thoughts on 110, NIXON, DYING CITY, DEUCE, and MUSIK

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 1:54am

There may be intermittent spoilers, so read at your own risk.

110 in the Shade

It's so nice to have a classic, good old-fashioned Broadway musical back on the boards - not since last season's THE PAJAMA GAME has such a spectacular, joyous, and completely fulfilling "all-American" musical graced Broadway.

It's also nice to see something great come from Roundabout - again, something that's not happened since THE PAJAMA GAME.

Lonny Price has fashioned a fast-paced, engaging, and tightly packed production here. There's nothing necessarily new or bold about it, but yet it seems as if this show were just written. Jonathan Tunick's fantastic orchestrations are an asset here, as are Santo Loquasto's ever reliable sets and costumes.

As you probably expect, Audra McDonald is once again working her magic. Never does her performance fall into the stereotypical, the trite, or the common. A true chameleon, McDonald succeeds in holding the entire audience in the palm of her hand without relying on cheap laughs or cutsie antics, like a certain other celebrated female to perform on 54's stage this season. When you are sitting there watching this extraordinary performance, you can see just how easy it is to shower this woman with Tony awards. She's the real deal - something that comes along once in a blue moon. She is truly and sincerely drop dead brilliant, turning in a performance that is one of the most well-rounded of her career. She's hysterical, stern, cute, awkward, lovable, and profoundly moving. I can't gush enough...RUN and see her.

The rest of the cast provides ample support, mainly thanks to the trusty John Cullum and the surprisingly solid Bobby Steggert. Steve Kazee is such an "out of left field" choice for Starbuck, I was really straining to figure out "why him?" A great voice (if a little pop-y at times) and a sexy as hell body, but he didn't ooze the charm and sheer conman-like tact that could conceivably fool an entire town (okay, let's assume that these people have brains and that there are a lot more than 8 of them.) Despite having a certain WOW factor about him, he certainly doesn't hinder the production one bit. I didn't love Christopher Innvar. He played File pretty one-note (is it File or Judd?) and pretty unforgivingly. He's got to work double time to not only show a sensitive side to the audience, but also make the audience feel okay about Lizzy ending up with him rather than Starbuck. Much of it has to do with the writing (and it's probably a major flaw), but I wanted Innvar to quiet down and loosen up towards the end. I could have done without Chris Butler, though the supporting cast was uniformly strong.

I can't recommend it enough. You'll want to see it again.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 2:04am

Frost/Nixon

This will be brief, as there's not much to say that hasn't already been said.

A huge achievement on several levels, FROST/NIXON is a tight, whole-heartedly worthy endeavor that basically comes down to one thing: Frank Langella's performance.

Sure, the story is interesting and the script is smart - but Frank Langella's performance is one for the history books. Sheen is great, too - to be sure - but in a far less showy role.

While FROST/NIXON is undoubtedly a great play, there are meandering moments and pointless interjections that seem a bit frivilous. I'm not necessarily complaining, but at an intermissionless 2 hours, I still think the play could use some tightening and snipping.

But...to the point...you do not want to miss Langella's mesmerizing and ultimately touching portrait of Richard M. Nixon. No, he doesn't look like Nixon and he's not trying to imitate Nixon - but he fully inhabits the man and puts a heart and a soul with a face that so many of us have connected to infamy and scandal for quite a long time. His final scenes in the play are worth the price of admission alone - and the level of electricity during those moments is so great and so potent that he could single handedly illuminate every bulb on Broadway from now until doomsday.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 2:15am

Dying City

I attended the final performance today, so this will be brief.

DYING CITY is a play of great skill and great insight, though it ultimately seemed like an exquisite work in progress to me. Director James Macdonald needed to find a clearer way to draw the line between the past and the present - for when Pablo Schreiber first emerges as a different character, it took the audience a bit of time to catch up to playwright Christopher Shinn.

And admirable work, though not necessarily something that can be loved. Pablo Schreiber, brilliant in AWAKE AND SING! last season, is again proving that he is one of the brightest young talents of the current theatre scene. Its obvious that Schreiber has become a slave to the gym since AWAKE AND SING (boasting a new, almost un-fittingly buff body) but he is one of those actors that seems so hopelessly in love with what they do that you, as an audience member, are willing to sit with them through anything.

For those of you that don't know, DYING CITY is about a young therapist (Rebecca Brooksher) that looses her husband in Iraq - the circumstances of which are fuzzy and fishy.

It's not difficult to have compassion for these people, given that the war is very much a reality right now, but Shinn's play would have succeeded on a much deeper level if the role of Kelly had been given to an actress of more depth and range. Brooksher played the role as a mopey, depressed bitch. No wonder your husband didn't want to be around you, you're irritating.

