The Wizard of Oz (WaMuTheatre, 03 April 2009, 7:30PM): LONG review, spoilers.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 4/5/09 at 8:37pm

One can?t help but imagine disaster when it comes time to see a show at the WaMu Theatre at Madison Square Garden. First, you have the long, winding journey through the complex only to reach a barn of a room the size of an airplane hanger with a low ceiling and an awkward stage on one end that looks, and sounds, like a makeshift assembly of platforms on one end of a high school gymnasium. Then there is the inept staff of ?ushers? who serve more as space fillers; a ?program? is flung at you as you round a corner on the long journey to the house, then you have the ones at the door, who know little more than to point you toward the giant sign announcing the seats sections and are unable to direct you to a specific, and unnumbered on most cases, seat. You have the show vendors selling programs and souvenirs at stands in the lobby - one manned by a show employee who is cheerful and friendly, and a few others scattered around manned by MSG employees who want to be anywhere else, and we can?t forget the folks trolling the aisles hocking bottled sodas, Cracker Jacks and popcorn, cotton candy and other assorted goodies. The bigger problem is that instead of attempting to be personable, they sprint through the aisles like commuters at rush hour and mumble their wares under their breath like scalpers in Times Square. Yes, this is a trip the WaMu.

On the way in, I made the decision, and smartly so, to purchase a colorful and well put together souvenir program for $20 and made my way to my seat, being handed what serves as the complimentary program for the New York City run of the Wizard of Oz?. Settling in, I opened up the ?MSG Insider?, a collection of articles, news and calendars outlining upcoming events at Radio City and the Garden, only to discover that the only show information given out was on a bi-fold insert. A SMALL bi-fold insert with print that looked more like ?fine print? in a magazine ad than anything else. In the time light of the theatre, no chance of being able to read THAT. Not that there was anything to read, as it consisted entirely of the company billing (title) page and the company bios. No cast of characters, no scenes and musical numbers, no orchestra listing. NADA. A switched to the souvenir program and hoped to find more, but the only additional information I found there were headshots on an insert and the scene and musical numbers. Oh great. So, I spend some time examining the pre-show set up.. A nice, well made false proscenium that needlessly hammers the point home that yes, it is based on a film, the band situation in a box area high up at the right side of the auditorium, and a clear view between the curtain and the proscenium of the cast hanging out in the wings and Glinda?s bubble waiting patiently for it?s grand entrance.

This Oz gets underway with a rather long pre-show announcement made by Glinda AND the Wicked Witch about turning off cell phones, not taking pictures and not disrupting your neighbors since only ?Wicked Witches? would do those things. Well, by those standards, this audience surpasses Anjelica Huston is The Witches! The (what I have read elsewhere to be) nine piece orchestra strikes up the Wizard of oz overture and sounds remarkably fully.. and natural. A quick check of my insert at intermission reveals orchestral enhancement by Notion Music (Kudos to them for a natural sounding canned orchestra. Shame on Networks for not shelling out for even the LISCENSED 15 piece orchestration when they clearly aren?t spending the money elsewhere).

Half way through the overture, the show scrim (a plain white scrim with a projected logo) fades away to reveal a bare stage and a major fault of the production is revealed. An obviously computer generated projection of a spinning windmill materializes at center, and slowly expands to reveal a projected background of a desolate landscape that looks more desert than Kansas; but wait, something is even more off.. The projection is as wide of the stage, but there is a black bar across the top and bottom of the drop. Yes folks, Kansas is in letterbox!

Cassie Okenka bounds on to the stage and we are off.. And you quickly realize that like this moment, this Oz will be a VERY mixed bag. Ms Okenka has been made to running laps around the stage while delivering her opening speech, but you still see that yes, she will be a good Dorothy.

The big fault of the production lies mostly at the hands of Networks and an unwillingness to spend the money that this particular production needs. Some moments and wonderful, some are gravely disappointing. But even when it is wonderful, you can see how much more wonderful it would be had they been given the funds to give it quality realization.

To be sure, enough is wrong with the production that blame must also fall squarely on the shoulders of Director Nigel West and Choreographer Leigh Constantine. The entire affair has been directed with the broad strokes of children?s theatre, pandering to the lowest common denominator, and the youngest children, every step of the way. With lackluster and dull choreography, even the dance numbers don?t fly the way that they should. Things are worst when left in the hands of the show?s stage crew, who delivery some of the sloppiest work I have ever seen.. Visibly crawling into scenes and moving set pieces into the wings during scenes changes as though they were directed to just scatter and get them off at all costs.

