Brooklyn OR When Bad Material Happens To Good Performers

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 12:27am

I was there tonight.

I'm nearly speechless and my mouth is dry from the number of times my jaw dropped this evening.

First the good news: Talented cast. Creative Design. Decent direction.

As for the rest:

Some of the worst lyrics I've ever heard on a Broadway stage. The music is utterly generic, derivative and lackluster, like something out of a Intro to Pop Music Composition course (and the song "Streetsinger" rips off large chunks of Sam Cooke's "A Change Is Gonna Come"). Most of the songs have only a tangential relationship to the plot. None of them serve to advance the narrative in any way and at best function to inform character only superficially -- which is, I suppose unavoidable since all of the characters are completely superficial.

The book reminded me alternately of Mariah Carey's "Glitter," a bad UPN sitcom and a Hallmark card come to life -- truly a case of what happens when bad material happens to good performers. Just howlingly bad in spots. The plot is filled with gaps and holes and the characters lack depth and dimension. Poor Kevin Anderson -- he's a truly brilliant actor (he gave phenomenal performances opposite Brian Denehey in Death of a Salesman and Vanessa Redgrave in Orpheus Descending) who has been saddled with an unplayable character (the Viet Nam sequence was so awful, I and the two women next to me had to fight to choke back the laughter -- one of several times that happened throughout the evening).

Why on earth is this show on Broadway? It reminds me a lot of touring shows that come to the Beacon every so often. They usually feature a few B-list r&b or gospel stars (Shirley Murdock, Patti Austin, Millie Jackson, Stephanie Mills, Kelly Price, Christopher Williams to name a few have been featured in them over the years), broad comedy (with occasional serious overtones) in a fairly threadbare plot that's basically just filler between the musical numbers (which are usually sensational). They usually have titles like "My Grandmother Prayed For Me" or "What Every Woman Should Know" or "Don't Get God Started" (I'm not kidding, those are actual titles). These shows are popular light entertainment that has no pretense that it's anything more than that. They are extremely popular, touring all the major cities and have been known to gross in the millions (Shelly Garrett's "Beauty Shop" I and II grossed over $20 million during the 80s). And they don't seek out critics and reviewers; they don't play Broadway; they don't need to -- they don't need the Times. They're not that kind of musical. They're not trying to redefine the artform. They are simply fun entertainments designed to entertain their core audiences -- nothing more -- and they do that in spades. I've seen several of these shows over the years and they're a lot of fun for what they are -- they don't aspire to Broadway and Brooklyn shouldn't have either.

If you listen very closely, you can hear the critics sharpening their knives for this one (John Simon is somewhere salivating). While the critics have been a bit unpredictable in the last year or two, I can't imagine they're going to be too kind here. Just what was the reason there was such a rush to get this tiny, unremarkable show from Denver into a big Broadway house? Why not play it off-Broadway or in Chicago or Seattle or DC -- places that have real theatre critics so they would get an idea of the reception they would get from the New York press before committing so many millions? With its tiny cast, simple sets and costumes, it could have toured profitably for years, made a tidy sum, had time to tinker and then maybe try New York somewhere down the road. As it is...... well, we'll see what happens Friday morning.

Updated On: 10/20/04 at 12:27 AM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 12:33am

Yikes...think it will still be open Saturday afternoon when I have a ticket?

(though with what I have been reading, I just might give my ticket away and go see something else!)

[Mattio98]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 12:43am

Good review Margo. I'm interested to see how it's received by the critics although I'll have to see it myself as well.

[rclocalz]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 12:43am

I know exactly what you mean about those "Gospel" like tours that come into the major cities. Since working at TPAC here in Nashville, I have worked quite a few of those shows. Is "Brooklyn" really close to that kind of style of performance? If it is, I don't think it will survive on Broadway.

Updated On: 10/20/04 at 12:43 AM

[thebigkrakowski]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 12:43am

Thank you, Margo. I completely agree. The word for that show is CRINGE.

And such talented performers. Tsk. Tsk.

