thoughts on THE LITTLE DOG LAUGHED, HIGH FIDELITY, THE APPLE TREE, & THE CLEAN HOUSE

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/3/06 at 10:53pm

THE LITTLE DOG LAUGHED

With his latest play, Douglas Carter Beane proves that it is possible for a contemporary play to be both achingly funny and brutally touching. Most contemporary dramas to grace the Broadway stage in recent years have failed to master just one area of the spectrum, let alone both. I love this play.

The premise of this play is nothing brilliant, nothing earth-shattering, and nothing overwhelmingly new - yet it is handled with such care that the whole thing seems more urgent than it probably is. It explores not only the hush-hush aspect of Hollywood stardom, but man's inherent desire to connect with another human being.

Tom Everett Scott does a fine job here, though he's certainly not as stage-savvy as he could be, and probably will be. He perfectly embodies a Hollywood "star" who is so confused and jaded by the unfair ways of the business, yet he touches us when he shows his softer side, and his need for Alex. Julie White is everything you have heard she is. Admittedly, the shouting got a little excessive (and in turn, her words slightly muddled) but she has comic timing to die for and an absolutely brilliant mixture of sarcasm and fabulosity. She is absolutely, through and through, brilliant.

Johnny Galecki turned in a surprisingly charming and emotional performance. For as the show really centers on Mitchell and Diane, it is Alex (Galecki) who carries the heart of this play. An absolutely brilliant and flawless performance that better be remembered this spring. Ari Graynor is her usual self here. Funny enough, talented enough, but nothing overwhelmingly special. If you saw her performance in DOG SEES GOD, you can know what to expect this time around. She's a talent, for sure - I would just like to see her do something different. Though, in defense of her, the role of Ellen is a rather two-dimensional role.

Scott Ellis' direction is fine here. Excellent pacing and some really nice ideas here. By and large, I have been unimpressed with Ellis' work in the past (12 ANGRY MEN being the exception), but he's in top form here.

Allen Moyer's simple scenic design is appropriately cold and metallic, yet hip. The always reliable Donald Holder also does great work here.

This play is far from perfect - and could benefit from the shortening of some scenes - but as I said, it's ultimately a moving and worthwhile night of theatre. There are some truly amateur dialogue spots (something to the effect of "They should call me November...I get cold so quickly") yet some really fascinating ones as well. It's uneven, but the crime is forgivable.

I never expected to be touched by this play, and I certainly was. It's interesting how the majority of the play focuses on Mitchell - yet in the end, it's all about Alex. At intermission, I found myself feeling cold towards Mitchell. I didn't understand why I should care about him, and why they were focusing so much on someone so utterly uninteresting. In my view, Mitchell is basically used as a pawn by Beane to further the audience's affection for Alex. The last scene was brilliantly constructed and wonderfully touching. What Diane says is something that is so true, yet something I, myself, was never able to materialize into words. The part I am speaking of is when Alex decides to walk away from it all, and jump on a plane to anywhere. Alex opens the check to find it is made out to him, and surprisingly asks Diane how she knew to spell his name, and how she knew that he would be the one to leave. She basically says that she knew he would be fine walking away from everything, because he's had it bad before - he's not afraid to have it bad again. A couple years ago, I was in a half-similar situation (no, I am not an escort) and this line struck me on a personal chord and resonated with me long after the curtain came down. Perhaps I'm jaded, but I found the character of Alex to be expertly crafted and acted.

They seem to be struggling attendance-wise, and I hope that changes soon. It would be a terrible thing for this play to not only be a flop, but to go unseen by the masses.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 12/3/06 at 11:00pm

uh oh here comes HIGH FIDELITY
can't wait.

[StephenSondheimWHOO]

Posted: 12/3/06 at 11:00pm

what about The Apple Tree, High FIdelity, And Clean House?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/3/06 at 11:00pm

Can you go into more detail about the set? I'm curious about how similar it is to the Second Stage set.

I'm glad you liked it!

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/3/06 at 11:29pm

It's the same set as Second Stage, just larger.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 12/3/06 at 11:30pm

a sweet review, munk.