As I said previously, Cassie Okenka is a great Dorothy. She plays the role very young, and very spunky.. a little girl lost, as it should be. Her vocals are on the bright side, very sweet and wholly appropriate to her portrayal. Gladly, she keeps ?Over the Rainbow? simple and direct and doesn?t trying to raise the rafters in un needed ways. Noah Aberlin is a serviceable Scarecrow, standing out mostly when it come to prat falls and physical comedy. Jason Simon was a crowd favorite as the Cowardly Lion, but I found his severely lacking, giving a third rate Bert Lahr by way of Nathan lane impersonating, injecting no originality into the role. Of the three friends of Dorothy (funnily thanking his wife in his bio), Chris Kind fares best, turning in a winning Tinman, even if he is hampered by the poorly used reigns of the direction.

Caitlin Maloney stand out best in the Kansas scenes as (a very young) Aunt Em, but falls to the wayside in Oz, resorting to the sugary sweet Billie Burke-esque vocal timbres that didn?t fit with her portrayal of the role. Matters aren?t helped when, once again, Nigel West and Networks sabotage the poor girl with bubble that looks rather rickety and condemning her to only earthbound entrances or off-stage voice-overs, cutting her stage time, from here on out. Robert John Beidermann is merely serviceable as the Wizard, but a stronger Marvel. Pat Sibley disappoints as the Witch and Miss Gulch, and the show screeches to a halt any time Bruce Warren?s Uncle Henry / Emerald City Guard makes an appearance to turn in a performance worthy of middle school spring musicals.

The ensemble does bang up work with when little they are given. I wish I could tell you who understudies whom and who portrays which Ozian, but I can only piece together limited things from what I have seen online and efforts to match face to character.

William Berloni does his usual great work with Princess and Snickers as Toto, here handled by Jennifer James. The problem with Toto in this production is that it is plainly obvious to me that Nigel West trusts neither Berloni or the canines. I have seen these two dogs in Oz before. I know what they can do. Here though, once Dorothy gets to Oz, we barely see Toto except for a literal sprint across the stage at the end of each scene up the Yellow Brick Road. It is most painfully obvious in the Witch?s castle? Dorothy releases him from the basket, but only after sticking the basket through a doorway to conceal the opening and a lack of dog, and again when the three friends come to the rescue and Dorothy says she is glad to see Toto, who is nowhere to be found.

The sets and costumes for this venture lack every step of the way.. A few good concepts, but lots of bad execution. The Munchkinland and Emerald City wigs seem like Party City sale items, the Crows, Apple Trees, Snowflakes and Poppies and Flying Monkeys look in NO way like what they are meant to be, with nothing to even clue you in. the sets are very bare bones and flimsy. I did appreciate the concept of old world that ran throughout the sets - A Munchkin land ?Hollywood? sign and an Emerald City Town Square that recalled the old MGM studio gates. Color never seemed to occur to designer Tim McQuillan-Wright though, as Glinda mentions the Munchkins loving blue, yet showing us nary a speck of blue in Munchkinland, and an Emerald City gate with nary a speck of green.

Special effects weren?t very special. The flying was subpar, with the witch bouncing up and down like a yo-yo while the broom literally hung BEHIND her, a bubble that rocked around, one flying monkey who swooped it, only to drag a ground-stuck Dorothy across the stage, and a Wizard?s balloon that no balloon.

The Pryo effects were equally a let down.. A lot of quick flashes, nothing of substance, and a few times executed by a stagehand sitting on the floor at the side of the stage in very plain sight.

The Tornado, for the most part, was first rate.. The downstage scrim descends as the house moves center stage and spins around to reveal Dorothy inside, as projections envelop the front and back of the stage to create the vortex. Throughout the scene, a stagehand plants himself on the upstage side of the farmhouse, ?destroying? the porch to create the post Tornado look and an a large array of fans around the proscenium blast the first section of the audience with a steady stream of (very welcome) wind.. The only problem was the scene felt long.. Only due to the fact that the same three objects kept flying past the window.. Including a Miss Gulch / Witch who looked remarkably different in design than the American production?s Witch.. It seems that they opted to lift the video from the original production directly.

Snow was abundant during the poppy field sequence, but these had to have been the loudest snow machines that I have ever encountered. The hiss managed drown out almost everything. Red confetti fell from the rafters as well, to signify the poppies, but some of it barreled down in large clumps and tufts of the stuff wafted down throughout the entire performance.

The Wizard himself looked like a 1950s B-movie reject.

The projection for the Witch?s crystal ball was impressive, until an actor or two would open the door in the castle set and reveal the projector and beam of light creating the effect.

