The Ultimate Word

What is the Holy Spirit, anyway?

2012-05-27T12:53:00.001-04:00

Another double-deal this week. Text and video. Maybe this is a thing for a while...

Pentecost, Year B

Acts 2:1-21

Romans 8:22-27

John 15:26-27, 16:4b-15

In the name of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen.

What is the Holy Spirit?

Today the church celebrates the Day of Pentecost - the commemoration of the church having received the gift of the Holy Spirit - but we don’t usually spend a lot of time thinking about it. What does it mean to have the gift of the Holy Spirit? What does that gift look like? What do we do with it?

We talk about the Spirit a lot in passing. We talk about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Just a couple of weeks ago we celebrated a baptism, and in it, I announced that Shaina had been “sealed by the Holy Spirit in baptism and marked as Christ’s own forever.” Every week we say the creed, and in it we proclaim that we believe in the Holy Spirit.

But what is that “Holy Spirit”? What does it look like? Feel like? Sound like?

Today we heard three very different explanations of the Holy Spirit.

In the reading from Acts we heard the most iconic version of the story of the Holy Spirit. The disciples are gathered together, still living in fear from the horrors that they had witnessed in the crucifixion. Through it they had forged an even tighter community - if that could have been possible. And in an ironic affront to their fear, suddenly they were engulfed in a violent rush of wind. The spirit descended on each of them in tongues as of fire, and inexplicably they each began to speak in other languages.

They knew things that they hadn’t before known. They understood new languages.

It’s a shocking image.

But then we turn the page. We hear from Paul about the “first fruits of the Spirit”.

For Paul those “first fruits” are not so much about understanding or knowledge as they are about intercession. The Holy Spirit is the helper that makes up for our own weakness. The Spirit provides a conduit - almost a transmitter or a path - for clearer communication with God. For Paul the Holy Spirit is not that “violent rush of wind”, but instead, is the one who intercedes for us to God with “sighs too deep for words”.

They’re very different images: a violent wind and a deep sigh.

Then we come to Jesus. As he prepares to leave the disciples - and perhaps more importantly, as he prepares the disciples for his leaving - we hear yet another image of this gift: this Spirit.

Jesus describes an “Advocate” - a “Spirit of truth”, he says, who will come to reveal all of the things that had been left unsaid. As he said, “I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” As our ability to bear the truth grows, so, too, will the truth that will be revealed.

Truth, it seems, was too much for one lifetime - even the lifetime of the Christ.

So just in the context of this one Sunday we hear three different understandings of the Holy Spirit: the violent rush of wind that brings knowledge and understanding, the sigh too deep for words that intercedes on our behalf, and the Advocate bringing truth we cannot yet bear.

If we were to look elsewhere in the Bible, we would hear other images still. Most notably I remember the story of the giving of the Holy Spirit from John’s Gospel that we hear every year on the Second Sunday of Easter - it’s not just the story of “Doubting Thomas” - but a story about the Holy Spirit - when Jesus gives the Spirit of peace to the disciples through no more than a breath.

So the question remains - what is the Holy Spirit?

I think there are so many different descriptions of the Holy Spirit, because we all have so many different understandings and experiences of it. Though most of us don’t spend a lot of time thinking about the Holy Spirit, nearly all of us have had experiences of the power of the Spirit at different times in our lives.

We all have different needs and experiences - we all are God’s creations, each in our own unique ways - so the Spirit meets us in different ways and at different times.

As I was preparing to preach today, I thought I’d be telling you about some of mine - some of the times that I believe that I’ve been in the presence of the Holy Spirit. One of my favorite stories about that was about six years ago when I heard about the election of our current Presiding Bishop. I’ve often preached about that moment: sitting in the House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church, and hearing the collective gasp of hundreds of surprised Episcopalians as an experience similar to that “violent rush of wind” that we hear about in Acts. Or, I thought I might tell you about feeling the presence of the Holy Spirit at my two ordinations - how we prayed that God would send the Holy Spirit, and how I felt that rush of peace and understanding and intercession that the biblical stories promise.

I even thought I might tell you some of the simpler stories: about how every time I sit down to prepare a sermon, or stand up to deliver one, I invoke the Holy Spirit, and how even I am surprised at how often my prayers are answered. Or about how every time I approach a meeting that I don’t want to go to, or feel uncertain of its outcome, how I turn to the Holy Spirit for guidance. Or about how every time I find myself in a difficult or frightening pastoral situation, how my first step is to pray for the Holy Spirit to intercede - to give me the strength that I wouldn’t have simply on my own.

I think those are all important stories. They all reveal a bit of what the Holy Spirit is and does and looks like and feels like. At least for me.

But the common thread is that each of those stories - each of those experiences of the Holy Spirit - is preceded by openness; asking; making room for what’s already there.

The Holy Spirit is our gift: the gifts of understanding, peace, intercession, and truth. Gifts that are available to us if only we could be more open to receiving them.

We celebrate Pentecost to remember that those gifts are there for us. We celebrate Pentecost to remember to make room.

So what is the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit is what we need, when we need it.

It may look different in your life than it does in mine. I would expect that it would. The real question is, will we see it? Amen.

Jesus in love

2012-05-20T14:13:00.000-04:00

The ongoing preaching experiment continues.... This week there's both a manuscript and a video. For the past few weeks there wasn't a video for a variety of reasons - one week I was out of town, one week the Bishop was making his Official Visitation (and, as such he was preaching), one week I forgot the camera... But here we are again - now with both. Who knows what next week will offer!

Easter 7B

John 17:6-19

In the name of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen.

This time of year graduation pictures begin appearing on my Facebook wall. It seems that every day there are new pictures. This week there was a particular inundation of them, as the two seminaries I attended both held their graduations. Friends at both schools were posting pictures celebrating their achievements and their friendships.

Another friend posted a blog about those kinds of pictures. The writer remembered that just a year ago, she, too was in them. She remembered the pictures that she posed for, the pictures that she arranged: the people she wanted to be sure to capture the moment with, the people and relationships she wanted to remember…

As she looked back on her pictures, she remembered not just the moment that was captured, but the other moments that the pictures represented. Relationships don’t just happen. They aren’t begun on the day of graduation - so the pictures don’t tell the whole story. The stories of her relationships took time to develop - and they developed through the many moments that weren’t photographed: the long conversations, the exhaustion from the difficult work, the hugs of support through challenging times and circumstances, the celebrations of smaller achievements along the way… The graduation was a piece of the story, but by no means the whole story. The graduation was a milestone, but the mile had already been traveled.

It’s really such a simple insight - but it means so much.

I thought about that insight as I was preparing to preach this week.

Theologians refer to the Gospel lesson for this week as “Jesus’ high priestly prayer”, but I’ve always heard it a little more intimately than that designation suggests. I first seriously encountered this prayer a few years ago. I was in a time of uncertainty in my life - vocationally and personally. I was feeling troubled. I went into the church to pray and I read these words.

It began to occur to me that these were not just the perfunctory words of some general prayer, but that they were words of love. They were the love song of Jesus - a love song sung to God on our behalf.

In the larger story of the Gospel, this is the prayer that John imagines Jesus to have prayed alone in the Garden of Gethsemane on the night before he was to die. This is his last long sit down with God. This is the culmination of his ministry among us.

Some might say that the story was already done - that this time of prayer was just the “wrapping up”. Others might say that the story was just about to begin - that the crucifixion is the real point, and that this was all just leading up to it.

But I think of this prayer - this love song - more as a snapshot - a moment. Not the journey itself, but a reflection of the journey - both that that had already past, and all that was about to come.

Like the graduation pictures that we all see at this time of year, this snapshot gives us a glimpse of the deeper relationships that undergird everything else.

Jesus had already been through so much - through the miracles, and the teachings, and the followers; through the maddening crowds and the anger of religion and faith gone wrong; through the tender moments and the friendships forged. All of those moments had added up to something - they had added up to love. Jesus had not just done a task for God - Jesus had not just shown God to the people; but he had been one of the people, and he had fallen in love.

Earlier this week, in our staff Bible study on this text, we had some interesting conversations around what I just said - that Jesus was in love with us. We all hear it all the time: God is love, Jesus is love, Jesus loves me, this I know.

The idea of introducing love into the story of Jesus isn’t new.

But somehow, an “in love” Jesus is harder to take.

It’s true. Falling in love is a foolish act. When we do it, we allow our hearts to take control. We become emotional. We become irrational. We become vulnerable. It’s at least a little bit crazy.

But love isn’t an entirely intellectual pursuit. That’s something we all know to be true from our own experience, but for some reason, the idea of Jesus falling in love - and all of the risk and emotion that that entails - can sit a little bit uneasily on us.

We want our God to be strong. We want God to make sense. Most of all, we want to believe that we can count on God to be strong and make sense when nothing else does.

We want God to love us, but being in love may be a step too far. We know what being in love does to someone, and we need God to be stronger than that.

The thing is, we also need an “in love” God.

When we’re unlovable, we need irrationality. We need love to triumph.

When we do those things that might separate us from God’s will, we need God to be emotional. Reason isn’t enough.

When we’re in our most vulnerable places, we need a God who can be just as vulnerable at our sides - just as present and exposed as we are at our worst.

Of course the intellectual side of love is important, too. God loves us because we are God’s own people. God loves us because Jesus loved us. God loves us because Jesus was one of us. God loves us because… because… because…

But love needs something more than “because”. Love needs something deeper. Love needs the heart and the gut.

And that’s just the kind of love that Jesus shows for us in the gospel lesson today - love that abides not just in reason, or in a moment, but love that abides in deep relationship. Love that grows out of experience and understanding. Love that grows out of all the “un-photographed” moments that build a relationship.

As we end this Easter Season, remember that you are washed in just that kind of love. Remember in your darkest nights, not just that God loves you, but that God loves you with irrational and reckless abandon. And remember this 17th chapter of John. We read a piece of it today, but bookmark it in your Bibles, and read it all. It’s not very long. Turn to it when you feel most alone and most vulnerable. Turn to it when you feel most unlovable. Because you are not. You are loved. Jesus loves you, this I know. Amen.

Anglicans, Sexuality, and the Bible: an African consultation

2012-05-14T15:02:00.000-04:00

Last October, I had the distinct honor of being invited to participate in a consultation on human sexuality between Anglicans in the United States and Anglicans from throughout Africa (along with a few others from other parts of the world, as well as some Lutheran observers who were checking out the model we were initiating with the hope of doing the same in their communion).

It truly was a life-changing and deeply spiritual experience. We were the Anglican Communion in action!

Watch this video. My brief interview is about 3 minutes in, but the whole thing is worth your time! See what the Anglican Communion is really all about.

FCS: How to Succeed...

2012-05-13T21:21:00.000-04:00

Quick facts:

Show: How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying
Broadway
Date: Sunday, May 13, 2012
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Closing date: May 20, 2012
Venue: Al Hirschfeld Theatre
Running time: 2:45 (one intermission)
My seat: Good! Sixth row from the stage, on the aisle toward center, stage left
Ticket source: TDF
Understudies: Paige Faure in the role of Miss Jones; Holly Ann Butler in the role of First Scrubwoman

Synopsis: The latest Broadway revival of the oft-running favorite tale of J. Pierrepont Finch - an ambitious young aspiring business man, working his way up the corporate ladder in the world of wickets.

My thoughts: On the scale of "importance", How to Succeed... isn't likely to turn many heads, but even so, it's a delightful show, filled with hummable tunes and a fun and light story.

As I've mentioned before, I love to listen to the audience members around me at intermission and after the show, to see if our experiences are lining up. The buzz around me today was uniformly positive - in exactly the ways that you would expect from a show like this. A family behind me was out for a Mother's Day outing and the father asked his daughter, "What do you think?" She responded with an enthusiastic, "I love it!" I overheard someone else walking up the aisle say, "I don't want it to be over!" - a sentiment that was repeated by an unrelated someone else almost to the word a few minutes later.

There's no question - How to Succeed... is a crowd-pleaser!

I had seen this production last fall when Daniel Radcliffe was in the role of Finch and John Larroquette was in the role of Mr. Biggley. I was curious to see how Nick Jonas and Beau Bridges approached their respective roles.

