"The Humans" at SHN

Production photo by Julieta Cervantes

And now for something completely different...

A night after seeing such a disappointing show at ACT, we managed to get tickets to see a touring version of a play that was both a Pulitzer prize finalist and winner of the Tony award for best play, by a playwright I already know I like a lot. This seems much safer.

So, Stephen Karam's play, The Humans, at SHN. This is sort of interesting to me from a business standpoint. I've been assuming we'll see this play show up at one of the bigger regional theaters in the area (such as ACT or Berkeley Rep) in the next year or two, but now that it's doing a national tour, including a fairly brief stop at the Orpheum in San Francisco, I figure it will either be later than that, or perhaps at a smaller theater, which would not be a bad thing. I would love to see this show in a more intimate setting. But I get ahead of myself.

The Play

The Humans is a family drama set at Thanksgiving dinner in a run-down apartment in lower Manhattan's Chinatown. Brigid and her partner Richard have just moved in, so dinner is somewhat ad hoc, as are the furnishings. Brigid's working-class, Irish Catholic family is coming to dinner. It's a multi-generational gathering, with Brigid's lesbian lawyer sister, Aimee, their parents, Erik and Deirdre from Scranton, and Erik's mother, "Momo," who is suffering from dementia, probably Alzheimer's. And then there is Richard, who is sort of vaguely ethnic, and we see hints of privilege in his background.

As we move from awkward greetings to seeing the small, ill-furnished apartment, we also hear loud noises from an apartment above, the source of which is somewhat obscure. [This reminds me of a college apartment where I was sure the upstairs neighbors sometimes tried to dribble bowling balls.] We slowly begin to see the financial and health challenges that virtually all members of the family are facing.

A lot of the cleverness of the play comes from the slow unveiling of all the issues. Karam manages not to hit us with too much at once, and much is left to our interpretation and to later reveals. It's really quite masterfully done, so I don't want to write too much here that might spoil it for those who have not seen or read the play.

Suffice it to say that no one is really doing all that well, and it's a combination of the economy, health issues, and some personal choices. The family bonds, though tenuous at times, are apparent, and make it hard to dismiss the characters as fictional inventions. It may not be your family, but it definitely feels like a family.

The play finishes strongly, and with lots of thought-provoking ambiguities that make for terrific post-performance discussion topics.

The Production

My wife had the good fortune to see the Broadway production with her mother a couple of years back, but I had only read the script, not seen the show produced. Although none of the award-winners are in the touring cast (the only holdover from Broadway is Lauren Klein as Momo), the ensemble is solid. I was mildly concerned that there are a couple of "name" actors whose strongest credits are on television as the parents: Richard Thomas ("John Boy" of "The Waltons" in my youth) as Erik, and Pamela Reed as Deirdre. I find that TV actors in particular aren't necessarily the best stage actors, but these were fine and blended well with the rest of the cast.

My wife noted that there are some distinct casting and directorial choices in the touring production that differ from the Broadway production. For example, Deirdre has issues with food, and talks a lot about being on Weight Watchers. On Broadway she was played (in a Tony Award-winning performance) by Jayne Houdyshell, who is fairly heavy, where Reed is certainly not. It's not an issue in the play, but it does change the way you interpret some of her lines. Similarly, Aimee (Therese Plaehn) in the touring company plays the role a lot lighter, less morosely than her Broadway predecessor. My wife also noticed that Richard (Luis Vega) has a more distinctly ethnic look in the touring company, which also makes one look a little differently at his character and the way Brigid's (Daisy Eagan) family relates to him.

The set is slightly elaborate, as it's a two-floor apartment (ground floor and basement) with stairs between, and only a single bathroom, upstairs. The difficulty of moving between floors becomes part of the plot, but so does the open flow of sound on the stairs. So the set design and lighting are both important aspects of the play, and they work well here. On the other hand, it's a small play, and most of the action takes place around a small table for dinner, so in many ways I would rather see the show in a more intimate space where one could see the actors more closely. The Orpheum is not exactly conducive to that kind of experience.

Bottom Line

This is the third of Karam's plays that I've seen. We stumbled onto his first show, Speech and Debate, some years ago in New York and were blown away by it. Then we saw Sons of the Prophet, a year and a half ago at New Conservatory Theatre Center, and thought it was also a terrific piece of writing. So we were excited to see this new, award-winning play.

The production does not disappoint. It's a powerful, emotional play, despite the fact that the emotions are often held in check by the characters. There's a lot going on, on a lot of levels, which is a tribute to both the writing and the performance.

Unfortunately, the tour was only in San Francisco for about two weeks, and we caught it almost at the end, so it has already moved on to Los Angeles. I'm already eager to find out when the show will come to a local theater, because I definitely want to see it again, hopefully up close this time.

Keep an eye open for Stephen Karam plays. I know there will be more, and his track record so far says they will be good.

"A Walk on the Moon" at ACT

ACT photo by Alessandra Mello

ACT has a rather mixed record with musicals. I would definitely not call it one of their strengths. Nonetheless, they persist in producing new musical works, so as a subscriber, I get to see them. And I rather like a good musical. A Walk on the Moon was not a good musical, and I did not like it.

To be fair, we all departed at the intermission. It was a unanimous decision. We discussed whether there was any reason to stay, and concluded there was not. So, I suppose in fairness I should say that it's possible the second act is so good that it makes it worth sitting through the dismal first act, but I sincerely doubt it.