The Witch?s melting was much more technically successful, having her melt into a raised platform that was open beneath. No mirrors could be seen here, but for the technical minded, it was not too hard to figure out. The only glitch here is when Pat Sibley?s Witch collapses to her knees at the start of it, giving the proceeding a bit of an awkward feel.

Through any fault, though, The Wizard of Oz will always manage to find a way to get inside you and leave you misty eyed as Dorothy says goodbye to her new friends. What is it about this story that is so deeply inside us? The power of Baum and the MGM screenwriters will always prevail.

I would have been much happier to have seen the ACTUAL Mayflower Theatre production that this tour is based on. Even with what faults would remain, it looks to have been a much more pleasing thing to see. Nonetheless, a trip to Oz is always welcome, so click your heels, Dorothy. I?d still game for another trip over the rainbow..


I am happy to answer any specific questions about the production to the best of my memory.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 4/5/09 at 8:42pm

tl;dr

[singtopher]

Posted: 4/5/09 at 8:50pm

I agree with most of what you said that despite flaws, you still feel like a kid throughout the whole show. The poppy dance was particularly lovely.

[legally_popular]

Posted: 4/5/09 at 8:50pm

My cousin took her two young sons to see this for the Saturday matinee, but her taste isn't all that great and she just thinks everything is good, no matter how awful it actually is. So thank you for your full review on the show.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 4/5/09 at 8:59pm

I just hope this production doesn't taint the reputation of the actual Madison Square Garden production and that we might actually get a return engagement someday.

[amoni]

Posted: 4/5/09 at 11:01pm

Great Googley Moogely you can sure babble on.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 4/6/09 at 1:12am

Is it really necessary to leave commentary staing that one doesn't bother to read a post/ yes, I stated in the title that it was long. you chose to open it. besides, I have read VERY little about this production on this board, so I elected to discuss the various aspects of the show. Get over it, and yourself.

As far as the previous production that played at MSG, which originally played the Paper Mill Playhouse is 1992-1993, I enjoyed it, but it shared a fundamental flaw with this production - it was played too broadly and pandering at times. It was also less than state of the art 15 years ago, let alone now. I would rather have a brand new, QUALITY production.

The poppy dance was pleasant. As I said, there was just nothing about the scene that said 'poppies' aside from the cast repeatedly telling you that they were supposed to be, and the hiss of the snow machines was overpowering. The lack of Glinda also troubled.. she was reduced to a voice over for this sequence. I prefered the video I have seen of the British version of this sequence, with Glinda in the bubble.

[PeteGonBway]

Posted: 4/6/09 at 1:15am

I agree with most of what you said... I had a fun evening, although it felt like nothing more than a high school production.

The flying was VERY awkward... Glinda looking like she was holding on to that bubble for dear life, and then having to reach behind her back and un-clip the harness herself to step out... and the Wicked With bouncing in mid air was uncomfortable...

I was sitting in the VIP section (I actually only paid for the $35 seats, but moved down during the Overture to the EXTREMELY empty VIP section on a Friday night) and I have to say... the snow... WHAT A MESS! It literally saturated everyone, I have no idea what it was, some sort of sticky suds. The lights came up, and everyone looked like they'd been through the first half of a car wash! I had to go wash my hands TWICE during intermission just to get it off! The snow that fell on the audience at "White Christmas" and MSG's "Christmas Carol" was no where near as messy or sticky.

On a personal note - I really was turned off by how the show was marketed. "BACK FOR THE FIRST TIME IN TEN YEARS"... that makes one think that you're going to see the fantastic production from 10 years ago... and unless you knew it was the Networks tour, you were in for a rude awakening.

All and all, I had a fun evening. For $35, it was a good time. Had I spent $95, I would have been disappointed.

[EthelMinnelli]

Posted: 4/6/09 at 1:20am

Anyone else read the article in the MSG Insider?? I quote: "This production has nothing to do with the cheesy "Oz" tours of the '90's, that featured old-timers, like Mickey Rooney and the late Eartha Kitt"... CHEESY? If anything was CHEESY, it was THIS production... The Mickey Rooney production was AMAZING, and needs to be brought back!

it then goes on to say that this all-new prodution features "state-of-the-art" special effects...I'm sorry, but the Rooney/Kitt had much better special effects... the Miss Gulch/Wicked With transformation was actually done live - Eartha Kitt flew out on the bicycle, and then changed into the Witch in mid-air! All we got here was a lame projections!!

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 4/6/09 at 1:30am

Yes, I read that as well, and found myself laughing...

As far as seating, I was thankful that they didn't sell the extreme sides, as the sightlines would have been awful. Luckily, I was downfront in the "VIP" section, second row, on the aisle.. on Friday night.