In the fall, I was blown away by Daniel Radcliffe. He wasn't particularly strong vocally, but his acting more than made up for it. He was sharp and precise and could mug every audience member to their feet. Though I'm not generally very "up" on my pop culture, I was looking forward to seeing if Nick Jonas provided some correction to the vocals - seeing as he is known for being a singer (granted, I'd never heard the Jonas Brothers before, but I hear they were quite popular for a while...), and has often had major Broadway roles. Unfortunately, I have to admit that Jonas, while capable, to be sure, was weaker still than Radcliffe had been, and offered nowhere near the on-stage charisma of his predecessor.

Beau Bridges, on the other hand, was an improvement over John Larroquette. He didn't raise the house with his voice, but he had a great deal more charisma than Larroquette, and seemed to have a more natural sense of comic delivery. Perhaps Larroquette - while a very talented actor - was a bit too dry for the role.

The rest of the cast, however, was an assemblage of shining brilliance!

Tammy Blanchard, in the role of Hedy La Rue, was far and away the star of the production. She carried the ditzy, wobbling mannerisms of her character all the way to comic genius. In a role that could very easily become annoying, Blanchard turned La Rue into someone lovable - bordering on a heroine.

Rose Hemingway (in the role of Rosemary Pilkington) was another incredible delight. She found that often-elusive balance of deep and personal interaction with the audience, all the way maintaining the integrity of her distance beyond the veil of the fantasy that was being portrayed before us. Moreover, her singing is simply lovely, but also girded with power and grace.

Michael Urie, while at times a bit over-the-top playing Bud Frump, was a delightful addition as well. Like his character, he tried very hard, but fortunately for us, Urie was more successful than the sniveling, useless man he played!

The entire ensemble worked very well, but one face that kept grabbing my attention was Robert Hager (in the role of Mr. Davis). Though he was firmly planted in the ensemble, the precision of his approach to his role was striking and added to the delight of an already delightful experience.

The choreography by also-director Rob Ashford was perfect - so much so that I found myself wondering if I was in Christopher Gattelli land again! It was physically intense, clever, and demonstrated brilliant movement. It propelled the story in a subtle way (you know how I love subtlety!) with the workers of the company moving around and through each other like the cogs in a finely ordered machine.

The set, designed by Derek McLane, was deep and layered, changed gracefully from scene to scene, flexibly allowed for the wildly shifting pastels of the color palette, had huge levels to pull the eye around the stage, and provided a structure through which the entire aesthetic of the show could be conveyed. It was quintessential 1960s - speaking to the popularity of the genre in the wider culture right now. I kept remembering Mad Men and Pan Am. It accomplished all that it needed to and more.

I wasn't planning to see this show again so soon, but after hearing that it would be closing next week, I decided to jump at the chance. While I feel a tinge of sadness that this delightful production is closing, I recognize that it's after an admirable run of more than a year. I'm also comforted to believe that it probably won't be long until someone mounts it again. How to Succeed... will never be too far away!

Closing arguments:

Would I see it again? My opportunities for seeing this production are over. But if I had my wishes, I'd have loved to have seen it with Daniel Radcliffe and Beau Bridges together - I think they would have been a real pair!
Would I recommend it to others? If so, who? Absolutely. It's a classic, old-fashioned, good-time Broadway show. Perfect for all ages!
Twitter review: Still a delight after all these years!

FCS: Rent

2012-05-12T16:53:00.001-04:00

Quick facts:

Show: Rent
Off-Broadway
Date: Friday, May 11, 2012
Time: 8:00 p.m.
Closing date: open-ended
Venue: New World Stages (Stage 1)
Running time: 2:30 (one intermission)
My seat: Not bad. Center of the center section, in the orchestra, a bit beyond half-way back
Ticket source: TDF
Understudies: Marcus Paul James in the role of Tom Collins; Xavier Cano in the role of Mr. Jefferson, Paul, and others

Synopsis: The off-Broadway revival of the landscape-shifting Jonathan Larson musical from 1996. It won the Tony award for Best Musical and was one of the rare musicals to win a Pulitzer Prize. Rent tells the story of a tight-knit group of friends in Manhattan's Lower East Side, struggling to create and survive in the midst of financial and physical hardships.

My thoughts: I've often reflected on how the experience of live theater is so much the experience of a "moment in time" - how the actors, and other artists, and audience are all invested not just in a performance, but in a shared experience. But last night's performance of Rent had me thinking about the "moment in time" from a different perspective: through so much of the show last night I found myself wondering if I was participating in a moment whose time had passed. In the 16 years since Rent first opened on Broadway, the world has changed so much. And to a degree, I often felt last night like I was watching a museum piece compared to the relevance and importance that the show once represented.

Like so many people from my generation, Rent is an important part of my own personal history. It's been described as being for my generation what Hair was for our parents' generation. In terms of my own life-story, Rent originally came at what was an important crossroads in my life. At the same time that it was coming into popular acclaim, I was coming out. And it served as the soundtrack to my life during that important time of self-realization. It was the music and the story that fed me as I was learning to love myself under a new set of circumstances.

Part of what is shocking to me in seeing this show - after the first time I heard it 16 years ago, and the first time I saw it on a national tour some 14 years ago, and the first time I saw it on Broadway some 13 years ago - is how much it is no longer the hardcore and edgy piece that it once was. I remember when Rent was shocking. Now, somehow, it has become "family friendly". In the theater last night, I was surrounded by teenagers - many of whom weren't even born yet when Rent burst onto the scene.

My feelings on this production in particular are mixed, at best.

Part of the problem is that it's still too much the show that it was first designed to be. To the degree that it's been updated, it's been done so unevenly. Though scaled down for the smaller venue, the set design is essentially as it was in the original production. While many of the costumes (designed by Angela Wendt) are essentially the same as they were in the original production - at least in style - some character's costumes seem to have been "hipsterized" to today's standards. For example: Mark is a hipster, almost exactly out of a 2012 Brooklyn style sheet - so much so that the kid next to me was wearing almost his exact outfit. Roger, on the other hand, is found wearing these platform combat boots as might have been found in the 1990s London punk scene. Collins is a hipster, but Benjamin Coffin III is wearing a shiny, lime green accented "pleather" jacket that belongs solidly to the 1980s. The show promised from the outset that it was set in 1991, but the costuming cluttered that attempt.

Moreover, the attempt to keep the piece as a whole "exactly" (to the degree that "exactly" is even possible) as it was in the original, missed out on one of the more important aspects of the show in its original form. As I said above, part of what made Rent so important in the moment in time in which it originally debuted was that it was so edgy - it spoke in such plain language to the concerns of its day. I would have been more impressed if it had attempted to be that same voice to today than I was at its attempt to replicate the voice of those years ago. For example, the whole bit about clearing the tent city in the park could remain incredibly relevant in the light of the recent and ongoing Occupy Wall Street movement. The heartbreaking saga of impoverished/disenfranchised masses fighting the oppression of corporate powers remains highly relevant, but the current production doesn't point us to that realization. It presents the struggle as an historical one - not a current one. As a result, the production becomes a caricature of itself.

In terms of logistics, the current production represented some additional hardships. I'm rarely a fan of literalism - almost anywhere (biblical literalism comes to mind...) - and certainly not in terms of stage presentation. While the production slapped me with troubling literalism in several places, the most glaring offense happened in their interpretation of the song "Christmas Bells" near the end of Act I - this is the one that repeats the "beginning to snow" line several times throughout. Each time "beginning to snow" was sung, snow would would begin to fall from above and then abruptly stop... Only to start again the next time the line was sung. The first time the snow began to fall, it made sense and was clever. Thereafter it was overkill and silly.

Another logistic failure of the production was found in the projection designs by Peter Nigrini. The projections were entirely unnecessary, and, almost without fail, more of a distraction than a help in telling the story. They were cleverly projected onto the set in mostly out of the way corners, but most times I found myself trying to figure out what they were and why they were there. The story was being told sufficiently without them. The only possible exceptions to their distraction were: at Angel's funeral and in the song, "Contact". They added something of worth to these two scenes, but even there they weren't necessary.

In terms of the on-stage performers, the cast was mostly disappointing. John Grisetti (in the role of Mark Cohen) was generally pleasant, but overall unremarkable. MJ Rodriguez (in the role of Angel) was a fine performer, but the new editorial of occasionally lowering her voice for single words now and then was simply lame. We know she's a boy. Throwing it out there in that way just made her character silly. Marcus Paul James (in the role of Tom Collins) was clearly not up to the task of portraying his character vocally - which is saying something because it's not a particularly challenging part vocally. Ariana Fernandez (in the role of Mimi) was capable at her "rock star, screamy" parts, but missed the mark in her ballads.

Conversely, Justin Johnston (in the role of Roger) was one of the brighter spots in the performance. He brought his own style and character to the role that was not at all forced or phony. He was every bit as good as the original, if not a step or two above!

Michael Wartella (in the ensemble playing Gordon, Waiter, and others) was the shining star of the cast. His voice is simply beautiful, and he capably portrayed the many roles he was called to perform.

While my thoughts have been, to now, generally unsupportive of this production, it is only fair to admit that despite the production's many shortcomings, it still delivered incredible emotion for me. I teared up several times, and by the end of the show I was sitting in a puddle of my own tears. In the end, the quality of the book and music triumphed over all the other adversity. Rent is still an important and evocative show, and while I have issues with this current iteration, I am happy that it is still making its mark on the musical theater world. I look forward to seeing how its place in the canon of the genre continues to evolve and be reinterpreted in the years to come.

Closing arguments:

Would I see it again? No. Not this production.
Would I recommend it to others? If so, who? No. Those who don't know the show would get a better experience of it through one of the film versions or simply through the cast recording. Those who do know and love the show would just be disappointed.
Twitter review: Larson's work continues to triumph over the adversity of sub-par productions.

FCS: Godspell

2012-05-07T00:47:00.003-04:00

Quick facts:

Show: Godspell
Broadway
Date: Sunday, May 6, 2012
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Closing date: open-ended
Venue: Circle in the Square
Running time: 2:15 (one intermission)
My seat: Great! 3rd row from the stage, behind the piano. But, as it is theater in the round, there really aren't any bad seats.
Ticket source: TDF
Understudies: Julia Mattison in for Morgan James; Hannah Elless in for Anna Maria Perez De Tagle

Synopsis: The Broadway revival of Stephen Schwartz's musical setting of the Gospel of Matthew.

My thoughts: I saw Godspell late in previews last Fall, and really enjoyed it. So as I was looking for a "thank you" gift for a member of my staff who is simply incredible, I quickly thought a night of theater might be just the thing. And really, this was the show for her.

My instincts were correct. We both had a great time! Though a New York City native, Vanessa hasn't seen much theater in her life - and this was only her second musical (my mother took her to her first last summer). As we were leaving the theater she said, "I can see now why you go so often! It was beautiful and moving and now I can't stop singing!"

I think that really sums it up. Godspell is the kind of show you just can't help but fall in love with. It's funny and serious at times, and in the end, uplifting in the deepest way.

Like just about everyone else, I think, I was in an amateur production of Godspell once upon a time. So I know the show inside and out - and this production is truly stellar.

As I mentioned above, the stage is in the center of the house, and as a result of that, there's a real sense of connection and closeness between the performers and the audience, and with the whole experience of the performance. One of the things that I often reflect on in the experience of live theater is the sense of community that we as an audience feel. There's a sense that we're "in it" together with the performers. We're not just passively watching, as is the case of video performances. Our energy is there (potentially, at least) feeding the performers. And their mistakes and improvisations can't simply be edited. We are invested in a particular performance - in a moment in time - in a way that can't be found in most other forms of entertainment. As such, community emerges. Human interaction - in an age where that is increasingly hard to come by - happens. And as true as that is for any live theatrical event, it's even more true when the performers are literally in the middle of the audience.

From my own theological perspective, I can't imagine a better time to have theater "in the round" than in a show that tells the story of Jesus. Building Christian community is, I think, one of the most important things that we, in my line of work, try to be about. So having a theater experience that reflects (and encourages) that theological position, makes Godspell a home run for this priest/theater junkie.

The stage, while seemingly somewhat bare throughout much of the show, is dynamic and changing. The scenic design by David Korins does exactly what I usually want and expect live theater to do - it gives me just enough. It makes the performers work, and it makes me work. But at the same time, it surprises me again and again.