The Play

Apparently this is an adaptation of a movie. I did not see the movie, so I can't comment on the adaptation. All I can talk about is the play. It's set at a Jewish summer camp in July, 1969. A group of families have made their annual trek to the camp from Brooklyn to the Catskills, with the working husbands commuting on weekends and the rest of the families staying in bungalows. There are certainly aspects of this I can relate to, so there's a setting for a play.

And then, very little happens. Which, I can attest, seems very likely in a resort setting. That's kind of the point of it all. In Act I the campers do a little dancing and singing about arriving at summer camp. Kids meet new friends. Teens express frustration with, well, everything. Some even sing about it. The blouse man arrives to sell (yes) blouses.

Playwright Pamela Gray adapted this script from her first screenplay that eventually got produced as a movie, all based on her childhood memories. I hope the original is more lively than the musical.

We get a little bit of subdued teen angst and some nascent middle-age feminism from a bored housewife. The voices are pretty good,  but Paul Scott Goodman's songs just aren't compelling. They're pretty cliched and repetitive. Nothing you're going to leave humming.

We are supposed to get a little sparkle of excitement from a little flirtation between housewife Pearl and the blouse man, Walker. They later have a little fling during the moon landing, while everyone else is watching television (and Pearl's husband has been conveniently detained at home by his TV repair job). But there is never a sense of actual excitement or risk, or really even of attraction.

The Production

I suppose the fact that the program has an inserted page with updated song listings suggests that this world premiere is still very much a work in progress, so perhaps I should be more forgiving. But I didn't pay to see a workshop. This is billed as a full production, but it doesn't feel like it.

First, it's terribly static. Bungalows don't move, and frankly the people don't move much, either. There is not much action in watching a group of women play mahjong. So the director has the table rotate sometimes, which is just weird, and seems only to emphasize how dull and motionless the scene really is. It might be a fine scene in a novel, propelled by sparkling banter, but the lifeless song is not revived by the turning of the table.

Similarly, when rebellious teen Allison (Brigid O'Brien) (and you know she's rebellious because she scowls all the time, except when she's swooning over guitar-player Ross (Nick Sacks)) sings about how she's frustrated and wants to go do things, her vehemence is demonstrated by her standing up. And raising her arms. So clearly, she's going places.

Forgive the snark, but really, director Sheryl Kaller and choreographer Josh Prince need to get some actual motion into the characters. Two kids sitting on a picnic table rapping about how bored they are and how they'd really like to go to Woodstock (or at least the movies) is realistic, but it's not theatrical, and it's not interesting to watch.

And for all the effort they seem to have put into building a fancy set, some of it seems terribly amateurish. For example, a character opens the door and walks into a bungalow--and then we see them walking offstage behind the facade. Really?

Bottom Line

I could go on, but you get the point. The best I can hope for is that the show really isn't done, and this is the best they could slap together in time for the opening. There are some obviously talented actors and singers, but there isn't much for them to do. I really don't think there's enough meat on the bones of this beast to make a satisfying snack, much less a professional-quality musical production.

One of our party summed it up that the whole thing was really deficient in every area: script, music, stagecraft, choreography, direction, acting....

It's hard for me to say this about any play, but this is just not worth seeing. It would be pretty disappointing as a community theater production, but from a major regional theater company, it's just inexcusable. One can only hope the new management at ACT will spare us such a showing in the future.

Both thumbs down on this one. I wish there were something I could recommend about it, but really, there is nothing. Save your money and go see two or three plays at smaller theaters. You'll have a much better time. All four shows I saw in the week after seeing this were much better.

Reading: "Botticelli in the Fire" at Shotgun Players

Busy times since we got back from New York City a couple of weeks ago. It took me most of that time to catch up on blogging all the shows we'd seen there, but meanwhile I was seeing a bunch more stuff at home, which I now need to catch up on quickly because we're headed off to our annual trip to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival tomorrow, and there will be lots, lots more.

So, let's see if we can't get some of the backlog trimmed, starting with the second of Shotgun's Champagne Staged Reading Series for the year, Botticelli in the Fire by Jordan Tannahill. This show is apparently having (or just had) a very successful run at DC's Woolly Mammoth Theatre. Shotgun snagged the rights to do a staged reading, and I caught the second of two performances. As usual, it's four days of rehearsal with a little technical support in the way of lights, sounds, etc.

The Play

I have to start by saying that this show was interesting, but didn't totally grab me. We have the story of Sandro Botticelli, artist, courtier, and man-about-town. He's currently working on a radical masterpiece, a portrait of his patron's wife in the form of Venus rising, naked on a huge shell. It gets a little complicated, because he's also carrying on a rather torrid affair with the wife while she "poses" for him. This is particularly problematic because a) his patron is the notoriously ill-tempered Lorenzo de Medici, b) his libertine lifestyle provides lots of leverage for an angry patron to use against him, and c) he is particularly fond of his young protege/boyfriend, Leonardo. The atmosphere is ripe, too, because of the religious purges led by Friar Savonarola, the bonfires of the vanities.

So Botticelli finds himself literally caught between his desires and the fires. The volatile Medici certainly has echoes of some current cultural figures, not least of which is a certain wealthy reality-TV-star-turned-politician. I suspect that a more developed production of the play might manage to highlight some of the larger themes, where the reading was dominated by the personal relationships.

