Showing posts with label American musical. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American musical. Show all posts

03 April 2019

'Kiss Me, Kate'

by Kirk Woodward

[Longtime contributor to Rick On Theater Kirk Woodward feels much the same way about the classic musicals as I do.  I’ve copped to my inability to be critical of them many times on this blog, but in “A Broadway Baby” (posted on 22 September 2010), I spelled it out: “I can’t be very critical about those classic musicals—I love them too much from my childhood.  They’re like theatrical comfort food to me—I hardly see any faults.”  Kiss Me, Kate, the 1948 Cole Porter musical based on William Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew, was one of the classics with which I grew up, courtesy of my father’s original-cast recordings.  We used to listen to them all the time, particularly during dinner. 

[I’ve seen many productions of Shrew, but the only one whose report I published on ROT (on 21 November 2009) is one I saw at Staunton, Virginia’s “Shenandoah Shakespeare” in 2003.  (I saw another interesting take on the play in 2007 at the Shakespeare Theatre Company in Washington, D.C., and I have a report in my archives, but haven’t used it on the blog yet.  Maybe I will one day soon.)  I’ve only seen one stage production of Kiss Me, Kate, however.  Coincidentally, it was the National Tour of the 1999 Broadway revival Kirk mentions having missed to his regret.  I saw it in July 2001 at Washington’s John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, directed by Michael Blakemore with Rex Smith (replacing Brian Stokes Mitchell) as Fred Graham/Petruchio and Rebecca York (in for the late Marin Mazzie) as Lilli Vanessi/Katharine.  The interesting thing with respect to Kirk’s report below is that, except for playwright John Guare’s “only two noticeable alterations,” producer Roger Berlind kept to Sam and Bella Spewack’s original Tony-winning book.  (“Why fix what ain’t broke?” asked director Blakemore.  “Why can’t you behave?”)

[The Roundabout Theatre Company, as you’ll read, took a different tack.  I’ll let Kirk tell you about the current revival and you’ll see the dilemma the company and Kirk faced.  ~Rick]

I was excited when I heard that the Roundabout Theatre Company would be presenting a revival of the musical comedy Kiss Me, Kate beginning with previews on February 14, 2019, and opening March 14, 2019, for a limited run.

I grew up on the original cast album of Kiss Me, Kate on 78 RPM records, featuring Alfred Drake (1914-1992), Patricia Morrison (1915-2018), Harold Lang (1920-1985), and Lisa Kirk (1925-1990). I love the music of the show’s composer Cole Porter (1891-1964), both generally, and in particular in Kiss Me, Kate.

However, the only time I’ve seen the show was a production in London in the 1970’s that lacked the verve typical of a Broadway show that the original production (which opened on December 30, 1948, and ran for 1,077 performances) must have had. I also saw the unsatisfying 1953 movie, which begins with a “frame story” including a character named “Cole Porter,” who looks nothing like Cole Porter but does resemble the composer Irving Berlin (1888-1989).

For reasons I can’t understand, I missed the 1999 Broadway revival of the musical starring the magnificent Brian Stokes Mitchell (b. 1957), for which I have been kicking myself ever since. So as I said I looked forward to the Roundabout’s production with anticipation. I saw it at a preview performance on February 27, 2019.

Kiss Me, Kate is one of Broadway’s great success stories. Cole Porter’s career was at a low point in the late 1940s; he had written several undistinguished scores and a couple of outright flops, and according to a number of sources was generally considered “finished” in the business.

Most of the cast and production team for Kiss Me Kate were either new to their jobs or relatively unknown. According to George Eells’ biography of Cole Porter The Life That Late He Led (1967), it was extremely difficult to raise enough money to finance the show, which ended up with seventy-two backers, an extremely large number for that time.

Unexpectedly, the show required almost no rewriting during rehearsal, and no revisions in its out-of-town tryout in Philadelphia – an unheard of phenomenon up to that time and seldom heard of since. By the time the show reached Broadway, word was out that it was virtually perfect.

Porter was hailed for his greatest score, and the production won five Antoinette Perry Awards, popularly known as the Tonys, including Best Musical and Best Composer and Lyricist (Porter).

In Kiss Me, Kate a theater company is trying out a musical version of the play The Taming of a Shrew by William Shakespeare (1564-1616), and the strife between the leading director, producer, and actor in the play and his leading lady, also his divorced wife, mirror the strife between Shakespeare’s characters Petruchio and Katherine (Kate), the “shrew” of the Shakespearean title.

You have undoubtedly noticed the word “shrew” twice in the previous paragraph and perhaps you thought that it was inappropriate, or wondered how acceptable a word it is today, or some similar idea. If so, you are thinking along with the folks at the Roundabout, who, according to an article in the program by Olivia Clement, realized that

while the plot is alive with onstage romance, backstage passion, and a hilarious dash of Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew, moments in the show are still – and maybe a little uncomfortably – rooted in the era in which the show was written.

In this age of the # MeToo movement, “moments” may be an understatement. Both the “frame” story of the acting company, and Shakespeare’s play itself, present dominating males with strategies for “taming” the women they love that range from dubious to downright objectionable.

Did Shakespeare intend his protagonist, Petruchio, to be admired or loathed? Considering how many aspects Shakespeare can embody in one character, I am tempted to answer “both.”

And Shakespeare does frame his story, just as the musical frames its story: for a joke, a group of well-to-do people pick up an unconscious drunk on the street and, when he wakes up, attempts to convince him that he’s actually a Lord and has forgotten his prosperous past. The main story of The Taming of the Shrew is presented to this unfortunate for his entertainment.

I would say that Shakespeare’s frame story doesn’t help us a great deal in justifying the Punch-and-Judy violence and male presumption of his play-within-a-play. Of course we only have the words in the script, and no indication how those words were played – simply as knockabout farce, or with whatever degree of compassion?

The musical Kiss Me, Kate has the same kind of problem with its frame story. The protagonist, Fred Graham (played by Will Chase), is actually perhaps one of the less objectionable males in the story. Yes, he is a loud, domineering director and producer, and yes, he misleads his ex-wife romantically.

But his counterpart in the subplot, Bill Calhoun (played by Corbin Bleu) is a compulsive gambler who sleeps with everybody. Men in general are seen as motivated by sex (as flat-out stated in the number “Too Darn Hot”).

However, to tell the truth, Calhoun’s female counter part Lois Lane (played by Stephanie Styles) is equally problematic, apparently attaching herself to multiple men at one time, as long as they have money. And Petruchio does beat, mistreat, and “tame” Kate. A fine crew!

Amanda Green (b 1963), a composer and lyricist best known perhaps for the musical Hands on a Hardbody (which ran on Broadway in 2013), was brought in to tidy up the more controversial phrasings in the score. (The playwright John Guare made revisions in the script for the 1999 version. It should also be noted again that I saw the show in a preview performance, and that further changes may have been made since I saw it.)

Green alters one of the more blatantly sexual rhymes in the song “Brush Up Your Shakespeare,” and weaves around the line in “Bianca” that goes “You’d better answer ‘yes’ or papa spank-a!” However, she makes relatively few changes compared to those in the movie version (1953).

The most spectacular change in the lyrics comes at the end of the show. Both Shakespeare and Porter have Kate sing

            I am ashamed that women are so simple . . .

which in the current production becomes

            I am ashamed that people are so simple . . .

At this point I find myself wondering if I’m taking the whole thing too seriously – or if the Roundabout is. In any case, the temper of the times is generally unforgiving, and one does wonder why the Roundabout decided to present the show at this particular moment in history. Perhaps the decision was locked in before, say, Harvey Weinstein was forced to resign?

If I were directing Kiss Me, Kate today, I would be tempted to add one more frame story to the show, beginning with a scene (or voiceover) in which Fred Graham and Lilli Vanessi, his “Kate,” reminisce about  their earlier days in theater, when times were so different – thereby, perhaps, at least serving notice that the behavior shown in the play is not being endorsed.

And I would make the look of the show considerably more down-at-heel, and make it clear that the Shrew production at the core of the show isn’t really very good.

I believe that Porter suggests this in his lyrics – compare, for example, the performers’ genuine angst in the opening song of the frame story, “Another Opening, Another Show,” with the superficial repetition in the play-within-the-play’s “We Open In Venice,” or the wit of “Always True to You In My Fashion” with the blatant repetition of the word “dick” (which is actually over-emphasized in the current show) in the song “Tom, Dick, and Harry.”