The choreography, by the ridiculously talented Christopher Gattelli, was brilliant, just as I've come to expect from Gattelli. Off the top of my head, I can now think of three shows that I've seen very recently that were given the Christopher Gattelli treatment - Silence! the musical, Godspell, and, of course, his now Tony nominated work in Newsies. As I was reflecting on his work tonight, I found myself looking for some trademark style - some signature that I could see running through these shows. It wasn't there in the form of particular moves, or anything like that, but I do think I found it: his work is organic. It has a way of brilliantly matching the moment - the cast, the characters, the music, the story... It fits so naturally that you almost might not even notice it's there. Dance is presented as just the only logical reaction to the events going on around the characters. I can't quite imagine how he does it, but it's a thrilling thing to behold.

The cast is outstanding. It's hard to think about who the real winners are, because there are so many.

As I mentioned before, I saw this production last fall with the original star, Hunter Parrish, in the role of Jesus. He was great - and I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the Weeds television star could prove to be so versatile. But even so, I must say that Corbin Bleu is a huge step up for the production. He has many of the same qualities of his predecessor in terms of star power and stage magnetism, but he also brings a noticeably elevated level of experience and quality to the singing and dancing required of the role. It brings to mind the story of the wedding feast at Cana - the one where Jesus turns water into wine. After they've run out, Jesus provides more, and it is remarked that the best was saved for last. That seems to be how it is here - Parrish was excellent, but wow! - look what they've brought in for when that ran out! It was worth a second visit, just to see all that Bleu brought to the table in his interpretation of the role.

Another stand out performance is by Glee alum, Telly Leung. The beauty of his voice is only matched by its flexibility and range. As to stage presence - he is equally flexible and energetic. He gives us everything he has, and he has the audience eating out of his hands. It's delightful to imagine how much of himself has been infused into his character. If that sense is at all true, the people in his life are truly fortunate. He is generous and clever and his performance is a joy to behold.

As I said earlier, there are simply too many favorites in this cast to mention them all, but I would be remiss not to give at least a bit of nod to the brilliant and intense Uzo Aduba. Her performance has something of a Tracy Chapman vibe to it - which is probably why I loved it so deeply. She bleeds emotion all over the stage such that it spills out and floods the house.

And finally, much of the credit for the effectiveness of the comedy is due to the slapstick brilliance of both Nick Blaemire and George Salazar. If you go to the theater to laugh, these guys are your guys to watch.

My one moment of somewhat conflicted emotions about this production is the final scene. The priest in me can't help but cringe a little that there is no treatment of the resurrection - at least not in any sense of bodily resurrection. But I will say, however, that on this second time seeing the show, I did notice something that had somewhat eluded me the first time. Though the Jesus character doesn't come dancing and smiling at the end as we usually expect in these kinds of shows, there is something of a consideration of spiritual resurrection - resurrection through the community. The cast sings snips of songs that they had been singing all along - the songs that developed their characters; the songs that told their stories - and suddenly those songs merge into the high song (prayer?) of Jesus - "Beautiful City". Jesus had taught them - "We can build a beautiful city - yes we can. Yes we can!" And in the end they get it. They pick up his solo in beautiful harmony and take it as their own. I'll admit. I don't know what resurrection really means. I don't know if the body of Jesus that had been killed walked again. But my own faith doesn't rest on those kinds of things - the miracles. What I do believe, however, is that Christ lives in the community that still follows him. I believe that Christ lives in the harmonies that we carry on in his stead. So while I do initially gruff at how this production chose to leave the end of the story, there's a part of me that respects it. I respect that they left it to me to find the resurrection, and that they didn't shove it on me in some contrived way.

Closing arguments:

Would I see it again? Well, this was actually my second time seeing it... So, I guess that's a yes! So I guess the question is, would I go for a third? Maybe. I don't give many shows the honor of a THIRD viewing, but with the right company, I'd certainly consider it for this one.
Would I recommend it to others? If so, who? Definitely. If money were no object, I'd love to organize a trip for my whole congregation - or as many as I could get - to go see the show with me, and to lead them in a discussion of it. I think my mother would appreciate it, and I plan to recommend it to her on her next trip. It would be a great show to share with younger theater goers - to nurture their emerging passion and in a truly family-friendly show.
Twitter review: A show that keeps getting better. Highly recommended!

FCS: Leap of Faith

2012-04-26T21:05:00.000-04:00

Quick facts:

Show: Leap of Faith
Broadway
Date: Friday, April 20, 2012
Time: 8:00 p.m.
Closing date: open-ended
Venue: St. James Theatre
Running time: 2:20 (one intermission)
My seat: Great! Mid-mezzanine, center
Ticket source: TDF
Understudies: none

Know someone working the show? No.

Synopsis: The stage version of the 1992 film of the same name. A crooked faith healer's bus breaks down in a small depressed town in middle America. He and the cast of his roving church decide to take them for all they're worth.

My thoughts: Leap of Faith probably won't be described by most critics as "great theater" or anything like that - and I guess it's really not. But there is something about it. It hits all the points it needs to hit, and it's truly effective.

The experience begins as soon as you walk into the theater. I'm the dork who likes to get there the minute the house opens. Some of my more sophisticated friends tease me about that, but I tend to be somewhat spatially oriented, so I like to get there with time to experience the space - to learn about my surroundings and to begin to immerse myself in the feelings that are being set up for me. The house at Leap of Faith really got the stage set for me. The curtain was a kind of circus tent design. About 20 minutes before curtain, a Hammond organ began to play. And just a few minutes before, members of the cast began wandering through the house getting the crowd riled up. In reality, it was a bit silly, but it did help to establish the mood - and it established early on that we (the audience) had an investment in the show. As such, the stage adaptation worked well. They didn't simply try to perform what had been on film - they brought us into the world that had once been inhabited only by the film.

One of the defining characteristics of the show that kept emerging for me was its simplicity. It's not that it wasn't completely high-end in production value, it's just that I never felt like the show was trying to beat itself over my head. The set (designed by Robin Wagner), though moving and dynamic, was fairly simple. At the beginning of the show - it was fascinating to watch the revival tent being pitched in front of us onstage. The choreography by Sergio Trujillo cleverly conveyed the evangelical, revival community. The lighting (designed by Don Holder) was effective at telling the story, passing the time, and subtly conveying moods, but always remained natural and organic. The shining moment (if you'll pardon the mostly unintentional pun) in the lighting happened during "Jonas' Soliloquy" - the main character came downstage center before a black background illuminated only by a simple spotlight. As the music swelled and the emotion ran deeper, slowly more spotlights began to emerge, until he was bathed in at least a dozen of them - coming from as many angles. It was a simple, but thoroughly powerful effect.

The cast was truly outstanding - led by none other than the star himself, Raúl Esparza. I have, of course, heard of Esparza, but this was my first time to see him live. He embodies everything that there is to embody in a Broadway star. He is sexy, a brilliant singer, and a thrilling actor. He drips with a charisma that beckons every eye to wherever he would have it go. I'm pretty sure everyone in that large theater thought that he was there just for them - I know I did!

Though, as brilliant as Esparza is, he was not at all alone in the spotlight. Talon Ackerman in the role of Jake McGowan was very effective. I'm always amazed at talented child-actors. I suppose I've seen (and been a part of) too many amateur productions, and suffered through the performances of too many untrained children - but I'm always amazed when a child in a stage production can really sell his or her role to me. McGowan did!

Kecia Lewis-Evans often stole the show in the role of Ida Mae Sturdevant. That kind of gospel style singing isn't easy to act (which is perhaps why we're often so bad at our attempts of it in the Episcopal Church - it just isn't our nature!) - it has to come from a place deeper in the soul than most people can call up. But Lewis-Evans did it as naturally and skillfully as anyone I've ever heard.

As a credit to smart casting, her character's two children were also runaway stars of the production. Krystal Joy Brown in the role of Ida Mae's daughter, Ornella Sturdevant, seemed a chip off the old block. Whenever she took control of the stage - well, it was almost enough to bring me to Jesus.

The most delightful performance, however, was from Leslie Odom, Jr. in the role of Ida Mae's Bible-college-studying son, Isaiah Sturdevant. His singing was delicate and precise. I may buy the cast recording just for the joy of hearing him again and again. The rest of his presence on stage matched his voice - he was strong, but always reserved. Always giving just enough. It felt like he might simply explode across the stage - and in a sense, I suppose he did.

Though I'm admittedly amateur - as I've stated from the start - my walk away review will sound all the more so than probably anything I've written before. This show simply made me feel good. I laughed, I cried, I clapped in rhythm with up-tempo songs, and I happily stood as soon as the curtain call began. I even walked away humming the songs.

I know it sounds kind of silly to say these things, but this is as least part of what theater is meant to do. I've talked about the theater's transcendent potential. Leap of Faith met that potential and pulled me into another world. It took me along for the ride. So while it's probably not going to go down in history as one of the greatest events of theatrical history, it was an unmitigated success.

Closing arguments:

Would I see it again? Yeah, probably.
Would I recommend it to others? If so, who? Definitely. I have at least one friend who I expect to see it, and I expect that he'll have as good of a time as I did. I'd love for my mother to see it when she comes to visit. I even think it might be one of the rare shows that my father would enjoy!
Twitter review: Success! A great night out that will leave you feeling as good as you always hope the theater will!

FCS: The City Club

2012-04-23T21:00:00.000-04:00

Quick facts:

Show: The City Club
Off-Broadway
Date: Thursday, April 19, 2012
Time: 8:00 p.m.
Closing date: Playbill.com lists the closing as December 31, 2012. Online ticket sales are currently available through June 3, 2012.
Venue: Minetta Lane Theatre
Running time: ~2:20 (one intermission)
My seat: Great. Second row from the stage, center.
Ticket source: TDF
Understudies: none

Know someone working the show? No.

Synopsis: Drama in the lives of a night club owner and his employees.

My thoughts: Sometimes that one or two sentence synopsis is kind of hard to write. As I was walking into my house earlier, I ran into a neighbor who asked what the show was about. I hemmed and hawed for a while before finally confessing: it seemed to be aching for some sort of plot. Not that there weren't attempts - there certainly were - but it seemed to twist and turn out of nowhere searching for something to do. I won't share specifics of these twists and turns (don't want to be a spoiler...), but I will say that the book by Glenn M. Stewart generally lacked grace and poetry. The speech patterns of the characters seemed more like some caricature of mid-century America than anything real and believable. Moreover, the show didn't seem to have an organically twisting plot. It was more like the twists were thrown in because it needed somewhere to go and some way to get there.

The story danced around lots of big themes - the role of women in society, race relations, dysfunctional families, organized crime, political corruption, substance abuse... But it never really tackled any one. Everything was just tossed at us randomly while we waited for it to germinate. Sadly, it never really did.

I really don't have any desire to be a harsh critic for the sake of being harsh. I don't think that is beneficial either to me or to my readers. In fact, I really want to enjoy myself at the theater. I want to see something great and tell everyone else about it. I want greatness to succeed! But when I do feel myself responding negatively to a show, I try to look and listen to cues from those around me - am I being a stick in the mud, the only one there not having the time of his life? It helps to keep me honest. Tonight's performance left me with some hard cues that I wasn't alone. During the last number before intermission ("Why Did It Have to Be You"), I heard snoring behind me. Also, the applause at both the intermission and the curtain call was tepid, at best. Perhaps even only polite. One criticism I've heard several times lately of the current New York theater audience is that we're too generous in offering standing ovations - and I tend to agree. I believe a standing ovation should be reserved for only the very finest productions. But they've become nearly the standard in today's theater. But tonight there was no standing ovation, and I believe rightfully so.

I was interested in this show because it was described as "an original blues and jazz musical". Those are magic words to me - blues and jazz. And, to a degree, original. I like to support and experience contemporary original work. And I love blues and jazz. And the music didn't really disappoint. Kenny Brawner, in the role of Parker Brown, though not particularly integral in the story, was, as a performer, the true star of the show. I marveled at his piano playing and blues singing skills. While there are a number of shows where the band is on stage (or otherwise in view), it made me long for more shows where they take on characters. Obviously that's not possible in every show, but in those shows where it is, it really gives a somewhat more natural feel to the ridiculousness of the concept of the musical (admittedly, a "ridiculousness" that I love very much.). I found myself imagining other performers that I'd love to see in roles like that.

Despite my strong criticisms about the book, there were several bright spots in the production. Andrew Pandaleon, in the role of Charles Davenport (Chaz), had a lovely voice and a passionate approach to his role. Kaitlin Mesh, in the role of Lily, regularly grabbed my attention. While most of the chorus girls in the show were a bit saccharine, Mesh added a bit of a darkness to her character. It was never really explored, but it seemed as if she had a secret. I remained intrigued by her throughout.