None of the snow fell on me, thankfully, but it did have a very unusally soapy scent.

I am also curious as to what you disagree with me on. I LOVE The Wizard of Oz, and I have actually gotten to the point to where I enjoy seeing it live more than on film, so I am always curious to hear people's impressions.
Updated On: 4/6/09 at 01:30 AM

[PeteGonBway]

Posted: 4/6/09 at 1:51am

I didn't mean that I disagree with anything you said... your impressions were almost identical to mine. I've been in love with "The Wizard of Oz" since I was 2 years old, and I also LOVE seeing it on stage. I have performed in it, and directed it. With the right director, it can be BRILLIANT, as was the case with the MSG production from 10 years ago.

ALSO... the Royal Shakespeare Company script has also annoyed me. Having done that version on stage twice, those British jokes are TERRIBLE! I've seen them cut completely in many productions... for example, the crows after Dorothy & the Scarecrow leaves - "I thought you said he was a stuff shirt... Yeah, but now that he's down off that pole he isnt as stuck up!" ba-da-boom! These jokes can fall flat and come off tacky.

The RSC script also plays the Wicked Witch as more of a comical role. Giving her lines such as "Who's the smart alec that turned her into a house?"... The original RSC production had Miss Gulch/Wicked Witch played by a man in drag (with a white fright wig, a sequined purple ball gown and an eye patch). When Roseanne did the role at MSG in 1997, critics and audiences were disappointed in this "funny" Wicked Witch. That same thing happened when JoAnne Worley replaced Eartha Kitt on the tour. Brilliant actress, but totally miscast. Kitt was terryfying as the Wicked Witch... Roseanne and Worley just hammed up the part, ad-libbing such lines as "Dorothy, eh? Can I call you Dot?" and changing "You stay out of this, Glinda" to "Put a lid on it, girlfriend!" .... All this being said, I think that Pat Sibley did a very good job of playing the part scary, yet still getting laughs.

End of my rant.
Updated On: 4/6/09 at 01:51 AM

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 4/6/09 at 1:55am

Yes. Luckily, Tams-Witmark allows to you to make cuts for some of those things... I will say that much!

I have seen the Witch played VERY successfully as a drag role.. it really depends on the actor.

[2blocksfrombway]

Posted: 4/6/09 at 2:41am

that's what you get when you go see a NON-EQUITY production!!

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 4/6/09 at 2:42am

I really wish I could have seen Eartha Kitt. She's wonderful on the recording. I really enjoy the Witch singing "The Jitterbug" and I wish it was an available option when you license the script. I saw a production in San Diego that rented the Madison Square Garden sets and costumes with direction and choreography recreated by a cast member from the tour and it was pretty amazing. The script was the RSC version with far fewer cuts than those used in the MSG production, but the orchestrations were those used for the tour. I'm still curious as to how they got the permission to do all of that.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 4/6/09 at 2:58am

2blocks, union affiliation of the actors has nothing to do with the quality or my complaint. I don't see why people believe a myth that Equity magically makes everything 'quality.'


Cats, permission to do what?

[jamiekennywicked]

Posted: 4/6/09 at 4:19am

How did the witch melt?

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 4/6/09 at 5:03am

Permission to make changes and cuts to the licensed script.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 4/6/09 at 1:24pm

Re: Witch melt

The set piece is a raised platform, with a stair on either side and a door on the platform that leads through the back drop. The space under the platform appears to be open all the way from the front to the back, with a colum directly in the center beneath the platform. When the witch melts, she is as far back as possible on the platform and the 'open' space below the platform is actually not as deep as the platform, so she sinks behind that and moves out of the set piece.

re: cuts and edits.

The agreement allows you to make cuts to the show, but for something as drastic as the 90 minute version, you'd be surprised. The right person in the right situation. It isn't all that hard.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 4/6/09 at 2:07pm

So, overall, Broadwayguy2, how would you rate the show from 1 to 10? I went to see it in Miami, and it was pretty decent for a national tour. My friends had a great time.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 4/6/09 at 2:40pm

Perhaps a 5 or 6... Like i said, the show had many flaws, but there were still definately people and things that i enjoyed in the show, and concepts I liked and believe would have worked better had the creative been given adequate resourses (Yes, direct within your budget, but this was SUPPOSED to be a restaging of an existing production) and the sentiment and emotion of the story always shines through.

[Phantom487]

Posted: 4/6/09 at 10:38pm

And I have to say... I really liked this productions artwork. I bought a windowcard at the show... the logo is so simple, yet striking.

[TimeSquare3]

Posted: 4/6/09 at 10:45pm

The program is very nicely designed as well.