Nevertheless, I suspect the Roundabout is typical in making the play-within-the-play look as good as the play around it. (The sets are designed by David Rockwell, and the costumes by Jeff Jahshie.)

Perhaps the changes I suggest would “distance” the more controversial elements of the show and make them more palatable. Perhaps not. Perhaps they wouldn’t be necessary! Reviews for the Roundabout production were largely positive; the website Show-Score.com reports only 3% negative reviews, for an average review score of 80.

I was particularly interested to see what Jesse Green of the New York Times thought of the show. He can be counted on to highlight the social issues of a show, and he does refer to “the elements of the original Kiss Me, Kate that rankle our sensibilities today – its gender stereotypes and wife-slapping argument for womanly submission.”

But he feels that “the authors’ take on marriage is more complex and insightful than we may recall,” and he feels that “a few changes in emphasis and one major revision [which I referred to above] allow us to enjoy it in a new light, as a two-way ‘taming,’ distorted not by malice but through the mocking filter of farce,” and he refers to the revisions as a whole as “completely successful.”

Green does suggest that the inventiveness of the production begins to flag in the later part of the second act, and I agree, though for different reasons. He feels the choreography loses its inventiveness; it seems to me in particular that the song “From This Moment On” (first added in the movie version) stops the story (although the brilliant arranger, Larry Hochman, embeds a wonderful musical joke in it), and for some reason, at least when I saw the show, the song “Brush Up Your Shakespeare,” which ordinarily stops the show in two senses, fell flat.

The Roundabout’s production of Kiss Me, Kate reminds me that the classic musicals of the ’30s, ’40s, and ’50s, despite their appeal, are not “easy” to stage. They are greatly a product of their times, and the times have moved on. I believe the effort to stage one successfully today is often likely to be just that – an effort – but when (for example) it has at its heart a strong theatrical idea and a glorious Cole Porter score, we shouldn’t stop trying.

[I once interviewed for a directing gig for Shrew.  I had a devil of a time inventing a concept that would accommodate the noxious sexism of the play.  This was back in the ’70s or ’80s, long before the current #MeToo and #TimesUp movements, and I failed to come up with anything I could justify (or live with).  Needless to say, I didn’t get the job.  (I think I tried to make Petruchio a Mafioso—but that only added another layer of negative stereotyping on top of the sexism and chauvinism!  Not only didn’t I get hired, but I couldn’t commit to the Mafia concept enough to convince myself it was a good idea.)]

23 February 2016

'Cabin in the Sky'



The history of African Americans on Broadway, especially before, say, 1975 or so, is skimpy.  Looking only at musicals, there were black characters in plays like 1927’s Show Boat (though in many shows, the roles were played by white actors in blackface because mixed-race casts were risky—and even prohibited in Jim Crow states).  All-black shows appeared as early as 1898 with Clorindy, a series of scenes and sketches by black poet and lyricist Paul Laurence Dunbar (1872-1906) and musician-composer Will Marion Cook (1869-1944), deemed the first Broadway musical with an African-American cast, followed in 1903 by In Dahomey starring Bert Williams (1874-1922) and George Walker (1873-1911), the first nationally prominent black comedy team, written by Williams and Walker in collaboration with Dunbar and Cook.  In 1921, Shuffle Along came into New York after a moderately successful tour—and became a smash hit with white audiences.  Written by vaudevillians Flournoy Miller (1887-1971) and Aubrey Lyles (1884?-1932) based on one of their music hall sketches, and scored by Eubie Blake (1883-1983; music) and Noble Sissle (1889-1975; lyrics), its story was simple and silly, but the music was glorious (spawning the hit “I’m Just Wild About Harry”) and Shuffle Along ran for 504 performances on Broadway (to integrated audiences) and then spawned multiple touring companies. (A revival of Shuffle Along with Brian Stokes Mitchell and Audra McDonald, directed by George C. Wolfe, who’s written a new libretto, and choreographed by Savion Glover, will open on Broadway in April 2016.)

Sissle and Blake went on to compose other Broadway musicals, none as momentous as Shuffle Along, and a short-lived trend of black musicals enlivened Broadway theater for a time.  Until Porgy and Bess hit the boards in 1935.  Set in Charleston, South Carolina, with a serious book and soaring score, Porgy and Bess, the Gershwins’ folk opera, was a ground-breaker, but there was little follow-up.  Despite its acclaim, Porgy and Bess only ran 124 performances in its début mounting, but it quickly became a perennial on Broadway (seven revivals through 2012) and spawned a 1959 award-winning film adaptation with a star-studded cast.  In this milieu arose Cabin in the Sky, a 1940 all-black musical with a book by Lynn Root, lyrics by John Latouche, and music by Vernon Duke.  It also had choreography by George Balanchine (who directed as well), assisted by Katherine Dunham, and a cast that included Dunham, Dooley Wilson (soon to be nationally recognized as Sam the piano-player at Rick’s Café Américain in Casablanca), Ethel Waters, and Todd Duncan (Porgy in Porgy and Bess).  The play ran 156 performances at the Martin Beck Theatre (now the Al Hirschfeld).  Cabin, however, has been described as a “simplistically drawn allegory” and a “succès d’estime,” and has never been revived on Broadway since its première.  (There was a 47-performance run Off-Broadway in 1964 with Rosetta LeNoire and a concert staging at New York City’s 14th Street YMHA presented by Musicals Tonight! in October 2003.)

I’d known of Cabin in the Sky by title for decades, but I’d never seen it or heard the score.  (It’s possible my father saw the play in his youth—he saw a lot of the classics growing up in New York City—but the cast album, if there even was one, wasn’t among those I inherited.)  Even though I was familiar with songs like “Taking a Chance on Love” and “Happiness is a Thing Called Joe” (which was added for the bowdlerized 1943 movie version), I was never aware they’d come from Cabin.  So when my theater friend Diana called to say that Encores! was presenting Cabin, I jumped at the chance to see it.  Perhaps not as historically prominent as Mark Blitzstein’s The Cradle Will Rock, which I saw in an Encores! Concert in 2013 (see my blog report on 1 August 2013), but it’s something I’d known about in a vague sense and wanted to check out.  So on Friday evening, 12 February, Diana and I met at City Center to see the Cabin concert, despite the bitter-cold temperatures (it was under 25ºF that night).  The Cabin in the Sky concert opened at City Center on 10 February and ran through the 14th.

Encores! artistic director Jack Viertel, who also made the concert adaptation of the book, calls Cabin “one of the most unusual black musical theater experiments” in American stage history.  The play began as a story, “Little Joe,” by playwright and screenwriter Lynn Root (1905-97) and passed through several hands before reaching choreographer George Balanchine (1904-83), who showed it to composer Vernon Duke (1903-69).  After reading the story, essentially a libretto without the music, Duke pronounced “Little Joe” “a workable book complete with song cues,” but he was reluctant to take it on because he felt his Russian heritage wasn’t a good fit for the story’s African-American setting.  So taken with Root’s story was Duke, however, that he relented and enlisted John Latouche (1914-56) to write the lyrics after the project was turned down by other composers such as Ira Gershwin, Yip Harburg (who would later write new songs with Harold Arlen for the film score), and Johnny Mercer. 

Duke, Latouche, and set designer Boris Aronson went south to Virginia, Latouche’s home state, to get a feel for the play’s milieu.  (The play’s setting is described only as “Somewhere in the South,” but there are hints in the script that Root was thinking of Virginia; not the least suggestive is the song “My Old Virginia Home on the Nile.”)  Ultimately, the script and score were written and producer Albert Lewis convinced Balanchine to direct and choreograph the production.  (Cabin was Balanchine’s début as the director of an entire Broadway show.)  The creative team also brought in Katherine Dunham (1909-2006), to whom they also gave a lead role (Georgia Brown), and her company to create the dances.  The J. Rosamond Johnson gospel choir was added to sing traditional spirituals in the show to augment the original material. 

Coming on the heels of both Porgy and Bess and Marc Connelly’s The Green Pastures (on Broadway in revival at the same time as Porgy and Bess), the cast of Cabin’s première included Duncan, the original Porgy, as The Lawd’s General, and Rex Ingram, De Lawd in the 1936 film version of Green Pastures, as Lucifer, Jr. (The Head Man in the Encores! concert).  Ethel Waters agreed to star as Petunia Jackson, Little Joe’s wife, once the title had been changed from Little Joe to Cabin in the Sky.  Like Green Pastures, the musical had a biblical premise and featured gospel singing; like Porgy and Bess, it was set in the rural South. 

