"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.

Best of 2017

I've been told that one of the requirements, now that I do a Theater Blog, is that I must commemorate the end of the year by doing a "Best Of" post to say what was best this year. Since 2017 was my first full year of Theater Blogging (Yep...we started in May of 2016!), this will be the first time I can really look back over a year of posts and opine on what really stuck with me, which is my criterion for "Best Of". Unless I decide it isn't. Stay tuned.

I will preface this with a side note that on the whole, 2017 was not a good year for me at all. Personally and professionally, this year has actually kind of sucked, and even my frequent respite at the ballpark was not its usual pick-me-up. But for the most part, theater--and particularly theater people--has truly kept me going. On the whole, the friends I have made through going to the theater and being involved with theater are some of the most positive, supportive people I have ever known. You know who you are, and thanks for being there for me.

Now then, theater stuff...

Best Plays/Productions

These are the plays that really stuck with me, for one reason or another. I'll list them in the order I saw them. No other ranking is implied unless I say so. I will include links to my original postings for each of them, in case you missed my musings the first time or just want to see if I lost my mind in between or something.

If I can find a theme to my "best" list, it's mostly that they almost all manage to tackle an issue that is pertinent to the day and explore it in a non-obvious way. 

"Hamlet" at Shotgun Players

Fortunately, the repertory portion of Shotgun's 2016-2017 season ended in January, and much of what I saw in January was more Hamlet. I believe I ended up seeing it about 18 times, with only one repeat casting. The shuffling of actors was amazing to watch and very educational. I learned a great deal about Hamlet and about theater from watching these shows, and my only regret is that I didn't manage to go more often. The seven actors plus one understudy deserve medals for performing in this show. And extra medals for the fact they were also performing in at least one additional repertory show each. It was just an extraordinary experience, the likes of which we are not likely to see on a Bay Area stage again any time soon.

"John" at ACT

This was the first show I felt really showed off the value of ACT's new second stage at the Strand Theater. The show was quirky, but it really kept me thinking about it for quite some time, and that's what good theater is about.

"Leni" at Aurora

Once again showing my fondness for the intimacy of small theater spaces, this little show in Aurora's second space really showcased the talents of actors Stacy Ross and Martha Brigham and brought some history to life in a thoughtful and timely way. It was an innovative and thought-provoking show, well directed by Jon Tracy.

"Sisters Matsumoto" at Center Rep

This was a very powerful and beautifully staged performance of a story that really resonated. Particularly having just seen TheaterFIRST's Beneath The Tall Tree, which also dealt with Japanese American internment, it was moving and thought-provoking and made me aware of aspects of that period and its aftermath that I hadn't been aware of.

"The Events" at Shotgun Players

My buddies at Shotgun really kind of went off the rails on some things these past couple of years. Staging The Events requires a different community choir on stage for each performance. As such, it was informative to see the play more than once (and I did). Not only did this help cement for me the value of seeing plays more than once (I also saw Hamilton for the second time around the same point), but it made me appreciate both the difficulty of incorporating different outside groups into a play and what that actually means to this particular show. This is a tough but important and certainly timely play about the resilience of both individuals and communities to sudden, shocking events.

 "As You Like It" at CalShakes

As the only comedy on the list, this seems a little odd (note that I have a separate section for comedies later). But I was moved and surprised by this CalShakes production. I usually don't expect much thought to ensue from a Shakespearean comedy, but Desdemona Chiang's interpretation of this play of mistaken identity broadened the issue to cover personal and gender identity, and did so smoothly in a fine production. This was also the start of a very strong season for CalShakes.

"Grandeur" at The Magic Theater

I went into this play knowing almost nothing about it, and left absolutely stupefied. Carl Lumbly exceeded even the lofty expectations I have of him, and the play was riveting. It's not earth-shakingly important, but it shows just how effective a small play can be. I was extremely fortunate to be sitting in the front row, in the seat closest to the chair where Lumbly sat for much of the play, so I got to watch him up close, and it was amazing.

"Mojada: A Medea in Los Angeles" at Oregon Shakespeare Festival

I would normally expect at least a couple of plays from our summer jaunts to Ashland to land on the "Best Of" list for a year, but this year wasn't overall that impressive up there. But Mojada was a knockout. The adaptation of the well-worn story of Medea is almost obvious in retrospect. The portrayal of undocumented immigrants trying to assimilate (or not) and the consequences for them personally and socially is excruciating, but very effective.

