Broadway Baby!

Broadway, Baby!

v. 2

Seeing so many shows in such a short period of time, it's so much easier for me to do short little reviews of all of them, rather than big, detailed reviews of one or two. I did this kind of thing last time I went to NYC and I think it turned out ok. If anyone wants a bit more detail on one of the shows, please let me know and I'll do my best. But I'll just write a bit about notable moments in each show, what I liked and didn't like, etc. Broadway is a very different experience from London, so my brain's confused, but I'll do my best. Hope you enjoy!

A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder (March 18th Matinee)

This was, without a doubt, my favourite show of the trip. And it was a spontaneous ticket I bought two hours before the show started. Isn't that always the way. It's a bit of a slow start (the first proper scene feels like it takes forever setting out the action for the rest of the show), but once it starts, it doesn't stop. It's funny, clever, fast-paced, and just an all-around good time. Despite the warning in the show's opening song, the show itself isn't gory or creepy; but then again, maybe that's part of the humour. You walk in expecting something dark and disturbing, and you instead get something fun and exciting; a tad predictable, but entertaining and with some unexpected twists and turns along the way.

I'll start by talking a bit about the set, tech, and costuming. I adored the costumes. Historically accurate, but slightly exaggerated to emphasise the mood of the show. The fabrics chosen were gorgeous and reacted really well to the stage lights. Even the black costumes practically glowed. Each character had a specific colour (i.e. Sibella had pink/red, Phoebe had blue/purple, the D'Ysquiths always had shimmery, dark fabrics - Sibella even had an entire song dedicated to her love of pink. I approve!), which I thought was really effective at maintaining consistency. That's a pretty bad explanation, but something about it just worked. I liked it. The fitting was also gorgeous; I covet most of Phoebe and Sibella's costumes.  The set was gorgeous as well. There was sort of a stage-within-a-stage thing going on, which was nice. Whenever something was 'the story' that Monty's 'guide' was telling, it was on the little stage, which had very intricate sets; whereas when something was happening 'in the moment' (i.e. it wasn't part of Monty's inner monologue), it happened in the foreground in front of or to the side of the stage-within-a-stage. It was really useful for communicating the separation between the two parts of the story. I also loved the use of tech; it was never overdone, and when used, it was used exceptionally well. Highlights include Monty's first murder of a D'Ysquith (which involved said D'Ysquith falling off a very tall building and going *splat* on the ground, blood pooling everywhere. Yes, that was all done on a screen, and it was incredible).

Scarlett Strallen, Jeff Kready, and Catherine Walker
(Broadwaybox)

My favourite part of the show was, by far, a scene  (pictured; "I've Decided to Marry You") between Sibella, Monty, and Phoebe. I don't want to give too much away (as I highly recommend seeing the show yourself, if you can), but the choreography, acting, and the idea of the scene itself was just amazingly funny. The to-and-fro between the characters weaving through the doors, and the fact that the audience knew exactly what was happening and the characters didn't - it was enormously entertaining and incredibly well executed. I could've watched that scene again and again.

I won't give away any more specifics about the show itself; it's definitely something you have to see to understand (and love). It's not one of those shows that could be written about in detail as if one were writing a novel; there are too many little intricacies that are integral to the story, so you have to see it to believe it. So I'll just quickly talk about a few performers that caught my eye before I call it a day on this review.

Scarlett Strallen is always a favourite; I've seen her in so many shows by this point (at least 3, anyway) and she never fails to impress. She captured the humorous and more serious sides of Sibella, sang beautifully, and was just incredibly entertaining. Jeff Kready as Monty Navarro was also enormously entertaining. I can't put my finger on any one thing - he was the total package. But the biggest standout was Greg Jackson, who played every single member of the D'Ysquith family - including the women (aside from Phoebe). That's a grand total of eight characters, each of them unique in characteristics and personality, and most with their own, very individual song-and-dance numbers (and, of course, hilariously dramatic death scene - this included death by decapitation (by weights), falling from a height, and being eaten by cannibals, among others). Jackson, the standby for the D'Ysquiths, did an absolutely incredible job at bringing individuality to each character. He was astounding.

I highly recommend A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder; it's worth visiting NYC just for this show. I haven't been so highly entertained by a new show in a long time. If I were one for giving stars on my reviews, this would get six!

Matilda the Musical (March 18th Evening)

Children's Cast
(Fina Strazza was later
replaced by Brooklyn Shuck)

This was a very interesting experience. It was very, very different from the West End version (there's an overture on Broadway? The accents were a bit strange too; some did British, some American, some an awkward cross between the two), but we also had a cast-change mid show; Fina Strazza was Matilda for the first 2/3 of the first act (the last song she appeared in was Chokey Chant). When the library set came on after Loud, everything suddenly stopped. It was quiet and dark for a few minutes, and then an announcement was made that Fina had suddenly become ill, and they were preparing Brooklyn Shuck (who must have been on standby that night) to go on. About 10 minutes later the show resumed with Brooklyn as Matilda. And my goodness, that girl was good.