But the play was only a modest hit on stage, and the MGM film version was considerably altered, omitting most of the Duke-Latouche score (replaced with Harburg-Arlen numbers).  Little of the original staging has survived, reports Viertel—just the script, the piano score, the première’s program (as a guide to where some numbers went in the performance sequence), and four songs by Waters that were recorded with the show’s orchestra (to give a hint about the arrangements).  The original orchestrations are lost and so is Balanchine and Dunham’s choreography.  (The film version was directed by Vincente Minnelli and, though no choreographer was credited, Busby Berkeley is known to have assisted Minnelli and clearly “Hollywoodized” the dancing.) From these scant artifacts, Encores! had to reconstruct Cabin for performance.  Starting in 2014, under the guidance of Encores! musical director Rob Berman and arranger Jonathan Tunick (2014 winner of the Stephen Sondheim Award for contributions “to the works of legendary composer, Stephen Sondheim, and the canon of American theater”), the Encores! team reassembled the score, orchestrations, and dances as closely as they could to the 1940 production.  (In honor of Tunick’s recognition, I ran an old report on the 1976 première of Sondheim’s Pacific Overtures, which Tunick orchestrated, on ROT on 15 May 2014.)  Director Ruben Santiago-Hudson, an actor and director with a special gift for the works of August Wilson, co-edited the text, deciding what should stay and what should go, including sensitive racial references (he excised words like ‘pickaninny,’ for example) that in 2016 might disrupt the receptivity of the play. 

(That the play, like many other “African-American” scripts of its era—with the notable exception of Shuffle Along—was created by white men was a concern only glancingly noted by the current press.  Even the major contribution of Dunham, the only black artist on the creative team, went uncredited in the program, a common practice when it came to African-American collaborators.  Only Jesse Green of New York magazine made a point of this circumstance, calling the play “compromised.”  By today’s standards, the characters come close to racial caricatures, and so does the plot.  In addition, as Green pointed out, the musical’s set in “a mythical American South untroubled by racism or even much poverty,” as if those aspects of American life didn’t exist.  Of course, I don’t know what else, in addition to the word ‘pickaninny,’ Santiago-Hudson cut from the text, but it’s pretty certain that Cabin in the Sky was a product, however well-intentioned, of an America that practiced at the very least a subliminal racism, including on its mainstream stages.  Green also saw that the top-flight black performers in the Encores! Cabin being “available for this production says a lot about the conditions still governing the commercial theater.”  Nonetheless, as even Green acknowledged, seeing even “compromised” plays like this one—and Encores! has staged quite a few of them in its history—is a useful and worthwhile practice lest we forget that aspect of our theater history.  Furthermore, Green suggests, “the opportunity to keep black musical artists working, if even on thorny material like this, is not to be gainsaid.”)

The story of Cabin in the Sky is of chronic gambler and womanizer “Little Joe” Jackson (Michael Potts) who, having been slashed by Domino Johnson (Jonathan Kirkland) at John Henry’s club over an unpaid IOU, lies on his deathbed.  As Little Joe is attended by Dr. Jones (Wayne Pretlow) and Brother Green (J. D. Webster), the pastor, Joe’s wife, the devout Petunia Jackson (LaChanze), prays to God not to take her husband, whom she says is really a good man at heart.  She even promises that if God gives Joe back to her, she’ll gladly go with him when his final time comes.  On the scene is the Head Man (Chuck Cooper), Lucifer’s agent, perched on a gold throne, aided by three Henchmen (Dennis Stowe, Tiffany Mann, Rebecca L. Hargrove), expecting to pick up Little Joe’s soul.  Dr. Jones pronounces Joe dead, but Petunia’s prayers have reached Heaven and the Lord’s General (Norm Lewis) arrives on a silver throne with three Angels (Nicholas Ward, Kristolyn Lloyd, Jared Joseph).  The two supernatural figures argue over who should get Joe’s soul, and they strike a deal to give Little Joe six months to redeem himself by living a moral life.  

Joe rises from his bed, much to the surprise of everyone—and the delight of Petunia.  Joe intends to live a Godly life, but he’s sorely tempted.  He attends church with his wife and stays away from gambling and John Henry’s place—until a fellow comes around selling sweepstake tickets.  Joe refuses at first, but in the end, breaks down and buys just one ticket.  Meanwhile, he’s watched over by the ever-vigilant Petunia, who takes John Henry (Harvy Blanks) and his men on to “settle” a craps debt—by beating them at their own game with the loaded dice they tried to switch on her!  With Petunia keeping her eye on Little Joe on behalf of the Lord, he’s still stalked by Georgia Brown (Carly Hughes), a gold-digging vamp who learns that the sweepstake ticket Joe bought is a winner and, on the side of the Devil, tempts Joe to go off to live the high life with her.  

Petunia returns from an errand just at that moment and thinks that Joe has brought Georgia into her house to cheat on her.  Petunia never lets her husband explain how the woman came to be there and Petunia sends both of them packing.  They head to John Henry’s club, stopping on the way to acquire some sharp duds—Joe enters in black tie and a topper!  Who else should arrive at John Henry’s but Petunia herself, come to drown her disappointment in Joe.  Domino Johnson, who’s just been let out of jail for carving Joe up in the first place, shows up to finish the job.  Domino’s finished his sentence of six months—exactly the length of Little Joe’s reprieve.  When Domino makes for Joe, Petunia intercedes and pushes Domino away.  But the assailant turns, pulls out a pistol and shoots both Little Joe and Petunia.

No one doubts that Petunia’s bound for Heaven, but once again, the Lord’s General and the Head Man vie for Joe’s soul.  The Head Man expects to take him because he slipped, and the Lord’s General, reading from a ledger, seems to say that Joe’s tally comes out on the Devil’s side.  But there’s a flag on the play because Georgia Brown, the cause of Joe’s downfall, felt so bad about her part in Joe’s death (time has moved faster on Earth than in Heaven, so it’s many years later now), that she joined the church, opened a school for orphans and spent the rest of her life doing good.  Since that’s down to Little Joe, the Lord’s General explains, Joe’s soul is saved and he gets to accompany Petunia to Heaven.

I included a brief description of Encores! and its mission in my report on Frank Loesser’s The Most Happy Fella (10 April 2014).  The series’ home since it’s inception in 1994, New York City Center at 131 W. 55th Street (between 6th and 7th Avenues), was built in 1923 as the Mecca Temple of the Shriners.  Replacing a movie house on the site, the current building is in the Neo-Moorish style with myriad polychrome tiles both in the interior decor and on the exterior façade forming mosaics.  The tiled roof dome is 54 feet tall.  The association met at the temple until the stock market crash of 1929 made it impossible for the Mecca Shriners to pay the taxes on the building. 

In the 1940s, the building became the property of New York City and, threatened with demolition, it was converted in 1943 by Mayor Fiorello La Guardia into the city’s first performing arts center.  The main stage seats 2,257 patrons and on the lower level there are two smaller theaters which seat 299 and 150 spectators each; there are also four studios in the center. Today, New York City Center is home to a number of performing arts troupes such as the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, the Manhattan Theatre Club, the Flamenco Festival, and the Martha Graham Dance Company, among others.  (MTC occupies the two lower-level houses.)  Encores! Off-Center, a spin-off of Encores! that focuses on Off-Broadway shows, was launched at City Center in the summer of 2013 under the artistic directorship of composer Jeanine Tesori.  In 2000, the American Theatre Wing awarded Encores! a Tony for Excellence in Theatre. 

The show has the reputation of having a terrific score but a weak book, and that turns out to be accurate.  (In New York’s Daily News, Joe Dziemianowicz judged it: “Score, 10; book, 3 — or maybe 2 in this case.”)  That fact, however, makes it perfect material for a concert presentation, which dispenses with much of the libretto to focus on the score and the singing of the Broadway vets in the cast.  Certainly the characters are one-dimensional and unsophisticated, and the story, which seems to owe a little to Goethe’s Faust (a completion between God and Satan for  one man’s soul, a set period of time after which the man in question will lose his soul, and a sudden reprieve at the last moment which sends his soul to Heaven instead of Hell; see my recent post, “Faust Clones, Part 1,” 15 January 2016), is a bare-bones plot on which to hang the songs and dances, which have more to offer.  (I can only imagine the dances conceived by Balanchine, one of the great choreographers in ballet as well as on Broadway, and Dunham, a renowned dancer-chorographer of the mid-20th century, since there’s no record of what they looked like and the Encores! stage, largely occupied by the 31-piece orchestra, leaves little room for elaborate movement.)