"An Octoroon" at Berkeley Rep

Everybody's trying to push your buttons this year, but this time Berkeley Rep got it right. It's a super complex script, as you might expect from a hotshot playwright who has won just about every award imaginable. What I didn't expect was that Berkeley Rep would find the right director and cast, and that that director would be Eric Ting, who had previously disimpressed me with his direction of Othello at CalShakes. This production was pretty much spot-on. We're still talking about it, almost six months later.

"black odyssey" at CalShakes

I would never have guessed at the start of the year that Eric Ting would direct even one, let alone two, of my favorite productions. But here he was, coming right off the triumph that was An Octoroon, directing local playwright Marcus Gardley's wonderful adaptation of "The Odyssey" into a story of African American life. And it packed the Bruns Amphitheater every show, bringing in rafts of people who do not normally make the trek to Orinda to see a play. This was terrific storytelling.

"The Farm" at TheatreFIRST

Another artist making his second appearance on the list is Jon Tracy. Having directed Leni for Aurora earlier in the year, he also re-adapted his adaptation of Orwell's "Animal Farm" for TheatreFIRST, and the result was delightful and moving. This modest production reminded us that we don't have to be big and fancy to tell an important story. The reboot of TheatreFIRST is having sort of uneven results, but The Farm was definitely a sign of what a dedicated bunch of theater artists can do with limited resources.

Comic Relief

Most of the plays that really stuck with me this year were dramas. Maybe it fit the rhythm of my own life, which had way too much drama in it this year. But there were funny plays that made an impression on me, and they deserve some recognition, even if they weren't overall the "best" things I saw this year.

"Noises Off!" at SF Playhouse

This is one of those kind of classic plays that I had always heard of by never seen. I love the intricacy of the plotting and staging, and felt that for once, the rotating stage at SF Playhouse really was an asset. And the play is just screamingly funny, both because of all the theater in-jokes and because of some real character development. I liked both the play and the production here very well.

"The Play That Goes Wrong " at Lyceum Theatre (NYC)

This play isn't nearly as deep as Noises Off!, but the production we saw in New York this fall was absolutely the funniest thing I've seen on stage in a long, long time. The comedic timing and the convoluted set design were truly impressive. I needed a good laugh, and this provided it.

Spectacles

This is a category I just made up to salute the shows that just make you drop your jaw a bit at the stagecraft. There were some pretty over-the-top productions out there, even if they weren't among the shows that I deemed "best" overall.

"Needles and Opium" at ACT
"Monsoon Wedding" at Berkeley Rep
"A Thousand Splendid Suns" at ACT
"The Black Rider" at Shotgun Players

I won't go into them in detail again. Suffice it to say that in each case I was less than delighted with the play, the message, the storytelling, or something. But in each case the stagecraft, design, music, dancing, lights, and so on were dazzling and worth recognizing.

Musicals

I saw a fair number of musicals this year, but none that really rose to the level of "best"-ness required to make the big list. But I thought I should mention the ones that stood out, because musicals can be special in their own right, and if they are your thing, this is important.

"Good Night, Good Night, Construction Site" at Bay Area Children's Theater
"Hamilton" (touring) at SHN San Francisco
"La Cage Aux Folles" at SF Playhouse

Other

I can't think of a category it really fits into, but Taylor Mac's A 24-Decade History of Popular Music at the Curran was like nothing I have ever seen before. I realize now that I never got around to writing up the portions of the show that I saw (I saw only the first two 6-hour segments, so didn't feel I could really comment on the show as a whole). This mash-up of musical theater, cabaret, drag show, and history lesson amazed me on a bunch of different levels. The subversive way Taylor Mac gets into the heads and under the skins of the audience while knocking out a really impressive array of popular tunes in ways probably never seen or conceived before just boggles the mind.

I truly have no words to describe the whole experience, and in any strict definition, it's not really "theater" per se, but it is, too. And it probably stuck with me more than any other performance I saw this year, so it needed to be included here.

Personal Bests

If you'll allow me to conclude with a moment of self-indulgence, there were two other productions that were particularly meaningful to me personally this year, so I just get to put them in the "Best Of" post as kind of a footnote.

