Showing posts with label Andrew Lloyd Webber. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Lloyd Webber. Show all posts

08 May 2017

'Sunset Boulevard'


Almost 23 years ago, Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber’s movical Sunset Boulevard opened at Broadway’s Minskoff Theatre.  Based on the 1950 Billy Wilder film for Paramount Pictures, it took Tonys in 1995 for best musical, best actress in a musical, and best featured actor, among other awards and ran for 977 regular performances and 17 previews.  It’s back now, with Glenn Close reprising her award-winning (she also got a Drama Desk Award) performance, so, having missed the first go-round, my theater companion Diana and I decided to see what all the buzz had been about, especially the highly-touted performance of Close as faded silent-movie luminary, Norma Desmond, the role made indelible in the movie by former silent star, Gloria Swanson.  As Matt Windman of am New York wrote:

Two decades since its splashy Broadway premiere, the plot and the production history of “Sunset Boulevard” . . . have become one and the same.

At the end of “Sunset Boulevard,” Norma Desmond, . . . who has spent two decades in lonely obscurity, determinedly thrusts herself back into the spotlight, ready for either a close-up or the madhouse.

In sync with Norma’s intentions, the musical has returned to Broadway two decades later, bringing Glenn Close . . . back to the stage . . . .

After a couple of workshop productions, with different lyric- and book-writers, at Lloyd Webber’s Sydmonton Festival in Hampshire, England, in 1991 and ’92, the world première of Sunset Boulevard, with music by Lloyd Webber and book and lyrics by Christopher Hampton and Don Black, opened on 12 July 1993 at London’s Adelphi Theatre under the direction of Trevor Nunn, running for 1,530 performances.  It starred Patti LuPone as Norma and Kevin Anderson as Joe Gillis, with Meredith Braun as Betty Schaeffer and Daniel Benzali as Max von Mayerling.  The musical came to the U.S. in December ’93, having its American première at the Shubert Theatre in Los Angeles, directed by Nunn, now starring Glenn Close as Norma and Alan Campbell as Joe, with Judy Kuhn as Betty and George Hearn as Max.  The Broadway première opened at the Minskoff Theatre on 17 November 1994 with the same company as the L.A. production.  There have since been scores of productions around the Western world and across the U.S.

The show was revived in London for a five-week ‘semi-staged’ run from 1 April to 7 May 2016 (43 performances) by the English National Opera at the London Coliseum, directed this time by Lonny Price  with Close as Norma again, Michael Xavier as Joe, Siobhan Dillon as Betty, and Fred Johanson as Max.  The production moved to New York City for a limited run at the Palace Theatre, 47th Street and 7th Avenue, that opened for previews on 2 February 2017, had its official (press) opening on 9 February, and will close on 25 June (after a four-week extension from 28 May); Diana and I saw the 8 p.m. performance on Friday, 28 April (at which Britney Coleman stepped in for Dillon as Betty).

(The film was directed by Wilder from a script by Wilder, Charles Brackett, and D. M. Marshman, Jr.  The cast included Swanson, William Holden as Joe, Nancy Olson as Betty, and Erich von Stroheim as Max.  Photographed in black and white, it won Oscars for the screenplay, score, and art direction-set decoration.  “Sunset Boulevard is a great motion picture,” wrote Thomas L. Pryor in the New York Times of 11 August 1950.  It’s considered a classic of American film noir.  A film version of the musical has been reported—though no cast or director is attached—since 2005; the studio for the project—can you guess?—is Paramount.) 

The musical’s plot (and some of its lines) almost exactly parallels that of the movie, starting with a version of the opening scene of Joe Gillis (Xavier) looking down at his own body (represented by a mannequin that rises from the former orchestra pit to overhead, where it remains all evening) floating face down in a swimming pool as he explains, in song now, that this is the end of the story and he’s going to take us back to the beginning that led to this bleak scene.  (In the film, of course, Joe speaks in voice-over—Holden’s not on screen staring at Joe’s body as Xavier is on stage.)  It’s late-’40s Hollywood (from clues embedded in the script, I peg it as between October 1948, when Cecil B. DeMille was filming Samson and Delilah at Paramount, which figures in the play’s plot, and January 1949—there are New Year’s celebrations near the end of the play—or a little later) and Joe, a hack screenwriter, is not only out of work, but on the lam from collection agents who want to repossess his car.  A man without a car in L.A. might as well have his legs cut off, so Joe races to the Paramount studios to beg for work—he’ll take anything, he tells anyone who’ll listen; he just needs a paycheck to get out of hock.  No one’s buying, but in the offices of Sheldrake (Andy Taylor), a Paramount producer, Joe meets Betty Schaeffer (Coleman), Sheldrake’s script reader and an aspiring screenwriter.  She read one of Joe’s published stories, “Blind Windows,” and thinks it’d make a good film script, a quality movie rather that the fluff he’s been shopping.  He’s not interested in developing the story but when Betty presses the idea, he gives her the story to adapt herself.  Just as Joe’s about to leave, he spots the two repo thugs (Graham Rowat and Drew Foster) and importunes Betty to run interference for him as he escapes. 