Director Santiago-Hudson managed quite well on the cramped stage—made even more space-challenged by the two large thrones for the emissaries of God and Satan, accompanied by their minions, which were nearly always present at stage left and right.  (The next world’s agents weren’t just a decorative entourage: the two trios added marvelous harmony to their masters’ songs, like otherworldly Pips or Raylettes.)  Most of the story doesn’t require a lot of physical action—the bar scene in act two is an exception—and Santiago-Hudson kept the show moving without drawing attention to the space problem.  So did choreographer Camille A. Brown, who must have had a tougher job as the dances were generally quite energetic (Dziemianowicz called them “sinewy and spirited,” which is exactly right) and usually involved several members of the company up to the entire ensemble.  (The full cast for this presentation of Cabin was 46—probably another reason the show isn’t revived.)  

Santiago-Hudson clearly cast the best voices he could find—not to take anything away from the acting.  Some of the actors are already well known for their singing (LaChanze, a Tony-winner for the original production of The Color Purple), but all the featured cast were superb in the musical numbers and the chorus measured up equally.  I don’t like to single any one performer out here, but I must say that Chuck Cooper (Tony for The Life), as the Head Man, has a genuinely stirring baritone that resonates throughout the theater.  (We were in the middle of the mezzanine.)  Beyond that, all of the singers brought character and emotion to the songs that stood in excellently for the acting in the missing book scenes.  (For those who don’t know the Encores! process, the concerts are only rehearsed for eight days, plus one dress rehearsal.  The actors carry scripts for many of the book scenes.)  Needless to say, the standards like “Taking a Chance” and “Happiness” were joys to hear, especially so gorgeously rendered, but there were also nice surprises among the less-well-known pieces, like “Do What You Wanna Do,” sung by Cooper’s Head Man (a paean to . . . well, devilry) and Georgia Brown’s saucy “Honey in the Honeycomb,” vibrantly sung by Hughes (and which I urge someone to revive in a contemporary pop or rock style).

Between the simplistic book and the cuts for the concert presentation, the characters are pretty simple.   Nonetheless, the company gave them color and dimension beyond the mere words Root provided them.  This is down to Santiago-Hudson, too, of course—though given the short rehearsal schedule, the actors would have had to do a lot of (quick) work on their own.  Perhaps the hardest characters to fill out were the Head Man and the Lord’s General because they’re essentially allegorical figures with no back story.  Yet both Cooper and Norm Lewis (Tony nomination for The Gershwins’ Porgy and Bess) brought a sense of humor and a kind of frat house competitiveness to the parts that prevented them from being the stiffs they could have been.

Of course, one of the great pleasures of the Encores! concert performances of seldom-seen musicals is hearing the score played by a full orchestra, the way they were produced back in the day.  Broadway orchestras have been shrinking consistently for the past couple of decades so that it’s a rarity to hear ensembles of 28, 30, or more nowadays.  But Encores! regularly uses full-sized orchestras for its concerts: The Most Happy Fella had 38 musicians and Cabin had 31.  (Irma La Douce in May 2014 had just 10 instruments, but that was dictated by the nature of the show: the musical ensemble represented a café house band rather than a theater orchestra.  See my Irma report on 20 May 2014.)  Like the cast, the musicians are all Broadway pros and many have been playing the Encores! concerts for a while.  (They, too, only get a few rehearsals for each production, so they need to draw on all their skills and experience to hit their marks and pick up their cues, so to speak.)  Under the direction of Encores! musical director Rob Berman, the Cabin orchestra made Tunick’s arrangements of the Latouche-Duke score swell right from the overture.  (Overtures apparently have become almost passé—you don’t hear them much anymore—but I like them.  Not only does a musical’s overture give you a preview of what’s to come, musically speaking, but it sets the tone for the show before the curtain—another bygone theater element—goes up.  It also signals the start of the performance, the moment the real world morphs into the stage world, in a way that nothing else does—like the blinking lights in the lobby that tells us to go on into the auditorium.)

There’s a trade-off, of course.  The large orchestra is placed on the stage rather than in a pit, reducing the playing area the director and choreographer can use for the play’s action.  It also reduces the flexibility of the stage for the set design, which tends more to the practical than the pictorial at Encores! productions.  In Cabin, Anna Louizos created the environment with carefully selected pieces of furniture—Little Joe’s bed, the bar at John Henry’s, a bench in the Jackson’s back yard—and a projected backdrop, painted in a naïve, folk-art style, that helped set the scenes.  It was functional and allowed the maximum use of the stage space remaining after the orchestra platform upstage had been installed.  (Hand props are kept to a minimum, mostly because actors carrying scripts can’t manipulate objects very well.) 

Karen Perry’s costumes were simple, too, for the most part; only the Head Man and the Lord’s General had what you’d call flashy attire.  (The General was in a white outfit that looked like a cross between a naval uniform with epaulets and a silver sash, and an Elvis jump suit; the Head Man, wearing the coolest costume on the stage—the Devil, it seems, doesn’t only get the best lines, he gets the best duds—wore red—what else?—trousers and a red sequined jacket that sparkled in the stage lights.)  The women’s dresses came in all colors and the skirts swirled out when the actors danced like Marilyn Monroe’s in the famous Seven Year Itch photo.  The men’s outfits varied, but were generally less colorful—though the trousers came close to zoot suit pants.  The whole look was a kind of romanticized ’40s, like a Hollywood movie set in that era, but made in the ’50s or ’60s.

In the press, the response to the Encores! Cabin in the Sky was pretty even.  The Daily News’s Dziemianowicz, calling the show “a tuneful curiosity and a hit-and-miss labor of love,” characterized it this way: “Songs by Vernon Duke and John Latouche are mostly ear-ticklers, wrapped in newly restored arrangements that lend a juicy big-band bounce. Lynn Root’s book is an odd mix of faith, fable and fantasy.”  In amNew York,  Matt Windman, pronouncing the production not “so much a revival as it is a full-scale resuscitation,” described the plot as a “combination of romance, marital drama and religious trial.”  With Santiago-Hudson’s “focused direction” and Berman’s “characteristically excellent music direction,” Windman concluded that Cabin was “an admirable production of a dated, diffuse and difficult work.”  Elisabeth Vincentelli of the New York Post asserted that with the “brilliant” score, this Cabin in the Sky is “one of the best-sung, best-danced Encores! ever.” 

Newsday’s Linda Winer, dubbing Cabin “a naive period piece,” lamented, “Despite an A-list cast, the elaborate and loving direction and adaptation by Ruben Santiago-Hudson, and viscerally original choreography by Camille A. Brown, the production can’t shake off enough dated stereotypes to revitalize history.”  She blamed “a hokey old story” and “a jaunty, if hardly revelatory mix of jazz, showbiz and gospel.”  Winer praised the “wonderful” dancing, the “textural transparency” of the choral numbers, and Santiago-Hudson’s “elegant musical ear,” but found the acting “comic mugging.”  Noting that Vernon Duke founded the Society for Forgotten Music, the Newsday reviewer concluded, “‘Cabin in the Sky’ has been remembered, which, alas, is not the same as being rediscovered.”

In the New York Times, Christopher Isherwood dubbed Cabin in the Sky “musically vibrant, dramatically a dud” and reported, “The first act of Lynn Root’s book . . . contains virtually no action and glides by rather sluggishly, enlivened only by a couple of standout songs.”  The Timesman continued, “Things pick up, modestly, in the second act,” but demurs that “little of that life [of the original Broadway production] blooms anew on the City Center stage.”  He complained, “If I closed my eyes, I think I might have had a better time at ‘Cabin in the Sky’ . . ., since the singing throughout is so pleasurable.”  Despite the “suitably seductive” rendering of the score by the Encores! orchestra, Isherwood ended on a down note: “[B]y the time this sweet fable of a sinner redeemed, and then redeemed again, panted to its conclusion, I had long ceased to care whether the Devil or the Lord took home the big, or rather little, prize.”