The Production

In addition to my usual awe at seeing what these artists can produce in so little time, I was delighted to see the return of local favorite Patrick Kelly Jones to the stage after a hiatus of a couple of years, and also an appearance by Marilet Martinez, who I thought had relocated out of town. So that was extra fun for me.

The production itself was somewhat hampered by having to work on the set of the current mainstage play, Dry Land. Although the lockers in the locker room were shrouded, it was definitely not the right setting for a renaissance artist's workshop. The play is written as contemporary, however, so it can't really be authentic renaissance, but it still shouldn't be a locker room.

And for whatever reason, the whole production seemed less polished than some of the other recent readings at Shotgun.

Bottom Line

There is a lot of interesting material here, but I didn't feel like the reading gave us a clear picture of all this play could be. That said, the conflict of classes, of patron and artist, and of the artist against some of his base desires, should be ripe for exploration on stage. The language seemed interesting and some of the peripheral characters probably have more to offer than we could get from the reading.

All in all, I'd be interested in seeing more of this play, though I can't say with full clarity that I see all it ought to be. I'll be intrigued to see whether this shows up as a full staged production somewhere nearby.

"School of Rock" at Winter Garden Theatre

Production photo by Matthew Murphy and Joan Marcus

Our last stop on our recent New York trip (total: eight shows in five days) was meant as a treat for our teen musician: School of Rock: The Musical. None of us have seen the original movie, but we'd seen some clips of the Broadway show and thought it would be fun. It turned out to be a great ending to the trip.

The Play

As noted, the play is based on a Jack Black movie about a rock guitar player named Dewey who steps in as a substitute teacher at a prestigious prep school, pretending to be his former bandmate, Ned, who is an actual teacher. One thing leads to another, and he forms a covert band from his class of preteens (dubbed the eponymous "School of Rock"), planning to win a Battle of the Bands against the band that just kicked him out. Needless to say, a rebellious rock band is hardly the thing for the buttoned-down prep school, but the kids take to it right away, and when the plot blows up in Dewey's face, the kids ride to the rescue and the band saves the day.

Underlying all of this is a smoldering dissatisfaction among the children with their lives, their parents, and their school. Turns out the prissy had of the school is also a reformed, somewhat regretful, ex-rocker, too, so although none of this comports with her current job, she has sympathy for Dewey and his cause. Truly, none of this plot holds up to any sort of analysis, but it's a fun story, and the show is fast-paced with lots of rock-and-roll energy.

The Production

Only two things can salvage this absurd premise for a show: 1) a charismatic actor to play Dewey, and 2) an ensemble of musically-gifted preteens who can bring the band to life. Luckily, this show has both of those things in spades.

Two actors share the demanding role of Dewey, and for our performance it was Conner John Gillooly. He definitely has the rock rebel act down, with just enough slacker to make some of the premise seem believable. And the kids were terrific. Four of them have to be stellar musicians, because they play their instruments live on stage. Zach (Colin Lauri) plays lead guitar, Katie (Montgomery Lamb) the bass, Freddy (Cory Logan) the drums, and Lawrence (Jim Kaplan) plays keyboard. I don't know their exact ages, but these youngsters can flat-out play. With the rest of the class in various other roles (backup singers, roadies, tech, security, etc.), and lots of group singing and dancing in the classroom, it's a spirited and enjoyable ride.

Meanwhile the rest of the school tries to go on as usual, led by Rosalie (Analisa Leaming) and her operatic high soprano, a faculty of prep-school drones, and a bumbling group of parents. The real Ned (Nehal Joshi) and his girlfriend Patty (Lori Eve Marinacci) are pretty good, if underutilized, characters. Dewey keeps trying to get Ned to re-form their old band, "Maggot Death," and Patty tries to get them to grow up. So, you know, dramatic tension.

But ultimately the show lives or dies with Dewey and the band, and for our show, it definitely LIVED. The songs are bouncy, if a bit repetitive, and the charisma of Dewey, Rosalie, and the core players keeps interest high. The song "Stick It to the Man" is particularly catchy--it's what I was humming for hours afterward.

Interestingly, we picked up a copy of the soundtrack CD after the show, and there is another terrific song on it called "Give Up Your Dreams" that has been cut from the current version of the show. Patty instead does a variant on the earlier song about Mount Rock that is OK, but not nearly as good. I have no idea why they made that change.

Bottom Line

I'm really quite blown away that the producers have been able to maintain a stable of musician/actors of the appropriate age for over three years now, and a national tour is either already going or about to start. I know it comes to San Francisco later this year (in fact, next week!). We've been enjoying listening to the soundtrack quite a bit, and it brings back good memories of the show.

All told, I was quite surprised by how clever and charming the whole thing turned out to be. Despite being just wildly implausible on all kinds of levels, the show kind of compels a thorough suspension of disbelief and brings out the rock-and-roll dreams in everyone, I guess.

So, color me surprised, but I really, really liked this show. It's still running in London and New York as well as touring, and schools can get licensed to produce it as well. I expect this one is going to be a mainstay of youth musical theater for years to come.

Stick it to the man!