[Luscious]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 1:59am

Nice revue, munk. I pretty much agree with you on all aspects. I saw the Saturday evening, 12/2 performance. Of course, I loved Julie White. Hilarious! She gave a superb performance. And some of the best comedic lines of dialogue I've heard in some time. Definitely deserving of a Tony nod. And I was really impressed with Johnny Galecki's performance, as well. I always enjoyed his work on ROSEANNE, but I didn't expect him to give such a heartfelt and moving performance. As I stated previously in another thread, either he's extremely sensitive and/or much moved by the material. Although his character does not appear to be crying in the last scene, he was in tears during the curtain call. I too, hope he's remembered come awards season. The only thing I was a little disappointed in was the set. I loved the staging, but I thought the set was a little cheesy; a little too "Off-Broadway" for my taste. The wood veneer paneled bed and headboard looked liked it belonged in a Motel 6, rather than the type of first class hotel a celebrity, albeit an up and coming one, would be staying. I just thought the show deserved a little bit more of an upgrade, set-wise, for its Broadway run. But other than that, I was thoroughly entertained. While it certainly wasn't groundbreaking in any way, it was topical, biting, clever, moving, well performed and a lot fun!

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 11:18am

HIGH FIDELITY


HIGH FIDELITY is the latest example of how Broadway is once again branching off to form another mini-movement. We have the jukebox musical, we may still be in the midst of the "American Idol-ization of Broaday", and now we have the "Bridge and Tunnell-ization of Broadway." Qualifications are as follows:

Said Broadway musical must be inspired by/ripped from a popular film or book. Hence, large droves of tourists will recognize said title and gain interest in coming to spend criminal amounts of money to see menial garbage. Generally, the source material should be mediocre to begin with. If there is any chance of actually improving upon source material, project must be abandoned. Mediocrity is vital. In adittion to references to popular culture entities, there must also be a slew of jokes catering to suburban residents of New Jersey.

Let it be said that I have not seen the film or read the book. It is utterly irrevelant to me, so don't bother filling this thread with comments like "Had you seen the film, you would have liked it."

HIGH FIDELITY started off extremely well. The opening number is tuneful, witty, and catchy. Rob's conversations with the audience are funny and well written. Will Chase's charm slowly creeps over the audience until you can't take your eyes off of him, and you're glued to his every word. Unfortunately, after the first 10-15 minutes, the joy stops. The comedy ceases. The plot concludes. The characters wear out their welcome. The music seems inhumanly loud. And you realize that you are sitting in the same theatre where Ethel Merman once stormed into the audience to throw out a disorderly audience member mid-performance of CALL ME MADAM. How depressing.

HIGH FIDELITY is not the next WEDDING SINGER - it's not good enough. What it reminds me exactly of - and I am not being dramatic here - is URBAN COWBOY. A nice performance by a good looking leading man, a few good moments in the score, and a plot that is actually (if you can believe it) less interesting than watching paint slowly dry.

As I said, HIGH FIDELITY starts out fine. However, as soon as Rob's "top 5 breakup" girls begin dancing and singing around with him, all hope is lost. Walter Bobbie is a horrible director, and his work here is absolutely embarrasing. On a good note, the set is wonderfully appropriate and incredibly enjoyable. Watching the choreography of the set pieces move in and out of each other is the only salvagable aspect of the evening.

As Rob, Will Chase gives a winning performance. He's cute, he's sexy, but the character is just so dull and so mediocre that you truly don't care. Why am I supposed to be interested in a story about a man who wants his girlfriend back, after he lost her because he couldn't keep it in his pants? The plot is paper thin. Great voice, great character - but nothing memorable. Nothing award worthy, nothing brilliant, and unfortunately, he has nothing to work with here.

Jenn Collella, as Laura, is exactly as she was in URBAN COWBOY. It's utterly the same show, and the same role. Her role is written so poorly that there is no justification for anything. A nice voice, and decent acting. Unfortunately, Colella (like Chase) cannot escape their mediocre material.

