysHaveSimpleVoice]

Posted: 3/29/05 at 12:54am

Bluewiz...I want to say this as kind as possible. Intellectual 'snobery' comes in different forms. One form is an evaluation of a score as it pertains to itself as a form artistic expression. Remember art appreciation is objective at it's core. I have no trouble with your personal evaluation, but I do take issue with your comparative bias.

Although Cats will never be a great musical, it is horrible for you to bring it up in the same breath as Wicked, the shows are very different.

Sondheim is a genius, so are saying if you can't be a genius, you can't have a good score. The strength of Wicked it affects and audiance from 8 to 80 years old. What show can do that with a 'banal' score.

As a young person, and me as an educator, I caution you in your narrow perception of what the theater can be. As a young patron, before you dismiss something as awful, research it with an open mind. Comparing anyone to Sondheim is dangerous, artistically or financially. Be careful of what you preach. Every show must be respected at all levels.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 3/29/05 at 1:10am

I apologize if I came off as snobbish. I was only questioning your assessment that a song is "good and firm" if 1) the tune is easy to whistle, and 2) children will instantly recognize it and take it to heart. I don't think that fulfilling these two demands instantly make a score great, and I certainly don't think a song is not good and firm if it fails to accomplish the above.

My gripe with WICKED's score isn't because it appeals to audiences of ages 8 to 80. HAIRSPRAY's score is fun for all ages too -- but it's well-written, full of personality, and serves the characters, plot and style of the show well. In contrast, I find WICKED's score bland and the lyrics to be lazily-written. Is it too much to ask for rhymes that aren't forced or awkward, metaphors that aren't cliched, songs that don't sound that they've been plucked off the adult-contemporary radio and shoved into a musical about Oz?

I'm glad you take pleasure in the score -- I've enjoyed scores that were ill-crafted too (hello, sweet overblown PHANTOM), it doesn't take away my enjoyment of them. But I didn't enjoy WICKED's music.

Updated On: 3/29/05 at 01:10 AM

[eslgr8]

Posted: 3/29/05 at 2:37am

The discussion between BlueWizard and SimpleJoys was most interesting to read. I tend to agree with most of what SJ has said about Wicked's score. It is the heart and soul and greatest power of the show. The majority of the songs from Wicked have moved and touched me and left me with a feeling of elation as few show scores have. I truly cannot fathom BW's description of them as "banal," though I realize that no amount of discussion will convince either him or me to see them differently than we do. We will have to agree to disagree on this point. As to SJ's first director's test of good music, that is something I most definitely agree with BW on. Often the most instantly hummable music is the most immediately forgettable, and scores like say Adam Guettel's for Floyd Collins or Janine Tesori's for Caroline, or Change become memorable and truly appreciated only upon repeated listening. Stephen Schwartz's Wicked is a score which manages to be both instantly acccesible and yet one that grows on the listener the more it is heard.

[Tigger]

Posted: 3/29/05 at 9:23am

Blue Wizard I must disagree with you. I saw Hairspray twice (in New York with Harvey in it and in Toronto where it closed much sooner than it was supposed to) and as much as I enjoyed the show both times not one song stuck in my mind except for the repetitious finale (something about the motion and the ocean..).
I personally found the music a derivative pastiche of 60's bubblegum pop (which is what it was meant to be), but ultimately to me it remained completely unmemorable.

However I wouldn't presume calling it banal or lazily written because it served its purpose to the show and obviously it appeals to other ears than mine.

The visual spectacle of Wicked is only one of many elements that is selling the show. It's also the show's themes of empowerment in the face of discrimination and adversity, acquiring self-esteem,happiness and how things are not necessarily what they seem to be. The cleverness of this show is the many levels it works on and why it is a sell-out wherever it will go.One can see the show and enjoy it at its most superficial for what it is, a big splashy fun musical or one can leave inspired or very moved by the many undercurrents woven in the book and music.To call Stephen Schwarz's music bland is purely your opinion and perception (as it is mine to call Hairspray's completely unmemorable) however I would take great exception to calling Wicked's lyrics lazily-written, as each song is pretty much a faithful extension of each character in the piece and in that regard works pretty seamlessly with the book.

In my opinion, no score in recent memory has complimented or moved the story along so elegantly as this one has. Trying to make a point clearly and musically simple can be one of the toughest jobs to do from what I understand. Is it maybe the show's contemporary untraditional musical comedy sound you are resisting and object to?

On another note (pun intended) regarding Sondheim, I remember seeing the original (and many subsequent) productions of Company and exiting humming the title tune and Being Alive, Sunday in The Park with George and humming "Sunday..." and "Moving On",Pacific Overtures and humming Pretty Lady...etc. God knows if I ,being completely unmusical by nature, can retain the melodies, so could a child, as they are all eminently hummable. Sondheim's music is quite accessible (with perhaps the exception of Passion) it's his lyrics with which most have difficulty. Forbidden Broadway spoofed him in the number "Too Many Words" for this very reason.

In answer to your very opinionated question:
"
Is it too much to ask for rhymes that aren't forced or awkward, metaphors that aren't cliched, songs that don't sound that they've been plucked off the adult-contemporary radio and shoved into a musical about Oz? "

No not at all if and when it doesn't work, however in this case it does and, in many opinions, continues to do so beautifully.

Tigger