Speeding through the Hollywood Hills trying to evade the collectors—there’s a very clever, low-tech staging of a car chase which I won’t spoil by describing here (though some reviewers found it “silly”)—Joe looks for a place to hide his car and himself.  He happens on an old mansion at 10086 Sunset Boulevard whose entrance and garage is open, and he darts in and pulls the car out of sight in the garage.  Wandering into the mansion, mesmerized by the bric-a-brac and tchotchkes with which the house is furnished, Joe runs into Max von Mayerling (Johanson), the butler, who mistakes Joe for someone from a funeral home who’s come to see to his employer’s recently-deceased . . . pet chimpanzee.  (Yup!  And that’s straight from the flick, too.)  When the writer meets the mistress of the house, he quickly recognizes her as “someone,” and soon comes up with the name: Norma Desmond (Close).  “You used to be big,” he almost asks in a line taken from the screenplay.  “I am big,” she bristles. “It’s the pictures that got small.”  She still thinks Joe’s the man for whom she’s been waiting, but when he explains that he’s a screenwriter, she decides he’s just the person she’s been looking for to revise the screenplay she’s been writing for her return—she hates the word ‘comeback’—to film.  Her tale of Salome is, of course, a silent fllm . . . because she doesn’t need words to make people feel her emotions and understand her thoughts.  She has her face.  That’s all it takes.  She persuades—well, cows Joe into reading the script, which, of course, is not only voluminous in length, but terrible.  Norma’s so devoted to the project, though, that Joe (who has a backbone problem) can’t tell her what he really thinks.

Besides, he needs a place to hide out from the repo men, and when Norma tells him he’ll be well paid . . . well, why not?  He needs the money, he has no other work, and he can hide the car in her garage while he works for her.  The first sign that things aren’t quite normal in the Desmond manse is when Norma explains that he’ll be expected to live in the house—there’s a room over the garage that’s all ready for him.  (Max has been busy while Joe’s been occupied reading the script!  Later, the majordomo will go to Joe’s apartment and pack up his clothes and personal items without asking the writer.)  Resistant at first, Joe convinces himself to go along with this idea since his apartment isn’t so great anyway and Norma’s mansion is weird, but sumptuous (and Joe’s something of a whore at bottom anyway).  Besides, it’s not as if he’s being held prisoner . . . right?

Little by little, without Joe putting up much resistance, Norma entangles him in her delusional life in the mansion, controlling him with expensive gifts, luxury, neediness, and, finally, suicide threats.  He starts off as her ghost writer, evolves into her pet, and ends up her kept lover—though he’s ashamed enough of all of this that he hides it from Betty and others on the outside.  (Joe’s not the only ”ghost” in the decrepit old mausoleum: a specter of the young Norma, in the form of Stephanie Martignetti, makes occasional speechless appearances, all dressed in black and white—a bit that didn’t appear in the ’90s stagings.)  On New Year’s Eve, he flees a party for two at the mansion to seek out people his own age, and comes upon Betty and her fiancée, Artie Green (Preston Truman Boyd), who’s Joe’s best friend, but he’s called back to the Desmond house when Max calls to tell him Norma’s attempted to shoot herself.  Of course, he rushes back, more caught in Norma’s web than ever.

The Salome screenplay is finally finished and Max personally delivers it to DeMille (Paul Schoeffler) at Paramount.  Norma waits to hear back from the great director (played in the movie by C. B. himself), but when Max tells her a studio assistant had called her, she refuses to call back.  If C. B. wants to see her, he can call her himself!  After weeks have passed without a call from DeMille, Norma has Max drive her and Joe to the studio to call on her old friend and director and her arrival on the lot causes a general stir as all the movie pros stand in awe of the legend; all her old friends at the studio from the gate guard (Drew Foster) to the lighting technician (Jim Walton) remember her with fondness.  Norma’s briefly back in the spotlight—literally as the light man shines a spot on her face and she responds like an exotic flower in the sunlight.  But we discover that it wasn’t DeMille who wanted to reach Norma, but Sheldrake when he tells Max that he’s not interested in her awful script, but in her old car, the Bugatti limo in which the liveried Max—complete with jodhpurs and riding boots—drove her to the studio. 

When Max reveals this to Joe, the writer asks how he’ll tell Norma.  He won’t, explains Max.  It’s his job to keep reality away from Norma and protect her fantasy world.  He tells Joe that it was he who discovered Norma when she was 16, beautiful, and immensely talented.  He was her first director and the first of her three husbands and he still sees the young girl he loved all those years ago. 

Joe becomes more and more involved with Betty as they collaborate on the screen adaptation of his story.  She makes an obvious pass at him after one writing session, but he rebuffs her.  Not only is she engaged to his friend, but he can’t extricate himself from Norma’s trap and he won’t reveal what it is he runs back to from their work sessions.  He speeds back to the mansion to find Norma’s called Betty, whose name and phone number she’s found while snooping among Joe’s things.  Joe takes the phone from Norma and invites Betty to come see how he lives, and she does, ending up confused and frightened.  Betty leaves the house and Joe packs his things to leave, to go back to his own life, but Norma pleads with him and threatens him.  He turns to leave the house and Norma shoots him in the back and he falls into the pool, setting up the scene that opened the play. 

The police arrive and are ready to storm the house to arrest Norma, but Max intervenes and coaxes her out of her room and down the stairs by making her believe that the news cameras are movie cameras and that this is all a sound stage for her movie.  Norma descends the stairs regally, decked out in her most elaborate outfit, to address the cameras and her fans.  “And now, Mr.  DeMille, I’m ready for my close-up,” Norma famously says as the police lead her off, believing she’s reclaimed her stardom.  .