Christian Anderson, Jay Klaitz, and Jon Patrick Walker are all fine as the employees of the record store. Nothing special here either. Some (barely) funny moments, but really nothing worth writing home about. They wore out their welcome half way through Act 1. Rachel Stern as Liz gives an utterly fabulous (if cliched) performance as Laura's friend Liz. Again, swimming upstream, but having far greater success than any of the other featured actors. The rest of the ensemble does fine, but again, they can't escape the utter crap that is their show.

It's obvious that Tom Kitt has what it takes to write a score - but his work here is far from excellent. His orchestrations are, actually, excellent. A few of the beginning numbers sounded Jason Robert Brown-ish, especially with the orchestrations (with the deep, sad cello). He wrote a good opening number, but as the plot moves onward to the point of no return, the score turns as dull and uninteresting as what's going on. Amanda Green's lyrics suffer the same fate. Some are smart, some are witty, but most are somewhere between mediocre and adequate.

The generally reliable David Lindsay-Abaire has also failed to make an impression here. He, like the rest of the creative team, appears so misguided and lost that there's no salvaging anything. I don't blame him - HIGH FIDELITY seems like a black hole. Let's hope that he escapes this debacle unharmed. Walter Bobbie's "direction" (is that what you can even call his work anymore?) is - if you can believe it - more mediocre than his recent work on TWENTIETH CENTURY and SWEET CHARITY. Why does this man get work? He demonstrates here, with his first original musical since FOOTLOOSE, that he is simply incapable of structuring a new musical.

Christopher Gattelli's ever reliable musical staging (though they call it choreography in the playbill) is appropriate and fine here. Anna Louizos' set is charming, smart, and winning.

It's obvious that this show is going to be an enormous flop. And I know, whenever I write a negative review people tend to get up in arms around here, but unless you have seen this show then don't bother. It just doesn't work. The book, music and lyrics never come together to form a coherent show. When the curtain falls, not only do you thank your lucky stars, but you also wonder why this story has been mounted on Broadway. None of the characters are likeable, the plot is paper-thin and utterly boring. Oh, well - you can't win them all. Looks like HIGH FIDELITY will be the second huge flop of the season. If you want to see this, get tickets soon - I can't imagine it lasting long after the reviews come out.

And incase you are wondering, there is an entire over-long number in which "Bruce Springsteen" comes out and sings a song to Rob. Of course. It makes perfect sense - they HAVE to appeal to New Jersey audiences!

Updated On: 12/4/06 at 11:18 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 11:58am

THE APPLE TREE

THE APPLE TREE has never been a brilliant show - it's always been an odd duck. Consisting of three different parts, THE APPLE TREE explores the issues of relationships, honesty, truth, and love. Bock and Harnick's score is quirky, lovable, and joyous - and though it's nice to see this show back on Broadway, once can't help but wonder why this show was revived at all. Don't get me wrong, it's wonderful to see revivals of shows that have been long gone, but there is nothing in this revival of THE APPLE TREE that seems to scream "urgent."

Kristin Chenoweth is a bonafide star. Strong in every aspect, with a keen sense of how to slowly wrap an entire audience around her finger. I have always enjoyed her work, but hated the fan-girl obsession that surrounded her. Everytime I see her live, though, I am reminded of why she is constantly raved about. Her comedy here is funny, but different from what she did in WICKED. Her performance doesn't seem fully developed, though - it very much seems like this show is a work in progress, particularly for the actors. She was absolutely hysterical and ultimately moving in "The Diary of Adam and Eve" and adequate in "The Lady or the Tiger." I was truly anticipating her work in "Passionella", but I was slightly let down. It's probably not her fault, but she seemed swallowed whole by the gargantuan stage with minimal dressings. Her Ella is cute and great and her Passionella is fabulous an charming - but she doesn't quite chew the scenery I was hoping she'd chew. You listen to Barbara Harris on the record, and you can literally hear her chomping away at the sets. Chenoweth gives a very restrained, careful, calculated performance. She was strong and reliable - but nothing Tony worthy and certainly nothing special. Ebersole has nothing to worry about.