My Professional Stage Debut

Yes, those loons at the Shotgun Players not only allow me to sit on their board, they also offered me a tiny role in their staged reading of Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead last January. And hey, we sold out and got extended, so I had three glorious nights on stage with a bunch of real, professional actors, and I have the check to prove it.

This makes the list not because I was any great revelation on stage or because it changed my life or anything like that. But there were two important takeaways from  the experience: One, I got to see firsthand, close-up, just how real theater artists work. Rehearsing, dressing, blocking, designing and redesigning--all of it. It was glorious. And it gives me all the more respect for the work these people do, day in and day out, to produce these plays that I enjoy so much. But just as important, two, after seeing me onstage, my daughter said, "Well if Dad can do that, I can do that." And promptly signed up for her first real staged play.

Which obviously leads me to...

"Assassins" at Berkeley Playhouse Teen Stage

About six months after my little dalliance on stage, there was my daughter, singing and dancing and trying (futilely) to shoot Gerald Ford on the stage in the Julia Morgan Theater. It's still not one of my favorite plays ever, but she got out of it exactly what I hoped: she found a wonderful community of like-minded, creative, accepting people who share a love of making theater and support each other while they do it. She's now working on her second show, already signed up for another, and planning one more for the summer.

Which just goes to show, we can always handle more theater, so we obviously haven't reached the mythical "Too Much Theater" yet, and the quest must continue.

"The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time" at SHN

This is an interesting show. My wife saw it last year in London, then read the book. Though she found it interesting, she didn't see the need to see it again, so I went to see the touring production in San Francisco with my daughter and my mother-in-law.

I won't go into great detail, because it's pretty well-known and not a local production. Still, it's theater....

The Play

Based on the novel of the same name by Mark Haddon, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Simon Stephens is quite a show. The main character is a teenage boy who is somewhere on the autism spectrum, brilliant in some areas (particularly mathematics) and rather stunted in others (such as social awareness). Christopher is blessed with an amazing, eidetic memory, but struggles with a lot of the basic tasks of living. His parents struggle with him, and then he loses his mother to a problem with her heart (about which we learn much more later). His father struggles with keeping Christopher going while working to support them.

The show commences with Christopher examining the remains of a neighborhood dog that has been killed unexpectedly with a garden fork (or a pitchfork to us Yanks). Christopher becomes quite obsessed with figuring out who killed the dog, but being socially inept, he has difficulty going about it. That takes us through the first act.

After intermission, we have learned the answer to the question of the dog's murder, and the answer send Christopher off on a solo adventure to London. The portrayal of a smart-but-not-worldly kid with very little practical ability trying to make his way is well done, though it doesn't provide much in the way of new insights into his character.

Ultimately, the plot devices feel stretched a bit (though it's quite accurate to portray such a kid grabbing onto and obsessing over a task), and I felt like it was an interesting portrait of a kid with symptoms of autism-related issues, but the overall story line wasn't all that great.

The Production

The set should probably get a credit of its own. The stage is a box divided into squares, and the production makes great use of the lights and lines and drawing surfaces and such. It's quite elaborate, and manages to be both simple and complex, and overall quite elegant. On the other hand, as with any really elaborate set, it has a tendency to overshadow some of the items for which it is really meant to serve as a backdrop. Overall I thought it was intriguing and a plus, but then I'm a techno-junkie.

On the other hand, because the set was capable of being so overwhelming, it was an excellent vehicle for demonstrating the way Christopher perceives the sheer volume of sensory input, so in that sense it's quite successful.

On yet another hand, however, the character development really suffers. We get a pretty good view into Christopher, and some into his parents, but really, other than the one central character, everyone else is pretty one-dimensional, and we don't get a lot of insight into their motivations.

I should also mention that the part of Christopher, demanding as it is, is double-cast, and we saw the actor (Benjamin Wheelwright) who plays only selected shows. He was quite good, and I was impressed with the complexity of the role and its interactions with all the other actors. Having two actors play that central role has got to be challenging, but they handle it well.