Shuck and Strazza
(tumblr)

From what I saw, Fina was a really nice Matilda; her voice and line delivery were a bit mechanical, and she went for a reasonably stoic portrayal. It wasn't my favourite, but I liked where it was going. She had a lovely singing voice and looked absolutely adorable (if a bit tall); it's a shame she got ill (though we were assured at the end of the show that she was going to be just fine).

Brooklyn was an amazing Matilda. Absolutely incredible, especially considering she can't have had more than 20 minutes to prepare to go on. I'm sad that I didn't see most of her first act as I think it would've been amazing. But I enjoyed what I did see of her, and it was enough to make her my favourite Matilda. I did get a bit concerned that she might go off sick as well, as she seemed to be struggling to breathe at one point and kept moving around uncomfortably, but I guess it was just her acting as she seemed fine (if a bit tired) at Curtain Call.

Anyway, to talk a bit about her portrayal a bit. It was unique to anything else I'd seen before at Matilda in that she doesn't depend on her singing voice to carry the character. Brooklyn is very perceptive; she spends a lot of time reacting to the situation, adapting her portrayal to the situation unfolding in front of her. Many Matildas just sit and observe without doing much; Brooklyn reacts; she's engaged in what's happening. Her 'Quiet' especially was really wonderful. She had a powerful voice when she wanted to, but mostly she focused on expressing Matilda's feelings through the songs. She took some beautiful long pauses, letting the audience appreciate the silence and the emotional journey Matilda was on. I also liked that Brooklyn went very deadpan when she was sad or telling the lies to Miss Honey or Mrs Phelps. It was a nice little piece of acting that made the character come to life, and as the characters came to know Matilda, it meant that they could tell when she was lying (which made her little confessions much more… sweet, I guess is the word for it. You felt sad for Matilda, trying to keep it all in, and happy that she could finally confess). Her hugging Miss Honey at the end of the first act ("You're going to hug all the air out of me!") was absolutely adorable; she just kept hugging tighter and tighter. I wish I remembered more about Brooklyn; I really do. But if you get the chance to see her, do it. She's an absolutely amazing Matilda.

The children's cast was alright. Noah Baird as Nigel fluffed his lines once (someone whispered them to him from the side) and was early for a cue (the Narcolepsy bit; Fina had to drop the second half of her lines because he started waking up too early). Cole Alex Edelstein was an ok Bruce; nice voice, but nothing stood out. Same with Grace Capeless as Lavender; nice singing voice and decent acting, but she mangled her words and was very hard to understand. Alice, Eric, Hortensia, and Tommy were done very well; I wasn't paying too much attention to any of them (though the girls playing Alice and Hortensia looked very alike), but they were all wonderful. I loved little GiaNina Paolantonio as Amanda; she seemed a bit nervous about the throw (she kept rearranging her braids) but she was adorable and a nice little singer and dancer, and very professional (she nearly fell off the swing when she was trying to stand up on it in "When I Grow Up"; scary, but she handled it very well. Her face didn't show any fright).

Lesli Margherita
(Tumblr)

The adult cast was quite good. The ensemble is much stronger than in London (no bearded students here! Sergei's beard was fake, and looked just as good. London, you don't need a bearded student!); better dancing, better acting, and they just look better for their parts. I loved Lesli Margherita as Mrs Wormwood; she was so spunky and sparkly. Loud was so much fun because she adds so many cool little details to it; she doesn't just sing the song, she lives it. Her dancing was amazing. I'm not sure who played Rudolpho, but he was fabulous too. A lot of fun to watch (Rudolpho's my favourite character in the show, so a good Rudolpho is important to me!). Mr Wormwood was nice; he was very scary at first, but it was cute to see how he was almost sad to see Matilda go at the end. You got the sense that somewhere in there, he loved his daughter, and knew that staying with Miss Honey was what was best for her. Speaking of Miss Honey, Alison Luff was really good. Not my favourite, but good. She has a very powerful voice and her acting was spot on. I loved her reaction to Bruce's finishing the cake; it was so over the top and ridiculous, but somehow just worked. You could see Miss Honey's emotional growth through the show, which was nice. Christopher Sieber was a very manly Miss Trunchbull, but he was funny and terrifying when it was suitable, and his acting was great. All in all, I loved the adult cast of Broadway's Matilda.

I had a great time at Matilda; I'd definitely love to return to the Broadway show, or see some of the things they do in this show (like Brooklyn and Lesli's acting, Alison's performance, and the adult cast) to happen in the London show. Matilda is definitely worth a trip, either in NYC or London!