Brian D'Arcy James is reliably strong in all three parts, though his roles don't exactly lend themselves to sweeping, memorable performances. Like Chenoweth, I found his strongest work being done in the first part. Mark Kudisch is exactly the same as James. Strong, but not glowing. I did not enjoy his interpretation of the snake - I found it annoying.

The entire production is just simply forgettable. There are some great moments overall, but in the end, it doesn't amount to much. John Lee Beatty's sets are strange and bare. Chenoweth is swallowed whole by the massive 54 - it's really a shame. The excellent Donald Holder's lighting design is the only design element that actually seems the try to transport the audience to a different place. Jess Goldstein's costumes are boring and disappointing. Jonathan Tunik's orchestrations, though, are excellent - as is the orchestra.

Gary Griffin is a horrible director. He did horrible work in THE COLOR PURPLE, and he's doing horrible work here. Basically, THE APPLE TREE turns into a spineless, very tentative show. It seems like a work in progress, and it certainly doesn't look and feel like a Broadway show. Griffin should be banned from working on the Broadway stage. He was given a great cast in a great show - and he wasted the opportunity. There's no doubt that a more able director would have turned this show with this cast into the hottest ticket in town. Unfortunately, we have an extremely tentative piece that looks as if it were thrown together in 10 minutes.

Updated On: 12/4/06 at 11:58 AM

[Smaxie]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 12:12pm

Updated On: 12/4/06 at 12:12 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 12:12pm

Mediocrity is vital.

OMIGOD YOU GUYS!!!!!

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 12:23pm

Exactly, n69n.

Smaxie: Fixed - thanks!

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 12:24pm

n69n, that was hilarious! (though I still think I may enjoy Legally Blonde's mediocrity)
Updated On: 12/4/06 at 12:24 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 12:28pm

I love reading your reviews. And... well, God bless New Jersey? We usually agree, so I'm sad you didn't like HF. It is what it is, but it sounds like it's not reaching any of the potential it could have.

I'm loving the new catch-phrase-dom of "OHMIGOD You Guys."

Updated On: 12/4/06 at 12:28 PM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 12:43pm

Agreed about Apple Tree....mighty disappointing.

I'm assuming they were going for a minimalistic design - to highlight the book and score....problem is that it's all fluff.

Would it have killed them to have A tree?

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 12:44pm

Today I am going to NYC for 4 days and will fortunately not be seeing HIGH FIDELITY. However, I am seeing THE APPLE TREE and THE COLOR PURPLE. I appreciate your reviews, Munk. They are comprehensive and truthful and witty. I hope I will find these shows at least somewhat enjoyable anyway. And I will be seeing Chenoweth for the first time. That is why I picked THE APPLE TREE. I remember loving the OBC with the wonderful Barbara Harris. Thank God I have saved GREY GARDENS for last. I am confidant that I will be treated to a special theatre piece. I know Mary Louise Wilson and she has invited me back stage after the show so that should be the icing on the cake. She is a very funny lady indeed in person.

Updated On: 12/4/06 at 12:44 PM

[justme2]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 12:49pm

People who say "The Little Dog Laughed" is good have incredibly awful taste.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 12:54pm

Anyone want to take pictures of the new marquees? I still wanna see the Studio 54 one, though I heard they've taken part of it down, or something? And I want to see the new Imperial marquee since they probably put something above it now.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 12:57pm

Gypsy9, please tell ML Wilson that people ****LOVE***** her!

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 12:59pm

THE CLEAN HOUSE

Lincoln Center Theatre is currently producing a pristine, glowing production of Sarah Ruhl's fascinating new play, THE CLEAN HOUSE (a 2005 Pulitzer Prize finalist).