Her performance was really the only drawback of what was an otherwise rewarding afternoon. I can't wait to see what Pablo will do next.

[gumbo2]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 2:15am

Nice reviews...awaiting the others.

Would you recommend Frost/Nixon over Journey's End or Inherit The Wind? I've got less than a week in the city and probably only have time for one or two straight plays.
Updated On: 4/30/07 at 02:15 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 2:29am

Deuce

It's been a while since I have seen something so infuriatingly horrible.

It's the only word to describe this turkey...horrible. The concept, the execution - everything. I would love to know what about this play caught Lansbury's eye. It's puzzling.

DEUCE is about two aging ex-tennis "stars" that reunite to watch some sort of tennis championship (I stopped paying attention to specifics). So for the entire play, Seldes and Lansbury just sit there, in these hideous, blue, chunky seats. They talk about how life is changing, how the sport is changing, and how their lives have changed since their "glory days."

I will not even ATTEMPT to continue this synopsis, as there's nothing to say. This play is horribly written, and it is not only an embarrasment to Seldes, McNally and Lansbury, but to everyone involved. No one escapes unscathed.

There isn't one ounce of acceptable, intriguing, funny, touching, or entertaining dialogue in this entire play. It is so transparent and light that McNally has tried his hardest to take what could be a 10 minute play and stretch it into a 2-hour nap.

And don't even get me started on the embarrasingly horrendous "admirer" or the banal, nauseating announcers.

Every once in a while, Seldes and Lansbury freeze while an "admirer" enters to speak to the audience about just how great these women are. "Look at them - you won't see the likes of them again!" The audience is constantly reminded that they are watching a play about and starring two women that have had illustrious careers, and apparantly seem to be dying.

Okay, McNally doesn't say they're dying - but DEUCE is acting as a funeral (or at least a eulogy) for these women's careers. It's almost as if tennis is a euphamism for theatre. Oh, how clever you are, Mr. McNally.

I can't go on . Thinking about it is too painful. All there is to say is that when you're thinking back on Lansbury's career and the profound impact she has made in the world of Broadway - you will be mortally depressed to see her doing this play. From mint juleps and meat pies to tennis balls. What a horribly depressing play, and what a horrible waste of time and money.

I don't care how badly you want to see Lansbury live- just wait out at the stage door. At least then you will have saved yourself not only 2 hours, but the insane amount of depression and frustration you will face after having seen this tranwreck.

Hands down, the worst play I've ever seen on Broadway.

[gumbo2]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 2:51am

Man, I haven't seen Deuce, wasn't planning to, don't especially care that Lansbury is back doing a show, wasn't expecting anything from the production and yet...that review still makes me want to punch something. So, well done. Thanks for the reviews.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 2:56am

Still waiting for LoveMusik...

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 3:01am

LoveMusik

This was, hands down, my most anticipated show of this season. Theatre royalty...not only Lenya, Weill, and Brecht - but Prince, Murphy, Cerveris, Birchwood, etc.

The good news is that Donna Murphy is giving a performance of a lifetime. Thoroughly brilliant and awe inspiring, delivering the kind of performance that will be talked about for years to come. The kind of performance that only happens in the theatre, and promises to transport a willing audience to somewhere north of cloud 9. Like Ebersole and Langella, it's more than imitation - it's a brilliant embodiment and raw emotion that sets Murphy apart from the rest.

To be fair, her role is far showier than Cerveris' - who, I should add, is equally splendid, if less affecting. Both have transformed themselves and left behind no traces of Donna Murphy and Michael Cerveris. Absolute magic.

LOVEMUSIK is a fascinating disaster. There are moments in this show that are so layered, intense, and beautiful - moments that make you feel like there's no place else you would rather be. But on the other hand, there is much to be desired throughout.

Prince has directed and staged this piece in a pseudo-Brechtian manner - painting the stage bright red, the false proscenium, etc. Prince works very hard to make the audience always aware that they are watching a play. Sometimes it works well, and sometimes it's almost painful to watch.

Most of the painful spots occur in Act Two, namely, the entire Bridal segment that came from way out in left field then lasted about 4 minutes too long. These strange moments aren't even moments that justify their inclusion - they're often so bizarre that you think Hal Prince may have gone off the deep end. Think of it like this: you're watching a spectacularly stylish production of A DOLL'S HOUSE when suddenly, and without warhing, Joel Grey and his Gorilla lady-friend appear from Torvald's study and break into "If You Could See Her."

Just like that. The first half of the first act is pretty solid, with some beautiful work done by all parties. Forget the ridiculously conceived magistrate wedding scene - everything from that point seems to go downhill.