Sunset Boulevard was a huge disappointment.  It’s been so oversold and Close’s performance so over-praised (Ben Brantley declared, “Ms. Close is even better than when I first saw her,” in the New York Times) that it couldn’t possibly measure up.  (I didn’t see the Broadway original, but if Brantley’s right that Close is better now than she was the first time, she never should have won a Tony in ’95!)

I copped before that I’m not a fan of Lloyd Webber’s (see my report on School of Rock, 22 September 2016).  After I saw Evita in 1981, I said I’d never pay to see another Andrew Lloyd Webber play ever again.  However, 30-some years later, I’ve bought tix for School of Rock and now Sunset Boulevard (at a pretty penny, too!), and I see nothing to make me change my mind about Lloyd Webber.  Except that I broke my vow, damn me.  (The producer-composer has four shows currently running on the Great White Way; the other two are The Phantom of the Opera, the longest-running musical on Broadway, and Cats.)  

I had reservations when Diana suggested seeing Sunset Boulevard, but I read Brantley’s review and one or two others, and they all raved about Close’s performance so much, I decided that that made it worth seeing the show, even if everything else was pale in comparison—except that didn’t happen.  The show is two hours and 40 minutes long and the tickets cost us over two C’s each.  I don’t usually regret seeing any show (Perfect Crime is an exception; see 5 February 2011), but I have to say, this was not worth that kind of money.  (What I may be most miffed at is Brantley’s review.  He can’t have been paying attention—or he’s got a thing for Close.)

Among my complaints about Lloyd Webber’s work is that his plays have no core—they’re hollow.  They don’t say anything.  (The movie had a gut, but Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musicalization eviscerated the story.)  That means they fail one of my two tests for good theater: they don’t do more than tell a story.   They may generate an emotion, but it’s momentary and empty.  Occasionally, they may inadvertently say something, but it’s something I’d call inappropriate—like the sympathy, even admiration, Evita generates for Eva Perón, a right-wing tyrant (what, a woman can’t be a tyrant?) who carried on her husband’s authoritarian policies.  School of Rock does the same sort of thing (as I wrote in my report), essentially promoting deceit and misbehavior—as long as it’s in service of rock ’n’ roll.  That’s bullshit, of course—but since it’s talented little kids doing it, that makes it acceptable.  Sunset Boulevard doesn’t have even that much point, but it does try to manipulate our emotions for no reason except to do it.

The problem is that no one in the play deserves our sympathies or concerns.  Norma Desmond’s delusional and controlling; Betty Schaeffer is less deliberately manipulative, but she still is, emotionally blackmailing Joe into working with her and then making a play for him (even though she’s engaged to his friend); and Joe basically just lets these maneuvers happen with the least resistance.  He’s a dishrag.  Where are we supposed to put our sympathies?  No one’s worthy.  Max is the closest to deserving some sympathy, but he’s not a major character—and he’s an enabler.

I suspect Lloyd Webber expects us to think of the movie.  He probably figured it can’t be helped, so he might as well let it happen.  But what I don’t expect he wants us to think about is Carol Burnett and Harvey Korman’s “Nora Desmond” sketches—and that’s what I kept flashing on.  The movie, like the musical’s supposed to be, is a melodrama, a film noir.  But “Nora Desmond” was farce and travesty, which is not what the creators of the musical should hope we’re thinking of.  Ooops!

Another complaint I have about Lloyd Webber’s musicals is that the scores are both derivative—they sound like something I’ve heard before, many times, like musical déjà vu—and repetitive—all the music sounds alike.  School of Rock avoids the second fault a little, though not the first (except the songs Lloyd Webber took from the movie), but Sunset Boulevard has both deficiencies from opening number to finale.  Even the show’s two biggest numbers, “With One Look” and “As If We Never Said Goodbye,” weren’t melodically distinguishable to my ear.

None of the performances overcomes the problems.  Michael Xavier (who’s work I don’t know—most of it’s been in the U.K.) is just like the character—gutless and uninteresting.  (Brantley of the Times called him “a lightweight,” which I think is accurate.)  I suppose it took a William Holden to make Joe Gillis a character worth following, but Xavier doesn’t come close; though Xavier is six years older than Holden was when he made the movie, Holden was a man, however tortured, but Xavier comes off as a callow boy.  He’s got a nice enough voice, though it’s hard to be sure since the songs are so unengaging.  Close is a near caricature—I wonder if her original performance was like that.  Of course, she’s now 70, playing a 50-year-old, so maybe that’s part of the problem here.  (Michael Xavier is 39, by the way.)  Her singing isn’t all that good (Brantley noted that her voice is “reedy and at times off-key,” once again, true)—again, I wonder if it was weak in ‘93, too.  She does a lot of voguing in those elaborate costumes.  (That’s one of the things that called Carol Burnett to mind.)  

Close, who was 47 when she first played Norma Desmond, also made me recall reports of Carol Channing, who performed Dolly Levi first at 42, returning to Hello, Dolly! at the age of 74, a kind of mummy made up to look like a middle-aged woman.  (Bette Midler, just nominated for a Tony for the role, is 71, but has apparently carried it off with style; see Kirk Woodward’s article “Two Greats,” posted on 3 May.)  I also remember reading in William Goldman’s The Season (his 1969 book about the Broadway season of 1967-68) a description by a fan of Marlene Dietrich who’d seen her special appearance at the Lunt-Fontanne Theatre in 1967 and 1968, when she was 65 or 66:  Goldman reported his informant had said that “what she looked like was some female impersonator up there doing his Dietrich turn.”  Now, Close didn’t give anywhere near that impression, but I kept remembering that description, along with Burnett’s parody, whenever she came on stage.