"Escape to Margaritaville" at Marquis Theatre

Production photo by Matthew Murphy

I had to see this show. It was inevitable. I have been a fan of Jimmy Buffett for many years, been to lots of his concerts, know most of his songs by heart, etc. So when they created a jukebox musical based on his songs, I knew I had to see it. I had hope that it might be a good one: Buffett is a really good story-teller, as evidenced not only by his music, but also his best-selling novels an short stories. Indeed, it's the stories that attract me almost as much as the tropical tunes.

Also, Buffett had made a previous foray into musical theater, collaborating with Herman Wouk on a musical stage adaptation of Wouk's terrific novel, "Don't Stop the Carnival." Wouk's book and Buffett's original music made for a great soundtrack, at least, but the show never made it to Broadway, and played out after a few years at a resort in the Bahamas.

The Play

Maybe they should have had Buffett write the book for this show. It's cute enough, but there really isn't much depth or interest in the plot. Tully is a guitar player playing the field at a beach resort in the Caribbean. Brainy scientist Rachel comes down to the resort with her best friend, Tammy, who is about to marry a jerk back home. Tammy falls for the bartender at the resort (aptly named "Brick), and Rachel and Tully fall heavily for each other. Many songs throughout. Rachel and Tammy have to go home at the end of the week. Tully is all broken up about it. Circumstances intervene to bring Tully and Rachel back together. Happy ending. Have another drink.

There really isn't much more to the story line than that. And unfortunately, the songs don't mesh all that well with the story in some places. Buffett had to rewrite quite a lot of lyrics to shoehorn the songs into the plot at all. And frankly, a lot of bits in the show are just cute little nods to the fans in the audience, foreshadowing upcoming songs or referencing other songs in the canon that aren't in the show.

It's cute, it's bouncy, it's entirely predictable, but at least it's fun to sing along.

The Production

The show is well done, at least. Tully (Paul Alexander Nolan) seems a little more LA surfer dude than Caribbean beach bum, and seems like he should have more of a tan or something. He just doesn't quite give off the livin'-on-the-beach vibe. Rachel (Alison Luff) has an amazing voice, and looking at her credits (Les Miserables, Wicked, Mamma Mia) you can see why. She seems way too talented to be stuck in this show.

I give full credit for featuring a number of non-traditional body types, including Brick (Eric Petersen) and Tammy (Lisa Howard), resort owner Marley (Rema Webb) and several members of the ensemble. It's kind of refreshing to see some real-looking people mixed in with the skinny actors and dancers in a musical.

The sound was good, the sets were high-quality. I thought some of the touches, like Brick's ragtop, were a bit cheesy and kind of detracted from the songs and story. The singing and dancing were fine, and sometimes better than that. But even more than most jukebox shows, the show sometimes seemed to be struggling to get to the next song.

Bottom Line

We all enjoyed the show, but we also felt like it should have been more enjoyable. The story just doesn't hold up the rest of the show. If I want to hear Buffett songs, I can go to a Buffett concert. And I can read actual Buffett stories in his books. So it was kind of novel to see it all onstage on Broadway. But the story seemed pretty skimpy even by the standards of the 1950s or so. A modern musical, even a jukebox musical, needs a more complex plot than this has.

I see from the website that they're pulling the plug on this show in a couple of weeks (July 1). So if you're a fan, you can still catch the show, and discounts are pretty deep. Or you can just save up and go see a concert or listen to the albums. The music is good, and doesn't need a cheesy story to tie it together.

Overall, disappointing, but my expectations weren't all that high to begin with. Kind of like the drinks from the bar at the theater. Too sweet, too expensive, and the bartender took way too long to make each one, and was a little too obvious about loudly thanking people who tipped him. I could have had a much better drink at a real bar, probably for less money. Same with the songs, I'm afraid.

Not bad, just not all that good.

"The Band's Visit" at Ethel Barrymore Theatre

Production photo from company website

For the second time in the last several years, I was in New York City the night of the Tony awards. Not a planned thing--it just falls conveniently at the end of the school year, before summer really kicks in. And this time we happened to be seeing a couple of the most-nominated productions of the year: the Harry Potter play widely favored to be Best New Play and The Band's Visit, one of the favorites for Best New Musical. Both ended up winning (a lot of awards), and we had seen both before the awards were announced.

We had picked The Band's Visit based mostly on word-of-mouth and good reviews--none of us had seen the movie it was based on. So although we had read a quick blurb about what the show covered, we really didn't know much.

The Play

This is definitely not your typical Broadway musical. It has a relatively small cast, without a lot of flashy ensemble dance numbers or tunes that make you jump out of your seat to dance and clap. Instead, it's really a rather sweet, personal story, backed by Middle Eastern music. Also, fair chunks of the dialog are in either Hebrew or Arabic, though one need not understand those languages to appreciate and follow the plot.

The basic outline is that an Egyptian police orchestra is taking a bus trip to play at the opening of an Arabic Cultural Center in an Israeli city in 1996. Unfortunately, because of language difficulties, they end up in the wrong city, far away in the middle of nowhere. It's a tiny town with no hotel or other facilities, really, and no bus to take them back until tomorrow. So for a night they are stuck in this small town, and the locals take them into their homes in small groups.

There are little conflicts resulting from this imposition. Sometimes it's just a cultural misunderstanding or a language problem. Sometimes the presence of unexpected guests puts a strain on existing relationships. But in each case the people form a connection across cultures and language barriers. It's not a show about hatred and big conflicts, but a show about dealing with strangers and difficult circumstances. Also, it's full of music. After all, we have a traveling orchestra!