Bottom Line

The stagecraft is clever and interesting, and the main character is good. The plot of the first act keeps it going pretty well, but the second seems a bit aimless. Still, it's a good show, well designed and performed. If you're inclined to see it, I'd say you should go ahead. It plays through Sunday, the 23rd, before moving briefly to Seattle and then on to Los Angeles for a month or more, then Costa Mesa and Las Vegas, briefly.

Check it out. It's pretty neat.

"Roman Holiday" at SHN

Roman Holiday is a classic movie of the 1950s. It's a light-hearted romantic comedy starring Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck from a screenplay originally written by Dalton Trumbo, so there's a lot of talent and star power involved. Now we have Roman Holiday: The New Musical, which as the name implies has been adapted into a musical. This is a pre-Broadway production, so much like the original appearance of Wicked in San Francisco, we're seeing a quite early iteration.

The Play

Like many romantic comedies, particularly in period of the early 50s, Roman Holiday isn't really deep. It's a fun story about a sheltered princess who gets bored and restless during a tour of Europe and slips away from her entourage in Rome to see some real life. While out, she falls for an American ex-pat journalist. They tour Rome. They have fun. Then (spoiler) she goes back to being a princess and he goes back to being a newspaperman.

Again, not a lot of substance there, but with the charisma of the stars and a clever script, you've got a nice movie.

So, what have they done to turn this into a (pre-)Broadway musical? First, they needed music. To their credit, they chose the music of Cole Porter, so at least we have quality and familiarity. The team putting together the show includes producers and directors who did Beautiful: The Carole King Musical. I'm getting a bit leery of shows that try to build a story onto a body of existing songs. It worked almost miraculously well with Mamma Mia, which managed to create a (reasonably) coherent story out of hit songs by ABBA. Subsequent efforts have tended more to kind of biographical/greatest-hits pieces featuring a particular artist or recording label. It's fun and nostalgic, but it's not particularly theatrical in most cases.

But what we have here is a true throwback to a classic movie musical, where the songs are not just a backdrop or a transition: the characters sing them right into the dialogue, and numbers like "Easy to Love" or "Night and Day" translate right into the story and also fit the period, so it feels like a 1950s musical romantic comedy. And that's cool.

The Production

First observation is that this is a really expensive production. Unlike most touring shows, this one has extensive, complicated scenery that seems a bit overwhelming on the stage of the Golden Gate Theater. There are pieces sliding in from all directions in quite elaborate scene changes. Except when they don't. Twice during the first act, they had to stop the show, drop the curtain, and bring up the house lights because some or all of a scene change didn't happen, and it was two different sets, so it wasn't just one malfunction. That's pretty embarrassing. Even in a pre-Broadway run, a set this extensive and complicated has to work. There were no further (visible) glitches, but this was quite remarkable for a show of this quality with such a large budget.

All that said, the show works pretty well. When the scenes actually change, they change pretty deftly, so the play flows along at a nice pace, and the songs (and the orchestra playing them) are very good. The singers are strong and the dancers are terrific, though I felt like for a real Broadway show there ought to be more dancers, bigger crowds, etc. Maybe when they get to a bigger stage they can expand the ensemble a bit.

The lead actors are fine, but kind of inevitably pale in comparison to their movie-star predecessors. Princess Ann starts the show with a rather stiff, affected accent that kind of disappears as she gets more involved with people outside her entourage. I'm not clear that that was intentional, though I can see where the weird, clipped princess accent would be a bit annoying for the whole show.

And I should mention the princess's aunt, the Countess, played by Georgia Engel, who we last saw locally earlier this year in John at ACT. Much as she was in that role, Engel is charming and funny, a little dotty but clever and hinting at depths not quite in evidence in the character. You could tell the audience was enjoying and anticipating her little digressions.

Bottom Line

This is old-school musical comedy, more in the vein of mindless fluff than messaging. But that's fine. It's done authentically and well, and if they can keep their scene changes moving, it's quite a fun show to watch. Don't go for intellectual stimulation, but if you want to see singing and dancing and romance and some cute fun, this is the show for you. You could do far worse than listen to Cole Porter tunes for a couple of hours while really good dancers perform, and you get singers and a little story, too.

This definitely proved to be a pleasant little diversion between two much heavier plays this weekend.