None of this was helped by the fact that a gaggle of people in the audience liked to shriek after each of Close’s numbers.  (The house was full, too.)  One was a (very) young woman right behind us and when Diana finally turned around and asked her to pull it back, she said, “No.  That’s what happens.”  She evidently thought she was at a rock concert—though she wasn’t a girl; she was in her early 20’s, I’d say.

I should say a few words about the physical production.  This mounting of Sunset Boulevard was conceived as little more than a concert version, with minimal staging.  Several reviewers compared this Sunset Boulevard to the Encores! presentations at New York City Center, which isn’t far wrong—with the significant distinction that these actors aren’t carrying scripts for the dialogue scenes.  (By all accounts, the book also hasn’t been trimmed as they are for Encores!)  Instead of what amNY’s Matt Windman called the “lavish set design including Norma’s mansion and Hollywood backlots” of the ’90s original, James Noone conceived an assemblage of steel catwalks, scaffolding, and metal staircases that forms a sort of claustrophobic world—Hollywood as a kind of ominous jungle-gym.  The 40-piece orchestra (reportedly the largest on Broadway in eight decades), under the direction of Kristen Blodgette, plays beneath the rear part of the construction, the second level of which serves as Norma’s bedroom and the stairway down which she makes her frequent grand entrances comes down from the upper platform in a dogleg at stage right. 

There are video projections and representative touches to suggest elegance (a distorted chandelier over La Desmond’s foyer—Samuel L. Leiter said on the Broadway Blog that it suggested “a series of drooping teardrops”—a scaled-down model of La Desmond’s Bugatti) or the exoticism  and fantasy of the movie world (bits of set decoration left from  past productions)—the detritus of a reality which was never very real to start with.  The problem this scenic concept incurs, however, is that the large orchestra, placed on stage, plus the erector-set assemblage and the scattered set decorations leave precious little room for acting—especially when there are more than two characters on stage at one time.  The stage feels cluttered and claustrophobic, and the closeness of the orchestra on an open stage (instead of in a pit) often means that the singers can’t be heard clearly over the music.  (Even the miking didn’t help—and while we’re on that subject, let me say that I really dislike head mikes—they make everyone look like itinerant telephone receptionists.)

Mark Henderson’s noirish lighting, which generally keeps most of the set in shadow, illuminates each area as needed to isolate it and set the appropriate mood for the scene.  Tracy Christensen’s costumes evoke the period (except the movie costumes in the Paramount scenes) but are otherwise mostly unremarkable.  Close, however, had her own designer, Anthony Powell (who designed the costumes for the 1990s productions), who created outlandish outfits that look more like costumes from Norma’s movies than clothes anyone would actually wear.  The way Close swans about in them, they almost become a character in themselves—or an element in Close’s.  If the actress’s clothes and gestures seem drawn directly from the silent screen, so does her make-up, with a paste-white foundation and dark accents around the eyes and mouth that give Norma’s face the appearance of a death mask, is also clearly modeled by Dave Bova and J. Jared Janas on the techniques of the silent-movie set.  It’s all part of creating the impression that Norma not only lives in the world of the past, back in the 1920s when she was a huge celebrity, but the unreal world of the silent-film soundstage where she was queen and everything existed just for her.

As of 4 May, Show-Score based its review tally on a sampling of 74 notices, but that included both out-of-town outlets and reviews of the London performance, neither of which I customarily cover.  So I’ve used their scores and readjusted the averages for 35 notices, coming up with an overall score of 73.  The highest score in Show-Score’s survey, limited to local reviews of the Broadway production, was a single 95 (Theatre in the Now) with six 90’s; the lowest score was one 20 (New York magazine) followed by a single 25.  Positive reviews make up 71% of the total, 20% are mixed, and 9% are negative.  I’ll be surveying 30 reviews in my round-up.

In am New York, Matt Windman noted that Sunset Boulevard’s première “received mixed reviews,” but went on to assert that “the revival makes a strong case for Lloyd Webber’s music (an uneven but bold mix of sweeping romantic melodies, jazz and underscoring) and Don Black and Christopher Hampton’s book . . ., if not their prosaic lyrics.”  The star “eschews the exaggeration and all-out insanity of Gloria Swanson . . . and portrays Norma in a soft light as a wounded, vulnerable creature.” wrote the amNY reviewer, adding, “Despite some obvious vocal difficulties, Close once again gives a fully invested, psychologically revealing performance.”  Xavier “has a strapping presence and a pleasing rock tenor voice, but he gives a shallow performance that downplays Gillis’ self-loathing.” 