[Ustadance]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 12:50am

Margo, Dahling...I have admired so many of your posts over the months. You are so erudite, articulate, educated, sophisticated, knowledgeable and, obviously, been around the block more than a few times. I sincerely value your viewpoint and think I know where you're coming from. The main thing about the posts surrounding this show that have fascinated me, however, fascinate me about your post here. Why does everyone seem so absolutely gleeful to have their knives sharpened for the kill...? Personally, I have been insulted - and I mean actively "you are freakin' kidding me" insulted by so much more that is considered 'successful', like, (sorry kiddies) "Rent", which I found to be the most hellacious, phony, insincere and one dimensional piece of garbage ever put on a B'way stage (speaking of something that belongs out of town forever.) Do you really think "We're not gonna pa-ay, we're not gonna pa-ay the rent!" is a lyric worthy of a B'way show, let alone a grade school recital...? "Wicked" which, really, at the end of the day is nothing but bells and whistles with the good fortune of a back story the entire world loves and knows. "Dracula" which needs no further comment or explanation. Etc., etc., etc. So, it makes me wonder - why do you think so many talented people took to this piece to dedicate their time, money love and energy - and why do you think those who don't get it are so eager and hungry for a bloody carcass? (PS - I happen to be in the house as well tonight and I don't think I've ver been at a performance with more of a "prove-it-to-me-or-else" vibe from the audience - ever.) Love to know your thoughts.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 12:51am

rclocalz,

Because of Jeff Calhoun's direction, Brooklyn is much slicker and better put together than most of those shows, but substance-wise it's barely a notch above that. Great singing (if you like the r&b/gospel belter type of voice) like you would see in those shows, but a laughable book (also like you would see in those shows). If this were playing at The Beacon, you wouldn't care, but because it's Broadway, you expect better than this. I'm curious how bad the reviews will be.

[newyorkuniq]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 12:54am

I was also at the show tonight. I posted my review already. It is vastly different but it is interesting to hear this perspective.

[rclocalz]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 12:54am

Thank you for your reply. Hopefully the outstanding cast will at least sqeeze a mixed review out so that they might have jobs a little longer.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 1:25am

Ustadance --

Well, I'd like to think I didn't go in with an agenda or a desire for a bloody carcass. Cleavant Derricks was one of my favorite performers during the 80s in Dreamgirls, Big Deal, and Your Arms Too Short To Box With God and I was genuinely excited to see him again (and he was terrific). Kevin Anderson is an actor/singer who's work I've greatly admired over the years. Ramona Keller and Eden Espinosa are first rate young talents. Jeff Calhoun has done outstanding work over the years, including the exceptional "Big River" revival last year. I'm a fan of all of theirs and went in rooting for all of them to succeed. And they did, to the extent they could, but they had second rate material to work with and their talent couldn't overcome that.

I didn't get a "prove-it-to-me-or-else" vibe from where I was sitting. The two women sitting next to me told me that had come because their children had raved to them about how incredible the show was and they were really looking forward to it. About halfway through the show during the Viet Nam sequence, the woman next to me leaned over and whispered "Oh my god, this is awful." This woman didn't come in to hate this show -- just the opposite. It was the show itself that turned her (and me) against it. And for the record , most of the folks immediately around me seemed to be having a good time (though the inevitable standing ovation at the end did seem rather half-hearted and some good chunks of the audience openly refused to stand).

I frankly don't know too many people who spend their time and good hard-earned money to go to a show they know they're going to hate. I certainly don't.

Now, as for what the producers etc were thinking -- I haven't a clue other than everyone is always trying to find the next Rent bonanza. Love it or hate it (I'm personally somewhere in between), it's currently the 8th longest running show in Broadway history and has made a lot of people quite wealthy. Any youthful energetic show with a pop music score is going to get a serious once-over by the folks with the money. And young audiences do seem to be responding somewhat to Brooklyn, though clearly not with nearly the fervor young fans had for Rent with soldout houses from the first previews on and kids sleeping out all night for cheap seats. Then again Brooklyn is hardly in the same class (I don't foresee many Tonys or Pulitzers coming its way).

I'm not sure what this show's future will be. I just wish the talented cast, director and design team all the best -- they deserve it.

[pab]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 1:39am

"The Play's the thing."

I saw a performance two weeks ago and I mostly agree with your assessment. I think that all of the performers were good and I also thought that the use of the set and costumes were creative but the story was pretty lame. Of course I assume that the lyrics were written based on the story so it would be difficult for them to be any better than the rest of the story. I am also curious to read what the critics will think and how long this show will run.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 1:54am

I'd also like to add that -- if I haven't been clear about this already -- I think the show would probably play much better in a more intimate space. While the book and score still need a great deal of rewriting, rethinking and editing, what does work and is charming about the show -- the street performer aesthetic -- is lost in a house as large as the Plymouth. 5 talented performers with homemade costumes and set pieces would be much more effective in a 300 seat space, rather than a large proscenium house which detracts from the small story being told (there's a reason that "The Fantasticks" stayed in the tiny Sullivan Street Playhouse all those years and never moved to Broadway -- a huge house would have destroyed what made that show so special).

It's too late to do anything about any of that now in terms of New York, but in terms of future productions, the producers might consider re-evaluating the types of venues that best serve this musical.

My two cents.