Describing the story as “icky” and “very thin” in New York magazine, Jesse Green affirmed it’s “full of faux-naïve folkloric touches that give off a strong odor of condescension today.”  In a tone that even sounds a little angry, Green added, “The ending is happy if you are Christian enough to believe that getting to heaven is worth it even if it took a gunfight to get there, while dragging your blameless wife along.”  “Were this only a play,” the man from New York asserted, “no one would produce it now . . . .  As drama, it is so mild that cringeworthiness may be its strongest trait.”  It’s not a play, however, Green continued, “it’s a musical.”  “The score is flat-out lovely,” with “a clutch of” tunes with Duke’s “adventurous jazz harmonies.”  But the New York review-writer still isn’t fully satisfied: “And yet a show so problematic cannot ever be totally satisfying.”  He faulted Santiago-Hudson’s “very flat and visually cluttered” staging, which Green found “emotionally withdrawn as if slightly embarrassed.”  He had, however, words of high praise for both Hughes as Georgia Brown and Camille Brown’s choreography. 

The cyber press paralleled the print outlets.  On Theater Pizzazz, Brian Scott Lipton, warning that Cabin in the Sky is “the kind of early musical theater piece that, in less seasoned hands, could easily have come off as unpleasantly dated and too folksy by half,” but, “thanks to” a sterling creative and performing ensemble, “the result is delightful.”  This, despite the fact that “Lynn Root’s book is a bit silly and old-fashioned, and the characters are mostly two-dimensional” and “the show is written so lightly that the actual outcomes hardly matter.”  Still, said Lipton, “The score . . . does matter.”  After lauding the sets, costumes, and choreography, TP’s reviewer concluded, “Indeed, this is one ‘Cabin’ you’ll leave grudgingly, albeit with a smile on your face.”  On TheaterMania, Zachary Stewart described the Encores! production “lovingly re-created”: though the “characters are a little too cute for their own good,” Santiago-Hudson and co-adapter Viertel “keep the tone buoyant and airy, highlighting the craftsmanship of the score while acknowledging the ridiculousness of the book.  Nothing is too serious and everything is fair game for a laugh.”  He added, “Really, the wisp of a book is just an excuse for the song and dance.”  Though Stewart gave kudos to many of the performers, he declared, “LaChanze delivers the evening's only completely sincere performance. . . .  It’s only through her performance that the serious themes of life and death ever come to the fore in this mostly lighthearted romp.”  The TM writer found this satisfactory, since, he offered, “We don’t go to Encores! for gut-wrenching drama; we go to hear beautiful old Broadway scores brought back to life with a full onstage orchestra, and that’s exactly what we get here.” 

Matthew Murray of Talkin’ Broadway, averring of Cabin “that what’s truly on the table is the African-American spirit, and a unique culture that, in the pre-Civil Rights era, was particularly dashing, distinct, and dangerous,” adjudged that at City Center, “what should be searing is instead a snooze.”  Murray confirmed, “There’s no single point of failure, no one culprit at whom all the fingers should be pointed,” even acknowledging that under Santiago-Hudson’s direction, the production “is hardly poorly executed,” praising the “fanciful sets . . . and costumes” and “playful lighting.”  He went on to laud the actors, the score, and the musical performance, “But,” he laments, “there’s a shimmering, shivering ‘So what?’ quality about the proceedings that none of these 24-karat components can overcome.”  The TB blogger diagnosed “a listlessness at work that keeps sparks from igniting into flames” and asserted that “there’s little meat or spice to the” main plot line so that “it’s tough to rustle up desire to follow it to the end.”  Murray found Camille Brown’s dances “workmanlike and lacking in energy” and the actors “technically proficient but a bit short on house-flooding charisma.”  He concluded, given what was to come of musical theater post-Oklahoma!, that “Cabin in the Sky just doesn’t feel connected at all.”  BroadwayWorld’s Michael Dale declared, “Cabin in the Sky, though mildly dramatic, is more of a showcase for its stars than an attempt at serious musical theatre.  At Encores!, the stars come through divinely as do Vernon Duke’s sweet, sweet melodies.”

Barry Singer of the Huffington Post confessed that, like me, “I have long wondered about Cabin in the Sky”—though he had stronger and more personal reasons for his curiosity.  Unhappily, Singer found that “Cabin in the Sky at Encores! did not really settle anything for me”; he felt that the Duke-Latouche score “was not fully trusted” since it was “augmented . . with a surfeit of beautifully sung, authentic, black spirituals that went on far too long and only served to obscure Vernon Duke’s full Cabin in the Sky conception.”  Even Camille Brown’s choreography, “magnificent, to a degree,. . . went on with a frenzy and a sense of overkill that seemed to cry out: ‘Look at me! Not at this show, which we all find a little embarrassing.  Don't we. . . .”  In the end, Singer lamented, “Something about this piece seems destined to always tempt condescension in one form or another.”  Steven Suskin, on the same site a few days earlier, declared, “There’s ‘honey in the honeycomb’—and ‘jelly in the jelly-roll’ as well—at City Center this week with Cabin in the Sky,” especially noting that “the overall score itself turns out to be irrepressibly joyous.”  Echoing his colleague’s caveat about the “book trouble” of pre-Oklahoma! musicals, Suskin lauded Brown’s “vibrant choreography” and the “impeccable corps of dancers,” which, he asserted, “carries the evening, which I suppose we could describe as ‘heavenly.’”  Despite a “flimsy” plot, Suskin affirmed, “Cabin in the Sky is well worth a hearing, and Encores! has polished it into a honey of a show.” 

Like my experience at The Cradle Will Rock 2½ years ago, I’m glad to have finally seen a rendering of Cabin.  As I’ve confessed on ROT numerous times before, I have a fondness for the old musicals—it was how I was introduced to theater as a boy—and I’m also a student of theater history.  Seeing the Encores! presentation of Cabin has filled in a gap in my theater life.  Beyond that, however, it’s always a huge pleasure to see such immensely talented actors, singers, and dancers, as well as the work of their directors and choreographers, doing what they do best.  Even if Cabin is ultimately forgettable as a play, the performance is not.


16 October 2014

'A Gentleman’s Guide to Love & Murder'


My last show in the September Series was A Gentleman’s Guide To Love & Murder, the profoundly silly Tony-winner for Best Musical in 2014.  I took my mom to the Sunday matinee on 28 September at the Walter Kerr on West 48th Street.  Now, let me state right at the start that I approve of theater as pure entertainment.  I think making audiences feel good (or cry or feel scared, whatever) is a perfectly worthy theatrical goal.  Some of my fellow theater enthusiasts disparage plays that aspire to no more than that, but I laud them—and Gentleman’s Guide accomplishes its aim with delirious success.  I can’t say if it deserved the Tony (I don’t know what its competition was), but it definitely deserved the nomination.  It was immense fun!

A Gentleman’s Guide to Love & Murder, a co-production of the Hartford Stage and San Diego’s Old Globe Theatre, premièred in Hartford, Connecticut, from 12 October to 11 November 2012, under the direction of Darko Tresnjak, Hartford Stage’s artistic director, with Jefferson Mays in eight roles.  The musical then played in San Diego, California, from 8 March to 14 April 2013 with the same director and cast.  Gentleman’s Guide started previews on Broadway on 22 October 2013 and opened on 17 November with Tresnjak, making his Broadway début, continuing to direct and Jefferson Mays still in the lead.  The play won Tonys for Best Musical, Best Book of a Musical (Robert L. Freedman), Best Direction of a Musical (Tresnjak), Best Costume Design (Linda Cho); Drama Desk Awards for Outstanding Musical, Outstanding Book of a Musical (Freedman), Outstanding Lyrics (Steven Lutvak and Freedman), Outstanding Actor in a Musical (Mays), Outstanding Featured Actress in a Musical (Lauren Worsham), Outstanding Director of a Musical (Tresnjak), Outstanding Projection Design (Aaron Rhyne); Outer Critics Circle Awards for Outstanding Actor in a Musical (Mays), Outstanding Director of a Musical (Tresnjak); and the Drama League Award for Distinguished Production of a Musical.  (There were also many additional nominations for all these stage awards.  I saw Tresnjak’s staging of The Merchant of Venice at the Theatre for a New Audience in 2007 and posted that pre-ROT report on 28 February 2011.)