Interestingly enough, Murphy and Cerveris never loose steam. That's why it's fascinating. It's beautiful to watch and to listen to (Tunik's orchestrations are a marvel), yet the rest of the musical is so meandering, confused, and unfocused. There are a handful of songs that could stand to be cut, and the presence of Brecht (as a character, not Prince's influence) needs to be trimed. Pittu is quite good (though honestly, I don't see what people see in his performance) yet he often walks a fine line, often going into camp and just plain obnoxious tendancies.

30 minutes of this show need to be cut. There are some vastly frivelous areas that serve no purpose but to tire the audience out. I was so exhausted by the middle of Act Two that when it came time for me to invest something in Cerveris' "It Never Was You" and Murphy's "September Song," I just didn't care because they took everything I had earlier in the evening.

LOVEMUSIK is not a huge disaster - it's something that's very worthwhile and very worth seeing - but it's hugely frustrating because it could be something quite brilliant. Uhry's book is solid and more than serviceable, for the most part - but it is Prince's direction and uncertainty with where to go with the story that ultimately makes MUSIK faulter.

Cerveris' "It Never Was You" was a highlight, as was Murphy's "Surabaya Johnny." the ending of the show would have been more poignant if "September Song" were left to Murphy (who IS that other guy? Get him OUT of there, Hal!) - but let it be said that the show ended on a perfecly brilliant note.

It was excrutiatingly and fascinatingly eerie to see Murphy applying her makeup to the "Pirate Jenny" underscore, looking exactly like Lenya. The wig and the costume were spot on, and it actually sent chills up my spine. The last moments of the show, with Murphy going on to perform THREEPENNY again, are the moments that Prince is known for. Brilliant direction here and there, but he faulters so often in between.

So yes, I stand by my subtitle "LOVE MUSIK: A Fascinating Disaster."

Okay, perhaps "disaster" is too strong a word.

It's very, very German - which is fine- but Prince is trying to zoom in on a certain directorial style here that seems to be alienating the audience and making the natural poignancy of the story less affecting.

I would be very surprised if this show got great reviews. Not disappointed (because I did thoroughly enjoy the show), but surprised.

No standing ovation tonight, though the applause was strong with much cheering and "Brava!"s for Murphy.

After the show, I heard several groups of people discussing the show. I heard the following:

"Well, it wasn't THAT bad."
"That was horrible, I had no idea what was going on."
"Uh...yeah, I guess I liked it."
"Wow, that was different."

Definitely some achievements to be had - but really, as I said before, it's a beautiful, beautiful mess. Sort of like FOLLIES' bastard child for the 21st century.


I also wouldn't be surprised if MARY POPPINS or MARTIN SHORT snuck in the 4th Best Musical slot.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 3:12am

Munk, thanks a lot for the extensive review. This is too my most anticipated show of the season. I won't be able to watch it till closing night (June 17th) so it was great reading your detailed review. Glad to see that Murphy didn't disappoint, sad to see that Prince did.
Now, I must ask this because I've asked to just about every single person that I know has seen the show and whose opinion I've come to respect: Would the show benefit from giving Donna Murphy the chance to stop the show with her "Pirate Jenny" at the end of the show?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 3:18am

No.

Not one bit.

The brilliance of the last scene is that you don't need to see it - you don't need to see Lenya perform anything from THREEPENNY, because it's one of those beautiful "And the rest was history" moments.

Murphy enters the stage for the first THREEPENNY performance (30 years after she originally played the role), the lights get brighter, and the curtain falls. Of course, the audience knows what happens. Her fears of getting laughed off the stage prove to be just fears, as that particular production would go on to play over 2,000 performance (winning a Tony for Lenya along the way.) Still saddned by Weill's death, the end of LOVEMUSIK is Lenya's first attempt at life again. She's going to pull her boot straps up and do what she knows Weill would have wanted her to do. And part of the chilling brilliance of that last scene is that we know - quite some time after the curtain on THREEPENNY fell, not only would Lenya go on to garner an Oscar nomination - but she would go on to star in CABARET - which was - of cours - directed by Harold Prince.

It's the perfect ending. "Pirate Jenny" would sound great as performed by Murphy, but it's entirely uncalled for.

[LimelightMike]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 3:20am

Great reviews, my friend!

I'm curious as to the running time for LOVEmusik, seeing as I'll be in the house on May the 16th.

Best,
- Mike

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 3:22am

I recall that the show was a healthy 2 hour and 45 minutes.

[LimelightMike]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 3:26am

Thankin' ya kindly!