The choreography, by Lorin Latarro, was consistently one of the strongest elements of story telling in the show. There are several examples of this, but the clearest was in Act II during "It Ain't Right". Because of the night club setting, complete with dashing young men and striking showgirls, it would have been easy for the choreography to devolve into simple, hyper-sexuality. It is to Latarro's credit, however, that choreography was used, instead, to draw out and express deeper emotion. It was sexual, to be sure, but not just sexual.

Emotion was hard to come by throughout the show. The first time I ever felt that electric pulse of the whole house truly engaged was in Chaz's number, "It Don't Make Me No Never Mind". Sadly, that connection didn't come until near the end of Act II.

Closing arguments:

Would I see it again? Nah.
Would I recommend it to others? If so, who? I'm glad to have seen it - as much to satisfy my own curiosity as anything else - but I can't think of anyone that I'd really recommend it to.
Twitter review: Well, I've always said: a bad night at the theater is still better than most other nights.

Scars (in their multitude...)

2012-04-22T13:32:00.000-04:00

I forgot to bring my video camera into church today, so no video of the sermon, but I'll attempt to recreate it a bit... This is, at least, what I was trying/hoping to say.

The entrance to the Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem

Easter III (B)
Luke 24:36b-48

In the name of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen.

They say that the quickest way to put your congregation to sleep is to begin your sermon by saying, "In the early church..." But even so, today, I promise it's relevant.

In the early church, one of the biggest controversies that was running around was about whether the Resurrection had been in body, or just in spirit. Part of the concern was, if Jesus had simply sloughed off his body after death, it wouldn't really say anything to the sense of the wider community about the impurity of the body. If Jesus had come to reconcile us from impurity to true union with God, we needed a bodily resurrection - spiritual resurrection, it was argued, simply would not solve the problems of the impurity of the body.

In many ways, the Gospel lesson that we hear today is an answer to that controversy. All of the signs of the Gospel lesson today point to the belief that Christ was resurrected, body and soul. You could see the scars of the crucifixion in his hands and feet. Moreover - he ate with the disciples. He was hungry.

So he couldn't have been just a ghost. He was real. You could see it in his scars. The scars revealed the truth - his story.

I was thinking of that a few weeks ago as I was traveling through Israel and Palestine. Many of the holy sites that we visited were very old - often even in ruins. But even in the ancient buildings still in use, you could see the scars of their histories.

This was most notable in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. At the entrance to the church there was a vast entryway - an arch maybe as large as this church. But somewhere along the line it had been filled in, and there was a smaller arch within in its place. But it, too, had been filled in for a smaller arch. And a smaller one, and a smaller one - the cycle repeating itself until there was left only this tiny entryway - a door not half as wide as the aisle of our church and not even as tall as me.

There are different stories about how the arch came to be so small. One is that as piety around the place developed over the centuries, and smaller and smaller entryway was desired until, in its current state, it has been redesigned such that everyone who enters must bow in reverence to the holiness of the place.

The other story - perhaps more likely, as I imagine it - is that the entryway kept getting smaller and smaller for security reasons: the door would get smaller so as to limit the attractiveness of the space for use by military forces. If you couldn't get your animals or your gear inside, it would be less likely to be used for purposes other than what it was intended.

Who knows what the truth is - probably some in the middle. But the truth that does remain, however, is that the scars tell something of the story of that centuries-old holy site. The scars - though not beautiful in any traditional understanding of the word - make it somehow more real.

That's the way it is for us, too. Our scars are a part of who we are. They show that we are real and fully present. They reveal a piece of our story.

I've been thinking about that this week in terms of physical scars. Most notably, I'm remembering my surgery from last year. Of course I can feel it in my body - even still - but even on my better days when I can't, the scars remain. They are a real and present sign of a story from my life. They help to tell my story.

We all have those scars - whether from accidents as children, or surgeries, or whatever else, our bodies are scared with the stories of our lives.

And, of course, there are those deeper scars: the ones left by the pain and trauma of loss, loneliness, and despair.

They are never the most beautiful parts of us - at least not in any traditional understanding of the word. But they are some of the truest parts of us. They tell our stories. They make us real.

Though the early church controversy about the resurrection of Christ - whether is was bodily or spiritual - is mostly resolved now, most people nowadays don't really care. People still believe both scenarios (and blends of the two scenarios) - but we don't typically get into fights about it much anymore. It just doesn't feel as pressing in our generation as it once did.

But a bit of truth that remains in this "scar" of story from the Gospels is that we do believe that Christ is real. Christ is present. We can tell because of the scars. Even though probably none of us have seen the physical scars of in his hands and feet, the scars of his presence remain in our community.

In this third week of Easter, we are much like that first community of gathered disciples. There's this beautiful line in the text: "in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering...." That's really how it is for most of us here in the wake of Easter Day. We are still somewhat washed in the joy, but it's somehow fading - not unlike a fading scar. Though the joy remains true, it exists in the background of our disbelief and wonder.

But the scars tell our story. The scars reveal the truth that might otherwise be hidden.

Christ is raised. Christ is real. Christ is present. Amen. Alleluia.

and just in case you got my little pun in the title... here ya go! :)

Breaking open all that we know

2012-04-15T12:17:00.001-04:00

Easter 2B - so-called "Doubting Thomas" Sunday
John 20:19-31

Hate is too great a burden to bear

2012-04-08T14:00:00.001-04:00

Practicing Lent & Justice

2012-04-04T21:57:00.003-04:00

My Lenten reflection commissioned by the St. Luke-in-the-Fields blog, and also appearing on Walking With Integrity

*** *** ***

The Judean Wilderness, pilgrimage 2012

I often describe Lent to my parishioners as a time set aside each year to practice faithfulness in the midst of wilderness. When Lent comes around, we may, or may not, be in the midst of actual, in-the-moment spiritual wilderness, but sooner or later - in the season of Lent or in some other season of our lives - at least a bit of wilderness will inevitably fall. So in this season of the church year, we learn how to be faithful even in the midst of those more difficult times. And we learn through continued practice, again and again. The work is never really done. We always have more to learn and we always can grow ever deeper in our spiritual maturity.

The same is true in our commitment to justice. Despite the amazing strides we, as a church and as a society, have made in recent generations, the truth is, the struggle for justice for all of God's people is ongoing. In the past few weeks, I've seen a few theater pieces that have reminded me of this anew. As a part of my own spiritual disciplines of self-care and nurturing my creative tendencies, I regularly go to the theater and reflect on what I've seen. Recently I've seen two shows that have reminded me that the work of striving for justice for all is not yet finished.

One (perhaps unlikely) source for this reminder was found in the current off-Broadway revival of Carrie - a musical adaptation of the 1976 horror film of the same name. You can read my full review here (http://www.jonmrichardson.com/2012/03/fcs-carrie.html), but the take-away for me was a firm reminder that - despite incredible progress - we still live in society where misogyny and bullying are very real, and that those realities continue to have tragic consequences.

Also, earlier this week, I saw the current Broadway revival of the Gershwin's Porgy and Bess. (Full review at http://www.jonmrichardson.com/2012/03/fcs-porgy-and-bess.html) Though we in the United States have been consistently struggling with racial inequality for many generations, our work there is nowhere near ended, either.

As Vice President for National Affairs of IntegrityUSA, people often ask me, "Haven't we already won?" It's true that openly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender clergy are the norm in many of our dioceses. It's true that openly LGBT parishioners are welcomed and fully assimilated into many more of our congregations. It's true that we now even have bishops who are openly gay and lesbian. But if we can learn anything from our sisters and brothers in other justice movements, it's that the struggle for equal access to God's justice in human institutions continues long after the initial signs of progress are won.

Justice is not so much a goal as it is a discipline. That's why the work of IntegrityUSA is still important, even in the shadow of the incredible progress we've made in recent years. That's why we still need to keep showing up to General Convention, and why we still need to keep educating and empowering people at every level of the church.

Just as we have to keep practicing Lent, we have to keep practicing Justice. The reign of God is still too much a dream. Wilderness is still too near.

FCS: Peter and the Starcatcher

2012-04-04T18:19:00.001-04:00

Quick facts:

Show: Peter and the Starcatcher
Broadway
Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Closing date: open-ended
Venue: Brooks Atkinson Theatre
Running time: 2:15 (one intermission)
My seat: Fair. I was in the Orchestra, stage left, row M
Ticket source: TDF
Understudies: none

Know someone working the show? No.

Synopsis: A prequel to the tale of Peter Pan, the founding of Neverland, and the origins of the characters.

My thoughts: I was initially curious (maybe slightly concerned) about what was meant when this play was described as a "play with music". As I've mentioned before - I really do love my musicals... I love singing and dancing. So I was apprehensive about how this would figure in to my preferences.

I LOVED IT! Peter and the Starcatcher is a delightful play - with just a few simple musical numbers, and an incredibly simple "orchestra" (only piano and percussion). The production is earthy and organic - real, old-time theater - relying nearly exclusively on the talents of the performers and the quality of the script - both of which were up to the task. For me, it served as an effective and helpful antidote to the overly-stimulating, tech-heavy production of last night at Ghost.

The script, by Rick Elice (based on the book by Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson) is truly remarkable. It's fast and clever. Moreover, it's funny! Comedy that actually worked for me! I'm not usually a "laugh out loud" kind of audience member, but I was today.

The sets, designed by Donyale Werle, nurtured the organic feel of the production. While I preferred the aesthetics of the Act I set, the second act created some beautiful opportunities for the incredibly effective lighting designs of Jeff Croiter to shoulder some of the story telling.

The cast was superb under the leadership of Christian Borle (in the role of Black Stache, and of NBC's Smash fame), Celia Keenan-Bolger (in the role of Molly), and Adam Chanler-Berat (in the role of Boy). I was also particularly impressed with the down-page talents of Arnie Burton (in the role of Mrs. Bumbrake) and Greg Hildreth (in the role of Alf).

It's a fast-paced and high energy performance. An absolute delight! Much credit goes to directors Roger Rees and Alex Timbers, and particularly to movement director Steven Hoggett for their consistency of design. It was easy to be swept into the world of Peter and the Starcatcher - and great fun to boot! All of the elements of the production pulled together in a very satisfying balance to create an unforgettable event.

Closing arguments:

Would I see it again? Sure!
Would I recommend it to others? If so, who? I absolutely recommend this show to you! It's fun and fresh and light. My mother will be coming to visit this summer, and this is sure to be on the must-see list I pull together for her.
Twitter review: Sometimes theater is just fun. This is one of those times.

FCS: Ghost

2012-04-04T02:00:00.000-04:00

Quick facts:

Show: Ghost
Broadway
Date: Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Time: 8:00 p.m.
Closing date: open-ended
Venue: Lunt-Fontanne Theatre
Running time: 2:30 (one intermission)
My seat: Fair. I was in the Mezzanine, stage right
Ticket source: TDF
Understudies: none

Know someone working the show? No.

Synopsis: The musical adaptation of the 1990 film of the same name: a man and woman are in love. The man is shot and killed in the street, but isn't able to move on after his death because of unfinished business.

My thoughts: Earlier this week I was getting a haircut, and my stylist was trying to convince me to try out a new hairstyle. I protested, fearing that her idea wouldn't cover what I wanted to cover and accent what I wanted to accent. To defend her position she said: "The eye will go where the design is. You don't just cover things up, you attract attention elsewhere." With that, she had me. She could try anything on me. Because I knew she was right.

Tonight, as I was watching Ghost, it seemed that the same principle was in play. The video and projection design by Jon Driscoll constantly stole focus. They drew the eye to the ever-present design and movement and video. They helped to cover any number of other sins.

The thing about Ghost is, it was already a movie. And a really good one, at that. Throughout this production I kept thinking that what I was watching was more a movie with a few live actors scattered in the midst of it, than a piece of live theater with videos and projections to enhance the experience.

It's worth noting that the first thing I write about - and probably what will prove to be the bulk of these thoughts - is video. From before the curtain went up, the video was running and it never stopped throughout the show. And it happened on nearly every surface. Things were projected onto scrims downstage, all three walls of the set were giant video screens, and there were even projections onto fog. Everything was fair game.

And again, as mentioned in a previous post, these strange dancing silhouettes made another appearance. AHH! I hope two instances doesn't point to a tend. I won't be able to take it!