The Phantom of the Opera (March 19th Evening)

I… don't even know where to start with this one. It was just bad. But it's not fair to leave it just at that, so of course I'll elaborate.

First, the orchestra/sound. The vocals were very loud. Almost overwhelmingly so; whereas the orchestra was barely audible (from the second row of the Orchestra/Stalls, mind). I know the West End Phantom orchestra is famous for its size, so I'm guessing that the Broadway orchestra just isn't large enough to match the size of the auditorium and vocal power of the cast. Vocally, the cast was relatively strong. James Barbour (Phantom) had a very deep voice, but it was loud and powerful. His high notes were very virbrato-y and not as pure and clear as I like, but it wasn't necessarily bad. Just different. Julia Udine (Christine) had a lovely voice - at times. It was very clear and sweet at some points, very low and powerful at others, and had some moments of being very thin and quiet. The first two were both great sounds for her, so I'd like to see her pick one or the other to stick with. She'd flip between 'voice types' every few words, which made the songs sound very bizarre. Julia's spoken and sung words were wholly different; she doesn't act with her singing voice at all, which I think her performance could benefit from. Jeremy Hays (Raoul) also had a very deep, loud voice (he and Barbour sounded very alike). It was ok for Raoul, nothing extraordinary, but not bad. 

The acting was probably the most intolerable part of this show. Nobody could act. At all. And it wasn't me being pedantic; my friend, who was seeing the show for the first time and therefore had no bias, agreed that the acting was pretty pathetic. I'm inclined to say it was a problem of direction rather than actors; there wasn't a single performer who I felt really captured their character, which is problematic. Julia Udine came the closest; her Christine at least had a bit of substance. But there was still no discernible characteristics to the character. Even Carlotta, who is the easiest to pull off (she can easily be portrayed as a one-dimensional diva - I don't like it, but it's easy to do) was entirely undeveloped. There were some things I felt were vastly overacted (such as      ), but mostly I was underwhelmed and disappointed by the complete lack of acting, performance, or character development. 

Julia Udine (Christine)
(tumblr)

A few more random notes; the dancing was a mess (sloppy, sloppy, sloppy!); they were in synch, I'll give them that, but there was no unity or connection between the dancers, no spark or expression from any of them. One ballet girl was very Charise Renouf-esque, with big facial expression, funny little lines on the side - I liked her. Julia Udine danced en pointe, but she really shouldn't be. She was barely en pointe at all, which is just not safe. She was an otherwise ok dancer though, as Christine should be. The girl playing Meg Giry (Kara Klein) had one facial expression (a very cute, annoying smile) and a thing for very precise enunciation. A semi-decent singing voice, but otherwise a less-than-average Meg. The other strange thing about this show was the speed. The music seemed very, very slow (especially the Il Muto ballet), but the performers were seriously rushing their lines (Notes, for example, went by at lighting speed). Some of their pronunciation was a bit strange as well, though I can't remember exact examples at the moment.

Also, costumes. Gah. Such terrible fitting. The sleeves on Julia's Wishing Dress hang on her, the bodice is lumpy and doesn't fit (it looks like they've shoved padding around the chest to try to make it fit); the bodices on the hannibal ballet costumes are wrinkled and bunch up around the girls' waists, and the rope skirts are cut unevenly; Some of Julia's skirts (Think of Me skirt especially) as well as some ensemble costumes are far too short. Many of the masquerade costumes looked limp and well-worn, lacking sparkle and just generally looking pretty droopy (the Butterfly costume, for example). Julia's Masquerade costume was gorgeous though. The London Costume department (and by the looks of it, Russia's and Germany's) is doing a fabulous job; Broadway's needs to do the same.

So, all in all, this was a disappointing performance, and I'm not in a hurry to go back to the Broadway production. The London production is in far better shape; it's sharper, the acting and direction is better, the character portrayals are more thoughtful and well-developed, and the dancing and choreography is very well maintained and performed. London also has better costumes. Generally, London's Phantom just feels fresher and sharper than Broadway's, which just comes off as stale and tired.

An American in Paris (March 20th Evening)

Robbie Fairchild and Leanne Cope

First things first - this was the worst audience I have ever experienced. Hands down. The people behind me on one side talked through the entire second act (and when I asked them to stop, the man right behind me started waving his hand in my face), and behind me on the other side, a women ate individually wrapped sweets through the whole second act. In the first act, I saw people get up and leave not 10 minutes into the show, people moving seats (which involved moving from the middle of the row - in the middle of a scene, mind), three phones went off, there was constant talking and whispering, and that's not even all of it. It was atrocious. And it wasn't teenagers or young kids - it was adults (mostly older people). If I could sit still and quietly in a theatre by age 5, you'd think they'd know better. I think part of the problem was that they made the no-phones, recording, etc. announcement in French. Of course, it's still obvious what was being said, but it not being in English made it easier for people to ignore. Anyway, onto the show itself.