With book and lyrics by Robert L. Freedman and music and lyrics by Steven Lutvak, two relative newcomers to Broadway musicals, Gentleman’s Guide is drawn from on the 1907 novel Israel Rank: The Autobiography of a Criminal by Roy Horniman, the same source material as the 1949 British film Kind Hearts and Coronets, which starred Alec Guinness as eight doomed members of the D’Ascoyne family.  (In the musical, the family’s name is D’Ysquith—prophetically pronounced DIE-skwith.  In the film, one of the family is named Ascoyne D’Ascoyne; in the play, a family member is Asquith D’Ysquith.)  Neither the old flick nor the current musical play has a serious bone in its body—it’s all meant to be nothing but (ghastly) fun and inanity.  (I mean, who really minds watching an ambitious and ruthless young man dispatch a bunch of Colonel Blimp aristocrats, anyway.  Charles Isherwood called them “stuffed shirts or stuffed skirts” in the New York Times and they’re all made to seem self-centered, arrogant, and disdainful of the “lower orders”—there’s even a song in Gentleman’s Guide called “I Don’t Understand the Poor”!)

The plot, though essentially straightforward, is loaded with little details and side-trips, so I’ll just do a précis and assume most readers either know the story or have seen the Alec Guinness movie.  (If you haven’t, by all means, rent it—it’s a classic.  It was listed in Time magazine’s 100 greatest films in 2005 and the British Film Institute’s Top 100 British films.)  Let’s just say that in 1907, when destitute Montague Navarro, having just buried his beloved mother, learns that he’s actually a member of one of England’s most illustrious families, the D’Ysquiths, and is eighth in line to inherit the Earldom of Highhurst, he becomes intrigued.  And a little vengeful.  It seems that his mother, a cousin of the current earl, Lord Adalbert D’Ysquith, was disinherited and expelled from the family when she married for love instead of financial gain—“My father was Castilian.  And worse, a musician”!—and was forced to earn a living as a charwoman after her husband died when Monty was 7.  After finding proof of his status among his mother papers, he writes to Lord Asquith D’Ysquith, Sr., head of the family bank, requesting employment.  Asquith, Jr., responds dismissively and instructs Monty never to write to the family again, and the young pretender begins his campaign to claim his rightful place in the family.  

One by one, he arranges the demise of six of the seven D’Ysquiths between him and the Eighth Earl of Highhurst.  (Monty doesn’t actually kill any of them—he just sets up the circs.)  I won’t relate the ways Monty does in his relatives—it’s too much fun to see how he manages this and how Tresnjak, scenic designer Alexander Dodge, and projection designer Rhyne stage the deaths (but take particular note of the first demise for its visual cleverness and the second for Tresnjak’s preamble staging; I’ll say no more)—but I’ll tell you that Lord Adalbert finally succumbs (and wait till you get a load of his countess, Lady Eugenia, as played by Joanna Glushak!) and Monty becomes Lord Montague D’Ysquith Navarro (he never even knew he had a middle name before finding his birth certificate among his mother’s papers), Ninth Earl of Highhurst.  And lands in jail on a charge of murder.  (I won’t be specific about this, either.  Be forewarned, though, that the ending is a little different from that of the American release of Kind Hearts—and even differs some from the British ending—due to interference from the Breen Office and its Hollywood Production Code.  For more information on the Hays Code, you can refer to my article on that subject, posted on ROT on 7 July 2013.)  

Now, as I said, Gentleman’s Guide has no serious point or theme, so there’s little to discuss with respect to the play’s content.  I’ll even add that, as amusing as they are, Freedman’s book, Lutvak’s music, and their joint lyrics are nothing to write home about—or, for that matter, describe on a blog (though you’ll plotz when you hear “Better With a Man”!).  (The orchestrations are by Jonathan Tunick who earlier this year won the Stephen Sondheim Award.  I ran a tribute to Tunick on ROT on 15 May.)  They’re fine, reminiscent of British music hall, old-time musicals, or older-time operettas.  (Adalbert’s first number, “I Don’t Understand the Poor,” has definite resonances of Gilbert and Sullivan’s patter songs.  In another era, the role might have been played by Martyn Green, the master comedian and singer of the D’Oyly Carte Opera Company who played all those roles: Major-General Stanley in The Pirates of Penzance, Sir Joseph Porter, KCB, in H.M.S. Pinafore, Ko-Ko in The Mikado and more.)  I’m not well enough qualified in music or musical performance to criticize this part of the production cogently; all I can say is that the songs are fun and witty, and absolutely appropriate for the play’s style and period.  (They were also executed brilliantly, as I’ll note again in a bit.)

What makes Gentleman’s Guide such wonderful theater and so much fun over two hours and twenty minutes (including one intermission) is the staging, which is clever and delightful from start to finish.  It’s all little stage gimmicks, most of which are as old as the hills, but applied with such a light touch and such glee and panache that they seem . . . well, not fresh, but well-scrubbed and repainted.  To start with, inside the regular proscenium opening of the Walter Kerr (which dates to 1921, not too long after the play’s set) is a smaller proscenium with its own blood-red velvet drape and elaborately decorated arch (including a pair of busts that . . . ummm, figure amusingly in the proceedings—oh, and keep an eye on the family portraits hanging in Highhurst Castle!).  It resembles an oversized toy theater (can you do that—like “jumbo shrimp”?) or maybe a puppet stage.  Most of the play, which is a flashback from Monty writing his memoir in his cell awaiting the verdict from his murder trial in 1909, two years after setting out on his grisly quest, is enacted on the small set-within-the-set; the main stage becomes the street or Monty’s cell (over on stage left) or other locales, like a forestage in a different theater.  It’s just a conceit, but helps tremendously to establish that this is all theater, that it’s fantasy and imaginary, stressing the theatricality of all of this.  It’s also like a pop-up theater in a children’s book.  None of this is serious!  (1909 is Edwardian, as a passing mention makes clear, but you can look at it as an extension of Victorian England, when the gruesome was accepted as entertainment and even children were told the most bloody of stories and fairy tales.  Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd, for instance.)

Just like the details of the plot, I don’t want to describe too much of the production because a lot of the fun is being surprised at the effects engineered by Messrs. Tresnjak, Dodge, and Rhyne.  They functioned as a true team for this aspect of the show.  I’ll state that these are theater effects—though at least one is reminiscent of Hitchcock’s Vertigo (or perhaps Mel Brooks’s High Anxiety is a better analogy)—that would lose all their wonder in a film version.  It’s all about how they suggest reality, refer to it, without actually coming close to being realistic.  In film, that would be lost.  (When I say that one of my criteria for good theater is that it must be “theatrical”—and regular readers of ROT will know this reference—this is precisely what I mean.  Only the live stage can pull this off—not despite its limitations, but because of them!)  I’m not a theater techie, but aside from acting, this is why I love theater.  This is actual stage magic—and I delight in the very artificiality of it.  Gentleman’s Guide is chock full of this theatricality—almost every D’Ysquith death makes use of one of these effects, and every one of them alone is worth the price of admission.  (This is precisely why I don’t disparage theater-as-entertainment: serious theater wouldn’t try such hokey stuff, and it’s just too wonderful to miss!)

But the terrific staging—Entertainment Weekly’s Thom Geier described one fabulous number, “I’ve Decided to Marry You,” as a “a door-slamming bedroom-farce of a trio”—and effects are not the only things to recommend Gentleman’s Guide—though it could be sufficient.  There’s also Jefferson Mays.  Oh, what a joy!  What a great performance.  I’m sorry to report that I don’t know Mays’s work (I checked his credits and I’ve never seen any of his productions, much, now, to my regret.)  Of course, the job is a tour-de-force for the actor cast, so Mays got the material served up to him.  (He’s also aided tremendously and wittily by Linda Cho’s delightful Edwardian costumes and Charles LaPointe’s character-enhancing wigs.)  But what fun he had with it—and made of it!  He won the Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Actor in a Musical for the work, but he was passed over for the Tony (in favor of Neil Patrick Harris for Hedwig and the Angry Inch, an honorable loss, I guess).  I won’t say that Mays made each of the D’Ysquith victims unique—that isn’t really the point: they’re meant to be basically the same personality with individual quirks—but he embodied each of them as fully as the play requires—let’s admit that Gentleman’s Guide isn’t deep, either thematically or performatively.  (There are some remarkably quick costume changes on display, however.)  But no one on any stage anywhere could surpass Mays’s hambone verve, energy, or joy in portraying all the aristocratic twits of the D’Ysquith clan.  (I can only imagine what he did with his role in the one-actor, multi-character play I Am My Own Wife, for which he did win the Best Actor Tony in 2004—and that wasn’t even a musical!)  If the production makes Gentleman’s Guide worth the cost of a Broadway seat, then Mays’s gorgeous performance just means you get twice what you paid for!  Now, that’s value for money!