"Hamilton" at SHN

SHN tour photo by Joan Marcus

It's hard to know what to say about a show that is this well known already. Hamilton is quite the event, that rare stage show that becomes a true pop-culture phenomenon. As luck would have it, we managed to see it on Broadway early last year, when it was merely difficult, but not impossible, to get tickets at face value.

So what I can offer here is two things: 1) my impressions on seeing the show a second time, and 2) a little bit of contrast between the New York original cast production and the current touring show in San Francisco.

The Hamilton Phenomenon

Back in 2015, we purchased a theater trip package to New York City at the Shotgun Players fundraising auction. When they asked what shows we wanted to see, we said "Well, of course, Hamilton!" without really knowing much about it beyond some vague notions that it was a huge hit and very, very different from the usual Broadway fare. And then by luck, the day they called for tickets, some had just come available, so we got them, in the very last row of the orchestra, where our view of the upper parts of the set was slightly occluded by the edge of the balcony.

And we literally knew almost nothing about the show, beyond it being a sort of rap/hip-hop musical about Alexander Hamilton and the founding of the United States. We made a point of not reading reviews or listening to the soundtrack. We just knew there was a buzz around the show, so we should try to see it.

As a result, I was entirely prepared to be disappointed, assuming that nothing could live up to the kind of hype we'd been hearing about the show. But I have to say that well before the intermission it was clear that this was not just a ground-breaking show, but something of a "black swan" event: rare, unpredictable, and important.

There are all kinds of ways it didn't meet my expectations. I don't generally care for rap, and I was concerned that I would have difficulty both understanding and appreciating the music. But I got virtually every word, and more than that, I understood why certain characters expressed themselves that way. The contrast of the rapping revolutionaries and the more traditionally Broadway melodic singers was stark and extremely effective.

We bought a copy of the original cast recording and listened to it a lot. So did our daughter, who had not seen the show. She shared it with her friends on their weekly commute to choral rehearsal, and soon they were all singing it together, in harmony, switching parts. It was amazing to see how quickly and how totally they accepted and absorbed the show.

Come Again?

Fast forward a year or so, and the first touring casts are announced, with one coming first to San Francisco. Now we have the difficult choice, knowing that tickets are going to be rare and pricey: Do we see it again? And do we take our daughter (and her grandmother, who has been driving the group of girls to chorus all this time, listening to the soundtrack)? The second question was actually easy: the girls clearly needed to see this show they had absorbed so much of through their ears. Of course we wanted to see it again, but it was hard to justify the kinds of prices the tickets would command on the secondary market.

As luck would have it, as subscribers we were able to get a couple of extra tickets, and friends got extras for us off their subscription as well, so all of us were able to go see the San Francisco production, though not all at the same time.

So, what's it like seeing it a second time? Interesting, to say the least. For one thing, we couldn't come into it unprepared like the first time. In addition to the previous viewing, there were countless repetitions of the soundtrack, reading of books and reviews and analyses, as well as discussions with friends who had seen either the New York or San Francisco productions. So we had definite expectations this time. And of course, nothing about the show can really be a surprise anymore, though in truth, I had forgotten some of the nuances. And then there were differences. The obvious one being the cast, as we had seen the original cast before Lin-Manuel Miranda and most of the others departed.

On the whole, I'd say the show holds up very well to a second viewing. It isn't (and can't be) as intense and gripping the second time, but the story still holds my interest, and the performances are also very strong. And in some ways, knowing what is going to come, one can watch and anticipate, seeing hints and foreshadows that are not apparent on first viewing. Indeed, if anything I appreciate the complexity of the show more now, as the first viewing is pretty overwhelming, and the second allows for some analysis and focus away from the center of the current action.

Early on I found myself kind of singing along with several numbers, but ultimately I found that instead of drawing me into the show, it was actually causing me to put a little distance between myself and the cast. So I just stopped and let myself get drawn in, and found that more satisfying.

Better? Worse? Different.

There are some very obvious differences in the San Francisco and Broadway productions. Even though I was sitting much closer to the stage (and off to the side), the stage and set felt considerably smaller than the one on Broadway. I don't know whether that's just an illusion, but the whole thing felt a little compressed. On the other hand, I could see it (especially the parts with actors on the catwalk/balcony above) much better and more clearly than I had in New York. So visually I felt like it was a better experience for me, and I could see the detail of the dancing and movement.