Another aspect I like about this show is that, although there are definitely leading characters in both the Israeli and Egyptian groups, it's not their show. Like a good orchestra, it is an ensemble show, and each player gets a turn to participate and even shine, either musically or personally or both. And that, ultimately, is the key to the show's appeal.

The Production

As befits a small, rather intimate play, the set is modest. Plus, we're in a tiny, nondescript town in the middle of the desert, so nothing is fancy or flashy. Things are utilitarian and a little drab, but personal and practical. The set is fairly elegant, but again, not big, not fancy. And the costumes are not fancy, either. The orchestra wears their matching uniforms and hats. The locals wear everyday clothes, though some dress up for an evening out.

The biggest star of the show, then is the music, and none of that is big or showy, either. Befitting the modesty of the show, it is pleasant, sometimes toe-tapping, but nothing that stands out particularly. It's clear that music is serious and meaningfully central the the members of the orchestra, and showing and sharing that passion is one of the things that helps break the ice in a lot of the interactions. The show is about people, and since a lot of those people are musicians, music is central.

I don't have a lot to add about the production. Dina (Katrina Lenk) has a lovely voice. Tony Shalhoub won the Tony for originating the role of Tewfiq, but he had left the company to start another show by the time we arrived, and the show really doesn't need his familiar and famous face. Indeed, I suspect that in some ways the ensemble nature of the piece works better without a single well-known actor.

Bottom Line

This is a lovely piece of work, a truly nice story about pretty ordinary people who unexpectedly find themselves in an awkward, uncomfortable situation. And as they make the best of it, they also find some of the best in each other. The fact that such a modest, human-scale show can find great success on Broadway is encouraging. In a world that seems increasingly driven by big Disney retreads, jukebox musicals, and revivals, it's pleasant to find a genuinely enjoyable show about realistic people.

As a side note, we met up with friends who live near New York City, and they also saw the show, though not the same performance we saw. I was particularly interested in their reactions because both of them speak Hebrew well and have spent time in Israel, and one of them has also studied Arabic. Their reaction was much like mine, although they could understand all the lines where I just had to go by context and emotion. As I had surmised, there is probably some value to having to struggle to grasp the gist of a shouted conversation in a language you don't know, but the show also works for an audience who understand all three languages being spoken.

I imagine this show will get a boost from winning so many Tony awards and continue running for a while before going on tour. I definitely recommend seeing it if you get a chance. Regardless of how you feel about musicals in general, there is a lot in this little show to like, and it's well worth the time invested to see it.

"Travesties" at Roundabout Theatre Company

Roundabout photo by Joan Marcus

It's no surprise to anyone around here that I like Tom Stoppard plays a lot. And Travesties is one of my personal favorites. So a chance to see the Broadway revival at Roundabout was one of the main excuses for our recent venture to New York City. One of the things I like about the play is that it stands up to a variety of stagings. The first I saw, years ago, was a really stripped-down version at Actor's Ensemble of Berkeley that really let the audience focus on Stoppard's words more than the production details. This Broadway production is quite the opposite, but it works, too.

The Play

Among the things I love about Travesties is that it might be the quintessential Stoppard play: witty dialog, interesting characters drawn from actual people, intellectual topics, and a realization as you go that things are not what you thought they were.

The central character in the play is Henry Carr, an Englishman who served in The Great War, getting injured and ending up in Zurich for the duration. While much of the play takes place in Zurich in 1917, we also see Carr as an older man, looking back on those "great days." Carr may be one of my favorite unreliable narrators of his own life in theater (director Patrick Marber calls Travesties "a misremembered memory play" and "A memory play remembered by an amnesiac."). While in Zurich, Carr crosses paths with the writer James Joyce, Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, and Dadaist Tristan Tzara. It's a colorful cast of characters, supplemented by riffs and references to Shaw's The Importance of Being Earnest.

It's hard to give a really meaningful, short summary of the play, so I won't even try here. Suffice it to say that as the characters meet and interact in various locations in Zurich, there is ample opportunity for Stoppard to play with the people, their language, and our expectations. Add in a particularly well-informed butler, a flirtatious librarian, and some other pretensions, and you have the ingredients for a classic Stoppard comedy.

The Production

We've seen a number of Roundabout productions in recent years and been generally pleased with all of them. Travesties was no exception. The set design is pretty straightforward, allowing all the scenes to take place in the same space, without requiring set changes. Ultimately, it's all taking place in Carr's head, so the fact that it's a single, jumbled, untidy space that serves as home, library, cafe, and wherever else it needs to be at the moment is fine. Lighting and costumes are quite effective, too.

But the acting is where the rubber really hits the road. The key is Tom Hollander as Carr. He manages to morph quite deftly from the aging, forgetful Carr into his youthful, wartime self. The plasticity of his face and his body movements are really quite stunning and effective. And Carr is the key to the whole enterprise. The surrounding characters manage to be persuasive while resisting the temptation to fly over the top. Tzara, in particular, almost begs to be ridiculous, but Marber doesn't let actor Seth Numrich get out of hand. Same with Peter McDonald as Joyce and Dan Butler as Lenin. Any of those roles could descend into parody, but Marber keeps everyone to a relatively ordered level of insanity.