Now, before I get to other individual performances, let me say that the singing voices are exceptional, even for Broadway.  Especially the women’s voices: Lisa O’Hare, as sassy, gold-digging Sibella, Monty’s love and mistress, and Lauren Worsham, Phoebe D’Ysquith, Monty’s fiancée and (ummm) cousin—he eventually makes her his countess—both, also two Broadway newcomers, have bell-clear sopranos which they use to wonderful dramatic effect, particularly in the duet scenes.  (Those scenes are where the frivolous musical comes very close to becoming operatic in quality and style.)  Bryce Pinkham, as Monty, has a good, strong tenor, with just enough of the juvenile in it to make him seem almost innocent—or forgivable—even as he plots cold-blooded death and mayhem.  (His plans for Lady Hyacinth D’Ysquith are bizarrely elaborate.) 

To continue about Pinkham, he has to walk a precarious line, theatrically speaking.  Well, narratively, too, since Monty must balance his love of Sibella and their continuing romance even after she married someone else and he’s engaged to his cousin Phoebe while still seeing Sibella—all while he’s plotting his deadly rise to the earldom and dodging arrest and jail or hanging.  It’s a little dance of love and death that Pinkham executes adroitly.  But I was considering his tightrope walk between dastardly murderer and sympathetic romantic lead.  (I especially applaud Cho’s designs for Monty: his skinny trousers may be a perfectly common Edwardian style, but they also communicated a touch of youth that helps make the dastardly murderer boyish enough to gain my sympathy.)  After all, much of the appeal of Gentleman’s Guide resides in the audience’s hope that Monty reaches the title and gets his retribution despite the method he uses to get there.  The ending especially depends on our wish that he escape punishment even though he’s spent two hours confessing his wicked deeds.  Okay, Freedman supplies him with the story line and the lines to rationalize his actions, but our sympathy comes almost entirely from Pinkham’s portrayal.  And he succeeds—with the help of Mays who makes all the D’Ysquiths—except Asquith, Sr., who treats Monty generously and who conveniently dies of a heart attack without Monty’s interference—upper-class ninnies of one variety or another.  The play’s a lightweight—not a fault—but the work isn’t.  (Dying is easy.  Comedy is hard!)

In the press, most reviewers shared my point of view—or were even more positive and, I daresay, giddy.  (The notices of Jefferson Mays’s performance(s) were positively ecstatic in most cases, as I’ll demonstrate later.)  The Daily News, New York Post, am New York, and the websites Talkin’ Broadway and New York Theater demurred, however.  Elysa Gardner in USA Today, for instance, called Gentleman’s Guide a “delightful new musical romp” with Tresnjak’s “witty direction—supported by the drolly imaginative scenic and projection design of Alexander Dodge and Aaron Rhyne, respectively.”  Terry Teachout opened his Wall Street Journal notice by exulting, “At last, a good new Broadway musical.  Really good, in fact,” and then went on to report that Gentleman’s Guide is “wickedly witty, wonderfully well staged and as pleasing to hear as it is to see.”  His summing-up note is about as laudatory as I could imagine: “If you’re tired of apologizing to out-of-town visitors for the shaky state of 21st-century American musical comedy, send them to ‘A Gentleman’s Guide’ and rest assured that they’ll go home happy.”  

In the New York Times, Charles Isherwood called Gentleman’s Guide a “frolicsome operetta” that’s turned “murder most foul into entertainment most merry,” adding that the “delightful show will lift the hearts of all those who’ve been pining for what sometimes seems a lost art form: musicals that match streams of memorable melody with fizzily witty turns of phrase.”  Linda Winer of Long Island’s Newsday called Gentleman’s Guide “at heart, a clever and jolly 90-minute frolic” that “runs a very leisurely 2-1 / 2 hours, not 90 minutes,” but allowed that the production’s over-length “should not dissuade patient theatergoers who want to relish” it and Tresnjak’s staging that “has the genuine charm of a miniature toy theater.”  The play, the Newsday review-writer observed, sports “one of those performances that people will be talking about all season” from Mays, and Lutvak and Freedman, the composer-lyricist-librettist team, after “the long, arch exposition, . . . deliver saucy impudence of bright operetta pastiche.”  The Financial Times’s Brendan Lemon pronounced that Gentleman’s Guide, “a jolly spoof with a tart first act and a sentimental let-down of a second, proudly wears old-fashioned virtues on its pinafores.”  

Winer had clear reservations, notably with the lack of “a courageous editor,” but Matt Windman stepped entirely over the line, calling Gentleman’s Guide an “inferior musical” and “a silly English music hall pastiche” in am New York.  “With a thin premise, a sluggish book and unmemorable songs” and “an air of slapstick,” Windman specified, “the show makes for a tiresome 2½ hours.”  In the New York Post, Elisabeth Vincentelli listed her objections, from the score’s “collection of innocuous music-hall pastiches,” to melodies that “aren’t very interesting,” the “uneven” pacing, director Tresnjak’s “staging tricks” that lead to “repetition,” and “the charmless Pinkham.”  Even Mays’s tour de force performances don’t “really register,” declared the Post reviewer.  And in the New York Daily News, Joe Dziemianowicz insisted that the “fun, but flawed” Gentleman’s Guide’s “got a hole in its heart” because it’s “without a great score.”  While the production “is a high-gloss beaut,” with fine performances, the Newsman pronounced: “Finally, there’s the score, and, alas, it’s a bit of a bore.”  The “songs are consistently cute—and that’s it,” reported Dziemianowicz.  “There’s not one number that really stands out and at times the music actually slows down the action.”  

The Village Voice’s Tom Sellar called the musical “charming and witty” and “a frequently funny faux-Edwardian romp” with a “sharp and witty book” by Freedman and a “serviceable score” by Lutvak.  A “commercial vehicle” which “motors its twisty plot with two terrific performances” (Mays and Pinkham), the musical, directed “with a meticulous hand,” is “a familiar tale, but executed—pun intended—with wit and delicious farcical timing.”  Sellar summed up by asserting, “A Gentleman's Guide stays fun because it celebrates and measures our material aspirations without trafficking in sentiment; it either sends up or dismisses any other psychology.”  Describing the show as “this delicious black satire” in the New York Observer, Rex Reed reported that the “spinning top of a show” is “creatively staged by the talented young director Darko Tresnjak with the breakneck pace of the Kentucky Derby and crossed with the dazzle of a British music hall revue.”  Unfolding from “one wicked stroke of genius after another, accompanied by fresh, funny scenic designs,” noted Reed, the production contains “rollicking songs by lyricist Steven Lutvak and composer Robert L. Freedman, performed by an able cast that has no trouble reaching the second balcony with perfect pitch.”  Caviling that “the show begins to sag” in the second act because “all the memorable murders have been completed,” the Observer writer said, the “rest of the show . . . is frankly anticlimactic.”  Reed, added, however: “Not to worry: There’s still a surprise ending on the way and more glorious singing,” concluding, “A Gentleman’s Guide to Love and Murder is the theatrical equivalent of exploding caviar, and Broadway has a new hit for the holidays.”   

In “Goings on about Town” in the New Yorker, the reviewer called Gentleman’s Guide a “musical entertainment with panache and precision” which “sets its arch humor to a tuneful score, served up elegantly in Darko Tresnjak’s production.”  In New York magazine, Jesse Green reported that the creators of Gentleman’s Guide “aim for droll comedy” and “usually hit their mark.”  “There are watered-silk smoking jackets and period-style songs and plenty of winks to the audience,” reported Green, and “the whole production looks terrific and moves smoothly from start to finish.”  But Green’s “one small” disappointment was “the songs”: “The tunes . . . are lovely, and . . . [t]he words . . . are often clever enough to raise a laugh”; however, “what this material needed from its songs, and does not get, is . . . a strong, clear, distinctive profile.”  

In the Hollywood Reporter, David Rooney dubbed Gentleman’s Guide a “toothsome new musical” that’s “propelled by a rollicking story, humor of the most delectable amorality and the cleverest lyrics assembled in quite some time.”  The HR reviewer wrote that the “creative team of first-timers,” Freedman, Lutvak, and Tresnjak, provided a “devilish book” and “tuneful songs.”  The “inventive direction,” served by “sumptuous design elements and versatile ensemble,” resulted in “a small-scale show that feels both intimate and lavish.”  Calling the musical “witty,” with an “ingeniously absurd plot,”  Variety’s Marilyn Stasio dubbed Gentleman’s Guide an “adorably wicked show.”  The “stylish spoof of Edwardian manners and (lack of) morals,” Stasio wrote, “mocks its own high style.”  “Although the naughty lyrics are the sweetest of the show’s bitter treats,” asserted the Variety reviewer, “the show’s heart is in the old music halls, where the jokes were vulgar, the songs were upbeat, the lyrics were in bad taste, and the thespians often got away with . . . well, murder.”  