Video was used so extensively that it too often distracted from the actors. Though, generally, the actors weren't particularly worth the focus. I never believed Cassie Levy in the role of Molly Jensen. Richard Flesshman, in the role of Sam Wheat, does have a nice voice. The real star of the show, however, is Da'Vine Joy Randolph in the role of Oda Mae Brown.

Generally the original music was uninteresting. Obviously the occasional appearances of "Unchained Melody" were crowd pleasing, but the rest of the score was bland and forgettable. "I'm Outta Here" - Oda Mae's big solo near the end of the show, was, however, a nice scene. It was a fun way to interact with the real star of the show as it was ending.

The set design was fantastic (though, interestingly, there isn't a designer listed in the Playbill. Though there are two associates. Again - calling on my more learned readers to help me here. What's that about?). Despite the fact that it served as more opportunities for overkill in the video department. The three main walls moved and opened and turned in a variety of ways to create the somewhat elaborate spaces. Their movements were graceful and interesting. Whoever designed it - kudos!

Also, the video walls could occasionally be translucent, with video on the front and actors visible behind. Though it's probably a very simple technique, it impressed me, and it provided opportunities from time to time for a great deal of flexibility - particularly in the subway scene.

The whole design of the show felt like a rock concert - particularly as it was expressed through the lighting. Occasionally, the lights above the stage lowered into view - but it happened mostly in places where that didn't make much sense: in the office scenes. I wondered if they were going for an "industrial" type feel as one might find in an office, but I didn't see it that way. It was like a normal office on the ground, but a rock concert on the ceiling. I just didn't understand the choice. It would have been much more effective to simply leave the lights out of view.

The special effects and illusions, designed by Paul Kieve, were incredible - they were probably the real star of the show. I had several "how'd they do that?" moments.

Closing arguments:

Would I see it again? Not a chance. Not if you paid for my ticket.
Would I recommend it to others? If so, who? With the kind of name recognition this show is getting (and will continue to get) they don't need my help recommending it. I'm sure my mother will see it next time she visits, but it won't be because I suggested it.
Twitter review: Glad to have seen it, so I'll know what all the fuss is about.

FCS: Newsies

2012-04-02T00:48:00.000-04:00

Quick facts:

Show: Newsies
Broadway
Date: Sunday, April 1, 2012
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Closing date: August 19, 2012 (though I expect another extension)
Venue: Nederlander Theatre
Running time: 2:30 (one intermission)
My seat: Amazing! Second row from the stage, near center
Ticket source: Ticketmaster through newsiesthemusical.com
Understudies: Jack Scott (as Finch) in for Aaron J. Albano. (Not an understudy, but the alternating role of Les was played by Lewis Grosso at tonight's performance)

Know someone working the show? No. I do have a friend who works in an administrative capacity at the Paper Mill Playhouse in Millburn, NJ, where Newsies premiered, but he is not involved in the creative aspects of the show and is not related to this production.

Synopsis: In the summer of 1899, New York City newsboys go on strike in protest of unfair labor practices at a newspaper owned by Joseph Pulitzer.

My thoughts: Perhaps I need to just go ahead and admit that I'm something of a snob. When I had this thought after the Paper Mill Playhouse production I was afraid to admit it. I mean, how can a regional theater production in little Millburn, New Jersey have produced the greatest night of theater I've ever experienced? Even though I could barely contain my excitement at the time, I found myself constantly hedging: "It was very nearly the best show I've ever seen." But now that it's made its way to Broadway I can say it - full throated, and with no qualifications - Newsies is the best show I've ever seen.

I had heard that the creative team had really punched up the show in some striking ways to mark their transition to Broadway. Though I found it hard to imagine how it could possibly have been true, it was. Capathia Jenkins, in the role of Medda Larkin, is one striking upgrade from Millburn. Not only does she add some much needed diversity to the cast, Jenkins is a force on the stage. She swaggers with a Queen Latifah-style beauty and confidence, she can out-sing anyone in the cast, and she gives her character a depth and grittiness that had been absent before. Additionally, Kara Lindsay, in the role of Katherine, seems to have grown since I saw her in October. Her connection with her character, and by association with the audience, seems to have deepened in lovely ways. Literally my ONLY criticism of the show is that she could stand to play a tad more to the back of the house. Being on the second row, I caught the subtleties of her eyes and gestures, but I wondered how the folks further away might have felt. She is a tad too "Disney" for my tastes, but even so, she is brilliant in the role, and in no way a burden on the show.

In all of the technical areas that I tend to consider, the show was flawless. It's hard to imagine how creative design can be so perfect in every way. Even down to the changes between scenes - I never noticed the shifts. Every transition was flawless, to the degree that I was often caught unaware by looking up and noticing that we were in a different place or time.

The lighting design by Jeff Croiter was subtle and textured. The color palettes were varied and helped to tell the story - there was never any confusion about the time of day or the mood being established.

The projections, designed by the ever-brilliant Sven Ortel are - in a word - perfect. Even when moving and shifting and being drawn before our eyes, they never grabbed our attention from where it was supposed to be. They were tasteful: always enough, and never too much. Even from the beginning - as the projections were serving as curtain - I noticed the subtle details of Ortel's work. The pictures that made up that image were detailed by the barely visible effect of crumpled newspaper. Olsen was quietly setting the stage even before most of the audience had begun to notice. One technical aspect of the projections that amazed me the last time I saw the show, and continued to this time, was how the images - projected on nine different scrims that raised and lowered independently - would seamlessly follow the raising and lowering without spilling off below. From the perspective of the audience, it might have seemed like magic, but I knew it was the fruits of tedious work and meticulous attention to detail. This is why I've quickly become a fan of his work!

The set, designed by Tobin Ost, appears deceptively simple, but has the ability to shift and change in such a multitude of ways that it can create a countless array of locations. It has stage-filling levels (and I mean levels!), angles, movement... It really is the perfect set - so flexible that I can almost imagine how this same set might have been used on any number of other shows. At one point in the second act ("Seize the Day", scene 6, I believe) the three columns in a line moved downstage with newsboys singing on every platform. The audience erupted in spontaneous applause. The music was not particularly climactic at that point of the song, and I'm confident - whether they consciously knew it or not - that the applause was for the set. I've never seen anything like it.

There are simply too many aspects of this show that deserve accolades, but the greatest among them MUST be the choreography, by Christopher Gattelli. The dancers' physical abilities consistently astonished me - the choreography is more intense and demanding than anything I could have imagined, and certainly more than anything I've ever seen. It was amazing how much time these dancers spent in the air. At one point, I laughed to myself remembering how interesting it was to read in the Spider Man: Turn Off the Dark Playbill that they had a "flight director" to coordinate all of the scenes that happen as the characters fly throughout the theater. I found myself joking that perhaps Newsies should have had a "flight director", too! But, as amazed as I am at the guys' abilities in doing it, I'm equally amazed at Gattelli's daring in asking it of them. He is a visionary, and I can't wait to pay attention to his work in the future.

Rising out of Gattelli's work are a few rising stars that we are sure to see more from in the future. I've heard it quipped that Newsies makes the case for the need for a "Best Ensemble" TONY award, and I couldn't agree more - at least for this year! Ryan Breslin (also in the role of Race) is a thrilling actor. Garett Hawe (also playing Albert and Bill) demands attention whenever he enters the stage. An unlikely one for this category is Andy Richardson. My guess is that he is overlooked by some, but he's an intensely talented dancer - enough so to effectively stand out for me in this armada of talent - and he cleverly delivered some of the best one-liners of the show.

I won't bore you with lots of attention to the talent dripping from every pore of Jeremy Jordan - he is Broadway's "it-boy" of today and countless people are gushing over him - and rightfully so! Just know that I join the chorus. Instead, I'd rather draw attention to the brightest rising star in the ensemble, Ryan Steele (also in the role of Specs - or for anyone who's seen any trailers of the production - "that amazing guy who spins longer than the laws of physics allow while standing on a piece of newspaper"). He is simply amazing. And almost too talented for an ensemble. Though he didn't have any standout solo singing that I recall, if his voice can even remotely keep up with the rest of his talent, I strongly suspect that his next role will be a lead. If it's not, he needs a new agent!

One of the interesting things about Newsies is how it seems to be infiltrating popular culture. I keep hearing people refer to what we used to call "cabby" caps as "newsy" caps. And moreover, I keep seeing them popping up all over town - not just in the line to the theater! But it makes sense that this show would find it's way into wider cultural applications. Throughout the show I laughed from the bottom of my seat, I was not infrequently teary, and I leaped to my feet in fits of screams and applause as soon as it ended. And, though I'm a trained singer, and I know how to use my diaphragm to produce large sounds when necessary, even so, I screamed through my cheers so much and for so long tonight that I found myself feeling hoarse on the ride home!

But Newsies isn't just about top-notch production values and some of the best singing and dancing there is. Even though it's based on an old movie that's based on an even older historic event, it remains timely and relevant. Stories of heads of corporations and the wealthy trying to squash workers' rights and unions continue to litter the background of our current political landscape. So the story of these unlikely heroes rising up against all odds needs to be told now as much as ever. And even if our current political climate weren't as it is, stories of the unlikely and powerless masses rising up against their oppressors will always be important to hear, to recite, and to celebrate!

Closing arguments:

Would I see it again? There aren't many shows that I'm willing to pay full price to see. This is one of the very few. And I will again.
Would I recommend it to others? If so, who? Absolutely, and the list is too long to populate on here. But anyone who loves a good old-fashioned singing and dancing musical will think this is heaven. Anyone who wants to leave the theater humming the tunes and tapping their feet won't be disappointed. In reality, I can't think of anyone who wouldn't at least enjoy themselves.
Twitter review: Perfection all over again. I can't wait to see it again!

FCS: Pipe Dream

2012-03-31T03:55:00.000-04:00

Quick facts:

Show: Pipe Dream
Staged Reading
Date: Friday, March 30, 2012
Time: 8:00 p.m.
Closing date: April 1, 2012
Venue: New York City Center Main Stage
Running time: 2:15 (one intermission)
My seat: Fair. I was in the Mezzanine, stage right
Ticket source: TDF
Understudies: none

Know someone working the show? No.

Synopsis: Hmmm... Well, I guess it's the story of the leading man and the leading lady finding love together. But there really isn't much in the way of story. A better synopsis might be: a fluffy Broadway musical. It's only really about itself.

My thoughts: I really don't have a lot in the way of thoughts - mostly because it was a staged reading and not a full production. But in reality, it did have much more in the way of production quality than one might typically expect from a staged reading. The set, though minimal, was more designed than previous Encores! presentations I've seen or than I would expect from a production of this type. There was corrugated sheet metal and old signs along the wings. The orchestra was perched atop a pier-type structure - representing the seaside motif of the story's setting. A couple of set articles - not much more than substantial props - came on and off the stage as needed. But in general, it was minimal. The costumes were appropriate for story-telling, but not significant. The lighting was actually quite a bit more designed than I might have expected, but still, not terribly extravagant. The choreography, on the other hand, was nearly full-production quality. It was excellent and perfectly appropriate to the style of the show.

In terms of the talent, it was a mixed bag. Leslie Uggams had a strong presence, but her vocal abilities were often mixed. Her strongest moment was in her reprise of "All at Once You Love Her". Tom Wopat was, predictably, disappointing, both in terms of his singing and acting. It was a delight to get to hear Laura Osnes again. Her voice really has a lovely and affectionate tone.

The real performing stars were to be found in the ensemble - always a treat! The greatest among them was Matthew Bauman. His stage presence is eye catching - bordering on too much so for an ensemble - but a delight to see, nonetheless. When I was able to peel my eyes away from him, it was usually at the demand of the commanding vocal abilities of Nicholas Ward - a rare and beautiful bass voice. Too often bass soloists come across as strained or imprecise. Ward, however, made it sound easy. He was truly thrilling, though too rarely on display.

One can easily see why Pipe Dream is not one of Rodgers and Hammerstein's most popular shows. It has virtually no discernable plotline, and while the music is often lovely, it doesn't produce much in the way of a takeaway. It's purely fluff, but that's not necessarily always a bad thing. Sometimes we just love a good silly musical. And this show certainly qualifies. But it is a sweet piece and certainly worth the time in seeing (though many of my fellow audience-mates didn't seem to agree - the house emptied noticably at intermission).

I will say, however, that I really do love the concept of the Encores! series. They produce high-quality, professional, short runs of staged readings of musicals that aren't often revived. They are doing a great service in keeping the canon of musical theater literature at the foreground of the audience's mind. I look forward to seeing many more of their shows in the years to come!