[QueenMuppet]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 2:21am

Great review. Thanks, Margo. I totally agree with it and almost recognised myself when you mentioned the two women next you.

I love seeing original shows and I was going in really hoping to like it but I soon realized it was one of the worst written shows I have ever seen.

My verdict: The critics are going to 'eat the show alive'.

QM

[saddle shoe side kick]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 7:51am

Thanks for the review Margo.
I've been thinking this show should have just done Off-Broadway for quite some time. Should have just gone into the theatre where Fame on 42 was playing. The show doesn't even have an intermission, I hear. Oh well...

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 8:47am

Margo's series of posts in this thread are the type that brought me to the website a year ago: A serious, thought-through appraisal of a show, with examples to back up every opinion, and a real evaluation of the material in the context of the musical theater as a whole. It's the first review of this show that really explained its catalogue of misfires. Thank you.

I was also very taken with the comparison to what I always call "The Beacon Shows." They have fascinated me for years, a sub-genre of theater that's somewhere between church variety show and bus and truck sex comedy. My old super on the upper west side was always given free tickets to those shows, and he'd always come home and tell me how much he enjoyed them. Something about the configuration of elements Margo outlined -- a slightly faded recording star/one hit wonder in the lead, a patched-together feel-good book that allows Diva one-liners, a whiff of naughtiness (but nothing blue), and a lot of rousing music -- clearly has some kind of alchemy when assembled. These shows must be profitable, because they know how to serve the audience. The genre seems ripe for parodying, no? SNL might've done a dandy send-up with Queen Latifah (Jennifer Holiday did one during hard times...)

[wickedfan2]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 9:13am

Margo - Thank you. I so enjoy reading your posts and was so looking forward to your opinion of Bkln...

I loved the show but I haven't been to many and am just your average working housewife. I do think if the performers were not as outstanding as they were I wouldn't have

[Trisky]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 9:38am

Thanks for your thoughts Margo. Immediately after seeing Brooklyn and spending an hour trying to figure out what I just saw it occurred to me that this show would have been much better as a concert version of itself. If they did away with whatever meager "book" they had and the cringeworthy dialogue, I'm sure people would sit back in awe of the voices and the harmonies and probably be even more forgiving of the actual lyrics. I just can't see how someone sat down and thought "this is what Broadway is missing" or thought that this would revolutionize theater in some way.

To make a small comparison, I went to the reading of Piece on Sunday, which had me in tears by the end of the show. This was the first public reading of the show with four remarkably talented women with striking voices. There was no set, there were spotlights that basically came up and went down, some stools and microphones and a piano player. In the 90 minutes that show played, the singular character (at different stages of life) became a real, nuanced individual with an unremarkable (dramatically speaking) life but whom you relate to and hurt for. The story was coherent, the music at times haunting and hysterical.

I couldn't help but think of the difference between seeing this and seeing Brooklyn the week before which relies on gimmicky set changes and costumes to fill the aching gaps of character and story. If at its core, you couldn't watch Brooklyn without the sets and costumes, broken down into just a story about these characters (and even the fairytale they're trying to tell) speaking dialogue that makes sense and feeling like a coherent piece of work, than something is very, very wrong.

[grownupgroupie]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 10:00am

Interesting! I used to live across from the Beacon and those shows always intrigued me. Not dying to rush out and see Brooklyn, but if I get comped, you've piqued my interest...in a train-wreck sort of way.

[luvWICKED416]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 10:07am

MARGO- I OFFICIALLY VOTE YOU AS MVP OF THE BOARD.

That was the greatest review of an awful show ever! I couldn't have worded it better myself. Congrats... you have reached new heights. Sky's the limit MargoChanning!

[midtowngym]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 10:08am

Bare was 'an energetic show with a pop music score' and got nowhere. I've been looking forward to a fun new musical since Taboo. I guess this will suffer a similar fate.

[robbiej]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 10:34am

Margo,

I'm truly disappointed in you. How could you forget the greatest, most famous of the Beacon shows:

MAMA, I WANT TO SING!!!!

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 10:35am

Don't you love the TV commercials for those shows? With that same announcer?

[Testing1232]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 11:15am

Usta,

You could have saved yourself a lot of time, and just cut and pasted your response to my review of "Brooklyn". Yeah, everyone that doesnt like the show has a secret agenda. We are all dying for the show to fail... blah, blah, blah.

Margo, as usual, provided an amazing, thought-provoking, review. Unfortunately, you didnt agree with it. Not a shock.

[Corine2]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 11:20am

Margo-
Don't you think it would work as a concert?

[sndtrklvr]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 11:23am

Thanks Margo, I don't think we'll see a better review come Friday morning. It's so sad. I know they'll be bad but its like a car wreck you can't help but rubberneck.