It goes without saying that the original Broadway cast was outstanding. Not only did many of the actors have amazing resumes to start with, the sheer volume of awards and nominations speaks volumes. That said, I think it's pretty clear that Michael Luwoye as Alexander Hamilton is a better singer than Lin-Manuel Miranda, though Miranda's Hamilton has a depth of pathos that probably just comes from having spent so many years dredging the role out of the history. And Joshua Henry as Aaron Burr probably can't touch Leslie Odom Jr as a pure singer, but he's very strong and totally holds his own. I thought Jordan Donica as Lafayette/Jefferson played the roles a bit too much for goofs, where Daveed Diggs on Broadway managed to be fun with a certain amount of gravitas. And there was definitely a choice to play King George III a bit less straight on the tour. It all works, but it's definitely different.

Bottom Line

I knew I was going to like it. I was a little worried that I might not like it quite as much the second time, and I think it's fair to say that was true. But just as the Broadway production exceeded my (consciously lowered) expectations, the San Francisco touring company managed to exceed my (tempered by experience) expectations as well. If nothing else, it reinforces my impression of the quality of the material. A really good show can survive and even thrive absent its original stars, where some shows just never quite live up to the bar set by the first actors.

But Hamilton is for real. The style of the show may not hold up over decades (only time will tell), but the show itself will hold up for a good long time, and will no doubt change some of the ways people think about musical theater. I certainly have some notions about what is possible and what is desirable on the musical stage that are different from what I thought before seeing the show either time. And that, to me, is the measure of a great show.

Needless to say, if you haven't seen it, you should. It runs in San Francisco well into August, I believe, before moving on to Los Angeles. Check it out!

"Hedwig and the Angry Inch" at SHN

Here is something a bit out of the usual path for me. The family has a subscription to the SHN series of touring musicals (mostly), and lately I've been sending other family members in my stead. I was sort of curious about this show, since I really knew nothing about it, so we caught the afternoon matinee today.

The Show

Fundamentally, we are seeing a sort of rock concert performance by the fictitious group, Hedwig and the Angry Inch. Hedwig is the transgender lead singer, and the Angry Inch is the backup band. Musically, they're pretty good. I've seen this all categorized as "glam rock," which I guess covers it. It's a sort of moderately-hard rock with some punkish influences and lots of bright, flashing lights and a lead singer who wears large, outrageous wigs.

Some of the early songs are pretty good, notably "The Origin of Love" and "Sugar Daddy," but mostly it's a lot of show without too much substance.

The Reaction

Discussing the show afterward, neither my wife nor I felt like it had "grabbed" us. We both like rock musicals pretty well. We both love Stew's shows, particularly "Passing Strange," and she really liked "American Idiot." So it's not the genre per se that bothered us. Truthfully, from early on it kind of reminded me more of the Berkeley Rep show a couple of seasons back, "An Audience with Meow Meow." The conceit being that there is a rather egotistical performing star who kind of breaks the show in the middle and tells something of their life story, with more music. "Hedwig" reminded me of that a lot, although in Meow Meow's case, it was sort of up in the air whether we were watching a drag show, at least for a while.

The other parallel I would draw is with the excellent show "Boy" we saw in New York earlier this year. That also dealt with a transgender main character and a botched sex-change operation, but without the histrionics of trying to turn the character into some kind of rock star.

But back to the point: I didn't find Hedwig's story particularly interesting, or realistic, or more broadly applicable. The transgender story in "Boy" is much more interesting, both in terms of the motivations of the people involved and the reactions to the sex change. Hedwig just starts with a fairly bizarre premise and runs in weird directions with it. And adds a lot of music.

The Conclusion

Ultimately we concluded that the show isn't really much of a show in that sense. It seems mostly to be a highlight vehicle for the lead performer. In today's case, that meant Darren Criss, who achieved his fame on the TV series "Glee," so it was pretty clear that a lot of people had come to see him. Similarly, in its Broadway run, the role was generally filled by actors already well known for other work. So I suspect it's popularity is largely a matter of showcasing actors that have an audience.

So, it's a chance to go see Darren Criss, if that appeals to you. It's not the sort of musical that will have you leave the theater tapping your toes and humming tunes, feeling like you had a fun time. Kind of diverting, but you'd probably be better off watching reruns of "Glee."