I particularly appreciated the musical riffs that make some of the scenes into little tableaux from a kind of Vaudevillian, music-hall style melodrama featuring Cecily (Sara Topham) and Gwendolyn (Scarlett Strallen)--very charming, very Earnest. And the droll butler Bennett (Patrick Kerr) is quite wonderful.

I could go on, but suffice it to say it's wonderful interpretation of the play, neatly and efficiently directed and designed.

Bottom Line

I liked it a lot. Go see it.

OK, that's a bit simplistic, but really, it is a lovely rendition of one of my favorite plays by my favorite playwright--what did you think I was going to say?

Sadly, the show closed last weekend. I'm glad we got to see it.

"The Play That Goes Wrong" at Lyceum Theatre

Production photo by Jeremy Daniel

I went back to see The Play That Goes Wrong, even though I had seen it last December and suspected that it wouldn't be as much fun a second time. And it's true, it wasn't as funny on repeated viewing. The real reason for going again, however, was to take my daughter, because I knew this play would totally appeal to her. And I was right about that, too. It was completely worthwhile to see and hear her reactions and laughter. She ate it all up and loved every minute.

So, nothing really to add to last year's commentary. It's still a very funny play, and the precision with which they perform it is admirable. The run is coming to an end this summer, however. Along the way, it has become Broadway's longest-running play (non-musical). That's quite remarkable, really. In fact, last night was the 500th performance.

The show concludes its run on Broadway on August 26th, and then starts a national tour. So you might get a chance to see things go wrong in your neighborhood.

"In & Of Itself" at Daryl Roth Theatre

Photo linked from show's website

This one's a little weird to write about. It's not really a play, but it's definitely a play-like performance, with magic or sleight-of-hand or illusions or however you want to describe it. I guess the shorthand would be that it's a magic show.

I like magic shows. A couple of my favorite evenings ever were spent watching Penn and Teller both do and then explain how they did some truly amazing stuff. And I'm never sure which is more impressive, pondering how something is done, or knowing how it's done, but still being fooled, amazed, and so on.

In & Of Itself is a one-man show (or at least there is only one person on stage; there are definitely crew running lights, cameras, projections, and other things) starring Derek DelGaudio. I had never heard of him before, but he is a very talented performer. The show has quite a pedigree, however, including director Frank Oz and producer Neil Patrick Harris. I stumbled across this show tangentially from reading something about Oz, and the reviews were extremely positive, so I decided to go see it. Besides, the rest of the family was going off that night to see Dear Evan Hansen, which I decided to pass on.

Overall, I have to say there's not a lot I can describe about the show without spoiling things. Also, it's really hard to pin down what the show is about, anyway. It's definitely not just a string of illusions or tricks; there is a narrative that runs through it. DelGaudio is a good, low-key, story teller, but of course, this is a magic show, so by definition we know we should take anything at face value. Maybe some of the stories (or some aspects of some of the stories) are true.

Pre-Show

Outside the theater (which appears to have been built in the basement of a former bank--cool!) and also in the lounge below the theater there are posters covered with little cards that read "I AM" followed by the name of some identity. Some are occupations, some are descriptions of attributes (e.g., introvert, healer, optimist), and some are kind of whimsical. It's interesting to look at, but there is no explanation.

Then as we enter the theater, we walk by a wall with cards that can be removed, and we're told to pick one before we go inside. There is still no explanation.

Again, I can't say too much about what happens with the cards or why, but suffice it to say that much of the show is a riff on the question of identity.

The Show

There are six sections to the main part of the show, each with its own story, but all falling into the larger narrative. And each section goes along with a different sort of illusion. It's all quite interesting and engaging, as you would expect from a magic show.

I'm not sure I can say much that's meaningful about any of the sections or illusions, other than some very general comments. For example, DelGaudio may be the slickest card-handler I've ever seen. His narration seems to be an exploration of himself, his life, his role...indeed, his identity. But again, with a magician, you can never accept anything as what it seems to be. The narration seems to also be guiding us to think about our own identities, and the cards viewed and selected before the show play into that, though in ways I can't really go into without spoiling things.

As a side note, this is one of the most difficult shows I've ever tried to write about. Between the desire to not include any spoilers and the intrinsic nebulousity of the material, I'm finding it hard to say much of anything at all.

Bottom Line

I was quite taken with the show overall. Not life-changing, blown-away, must tell everyone, but it's a really good show, thought-provoking as well as entertaining. I should also mention that the pre-show environment seems to induce conversations among attendees to a degree I've rarely seen in a theater. I got drawn into chats with several people in the lounge as we all looked at and interpreted the poster on the wall, and I also chatted with people on both sides of me in the seats as we talked about what we were thinking about what was going on. That was some of the best stuff in the show.

You can probably enjoy this show on a number of levels. At its most basic, it's just a good magic show, and you could leave it at that. You can also dig a little deeper and try to figure out some things about the performer, and that's pretty interesting, too. And finally, you can turn some of that same analysis into introspection, and mull over your own identity. All seem valid and worthwhile.

After running for a couple of years, first in Los Angeles and most recently in New York City, DelGaudio is ready to move on. The final extension for this show runs through August 26th, and then it's done forever. If you're in New York, it's worth checking out.