“Less grandiose revival, very touching Close” is Linda Winer’s “Bottom Line” in Long Island’s Newsday and the review-writer quipped, “She is big.  It’s the production that got small.”  (For those who don’t recognize it, that a paraphrase of a line from both the movie and the movical’s libretto.)  Winer described the revival as “a far less grandiose version than the extravaganza” of 1995. “In fact,” said the ND reviewer, “there is something fitting, even satisfying about this less elaborate, modest incarnation” which, “surprisingly, feels less like a hokey entertainment straining for artistic importance than did the original.”  Winer continues that the star  “is just as daring but less campy and even more touching as” Norma.  Though “more of an actress than a singer, Close has a voice that now lets us feel the hollow depth of a desperately, grotesquely, undeniably poignant woman.”  Xavier, asserted Winer, is “the first Joe Gillis I’ve seen to capture William Holden’s attractive, increasingly corrupted nonchalance of Norma’s boy toy,” but he “flirts too much with the audience when he emerges dripping from the pool.”  [In fact, he puts on a beefcake show than edges into soft porn!]  Nevertheless, Winer found that “the actor has a leading man’s charm and a voice to match.”  She concluded her assessment with the observation that the musical “still turns Wilder’s acidic movie classic about the Hollywood dream machine into a sort of theme park operetta noir.”  She ends her review by reporting that “the souvenir table sells the Norma Desmond Limited Collection of jewelry,” and noting ironically, “Like the merchandise, the show is a limited edition selling paste and glitter as treasures.  As long as we know what we’re getting, however, costume jewelry—especially packaged with the very real Glenn Close—can be fun.”

The Times’ Brantley wrote that the “pared-down revival” of Sunset Boulevard “exists almost entirely to let its star blaze to her heart’s content,” but the Timesman affirmed, “The light she casts is so dazzling, this seems an entirely sufficient reason to be.”  Of Close’s portrayal of Norma Desmond, Brantley exulted that “what was one of the great stage performances of the 20th century has been reinvented, in terms both larger and more intimate, that may well guarantee its status as one the great stage performances of this century, too.”  Indeed, he added, Close “is even better than when I first saw her—more fragile and more frightening, more seriously comic and tragic.”  Though Brantley found that the “relative minimalism” of the revival “allows us to see Norma and ‘Sunset Boulevard’ plain,” “Norma has never looked bigger,” but otherwise, the show “seems and sounds thin.”  Lloyd Webber’s score, said Brantley, “often inhabits a . . . zone of singsong insistence, with certain melody lines repeated so often you fear surgery may be necessary to have them removed from your memory” and Black and Hampton’s “lyrics have a way of turning Wilder-esque cynicism into taunting schoolyard jingles, with rhymes that land as emphatically as children on hopscotch squares.”  The ensemble is merely “serviceable” but in reality, “we’re just marking time until Norma’s back.  Whenever she makes an entrance,” Brantley declared, “the adrenaline that surges through the house is palpable.” 

Remember I said it sounded like this reviewer has a crush on Close?  These are the comments that turned my doubts about seeing this show into a decision to go:

Ms. Close deploys the declarative physical vocabulary of silent-movie acting to convey a genuine grandeur of spirit and an equally outsize force of will. . . .

The audacity of this performance is matched by its veracity.  This is grand-gesture acting of a singularly sophisticated and disciplined order, one of those rare instances in which more is truly more.

. . . . [H]er delivery, her stance, her very presence are operatic in the richest sense of the word.  I won’t even try to describe the brilliant spiderlike dance—superhuman and pathetically human—with which Ms. Close concludes the show.  You have to (and I mean have to) see it in person.

Her interpretation of the show’s one great song, “As If We Never Said Goodbye,” in which Norma visits her old studio lot, is a heart-stopper.  Watching it from its beginning (when a set worker trains a spotlight on Norma’s face) to its end (when she steps to the edge of the stage to absorb the applause like an unquenchable sponge) is to understand with all your senses the addictiveness of stardom.

“Feel the magic in the making,” sings Norma.  You can only nod your head in awe-struck agreement.

In point of fact, I felt very little of what Brantley depicted here, and neither did my companion, Diana.  When we left the theater, Diana wondered why the reviews, particularly of Glenn Close’s performance, were so strong.  I asked if she’d ever read Goldman’s The Season; she hadn’t.  (Kirk Woodward wrote an article on this book, which he called “the best book on Broadway ever written”; see “William Goldman’s The Season,” 30 April 2013.)  One of the chapters is “Critics’ Darling,” about certain actresses (critics’ darlings, insists Goldman, “are all women”) whom

critics’ love . . . .  All the time.  Critics’ darlings are always praised, overpoweringly, regardless of the caliber of their work. . . .  They are also freaks.  All of them.  All the time.  Mr. Webster says a freak is “oddly different from what is usual or normal.”  That is certainly true of the people under discussion, but I would like to push the definition a good deal further: these are people that never breathed on this or any other planet. . . .  Critics’  darlings all share this in common: extravagance of gesture.  They gesticulate; they overdo.  They are, in all ways, enormous.

If that doesn’t sound like Glenn Close, particularly as Norma Desmond, I don’t know whom it fits.

Following in the same vein (if less hyperbolically), Joe Dziemianowicz in the New York Daily News declared, “Glenn Close is ready for her close-up in ‘Sunset Boulevard’—and then some.”  Calling the play a “sumptuous, if uneven, musical,” Dziemianowicz affirmed that “Norma’s got the same turban, same neuroses and the same pipe dreams” as the movie, but that Close “goes heavy on the fragility, vulnerability and dark humor . . . .  If a few vocals are strained,” he continued, “Close commands the stage ”  Of the rendition of “As If We Never Said Goodbye,” Norma’s signature song, the Newsman asserted, “The song is beautiful.  The visual is stirring.  The 40-piece on-stage orchestra soars, as does Close.  The moment is as good as musical-theater gets.”  Director Price “has assembled a fine cast,” Dziemianowicz reports, even if  “the musical is a mixed bag with choppy tonal shifts,” which Price “can’t fix.” 