Closing arguments:

Would I see it again? Nah. I'm glad to have seen it, but now I've seen it.
Would I recommend it to others? If so, who? I can't think of many people other than die-hard theater lovers such as myself who would have enjoyed (or even endured) it, so probaly not.
Twitter review: A silly and fluffy show, but hell... Sometimes that's what we need!

FCS: Porgy and Bess

2012-03-30T00:56:00.000-04:00

Quick facts:

Show: Porgy and Bess
Broadway
Date: Thursday, March 29, 2012
Time: 8:00 p.m.
Closing date: September 30, 2012
Venue: Richard Rodgers Theatre
Running time: 2:30 (one intermission)
My seat: Good! I was in the orchestra, stage right - more than half-way back, but the seating is steeply terraced, so I had a very nice, unobstructed view of the stage.
Ticket source: TDF
Understudies: none

Know someone working the show? No.

Synopsis: Porgy is a man crippled since birth. Bess is a party-girl living the fast life. When she encounters troubles with her man, Porgy steps in to offer help when no one else will. The two fall in love, but Bess' past continues to haunt her. Don't let the title fool you, however. The real relationships at the center of the story, in my opinion, are not between Porgy and Bess, but between all of the residents of Catfish Row. The community is the main character - not really any individual.

My thoughts: Early in the course of my formal music study, I remember having my thinking on the subject blown open by a music theory professor who described music as "ordered sound and silence." It was the silence that I'd never before considered. But it made so much sense! Sound would mean nothing without its contrasting counterpart - silence. Moreover, without careful attention to silence - carefully placing it and using it, as might a painter or a poet in their mediums - the sound can quickly become meaningless dribble.

Emblematic of the brilliance of this production is its use of shadow. Lighting design isn't just about what is illuminated, it's about what is left in the dark - literally and figuratively. The evocative use of shadow by designer Christopher Akerlind consistently amazed me. Long shadows across the architectural features of the set in the opening song, "Summertime", convey not just the evening after a long, hot, southern day, but the whole "livin' is easy" mood. The shadows off mourning funeral dancers stretch at least twenty feet up the back wall of the set, adding a depth of emotion playing across the stage.

The use of shadow speaks to the larger subtlety of the production as a whole. The audience has to work for what it gets. So many shows beat us in the head with the points they are trying to make, but Porgy and Bess gently places its many gifts in that space between and almost beyond the reach of both the actors and the audience. Both have to stretch and strain to make the necessary connection. While this approach may not be as easy as some other, more crowd pleasing devices, the connections it yields are deeper and more lasting.

Though a friend who works in lighting has helped to teach me how to watch for it, the lighting design isn't the only point of brilliance of this production. The choreography, though never the focus, was powerful, but restrained. Like the intentional and measured movements of people who are used to being held down. The notable exceptions to the rule of restraint are in the few scenes where the gathered community gets to focus on itself: the mourning funeral dancing, and the picnic are both unrestrained and free. Fleeting moments of freedom in restrained and carefully measured lives.

The set design is rag-tag and rarely changing. It is made up of mismatched boards, peeling paint, and only sparse attempts at beauty and decoration. In short, it tells the story of the people of Catfish Row - their cobbled-together existence, and their focus on survival instead of the luxuries most of us take for granted.

The performance itself was stellar - in the truest sense of the word with such a star-studded cast. Audra McDonald certainly did not disappoint. The TONY award does mean something, after all. The four-time winner showed again tonight just how much she deserves all of the accolades she has earned. Equal in stature was the performance of Norm Lewis - an actor unlike almost any other. He sold the role of Porgy so completely that it was almost shocking to see him abandon his limp at the curtain call. The break-away star was NaTasha Yvette Williams in the role of Mariah. She was the matriarch of Catfish Row to the core of her being. If one of the goals of the theater is to spur feeling (and I think it is), Williams proves herself integral in this production.

Sitting in the production, lured ever deeper into the world of Catfish Row by the beautiful music and it's masterful and passionate performance, I found myself feeling like I was in the midst of something really important. Porgy and Bess, however, is not just important historically, or in terms of the writing or its current performance and its unmatched quality - no, this show is important in its execution - in that it is even being done. Broadway is still mostly the "Great White Way" in some less-than-flattering ways. The vast majority of both performers and audience members are white. I haven't seen any studies to this effect (though I'm sure they've been done), but I have been in a lot of theaters, and I have looked around. Porgy and Bess helps to open the doors a bit wider. It takes seriously the stories of African Americans and the African American story as a whole. Her people are not put on display, or exploited - they are celebrated and honored. And the proof is in the pudding - the house at the Richard Rodgers Theatre was among the most diverse I've ever seen. And I was honored to have been a part of it.

Closing arguments:

Would I see it again? Given the time and resources, absolutely.
Would I recommend it to others? If so, who? I would. To anyone who takes music or theater seriously. To anyone who values deep studies of the human experience. But not to the people who are just looking for a light escape. The escape is there, but it isn't light.
Twitter review: Probably the most important show I've seen this year - maybe longer.

FCS: Once

2012-03-29T02:11:00.001-04:00

Quick facts:

Show: Once
Broadway
Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Time: 8:00 p.m.
Closing date: open-ended
Venue: Bernard B. Jacobs Theatre
Running time: 2:30 (one intermission)
My seat: Fair. Fourth row of the Mezzanine, far stage right. Some view obstruction by parts of the set.
Ticket source: TDF
Understudies: none

Know someone working the show? No.

Synopsis: Guy and Girl meet. They fall in love through a shared passion for music and appreciation of the others' talent, but both have relationship baggage.

My thoughts: After that REALLY long last post, you'll be glad to know that my thoughts this time will be much more succinct!

Once is described as an Irish folk-pop musical, and I can't think of a better way to describe it. It's a stage adaptation of the recent film of the same name. I had recently seen the film in preparation for seeing it live, and I wonder if that might not have been a mistake. The film is much quieter, slower, and more subtle. And while I realize it's necessary to present a stage show with a higher energy, I often wondered if it might have been a tad too much.

As I walked into the theater, there was pre-show music already being played on stage by members of the cast. Additionally, there was a bar onstage and members of the audience were wandering up there to get drinks. It was a clever way to establish the mood of the evening, if not a bit too rollicking to faithfully setup the mood of the piece as a whole. Indeed, the pre-show time blended seamlessly with the show opening. The house lights didn't fully dim until well into the first musical number.

The guiding principle for the show seems to be simplicity. The set never changed, the costumes never changed (at least not dramatically), the lighting was simple, the choreography (if you could even call it that - it was really more just arranged, slow movement) was simple. It was clearly a small production that made its way (perhaps unexpectedly) to Broadway. In fact, I often found myself wishing that I'd seen it when it was still Off-Broadway. The size of the Broadway theater costs us some of the intimacy that seems to have been built into the production - but that's not the fault of the actors or anyone else, it's simply a casualty of space.

A few of the changes between the live version and the film version stood out. Most notably (in an unpleasant way) was the repeated attempt at comedy. As I think I've said in a previous review - I'm generally unimpressed by attempts at comedy. Perhaps it's just because I don't find funny the kinds of things that most people seem to find funny. But regardless, the laugh lines usually felt like a stretch to me, and seemed contrived and unnecessary. A more positive change, however, was that the characters of Baruska (Girl's mother) and Da (Guy's father) were more developed in this version than in the film.

There were really no standout performers - even the stars seemed to function more as leading members of the ensemble than as stars - with the possible exception of Will Connolly in the role of Andrej. He had a very brief solo singing moment, that I prayed would go on and on. Sadly, it didn't, but I hope to hear more from him soon!

In general, the show is very song-driven and not particularly plot-driven. The reason to see the show is for the music, and that is certainly reason enough! Reflecting as I was walking out of the theater, I realized that it's not that I didn't enjoy the show, it was just that it didn't make me feel. There was lots of great music, but I never found myself lost in the world of the show.

Closing arguments:

Would I see it again? I probably wouldn't go out of my way to see it again, but sure... With the right company... Why not? I will, however, LOVE listening to the cast recording again and again.
Would I recommend it to others? If so, who? Perhaps. I think my brother would enjoy it. Perhaps a few other select friends and family. But it's really not for everyone.
Twitter review: Why not?! It's a Broadway show unlike almost any other. Check it out. You'll have seen something unique.

Post-script: I debated about whether or not to include this, because it really isn't about the show itself, but more about the experience of the show. The ushers were repeatedly distracting throughout the show. I was seated near the entrance to the box seating area, and one usher kept walking in and out of the curtain, exposing the bright lights of the hallway to all of us in the area. Another usher reprimanded an audience member for using electronics at full-voice when the show was fully underway. Another, still, stood near the end of my row - just feet from me - coughing through most of the second act. I've chosen to mention this complaint because: 1) it was multiple ushers causing multiple disturbances, and 2) because it wasn't just disturbing me - I overheard some nearby seatmates discussing the same distraction at intermission. I'll be writing to the management of the Jacobs Theatre to complain about the experience. It's one thing to be distracted by another member of the audience - perhaps one who isn't very savvy about etiquette in the theater - but the ushers should know better.

FCS: Jesus Christ Superstar

2012-03-29T01:23:00.000-04:00

Quick facts:

Show: Jesus Christ Superstar
Broadway Revival
Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Closing date: open-ended
Venue: Neil Simon Theater
Running time: 1:55 (one intermission)
My seat: Good. Orchestra, stage left, under the lip of the balcony, but not enough to obstruct the view
Ticket source: TDF
Understudies: Jeremy Kushnier in the role of Judas; Matt Stokes in the role of Priest (usually played by Jeremy Kushnier)

Know someone working the show? No.

Synopsis: The story of the last week in the life of Jesus, and his time with his followers and his adversaries - told as only Andrew Lloyd Webber could!

My thoughts: Remember in my first post how I talked about how much I value creativity in everything, but particularly in the theater? Well, it pains me to say it, because I really do love Jesus Christ Superstar, and I was genuinely excited to see this production, but the production lacked in genuine creativity. Overall, it seemed like an attempt to make the film version from 2000 into a new live theater production. It had the same general set design, lighting palette, and costume styles.

Choreography by Lisa Shriver was by far the worst part of the show. When it didn't look like untrained, amateur (and goofy) liturgical dance, it reminded me of the show choir choreography that I was doing in high school in the mid '90s. While the choreography we did then was fine for high school show choir, for a Broadway production in 2012 it was simply stale and silly.

The costume design by Paul Tazewell (and in general, the character portrayal) was a mixed bag. Interestingly, the disciples' costumes seemed to have been inspired by the recent Occupy Wall Street movement - or at least a kind of "Romanized" version of them. This lent a tone of much-needed relevance to the production. The priests were in boring, Matrix-esque costumes, exactly like the 2000 film version of the show. The Roman soldiers, strangely, seemed to have come to the stage directly from a leather fetish night club. Jesus looked like a dirty Warner Sallman Head of Christ brought to life. One really interesting aspect of the costume design was the use of the color blue to set Judas' character apart from the other members of the production. If the production as a whole had been clever at all, I might have considered that it was meant to represent an allusion to Mary, the mother of Christ - as if to suggest a role for Judas birthing a new reality in his role as betrayer. It might have been an interesting choice. But the general lack of creativity elsewhere in the production leaves me skeptical about that being a conscious thought on the part of anyone in the creative team. But who knows?!

What I would have called Projection Design, the Playbill lists as Video Design by Sean Nieuwenhuis. Perhaps one of my learned readers and friends can help explain the difference to me - though it certainly seemed mostly projected to me. Regardless, regarding the video design: one general criticism that might be made of Jesus Christ Superstar as a whole might be that it can be a little too literal in its treatment of the story of Jesus - particularly when its literalism isn't founded entirely on the biblical account. The heavily text-centered projections make the show even more overtly literal than it might have been otherwise. It goes so far as to assign days of the week - and even hours of the day! - to various scenes within the show. Live theater is not - and should not attempt to be - a documentary! Most of the projected words (days of the week, times of day, site locations, etc.) would have been better left out altogether. These things could have been more effectively conveyed through lighting, set changes, and a little reliance on popular understandings of the story of Jesus. I know my level of education and understanding doesn't reflect that of the general population, but still. Most people at least know some of it. And if they don't, let the artistry of the theater convey it. Writing it on the wall is just lazy.