"Harry Potter and the Cursed Child" on Broadway

Production photo by Manuel Harlan

Yes, Harry Potter is on Broadway. And by all indications, he plans to stay there a while. The Lyric Theatre on West 43rd Street is quite transformed, inside and out. For example, this is what the outside of the theater looks like now:

New York Times photo by Sara Krulwich

According to the New York Times, the producers spent over $30 million dollars to renovate the theater. I didn't have my camera, and my phone didn't really capture it so I borrowed this picture from the Times. The inside touches are equally impressive, but it's also a statement about the amount of money they expect to make on the show. Given the ticket prices (and the ticket lottery required to get the privilege of paying them), they will easily recoup that and turn a handsome profit.

But it's not all about the business. What about the show?

The Play

As the photo above indicates, this play actually comes in two parts (sort of like the last book in the series spread out over two movies). I will opine on that later, but for now suffice it to say that neither part stands on its own, so I will treat the play as a single entity. And indeed, we saw the shows back-to-back last Wednesday. Particularly for a first viewing, that continuity seems valuable. I suppose one could (if one felt both motivated and wealthy) go back to see only one part or the other separately, but I'm not sure that would be very satisfying.

I'm not going to talk much about the substance of the play. They have their own hashtag (#KeepTheSecrets) that not-too-subtly indicates that one shouldn't give out any spoilers. I think it's pretty well known that this play is sort of "Harry Potter: The Next Generation" (if I may mix my fandoms). We still get to see a lot of Harry and Ginny and Ron and Hermione, but the crux of the play revolves around their children, and particularly Harry's middle child, Albus Severus Potter. He's now old enough to go off to Hogwarts himself, but definitely feels the weight of being the child of the most famous wizard ever.

So we have a family drama, the father and his difficult son, the legacy, etc. Pretty standard stuff for a dramatic play. But of course, nothing in this ficton could ever be that simple. So throw in the next generation of the Malfoy family, too. Add some flashbacks to some of the stories in the books and even some of the back story to those. Add some general wizardry and a lot of flashy Broadway stagecraft, and you've pretty much got Harry Potter and the Cursed Child.

The two shows combined clock in at over five hours. I'm sure the true fans will say that's not nearly enough, but from the standpoint of the actual story, it's really more than necessary. One could easily edit the show down to more like 3 hours without losing much of substance, but then I suppose it would be harder to justify all the expense for the bells and whistles. Speaking of which...

The Production

There are no holds barred in this production. It's got all the glitz you'd expect in a big-time Broadway musical, but it's not a musical. It's got a forty-person cast. It's got special effects worthy of a Hollywood blockbuster, but live on stage. So magic wands get used in this show like light sabers in a Star Wars movie: early and often.

For my taste, the show leans too heavily on tricks and glitz, and not enough on a real story. This franchise was built on stories and characters, so it's disappointing to me to see that balance tip in favor of style over substance on stage. There's no reason they couldn't have put the exciting stuff to work on behalf of a solid story, but I guess they figured this was good enough.

So for fans of stagecraft, this is a real bonanza. But it's a big commitment of time and money to come away remembering the effects more than the characters and their interactions.

Bottom Line

I felt mildly out of place since I was not cosplaying as a wizard. Lots and lots of people of all ages in robes, schoolboy outfits, scarves, and wands all around me. This is clearly a show for them, and they love it.

I don't know that this show is going to attract many people who aren't already devoted Potter fans, but I guess it doesn't have to--there are plenty of those. And I don't know how much spillover it will have to other shows. How many fans will come to see this and then go a few more blocks to see The Lion King or The Band's Visit? Hard to say. But again, that's not what this is about. This is a temple built for the faithful to come and pay their devotions, and come they do.

I was wowed by the stagecraft, but wished there had been a better story underlying it all.

"Dry Land" at Shotgun Players

Shotgun Players photo by Ben Krantz Studio

My friends at Shotgun Players (obligatory disclaimer: I'm a board member there) never shy away from difficult material. Last year we got the horrors of war onstage in "Blasted," and this year we get the horror of being an American teenager. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but not by a whole lot.

The Play

At the age of twenty-one, playwright Ruby Rae Spiegel set out to write an honest play about teenage girls: their lives and relationships. The result was Dry Land, the story of two Florida high school swim teammates who aren't exactly friends, but maybe they are, eventually. Amy is the brash, cocksure, popular girl who also swims. Esther is a senior transfer to the school, a serious competitive swimmer with a somewhat murky past and dreams of swimming in college. All but one scene takes place in the school locker room.

The play opens with Amy demanding that Esther punch her in the stomach. As things unfurl, we deduce that Amy is pregnant (unintentionally) and is trying to induce a miscarriage without having parents or doctors involved. Esther is trying to ingratiate herself with Amy, so goes along with the punching (and more things later) that she's not really comfortable with. Meanwhile, Amy's theoretical best friend, Reba, is clueless and uninvolved.

The dynamics of the relationships and power hierarchy among the girls is one key aspect of the play. So too is the obvious need to reach out and relate, but tempered by the masks each girl has constructed to protect herself from emotional vulnerability. Amy's bravado, Esther's drive, and Reba's airheadedness all turn out to be constructs built up to keep others at arm's length, despite the fact that all of them desperately need and want close friendships.

I can't spell out too much of what actually transpires without spoiling things, so I won't really. Suffice it to say that the girls alternately pull and push each other, trying to get what they want without sacrificing the emotional safety distance they perceive they need. Introverted college sophomore Victor fills in a few information gaps when Esther goes to try out at college, and the school janitor makes a couple of memorable entrances at inconvenient moments.