THE CLEAN HOUSE tells the story of a cleaning lady from Brazil named Matilde (Vanessa Aspillaga) who is hired to clean for a stubborn, cardboard doctor called Lane (Blair Brown) and her never-around husband, Charles (John Dossett). The show opens with Matilde standing on Lane's coffee table telling a long joke in Portuguese. She does on to explain that her parents loved jokes, and loved to laughed - and that her mother actually laughed herself to death. After he mother's death, her father killed himself. Now living with and cleaning for Lane (she hates cleaning, by the way) she is on the perpetual prowl for the perfect joke. Virginia, Lane's siter (expertly played by Jill Clayburgh) tell the audience that she loves to clean - and she loves dust. Getting rid of accumulating dust is progress, in her mind. She doesn't understand how Lane wouldn't want to clean her own house. Depressed over her parents' deaths, Matilde has stopped cleaning. One day, Virginia arrives and makes a deal with Matilde that she would clean her sister's house, rather than Matilde. Of course, Lane discovers this when she arrives home from work early one day and immediately fires Matilde. In the same scene, Lane discovers that her husband is having an affair with a patient named Ana that he performed a masectomy on.

Without revealing spoilers, the events that round out the play are outrageous, silly, funny, and brutally moving. Ruhl has constructed a perfectly charming play that is as zany as it is serious; as hysterical as it is devastating. It is certainly reminiscent of an Albee play, in many ways.

As Matilde, the joke-happy maid from Brazil, Vanesa Aspillaga is thoroughly winning and absolutely brilliant. She perfectly conveys a young woman who, though wounded by the past, has enough optomism and heart to move on and make the best of each and every situation. Aspillaga is an absolutely brilliant actress, and is the beating heart of this production. It is my hope that she is recognized generously this spring.

Blair Brown is equally perfect as Lane, the middle-aged doctor who doesn't stop quite enough to smell the flowers. An equal balance of order and heart, Brown's performance is rich and varied. She is a fine, fine actress. As her loopy sister Virginia, Jill Clayburgh is in top form. Absolutely hysterical from top to bottom - and she actually makes cleaning look appealing! John Dossett (Charles and Matilde's Father) is as strong as he always is; it's always a treat to watch him on stage. Concetta Tomei was out, but her understudy Marilyn Dodds Frank was brilliant. She plays (along with Matilde's Mother), Ana whom is dying of cancer and refuses all medical treatment. A truly moving and thorough performance.

Christopher Acebo's spotless, modern sets are winning, as are Shigeru Yaji's appropriate costumes and James F. Ingalls' beautiful lighting.

Bill Rauch's direction is just as thoughtful and strong as everything else in this play, making THE CLEAN HOUSE one of the best plays in town. It will make you laugh hysterically, it would make you fight back tears, and it will inspire you beyond measure. Please, do yourself a favor and check it out - it's an absolute gem.

As yesterday was the last day for BC/EFA collecting, Clayburgh delivered a hysterical curtain speach. The reason I mention this is because they were auctioning off (starting at $5,000) the most unique thing I have ever heard of: the chance to have the entire cast come to clean your house. Brilliant.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 1:03pm

justme2, that was slightly uncalled for. You're acting as if those of us on the board are the only ones that thought THE LITTLE DOG LAUGHED was excellent. Are you forgetting that it received nearly across the board positive reviews? And Brantley has made it a critics' pick, which is not too common.

Critics aren't always right and shouldn't be used for validation of opinion, but you're in the minority here, sister - so don't make those of us who loved it out to be tasteless whores.

[justme2]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 1:06pm

Not so pleasant when aimed at something you liked, huh?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 1:09pm

Well it's not NOT pleasant, I'm just wondering why you insist on behaving like a petty child.

[justme2]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 1:11pm

Hey, i almost always agree with your reviews, but your behavior on the other thread is uncalled for here. Telling people they have incredibly awful taste because they enjoyed something you didn't is really uncalled for and petty.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/4/06 at 1:14pm

Had you been clever enough to read the post in which I was responding to, you would see that my nasty, petty post was mocking (in direct form) bigbigbill's post, saying that people who disliked HIGH FIDELITY are wrong. It was my way of pointing out that both my post and his post are nonsensical. I didn't truly mean that anyone who liked HIGH FIDELITY has awful taste - but just throwing some love back in bigbigbill's face.

So next time, read the thread post by post rather than just zeroing in on MY post. Had you read the thread, you would have realized that my post was a sarcastic response to bill's idiotic comment.