In the Wall Street Journal, Terry Teachout pronounced the Sunset Boulevard revival “unworthy of the classic picture on which it is based.”  Close’s performance, on the other hand, “is as memorable in its own way as was that of Gloria Swanson in the movie,” and “her greater age makes Norma’s plight all the more pitiable, and Ms. Close’s performance, by turns adamantine and childishly needy.”  The problem, as Teachout sees it, with musicalizing Sunset Boulevard “is that it is perfect”; “‘Sunset Boulevard’ doesn’t need songs, or anything else that it doesn’t already have in abundance.  Saving Ms. Close’s presence, to change anything at all is necessarily to diminish the film’s overwhelming effect.”  The Journalist complained that Black and Hampton’s “lyrics are sing-songy and ill-crafted,” and “that the singers are sometimes drowned out by the instrumentalists.”  In addition, Andrew Lloyd Webber’s score “softens and sentimentalizes Wilder’s brutal satire of golden-age Hollywood.”  Teachout felt that “‘Sunset Boulevard’ needs to be mounted on an operatic scale in order to be effective.  Shorn of the blank-check spectacle of Trevor Nunn’s original production, it has nothing to offer but its gooey score” which “is a tensionless mélange of recycled Rachmaninoff and ersatz jazz that never succeeds in heightening the impact of the words.”  As for the rest of the ensemble, the Journal reviewer asserted, “They’re all just fine, but when you’re sharing a stage with Glenn Close, good enough isn’t good enough.”

For the Star-Ledger of Newark, New Jersey, Christopher Kelly, calling the production “ravishingly beautiful,” characterized Sunset Boulevard as “one of those shows that sends audiences into ecstatic fits of applause, more for the idea of what they’re watching than the actual experience of watching it.”  The review-writer contended, “Director Lonny Price and his lead actress seem determined to force you out of the moment, overloading the production with so many ‘Major Theatrical Event’ moments and signposts that it all starts to sag beneath the weight of its own self-importance.”  Kelly added, “Methinks this musical . . . would have been better served by a little more humility and a lot more humanity.”  He complained that “none of the show's ideas—about the cruelty of aging, or the desperation that results from failure—have been allowed to breathe in this version.”  Of the central performance, Kelly affirmed, “Instead of resisting the camp and Gothic elements of Gloria Swanson's Norma . . . Close fully embraces them.”  (He dubbed Xavier “the best thing about this revival.”)  Kelly’s final remarks are telling:

I’m just not sure why the producers went to such bother.  Lloyd Webber’s score is less brash, more elegantly poignant than his other work—but it’s hardly at the level of, say, Bernstein’s “West Side Story” or Rodgers and Hammerstein’s “South Pacific,” in terms of demanding this near-symphonic treatment.  And—unlike most actors returning to iconic parts—Close seems less interested in discovering new nuances in her character than going full-blown, epic-scale diva on us and soaking up the adulation during her multiple curtain calls.

Robert Feldberg, writing for the Record of suburban Bergen County, New Jersey, quipping, “There hasn’t been such diva devotion at the Palace since the last time Liza Minnelli played the theater,” reported that “the roar of the audience at [Close’s] first entrance suggested that whatever else it might be, the evening would be a celebration of the 69-year-old actress.”  Feldberg added that the actress “fully earns her acclaim with her first big number, a fiercely delivered ‘With One Look,’ Norma’s remembrance of her silent-screen days, made more emotional by the rough edges of Close’s singing voice.”  He reported that “taken as a whole, it’s an assured, commanding performance,” even if occasionally she “skirts the edge of parody.”  In general, the play’s “been given a dynamic, imaginatively rethought presentation” by director Price, and calling the large orchectra “the other star of the evening,” lavished praise on “Lloyd Webber’s sweeping, romantic score.”  Feldberg does cavil, though, that the Black-Hampton book is “pedestrian,” but he concluded, “Close’s panache and Lloyd Webber’s music are more than enough to carry the evening.”

Jason Fitzgerald of the Village Voice declared, “I'm willing to bet there isn't a more heart-shattering five minutes on Broadway today than Glenn Close in Sunset Boulevard playing faded film star Norma Desmond as she takes in what she believes to be her return to Hollywood.”  Close is “a capable but not impressive singer . . ., but few actors can so commit to a character's monomania.”  Fitzgerald, though,  found, “It's a shame the production reaches this height only once.”  The star is “overly mannered,” but she’s “captivating whenever and wherever she is onstage—to the detriment of co-star Xavier, who sings well but lacks any degree of Close's presence.”  The Voice reviewer concluded that the production “is at times suffocating, but there are also moments that scorch like film caught in a projector.”

The New York Observer’s Rex Reed described Price’s revival of the Lloyd Webber movical as “trimmed, scaled down and economically revitalized” with “the old opulence stripped of its glamour.”  It’s “clear . . . who owns the stage,” but the supporting cast, imported from London, never quite “achieves the power, irony or caustic vision of Old Hollywood make believe” of the Wilder film, affirmed Reed.  “The applause for every song is polite, but when [Close] belts them out, she stops the show cold.”  Observed the Observer, “Her experience, knowledge and craft prove that Sunset Boulevard is an old warhorse that can still finish the race in first place.”