The Production

For what is essentially a small, personal play, Dry Land is extraordinarily difficult, particularly for the two lead swimmers. Amy (Martha Brigham) and Esther (Grace Ng) have to express their emotions pretty subtly, while sometime quite literally physically assaulting one another. It's a delicate balancing act, but both are up to the challenge. And each role represents quite a distinct change from the last role I saw each actor play: Brigham as the young Leni Riefenstahl in Aurora's Leni a year ago and Ng as the clownish Wilhelm in last season's The Black Rider at Shotgun. Both exhibit entirely different, but still very strong, aspects of their performing talent in this show, and their chemistry works well.

The other players are also good, albeit in much smaller roles. Amy Nowak as Reba, Adam Magill as Victor, and Don Wood as the janitor all blend in well, and a group of eight mostly anonymous swim-team members mostly appear behind a frosted glass wall, though they come into the locker room toward the end. I should mention that the set, designed by Angrette McCloskey, is a most convincing high school locker room, from the dismal gray-green pain to the drab rows of lockers. All that's missing is the musty disinfectant smell.

And I would be remiss not to mention the great job done by Fight Director Dave Maier, because the punches and other physical tussles are extremely convincingly done. It's a bit hard to watch at times because it's so realistic.

And finally, there is blood. Lots of blood. And other bodily excretions. Amy eventually does miscarry, right there in the locker room. It's super unpleasant to watch, but an important part of the play. This show is about the real lives of teens, and well, things get real. Not for the squeamish.

Bottom Line

The show is extremely well done, and director Ariel Craft keeps a lid on the action: it feels like genuine interactions between teens most of the time, not like acting or stagecraft. That's also credit to the writing, but it would definitely be possible to overdo the action, to the detriment of the overall effect.

It is almost impossible to talk about this show without at least a passing comparison to the recent Marin Theatre Company production of The Wolves. Where that play is about a team of teen soccer players, this show focuses mostly on the two girls. In The Wolves, the girls are distinct but kind of anonymous, calling each other by their uniform numbers rather than names, where Dry Land is very much about how the very personal lives interact with the team activity. Both are very effective, but Dry Land is ultimately more gripping because of the personal depth.

There is great power in watching young people struggling to find themselves and get some degree of control in their difficult, confusing world (or as Craft calls it, "the mess and melancholy of youth"). Like real life, it's not always pleasant, but once you commit to it and follow it through to the end, you find things you never expected, aspects of characters you could not have suspected.

I could nitpick some aspects of the script (and particularly the one scene outside the locker room), but I don't really want to. The play works. The production is super effective. And it's been extended for another week, so it runs through June 23. It's well worth seeing, though I would be careful about bringing actual teens to the show--it's pretty intense.

"Eureka Day" at Aurora Theatre Company

Aurora photo by David Allen

This was a show I wanted to see based on the reactions of other people who'd been seeing it, so we managed to catch one of the last performances in the extended run. Unfortunately, it's now long over (because it's taken me forever to write about it). But the show was a very clever world premiere of a play by Jonathan Spector.

The Play

Set in a very progressive Berkeley private elementary school, the play starts as a pitch-perfect parody of a very precious, politically- and socially-correct school where everybody and their opinions and practices are accepted and valued and everyone in the room seems determined to be more tolerant and accepting than everyone else.

The plot revolves around several meetings of the governing board of the school, made up of parents, of course, and the head of the school. They do everything by consensus, of course, because voting might devalue some people's participation. And everything's going pretty smoothly until a case of mumps shows up in the school, precipitating a conflict over vaccination.

There are a couple of really terrific aspects of this play. One is the use of social media. During the mumps outbreak, with the school closed, the board gathers to host a "town hall" meeting of the school community online, and the "chat room" from the community is projected on the wall so we can all see what's going on. Things go downhill rapidly and the dialog blends quite brilliantly with the typed interactions. It's very clever and very funny.

The other really clever choice is the issue of vaccination, because it's a controversial issue that cuts across ideological lines, so even in ever-so-liberal Berkeley, the community can be divided on the matter.

All in all, I thought the play was very well written and polished, and just when I feared it was just going to be a parody of Berkeley and Liberal Virtue, it turned into a pretty strong examination of the fault lines that can cut through even a seemingly harmonious, homogeneous community. The script manages to be both funny and fair, which is a tough path, but it works.

The Performance

 The cast was strong and balanced, generally resisting the temptation to overplay their characters. These all feel like people I've known in the community. [And that is not meant as a dig at anyone I served with on the parents' board at my daughter's school long ago.] And just when you think you've pegged a character, the script adds some new dimension that makes you rethink things.

The set really gets the feel of an elementary school classroom, and the lighting and projections work really well. All in all, it was a fine production.

Bottom Line

I wish I had been able to see the show early enough in the run to recommend that others see it. In particular, some of my peers who have also served on private-school parent boards would have enjoyed it.

This was definitely a case where Aurora's production quality was matched by the script, and in this case it was the first script they had commissioned through their "Originate+Generate" program. That bodes well for future efforts, I hope. Aurora has a kind of hit-and-miss reputation, so here's hoping this represents an upward tick.

Good play, good production. Glad I saw it before it closed.