Projections were also employed to expand on the cast a certain points. For example - in the Palm Sunday scene, white silhouettes of people waving palm branches helped to expand the limitations of the cast and convey a sense of a larger crowd. It was good story-telling, but it did become quickly overused. The silhouetted figures were used in several scenes throughout the show, and at various times took on multiple, bright colors. After a while, I found myself thinking I was looking at an Apple iPod commercial from a few years ago.

The most serious problem that I had in the production was in the temple scene - when Jesus overturns the tables of the money changers. The story is about money changers - NOT SEXUAL IMMORALITY! There were scantily clad men and women on stairs on opposite sides of the stage, attempting to dance suggestively throughout the song. It was an unnecessary, unhelpful, and frankly offensive editorial change that attempted to impose Victorian-era values on an entirely different problem of the first century. Furthermore, the problem of greed is still very real and relevant! Why not use the scene to speak to that? It was a lost opportunity, and the creative team should be ashamed for letting it slip by, and for trying to change the story as they did.

My favorite song in the show, "Could We Start Again Please", was nearly ruined through two serious flaws: first, the disappointing vocal style of Chilina Kennedy in the role of Mary Magdalene. This is one of the most important roles in the show, and Kennedy seemed not up to the task at this performance. The second set-back in the song was the lighting design by Howell Binkley. Several spot lights shone on Jesus downstage center, and the rest of the stage remained fully lit as well. It was too bright. It didn't allow space for reflection - the whole point of the song. The scene should have shifted dramatically through this thought of a song. Instead, it seemed to remain as a kind of midday aside.

My last area of serious criticism is in the Herod scene. It was silly. And not in a creative, playful way, but in an "it's been done exactly that way a dozen times before" way. Moreover, Herod, played by Bruce Dow, was a vocally weak member of the cast.

Lest I be accused of hating the production entirely, let me move on to some of the bright spots of the production. The brightest of them all was Jeremy Kushnier in the role of Judas. Wow. Though an understudy, he was talented, spot on in his performance, meticulous, and passionate. I could listen to him sing all night, and I will look for opportunities to see him perform again! In this production (or at least this performance) it's fascinating to have seen Judas arise as the real star of the show. And clearly I wasn't the only one to think so - the applause roared the most, loudest, and longest for Mr. Kushnier - more so than even for Paul Nolan (in the role of Jesus).

Another bright spot was Mike Nadajewski in the role of Peter. Though I didn't get to hear him sing much, he sang beautifully, and I longed for more. Similarly was Tom Hewitt in the role of Pontius Pilate. He had a commanding voice, fitting to his role, and was a delight to hear.

The scene around Judas' death was on the verge of clever. As his guilt overcomes him, he climbs up a ladder out of the audience's view. Then, moments later, as his song ends, we hear the loud thud of his death and the thirty pieces of silver fall from out of sight above center stage. If the scene had ended here, the effect would have been made. Instead, a dummy falls hanging above center stage with his legs dangling. It would have been sufficient story telling without the dummy. With the dummy, it crossed the line to overkill. Literally.

The brightest spot of all, however, was the creative choice made by Des McAnuff (director) in the final scene, John 19:41. The scene is simply orchestration. Time. The crucifixion has happened, and it's up to the director to decide how to move on. It's been done in many ways, but McAnuff handled it with more subtlety and grace than I've ever seen or imagined it. *SPOILER ALERT* The text-heavy projections ALMOST (only almost, mind you) begin to pay off. As Jesus hangs dead on the cross, a biblical passage begins to scroll across a kind of Times Square-style news ticker ribbon that runs around the set. Then, projected elsewhere on the set, another passage scrolls. Then another, and another, and many more until a kind of visualized cacophony of the story of Jesus sprawls in every direction. Jesus is quietly and mysteriously lowered from the cross, the cast emerges from the darkness, and they all walk downstage in silence. By the time they've reached the edge, Jesus is clothed as just another person, and the show ends. It was beautiful and theologically sound. I was deeply moved.

While my general thoughts and reflections and responses have been pretty critical of this production, I do actually approach the show with the full understanding of how difficult it must be to mount a revival of a show that is so deeply embedded into the fabric of our popular culture. Because of that reality, standards for this show are incredibly high. The creative team must decide whether they prefer to approach the production in a new way, or to simply give the people what they expect and (at least think they) want. Of course, either approach runs the risk of garnering criticism. Sadly, this production seems to have opted for the safer, more expected approach. I, for one, find that uninspiring.

On the other hand, the story of Jesus and Andrew Lloyd Webber's and Tim Rice's writing all triumph in the end anyway. Despite the glaring problems of the production, I was still deeply moved. I still applauded hard at the end. And, while I can honestly say that I loved seeing this revival, and that it was an afternoon very well spent, all of that is in spite of some severe limitations on the part of the general design and perspective of the production as a whole.

Closing arguments:

Would I see it again? No. Once was enough.
Would I recommend it to others? If so, who? Eh... I don't know. Probably not. I'd direct people to the film version from 2000. It's cheaper, you can watch it again and again, and the performances are stronger.
Twitter review: You won't regret seeing it. You also won't regret missing it.

"Now, my soul is troubled..." Trayvon Martin and the message of Christ

2012-03-25T13:24:00.001-04:00

Lent 5B

FCS: Carrie

2012-03-17T16:02:00.001-04:00

Quick facts:

Show: Carrie
Off-Broadway
Date: Friday, March 16, 2012
Time: 8:00 p.m.
Closing date: April 22, 2012 **update - due to lagging ticket sales, the extension has been cancelled. The closing date is now April 8, 2012 - so see it soon!**
Venue: Lucille Lortel Theater
Running time: 2 hours (one intermission)
My seat: last row, center. A true "cheap seats" experience.
Ticket source: TDF
Understudies: Anne Tolpegin in the role of Margaret White, Jake Boyd in the role of George

Know someone working the show? No.

Synopsis: The latest musical retelling of the 1976 Stephen King horror film of the same name. Carrie is an outcast of a high school student who discovers her special powers and uses them to exact revenge on her persecutors the night of the prom.

My thoughts: Carrie is something of a legend in the theater world. The lavishly expensive original production in 1988 was officially open only three nights. It wasn't for lack of sales - the show sold out - but it was for the embarrassment lumped upon the production team. The curtain calls each night were mixed with cheers and boos.

Obviously, I never saw that original production, but I wasn't going to let this latest (and, to date, only)
revival slip by. But I understand that some major revisions were made to the show from the last time it was produced.

Even so, it's hard for me to imagine why it was met with such scorn those years ago. Part of me wonders if it typifies the "ahead of its time" designation.

Carrie is a brilliant show - and despite being a revival, and based on a 36 year old movie, it remains incredibly timely.

Earlier in the day, while making a pastoral visit, I was sitting in a hospital waiting room and watching the guilty verdicts being announced for Dharun Ravi - the former Rutgers University student who gained national attention in his bullying episode that led to the suicide of Tyler Clementi. Clementi had been harassed and publicly humiliated for being gay. As a gay man who survived occasional harassment and bullying in high school, I found myself strangely compassionate toward Carrie. I understood a measure of the pain her character must have felt.

Moreover, we're constantly hearing about the latest "war on women" in our national political life. Carrie was raised in a hyper-conservative, self-loathing household based on skewed Christian ethics and ideals. Her mother begged her to pray for her "sinful" status as a woman. Her life was characterized as a shameful (and shame-filled) iteration of the "curse of Eve". She was taught that her existence was loathsome and worthy of shame.

So while I understand that the word "Carrie" has become something of a laugh-line - both in the theater world and in wider popular culture as a result of the film - the message today is important. Our social policies and thinking and teaching have consequences. Hateful thinking leads to tragedy. Though it's expressed in supernatural hyperbole in the story of Carrie, the real-life tragedies that grow out of dehumanizing hate remain very real.

The production itself was stellar. The music is engaging and "hummable". Though it's not often the case in off-Broadway productions, I do hope a cast recording is produced. There isn't an official cast recording of the 1988 production (only bootlegs exist), but this production is very different anyway.

Throughout most of the show, Sven Ortel's projection designs were characteristically subtle and effective. They delicately told the story and nearly went unnoticed throughout the show. The only major exception to this would be in the final scene when projections were relied on quite heavily to execute the carnage of the prom. But even in that scene, it was executed only as much as was needed - not overdone at all. My only criticism would be in a scene where the "cool" high school students are gathered - presumably in one of their bedrooms. Ortel was attempting to build a high school student's bedroom, and chose to project a collage of posters as might be found in a teenager's room. For some reason, this collage approach seems to be popular in the world of projection design. It was used in the "beauty shop" scene of Bonnie & Clyde, and was similarly ineffective there. It actually comes across as sort of lazy - which Mr. Ortel clearly is not! Aside from that scene, however, his work was as refined as I've come to expect.

Lighting design, by Kevin Adams, was excellent. There was consistently clever use of color. He carried us through the pastels of the surface of high school life, while always reminding us of the darker and sharper underbelly that waits around every corner. Particularly effective was his use of silhouette and side lighting in a few scenes. Adams clearly understood the story in a deep way and shared that understanding with each of us through his work.

Another bright spot in the production was the choreography by Matt Williams. It was angular and kind of an urban vogue style. It really fit (and helped to establish) the point of view for the production as a whole.

The standout performer was clearly Molly Ranson in the role of Carrie White. She was magnificent! As an actor, she brilliantly portrayed Carrie's shy, tormented, and beaten-down personality - but tinged with a secret - a power - that would only later be revealed. As a singer, she was strong and beautiful. Throughout the performance I repeatedly found myself thinking that I was seeing something like audiences must have seen when witnessing the young, emerging talent of Sutton Foster.

Mark my words, friends, Molly Ranson is one to watch!

Closing arguments:

Would I see it again? ABSOLUTELY! Let's go!
Would I recommend it to others? If so, who? Definitely. And I have. And I will again. With the right mindset, I think Carrie can (and should) have a wider audience than one might go into it expecting. See my opening paragraph's above... I think this show is important.
Twitter review: Go! Get there now! Fortunately, the run has been extended, so there's a little time, but not a lot. Go see it!

FCS: Days of Wine and Roses

2012-03-16T01:02:00.002-04:00

Quick facts:

Show: Days of Wine and Roses
Regional Theater
Date: Thursday, March 15, 2012
Time: 8:00 p.m.
Closing date: March 25, 2012
Venue: The Schoolhouse Theater
Running time: ~1:50 (one intermission)
My seat: good - general admission, small house
Ticket source: TDF
Understudies: None

Know someone working the show? Yes. My friend Shawn E. Boyle was the projection designer for the show. Shawn had shown me some early projection concepts for the show and told me that he was getting into the show - so that's why I went to see it.

Synopsis: It's the tragic love story of two alcoholics. One who struggles through recovery - one who refuses.

My thoughts: It was an intense and emotional show. So much so that I kept finding myself having to consciously work through the feelings that I was having. In the small venue, the huge emotions shared by the principle actors seemed to spill out and fill up every corner of the room we shared. It was often uncomfortable. Which, I would say, is a sign of success. The story is difficult and uncomfortable. I found myself thinking, from time to time, how difficult it must be for an actor to "play drunk". And it must be all the more difficult in an intense drama such as this. An actor might perilously slip into slapstick comedy in acting these parts, but Rich Orlow and Quinn Cassavale (in the leading roles of Joe and Kirsten Clay) masterfully handle this challenge maintaining the rich spectrum of emotions through which their characters lead us.

Weak moments in the performance were hard to find, but not entirely absent.

Early in Act I there were a couple of slow sound cues. It dragged the pace a bit and stood out - most notably when a single actor was clapping on stage, waiting for the chorus of other clappers to come in through a recorded track. We all thought they may never come! But fortunately these cues seemed to be hit a bit more on target as the show continued.

The lighting, while generally acceptable, did have one very peculiar element. The sides of the set were each lined with three tall columns. Two columns on either side were outlined in blue lights that were used intermittently in various scenes. These lights were entirely unnecessary and often distracting. When in use, they were entirely too bright and pulled the eye away from the action in the center of the stage. Also, they tended to occasionally flicker and slightly buzz when they were on, and always flickered distractingly when being turned on and off. While they made sense in one scene in Act I when they were first used - at a party (or bar, perhaps?), their use never really seemed to make sense again. It was if they were employed to justify the expense of having them.