In New York magazine (the review with Show-Score’s lowest rating, 20 out of 100), Jesse Green called the current production “a train wreck of a revival” in which “very little happen[s] outside its central quartet of characters.”  What in the movie was Joe’s narrations, Green noted, “are rendered in Lloyd Webber’s score as unrelieved arioso” with “poorly scanned lyrics.”  He contended, “Lloyd Webber and his collaborators . . . have made choices that seem deliberately designed to coarsen the tone and invert Wilder’s point.”  He pointed out that “Wilder conceived of Desmond as a warning, not a role model”: in Lloyd Webber’s vision, “her ‘philosophy,’ if you can call it that. ‘We gave the world new ways to dream,’ she sings over and over, turning a delusional watchcry into a message.  ‘Everyone needs new ways to dream.’  Wilder was being ironic,” avowed Green; “did no one notice?”  (Not only that, but Norma actually wants to return audiences to an old way to dream.  It’s a mendacious philosophy: she, herself has been dreaming the same dream for 20 years!)  The man from New York reported that Close’s “second outing as Norma is no triumph.”

Leave aside that she cannot sing the role, if she ever could.  Her head voice is now pitchy and hooty; her chest voice raw and unregulated. . . .  Great acting was meant to compensate, but her new interpretation of Norma—a mite more playful and less otherworldly—actually makes things worse.  The climactic final scenes in which she goes completely bonkers seem underprepared, and her insanity thus laughable instead of pitiable.  To say that it’s a real Norma Desmond of a performance is not to say it’s good.  It’s just big.

“Nothing else (save that luxury orchestra) is,” Green added.  Xavier “comes off as a juvenile: lighthearted, squeaky clean, and impressively pneumatic”; the other featured actors “make little impression.”  In the end, Green declared that “it will be difficult to forget or forgive the reverse alchemy the authors have achieved.”  As a parting shot, he advised, “I encourage anyone who’s interested in the material to stick with the movie.”  (So do I.)

After a disquisition on drag performances in today’s culture and theater, Hilton Als specified in the New Yorker, “Glenn Close is an actual woman, but Norma Desmond . . . is a construct composed, sometimes deliberately, sometimes not, from drag, or drag impulses.”  Admitting that he never “warmed to the musical,” Als went on, “Webber doesn’t write music that one can sing without ‘soaring,’ and Close does what’s required to put the song over, while the orchestra does the rest”—and the rest of the main cast belts “handily” as well,” though you have to keep reminding yourself what they’re singing about with such urgency,” the New Yorker review-writer reminded us, quipping, “In any case, the audience is more interested in the musical’s camp factor than in the seriousness of the score, if it has any.”  (This notice received a negative Show-Score rating of 40, by the way.  It’s interesting—at least to me—to note that Als also thought about “Carol Burnett’s classic spoof” of La Desmond.)  Als gave this overall assessment of the play:

its atmosphere is at once messy and banal; its relentless pop façade and the constant drama of its music preclude intimacy and distance us from feeling, while encouraging a kind of aggressive contempt.  None of the characters are truly big, let alone human, even as they play big. 

He asserted that “the only instance of heart in the show” is the scene in which Norma phones Betty out of jealousy and anger, “and Close plays it to the hilt, but not hysterically, because she has something to hold on to as an actress, a reprieve from the endless mugging and grandstanding.”   
                                             
Leah Greenblatt of Entertainment Weekly reported that director Price “does indulge in a few witty visual flourishes” in the Sunset Boulevard revival; however, “there’s only one true star allowed on these boards, and her name is Norma.“  Greenblatt wrote that “even as [Close] plays [Norma] for laughs, she digs for the pathos too.”  The EW reviewer declared that Close’s “masterful portrayal also delivers the one thing poor nutty Norma most craves: An adoring, utterly captivated audience, and applause that echoes long after the curtain falls.”  In  the Hollywood Reporter, Frank Scheck found that in the revival, “Close delivers a more subtle, nuanced performance well suited to a production dramatically scaled down from the original.”  The HR review-writer reported, “The lush orchestrations do ample justice to the beauty of Lloyd Webber’s score” and found that the Hampton-Black libretto “is largely faithful to the film, although its lack of nuance sometimes gives the musical an excessively campy feel that thankfully is now lessened.”  Close “reveals some vocal strain in the soaring numbers,” he felt.  “But she nonetheless puts them over in stirring fashion, using her impeccable dramatic skill”; “her Norma seems more fragile, more vulnerable.”  With praise for the three other principal actors, Scheck affirmed that the director “does an effective job” depite “some touches” such as the low-tech car chase and the floating body mannequin, which the reviewer found “slightly cheesy.”  In the end, though, Scheck asserted that it’s the return of Close that’s “this revival’s reason for being.”

In Variety, Marilyn Stasio pronounced Close’s return as Norma “triumphant”; “she’s positively regal,” claiming “diva status this time around,” added the reviewer.  Stasio labeled the music “luscious” and “romantically melodic,” but the lyrics “clunky” and the choreography’s “feeble.”  Of the other main characters, Johanson’s Max is “genuinely moving—if deeply creepy,” but Stasio dubs Xavier “pallid.” She sums up by stating that “if you want to see grown men weeping in the aisles, this is your moment.”  Time Out New York’s Adam Feldman declared, “Those who go to see Close reprise her celebrated turn . . . will not be disappointed,” though he saw “a risk of Norma-like pathos in the prospect of the actress, now nearly 70, returning to a role she played more than 20 years ago.”  The reviewer assured us, “Close holds the stage with a feverish intensity that transcends camp.”  He reported, however, that “the rest of Sunset Boulevard . . . is mostly a languorous slog.”  Calling the show “second-rate Lloyd Webber,” he complained of “filler songs that loop and repeat exhaustingly, set to lyrics that often clunk.” 