Leanne Cope and Ensemble (Capezio)

Overall, I really enjoyed the show. It's still in previews, and that shows - there's some cleaning and tightening up that needs to be done, but for such a new show, it's off to an amazing start. I thought the story itself was a bit of a jumble; it felt like there were scenes missing and the audience had to connect the dots during a given scene as to what had happened or was happening. This was helped a bit by having Adam (Brandon Uranowitz) as a narrator of sorts, but the story got a bit confusing in certain bits (for example, I would've liked a bit more clarification on what was going on with Lise's family - it sort of all came out at once and then ceased to be important - and of where Milo (Jill Paice, of 'Matilda' fame) came from - she just spontaneously showed up from who knows where). I've never seen the movie though, and according to my mum, the show was mirroring the movie very closely, so it must be one of those times where screen doesn't quite translate to stage. The choreography was nice enough;  Christopher Wheeldon produces nice ballets (Alice in Wonderland and Winter's Tale are incredible pieces), though the ballet choreography in the show didn't feel like anything particularly revolutionary. My main issue with the choreography is that nothing made Leanne (Lise) stand out from the other dancers other than the fact that she had solo parts. She didn't do anything that was special or unique; there was nothing that made you think "Ah, I know why Lise was picked to be the star!" I think it would've been effective to have some very unique choreography based solely on any special skills she has (every dancer has something), rather than something that the ensemble dancers all do at some point during the show. I also thought the sets and costuming were very well done; bright colours, detailed sets, historically accurate costumes - it was great!

Leanne Cope
(youtube)

The stars of the show were NYCB Principal Robert Fairchild and Royal Ballet Soloist Leanne Cope. I was a bit skeptical of this at first. It seemed suspiciously similar to celebrity casting, especially in Leanne's case (bringing someone all the way from London isn't a small matter). She was either an incredibly special, talented performer, or a favourite of a director/choreographer. I can't speak for the latter, but the former is certainly true. Leanne's character, Lise, has only one song of her own ("The Man I Love"), a few brief solos in other songs, and not a lot of speaking. But what she does have, Leanne delivered with feeling and sensitivity, making Lise come to life in a way that felt very genuine. She has a nice singing voice (not extraordinary, but she hits the notes, has a nice amount of power and volume), though she tends to lose her french accent when she sings, so that's something to be worked on. I did think the accent was accurate otherwise; it was definitely stereotypically French-french (rather than quebecois), but no so heavy that she was incomprehensible. A well-thought out balance between a believable accent and an understandable accent. Her acting was very ballet-esque (which makes sense for the character and the actress herself); a lot of her acting was in the slight head turns, the hand movements, the way she held her body - as I said, very ballet, but it worked well enough. Her dancing itself was beautiful. Gorgeous extensions, gorgeous feet. She is so incredibly elegant and graceful. All in all, I thought she did an excellent job (also, props to her for her costume/shoe changes. How she managed to change costumes and into pointe shoes in less than 20 seconds - yes, I counted - I have no idea. It was very impressive though!)

Robbie Fairchild and Leanne Cope

I was very pleasantly surprised by Robbie Fairchild. If I didn't know better, I'd have thought he was a seasoned broadway performer. He portrayed his character absolutely perfectly; great accent, good singing voice, fabulous acting ability. Jerry Mulligan, Robbie's character, could be a little obnoxious at times, but at heart he was kind and loving, and I thought Robbie did an excellent job of conveying this. I especially enjoyed "I've Got Beginners Luck" and "Liza" (hey, a song all about me! Well, Russian me); he was charming and humorous in these songs, and as I've said, he has a very good singing voice. Who knew so many ballet dancers could sing? My one issue with Leanne and Robbie was that I didn't really feel an intense connection between the two of them that made their (especially his) love for each other palpable. But maybe that will come with time.

Other notable performances included Jill Paice as Milo Davenport, an art dealer and ballet fan (simply put) who falls in 'love' with Robbie's Jerry. Jill did a nice job at creating a sympathetic, humorous character out of a rather stale, cliche base (seriously, some of Milo's lines are just… anyway, she's not an easy character to care about). Brandon Uranowitz as Adam was very funny; he had great comedic timing, and was serious when he needed to be. It wasn't anything extraordinary, but I did enjoy his performance.

'An American in Paris' is very raw, and very new. There is certainly work to be done, but overall, it's an excellent show and definitely worth a trip to see. I would advise trying to sit farther forward in the orchestra as I felt that as far back as I was (Row U), I was missing some of the subtleties of the performance. But it is so worth seeing just for the extraordinary sets and performances by the leads.