The rest of the set, designed by Jason Bolen, was one of the highlights of the production. Despite the confines of a small space, Mr. Bolen made use of multiple levels and three scrim panels to give dimension, flexibility, and variety to the set. While it was a simple concept, it was, in itself, engaging and made space for elaborate staging and story-telling. The three scrim panels allowed for occasional staging behind them - giving greater dimension to the various characters and perspectives represented in the story, but also provided a surface for projections - another of the highlights of the production.

While I know the projection designer, and have admired his work for a while now, I feel at least partially unbiased in recognizing that this was among his strongest achievements that I've seen. The projections helped to add texture and character to the story without becoming the focus (even though I probably focused on them too much because of my friend...). There were occasional animations and videos, but always tasteful and reserved - never pulling us away from the action, but always drawing us deeper into it. A few elements that stood out for me particularly: first: the brick and plaster work in the AA meeting. Perhaps it's because the set had so caught my eye as I was sitting in the house waiting for the show to begin, but it was nearly magical the way these panels seemed to transform into something more. Similarly, in a later scene at the home of Kirsten's father, the panels became papered in an elegant damask with sconces on the side walls. The texture and the change was captivating. As the scene at the house progressed, Joe and Kirsten fell off the wagon, and the walls and the sconces shifted to an angle and took on a bluish tinge from their goldenrod original. Admittedly, when I first saw this happening, I wondered if it might be overkill, but it made more sense as the scene progressed. Kirsten, by this point drunk, interacted with her sober father. Over her father, the sconce and damask remained in their original color and form, but over the inebriated Kirsten, the tilt and blue prevailed. So the projections helped to tell the story. Another point that seemed clever was in the same scene - Joe was out looking for another bottle of alcohol that he'd hidden. He was walking outside under the light of the moon ringed in clouds. As he stumbled into his father-in-law's greenhouse, the moon and clouds remained in view, but through the framework of the greenhouse. Clever! The final projections aspect that I will mention - though there were many more! - is one that I don't know that I can entirely articulate, but appreciated nonetheless. As part of the Clay family's descent, they had to move into a cheaper - presumably poorly appointed and dingy apartment. Part of how Mr. Boyle conveyed this was through the black and white image looking down the shaft of an old, winding staircase. I noticed, however, that as Joe moved into sobriety, the black and white image became a kind of sepia - clearly brighter and with more dimension, but still the same underlying reality as before. It shifted again, however, when his wife, still bounded by alcoholism, returns to the apartment. The sepia faded into its original black and white. I wouldn't presume to speak for the designer, but this subtle shift did underline, for me, the emotional shifts within the scene.

Closing arguments:

Would I see it again? No. It was a moving production, but it was almost too hard to watch. I'm glad to have seen it, but once was enough.
Would I recommend it to others? If so, who? Sure. Just don't go expecting a pick-me-up night of light theater. You'll be disappointed. But it is a nice, easy drive up out of the city. Why not have a little one-night adventure?!
Twitter review: A rich, beautiful, and highly emotionally evocative production in almost every aspect.

Shifting perspectives

2012-02-26T14:34:00.000-05:00

First Sunday in Lent, year B
Mark 1:9-15

See - it's not just a Broadway blog now - I still preach :)

FCS: Prima Donna

2012-02-24T00:41:00.004-05:00

Quick facts:

Show: Rufus Wainwright's Prima Donna
U.S. Premier Opera
Date: Thursday, February 23, 2012
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Closing date: February 25, 2012
Venue: Brooklyn Academy of Music, Howard Gilman Opera House
Running time: 2:25 (one intermission)
My seat: awesome!
Ticket source: Discount tickets available to the general public through a gift of the Peter Jay Sharp Foundation
Understudies: None

Know someone working the show? No.

Synopsis: Imagine a sequel to The Phantom of the Opera -- something AFTER Love Never Dies -- so far after that Christine Daae has somehow become Norma Desmond (Sunset Boulevard) - a has-been opera star planning a "return". Got the picture? Then you've got the whole story line to Prima Donna.

My thoughts: Part of how that synopsis came to me was, I kept swearing I was hearing Andrew Lloyd Webber in the score - far more than I could hear what I recognized as Rufus Wainwright.

While I admitted in my introductory post that I'm boldly stepping out on this journey with the full knowledge that what I don't know about the theater far eclipses what I do know, I should admit upfront in this post that I know even less about opera. Even so, some thoughts and observations emerged.

Throughout the show time seemed to pass very quickly. It had been a long time since I'd seen an opera, so I feared that I'd be bored. It's been a bit of a busy week, so I was even a little nervous that I might fall asleep. As I mentioned above, my seats were incredible! I was in the second row on the center aisle. It couldn't have been better! But falling asleep would have been pretty embarrassing! Fortunately, that was never even a temptation.

The first act opened with a beautiful and delicate overture that slowly dawned into something more. During most of the first act, however, my attention seemed mostly focused on technical aspects of the show. Most of the music was fine, but was not very engaging.

The set was peculiar. It could best be described as a kind of sheet metal damask. It was interesting in that it reflected different lights at different times in some interesting ways, but at times it was almost painful. Strike that. It was ACTUALLY painful. There were an ornate set of doors (stage left) that opened and closed periodically and were to be the main entrance to the main character's house. Furthermore, they were lit from the wings. Due to the reflective nature of the doors, each time they were moved there was an excruciatingly blinding light. It happened with such frequency that I learned to close my eyes throughout the show any time someone made their way toward them.

One of the things that I've learned about the theater over the last several months is that the theater and the stagecraft itself shouldn't be distracting from the performance. We shouldn't hear sets move. We shouldn't be thinking about the lights - that is, they should be designed to enhance the experience, not (generally, anyway) steal the show! Theater has the power to transport you to another world. Distractions can take all of that effort and render it dead. So one of the harshest criticisms that I could make of any aspect of any show would be that some aspect of the show was distracting - it kept me from immersing myself into the world that is being created for me.

Being blinded by the sets and lights is the perfect example of such a distraction.

Otherwise, the lighting was interesting. It was understated, to be sure, but occasionally a soft glow would emerge, reflected on the metallic walls of the apartment - as if the damask were a kind of mood ring sharing the aura of the apartment with audience. It was an interesting effect.

The opera was performed in French with English super titles. While I've studied French, and can hold my own, it was helpful to have them there. Throughout the first act I kept noticing that the projected words were wildly out of sync with the performance. As the show progressed, however, I relied less on the super titles, so the distraction waned.

The second act was much more enjoyable. The score grew increasingly creative, and several of the performers began to shine. Most notably among them was Kathryn Guthrie Demos in the role of Marie. Her first aria in the second act blew me away. For the first time in the show, I really began to see what she was capable of - and it is quite a lot!

The other performance that really blossomed in the second act was that of Taylor Stayton, the young tenor in the role of Andre Le Tourneur. Le Tourneur is a journalist who has come to interview Regine Saint Laurent in advance of her return to the stage. He also happens to be a great fan. He also happens to remind her of the man she played opposite in her last (and next) role. In the second act she listens to the recording of that final performance and is transported back into it. Her apartment becomes the set of that last great performance and Stayton's character emerges as the king to her queen. It's in this context - the opera within an opera - when Stayton shows his true vocal brilliance. I found myself wishing the scene was the actual show!

As Saint Laurent's apartment became the set of the other opera, Prima Donna developed some much needed depth. From this point the music grew increasingly interesting and the characters each developed into something worth seeing.

Closing arguments:

Would I see it again? Yes. It's the kind of music that typically works best as you get to know it. I'd like to give it that chance.
Would I recommend it to others? If so, who? Probably. Even though it's new, and by a somewhat popular singer-songwriter, opera still isn't for everyone.
Twitter review: Better than you might expect from a B-list pop star turned opera composer, but still sometimes a little uninteresting. If Rufus Wainwright continues on this line, I'd be very interested in seeing how his work grows.

FCS: Silence! The Musical

2012-02-23T01:45:00.000-05:00

Welcome to my first attempt at a theater review from an outsider's perspective!

Quick facts:

Show: Silence! The Musical
Off-Broadway
Date of performance: Monday, February 20, 2012
Time: 8:00 p.m.
Closing date: open-ended
Venue: P.S. 122 (in the East Village)
Running time: 90 minutes (no intermission)
My seat: awesome!
Ticket source: TDF
Understudies: Jan Javier in for Ashlee Dupre, Pamela Bob in for Deidre Goodwin

Know someone working the show? Kind of... Brian J. Nash is the musical director and orchestrator of the show, and we've recently met and have been getting to know each other a little. He's a really nice guy! I basically sent him "fan mail" after being WOWED! by his talent at the Duplex Cabaret Theatre, and he actually responded! But I don't actually know him well enough to seriously influence my opinion of the show.

Synopsis: Silence! The Musical is... wait for it... The unauthorized musical parody of Silence of the Lambs! Sometimes it's just great living in the New York area....

My thoughts: Well, I don't usually like comedies. Basically, I'm kind of a nerd, and I don't tend to find things funny that most people tend to find funny. But MY LORD, was this funny?!! The music wasn't life changing, or the kind of thing I found myself walking away humming, but I didn't get the impression that the music was really the point. It's a spoof. Even so, I bought the cast recording and look forward to listening to more! If you know and love the story of Silence of the Lambs, you'll enjoy poking a little fun at it.

Jenn Harris in the role of Clarice Starling was absolutely brilliant. She is like a living caricature of Jodie Foster. Furthermore, she's a genius of comic timing, and she controls her face like it was Silly Putty... Similarly, Annie Funke gave a standout performance in the role of Catherine Martin. The unexpected star of the show, however, was Topher Nuccio (Sgt. Pembry). This man is truly a star. This is his off-Broadway debut, but I'd look for more from him soon. He has a commanding stage presence - it's hard to take your eyes off of him, but with talent like his, why would you want to?! Set up your Google alerts now, because this guy's gonna do some cool work!

If you haven't been to P.S. 122 before - seek it out! It's a former Public School (that's what P.S. means, to you folks outside of the New York area - at least this is the only place I'VE ever seen it...), but it's become a Performance Space. Neat! They got to keep the P.S.! This was my first show to see there, but it was a perfect setting for going into the Silence of the Lambs story. The building is old, and creaky, and has been modified within an inch of its life - so walking in I felt like I was walking into Buffalo Bill's basement.

The theater itself is very small, so it's hard to imagine that there would be any really bad seats in the house, but my seats happened to be incredible! It happens every now and then, even with TDF! I was in the center section, on the fourth row, on an aisle. It couldn't have gotten much better than that!

Well... Actually it could have... Theaters are known for having VERY uncomfortable seats, and the dear people at P.S. 122 seem to have stretched the bounds of even that unpleasant reputation. These were just standard issue banquet chairs, crammed together as close as possible. On my row there were several full grown adult men side-by-side - each of us with broad shoulders. By the time the shoulders lined up down to me on the aisle, I was practically falling out of my seat. It was very uncomfortable, and often distracting throughout the show.

But on a bright spot, there was a bar with good beer, and we were actively encouraged to buy extra drinks and bring them into the house (not wanting to be a bad guest, I complied...). Of course, the down side of that is, there's no intermission, and with the layout of the house, you can't really "slip out" for a break... So there was another bit of a distraction by the time we got good and into the show.

There's lots of great merchandise for sale in the hallway that functions as a lobby. Normally I wouldn't mention this, except the lady staffing the table was really quite friendly and wonderful. When you do see the show, be sure and say hello! You won't regret it!

Since my "nearly friend" Brian J. Nash was on the keyboard, I do have to say a word about him. He's truly brilliant on the keys. You've got to see him play sometime. Obviously, the pit was out of sight, so I didn't get to see him work, and, as I would expect is true in most musical theater accompanying, there's not a lot of room for variation and creativity from performance to performance - you don't want to trip up the folks on stage! So I didn't have much of a chance to hear Brian work his magic as I've come to appreciate it -- with one very notable exception! During the music that was being played as we were walking out, I could definitely hear Brian on the keys. Even though he was out of sight, I could tell it was him. He was playing. And not just in the "playing the piano" sort of way, but he was being playful. It was great. If my couple of beers hadn't had me rushing out the door, I would have loved to have just sat for that part to appreciate his talent!

Closing arguments:

Would I see it again? Probably not. It's really not much of a see it again and again show for me.
Would I recommend it to others? If so, who? DEFINITELY - you know, people who could take it.... People not easily offended. People with a little edge.
Twitter review: A really fun show! Laughed lots. Good music and amazing talent! Definitely worth your time!