“A Gentleman’s Guide to Love and Murder is the new undisputed king of musical comedy,” declared David Cote right at the top of his Time Out New York notice.  Singling out Mays’s “mercurial” performance as the “the jewel in GGLM’s crown,” Cote described the show as “[f]illed with lunatic sight gags and the wittiest, loveliest show tunes in years, there’s not a weak link in the lively cast, and Darko Tresnjak’s antic, cartoonish staging is ideal.”  All told, said the man from TONY, the “peerless” Gentleman’s Guide is the “most fun you can have on Broadway right now.”  “Overkill has seldom been more enjoyable than in A Gentleman’s Guide to Love and Murder, a thoroughly delightful and uproarious new Broadway musical,” reported Thom Geier in his first sentence in Entertainment Weekly.  Directed with “ingenious wit” by Tresnjak, “Freedman’s script packs plenty of surprises” and “Lutvak’s jaunty score . . . sounds both fresh and period-perfect” with “gut-bustingly clever” lyrics.  “A Gentleman’s Guide,” concluded the EW review-writer, “remains winsome and charming despite an alarming surfeit of devious and devilish characters.  Quite simply, it’s a bloody good time.”

On TV, where the reviews generally echoed the print press, Roma Torre said on NY1, the Time Warner Cable news channel in New York City, that Gentleman’s Guide was “exquisitely constructed” and “[c]lever, charming, inspired,” even “if it’s a little too long (adding, “[W]ell then I say the more the merrier”).  “Director Darko Tresnjak’s production delivers with wry invention and humor,” reported Torre, and “[t]he music . . . is tunefully rich, and much like Gilbert and Sullivan ditties, the witty lyrics stand out,” concluding, “‘A Gentleman’s Guide’ could easily serve as a primer itself on how to put on an intelligent crowd-pleaser with supreme wit and ingenuity.”  Robert Kahn called Gentleman’s Guide “a deliciously dark comic musical” on WNBC, the NBC affiliate in New York City, and reported that Tresnjak “keeps matters moving apace,” even if “[t]he music and lyrics aren’t the most memorable you’ve heard.”  The set, Kahn observed in a simile I rather like, “has the effect of making the brutal events seem far, far away, like something you’re watching in a snow globe.”  “If it’s escapism you’re out for,” suggested Kahn, “‘A Gentleman’s Guide to Love & Murder’ has the trappings of a fun, lightweight night out.”

The cyber-press was mostly in the same vein as the paper and electronic reviewers (with two notable exceptions, as you’ll see).  On the Huffington Post, Christian Nilsson quipped that Gentleman’s Guide “refines macabre with a wink, then another, and several more,” then added, “While the show lacks a tune that audiences will hum as they’re exiting the theatre, the music and lyrics perfectly compliment the book, and provide over two hours of non-stop laughs.”  The play’s second half, which features “the love triangle,” Nilsson warned, however, “is never as compelling as the musical’s darker moments.”  Yet the HP reviewer ultimately felt, “While more and more Broadway theaters are holding jukebox musicals or musical adaptations of hit-movies, the Walter Kerr Theatre has something that is fresh, hysterical, and bloody brilliant.”  “And for all lucky enough to nab a ticket for A Gentleman’s Guide to Love & Murder, watching Monty do in the eight D’Ysquiths . . . will also set off gales of laughter,” declared Elyse Sommer of CurtainUp.  That, said Sommer, is because the musical’s “not only the funniest show on Broadway, but the most devilishly clever,” with a “savvy book and sparkling lyrics,” “nifty staging,” and “bravura performances.”  

On TheaterMania, David Gordon chuckled, “Death has not been this gleefully presented since the 1979 premiere of Sweeney Todd,” so “it’s hard not to find enjoyment in the show.”  (Perhaps Sondheim and Sweeney were “gleeful”—but they weren’t nearly as giddy over the prospect!)  The “lyrics . . . are whip-smart and impressively sharp,” Gordon wrote, and added, “Freedman’s book is similarly intelligent, but feels choppy in spots and meanders a bit too long here and there.”  Broadway World’s Michael Dale called the musical “a rollicking good time and a smashing Broadway debut for composer/lyricist Steven Lutvak, bookwriter/lyricist Robert L. Freedman and director Darko Tresnjak” and “a pocket-sized musical that dazzles with lyrical wit, dark comedic fun and bravura showmanship,” adding, “Intelligent and merry, all the elements work splendidly from start to finish.”  “The peppy period score is injected with the cleverest lyrics currently tickling Broadway ears,” insisted the BWW reviewer, and scenic designer Dodge “helps keep the dastardly doings lighthearted by . . . utilizing stagecraft no more advanced than what would be available a hundred years ago.”  Cho’s Tony-worthy costumes “complete the sumptuous picture.”  Tulis McCall of New York Theatre Guide declared bluntly, “This is a nearly perfect show.  It sets out to be a confection of light entertainment and achieves that goal in every way possible.”  The production is so well constructed that “all the parts come together exactly as they were meant to, and thus we have a cube of sugar that is exquisite.”  

On Talkin’ Broadway, Matthew Murray insisted that “it’s tough to remember another Broadway outing since Martin McDonagh’s The Lieutenant of Inishmore that’s derived so much gleeful entertainment in the hastening of mortality.”  While Murray seemed hung up on what he described as Monty’s “essential loathsomeness”—“you’ll probably be a little repulsed,” the TB reviewer assumed, by the putative heir’s actions (yeah, right!)—he also acknowledged that “when raw entertainment is the goal . . . you’re able to lose yourself in the show’s abundant charms.”  Murray complained that after all the deaths are staged in the first act, there’s “perilously little fun to be had” in the show’s second half since Mays “rapidly transitions from unforgettable to nearly forgotten,” thus “doing away with the one thing that makes [Gentleman’s Guide] distinctive rather than derivative.”  Mays’s performances, Murray declared however, “makes A Gentleman’s Guide to Love & Murder a legitimate must-see, when otherwise it would be at best a forgettable lark.”  Somewhat more negative than Murray’s assessment, though, was Jonathan Mandell’s.  On New York Theater, Mandell affirmed that, despite its virtues such as “quick-witted comedy”; “some jolly acting,” especially from Mays; a “well-designed, well-acted” production; a “well enough plotted” script; and “all its cleverness and wicked charm, this is an entertainment I could easily have skipped.”  Though Gentleman’s Guide is “meant to be great fun,” Mandell found, “It becomes tiresome—and at times disturbing.”  He pointed to the “racist ignorance and condescension” of Lady Hyacinth D’Ysquith and Henry D’Ysquith’s “double-entendres, apparently based on the premise that homosexuality is hilarious” as deficiencies in the playmakers’ script.  Tresnjak’s direction is “brisk” and Tunick’s orchestrations “stand out,” admitted the New York Theater writer, then summed up: “But, let’s face it, ‘The Gentleman’s Guide to Love and Murder’ is primarily an opportunity to see Jefferson Mays in action,” though his fans will want “to see him in something that isn’t just clever.”

All the reviewers agreed on one thing, however, irrespective of each overall assessment of A Gentleman’s Guide to Love & Murder.  Each and every one praised Jefferson Mays and his portrayals of the eight doomed D’Ysquiths.  Just a few samples of the encomia heaped on the chameleonic actor: “the knock-’em-dead performance of Jefferson Mays” (Green, New York), “This masterful actor’s precision and versatility is a complete marvel” (Torre, NY1), “jaw-dropping skill and ever-increasing daffiness” (Geier, EW), “one of the most tireless, whiplash-inducing performances ever attempted on the American stage” (Gordon, TM), “a bloody comic genius” (Cote, TONY), “actor conjuring the magic” and “virtuoso turns” (Lemon, FT), “shape-shifting and comedic gifts are on glorious display” (Gardner, USA Today).  And that’s only from the Broadway presentation; Mays got similar praise in Hartford and San Diego, not to mention at Tony time last spring!  And you know what?  I can’t even disagree.  He’s bloody hilarious!