[MiracleElixir]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 4:23am

Munkus, I saw LoveMusik Saturday afternoon, and I must say, I agree with literally every word you wrote. It's startling, really. You articulated everything I felt about it better than I've been able to when my friends have asked me about the show. Really-- spot on.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 6:46am

re: LOVEMUSIK

munky, you articulated it beautifully!

you spotlighted all that is lovely & worthwhile about the show, & you zoomed in on what was superfluous. When Murphy & Ceveris are on stage, it is pure magic; when they are off, it can veer from confusing to mindnumbing tedium.

i understand that these scenes add context, but they seem to go on forever (especially BUDDY ON THE NIGHT SHIFT and THE ILLUSION WEDDING SHOW numbers, which felt hours long themselves).

but to go back to the positives, Murphy & Ceveris transport the viewer (if the viewer is willing) to a place where love & mutual respect are all that matters.

Updated On: 4/30/07 at 06:46 AM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 7:40am

I agree with this loving response to 110. It's very fresh without anyone straining to deconstruct/re-invent the material. Loquasto's design is ultimately wonderful and even evocative, though at the start it appears to be a contemporary stylization of a Chekhovian milieu (you could put THE SEAGULL on it, easily). I liked Kazee more than Munk, and found his approach younger and less prissy than many Starbucks. Since we don't see his wagon -- actually, a useful omission -- the character's impact is entirely in the hands of the actor. Kazee avoids some of the Harold Hill theatrics that come with that wagon, and whatever reservations one might feel after act one disappear at the top of act two, when he does "Evening Star" with a powerful simplicity that brings you inside the youthful yearning. It beautifully sets up his long scene with Audra's Lizzie, and the show deepens magically from this point on.

But though I expected to love MacDonald, I was unprepared by the force and detailed texture of her acting here. She burrows deep inside this woman, finding new dangerous dimensions, including a bull-in-a-chinashop pushiness that I've never noticed before. She dares to start her very high -- energy, vocally, and otherwise -- and makes it clear why this woman might scare men off. We expect to love her in the musical numbers, but what's remarkable is the way she uses them to extend her character work -- the goal of any great musical theater performance. It's seamless, and she breaks your heart at every turn. She frees the mysogenistic term "old maid" from sexist putdown, to suggest that loneliness is a feminist issue. Not to be missed.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 8:00am

Munk - Spot on, as usual.

Just one "almost-quibble."

As much as I hated DEUCE (and I second that it's the worst play I've ever seen on Broadway), McNally succeeded in one aspect: "the banal, nauseating announcers."

He captured the essence of every sports announcer...spot-on.

Beyond that, just plain dreck. As you said, what the hell did Lansbury see in it?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 9:48am

Well, sure, they sounded like announcers - but they brought NOTHING to the table and their banter had nothing to do with the play. There were spots when they were just rambling on for what seemed like hours. If Lansbury wasn't in it, I would have walked out 10 minutes into the show.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 9:51am

I felt the same way....the whole show was like watching a trainwreck....I didn't want to leave because I figured something "good" would happen after I left.

But yes, I do agree, if you want to see Angela up close, save the money and go to the stage door. She couldn't be more gracious.

Despite how bad the play is, I still think Angela and Marian could squeak out Tony nominations. Beyond Julie White, Vanessa Redgrave, and Eve Best, who's up? The Utopia women were ruled as featured, the Translations women are featured... Updated On: 4/30/07 at 09:51 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 9:53am

I should also point out that the people around me loved it. They thought it was great.

I felt like punching them in the face for exclaiming "Ugh, how WONDERFUL! We should come back with Estelle."

Updated On: 4/30/07 at 09:53 AM

[Calvin]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 10:59am

Nice reviews, although I'm starting to feel like one of the only people who hated "Dying City." And I'm really dreading seeing "Deuce" more with every passing day. Anybody want to buy my ticket?

[Princeton78]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 11:05am

Great reviews!
I still say that with McDonald and Murphy in the mix, Ebersole shouldn't get too too comfortable.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 11:13am

I'm starting to feel as if I'm from another planet - I just was not blown away by McDonald. And I wanted to be - I expected to be.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 2:22pm

But you did end up liking her more in the end, right?

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 2:53pm

I am so torn on Murphy. Her acting and characterizations were beautiful. And her singing of SURABAYA JOHNNY and SEPTEMBER SONG were great - but that voice she uses. It was painful knowing what she was going for. Especially when Cerveris was so perfect.

But I guess when I go back, knowing that, I won't be so judgmental of her.

But this is not to say I didn't think she was a great Lenya.

And that random guy is her second husband - and completely destroyed what should have been Murphy's final moment. (Not the actor, but the character.)