The broadcast media were mostly in the same vein.  On WFUV, Fordham University’s public radio station, John Platt confessed that, like me, he’s “not a huge fan of Andrew Lloyd Webber.”  Aside from a couple of songs in Sunset Boulevard (“As If We Said Goodbye” and “With One Look”), “I’m afraid . . . there’s nothing very memorable.”  Close milks [“As If”] for all it’s worth, and the audience responds, as expected, with an ovation,” reported Platt, explaining, “She’s fills it with grand gestures, appropriate for a delusional diva, but her voice is surprisingly thin.”  The Fordham reviewer affirmed, “She commits herself completely to the role, unafraid to appear grotesque, but it all seems stylized, like Japanese Noh theater.  In the end, I admired her craft yet left unmoved.”  As for Price’s stripped-down production, “What you get is something streamlined, in contrast to Close’s over-the-top performance.”  On NY1, the all-news channel for Spectrum cable subscribers, Roma Torre dubbed Close’s Norma Desmond “a bonafide, pull-out-the-stops star performance” and declared that the production is “guaranteed to make you surrender!” (the exclamation point is Torre’s).  The NY1 reviewer reported that Close’s “voice is huskier now, but every bit as powerful as the first time she sang those glorious notes” and that the orchestra “sounds so gorgeously lush, your ears will bow down in gratitude.”  Torre continued, “The minimalist staging allows for a sharper focus.  And what always struck me as a grotesque characterization of a woman on the verge of madness is now more nuanced and emotionally engaging.”  She acknowledged that “so much of the show’s success is owed to Close’s performance, which has truly deepened since her first outing,” but added that the other principals “are equally winning.”  Torre concluded by proclaiming, “Glenn Close is delivering one of those "must see" performances that come around every decade or so.” 

On WNYC radio, Jennifer Vanasco lamented that Price’s minimalist production “only emphasizes the repetitive music and the leaden book and lyrics.”  The “bright spot,” Venasco asserted, is Close’s performance, even though she’s “certainly not a vocal powerhouse”—“but she’s a precise actor, and . . . emphasizes” Norma’s fear and desperation.  “[A]side from the enormous orchestra,” Robert Kahn said on WNBC, the network’s television outlet in New York City, “there’s little here to distract from Close’s mesmerizing Norma, or Lloyd Webber’s pop friendly score.”  Asserted Kahn, “Close’s Desmond, alive in her own alternate reality, is both candescent and incisive.”  For the actress, Kahn insisted that “this can only be deemed a triumphant return.”  He praised the rest of the cast as well, and observed that “Price . . . .  keeps the camp factor set to ‘stun.’” 

Elyse Sommer on CurtainUp unabashedly declared of Close’s performance, “If they gave out Tonys for reprising a previously played part, she’d be a front runner.”  Sommer asserted that the “orchestra never drowns out the singers” (which both Diana and I found not to be the case, and most other reviewers reported this as well), and explained, “This is especially important vis-a-vis Close who’s always relied on her acting virtuosity to deliver the songs.  Her nuanced acting more than a big belting voice serves her well to this day.”  She also wrote that this is Lloyd Webber’s “best and richest score,” with “several show-stoppers.”  Nonetheless, “All this is not to say that [Sunset Boulevard] doesn’t make for a story that’s overly melodramatic, incredible and old-fashioned.”  On Stage Buddy, Jose Solis reported that the cut-down production “restores the essence of the story” of the film while Close “easily morphs into whatever the situation calls for”; “she is able to communicate a myriad of emotions without the aid of closeups, her singing . . .[,] her body language, and the larger than life expressions force us to zoom into her, as if we almost didn’t have a choice.”  

Michael Bracken of Theater Pizzazz quipped, “There are two reasons to see the current Broadway revival of Sunset Boulevard: Glenn Close and Glenn Close’s costumes.”  (The TP reviewer demurred briefly: “While there’s more to Sunset Boulevard than Glenn Close and her costumes, there’s not, nor does there need to be, a whole lot more.”)  Bracken declared, “Close is iconic,” contending, “Norma is a caricature of herself, and Close plays her to the rafters, but at the same time makes her frighteningly real.”  The review-writer acknowledged, “The score is not Lloyd Webber’s best,” and Close’s “singing voice may flatten occasionally, very occasionally, on a high note, but her presence, and oh what a presence, never fails to mesmerize.”  On New York Theater, Jonathan Mandell had a very serious issue with Lloyd Webber’s adaptation of the Wilder movie, “what I consider a fatal flaw”:

In the movie, Norma Desmond is delusional.  But the Lloyd Webber musical shares much of her delusion.  Rather than the film’s grim and ironic satire of Hollywood, the stage “Sunset Boulevard” is really an homage to (and embodiment of) big, empty commercial entertainment.

In contrast to many of his critical colleagues, Mandell disparaged the musical ensemble to some degree: “The large orchestra certainly makes Lloyd Webber’s score sound better than it would have if played by 40 kazoos, but, as tuneful as some of it is, all the violins in the world can’t turn it into Puccini.”  His conclusion?  “‘Sunset Boulevard’ is ersatz opera of the outsized and mostly overwrought kind that Broadway audiences have been eating up, on and off, since the 1980s.”

On the Broadway Blog, Samuel L. Leiter (who usually reviews for his own Theatre’s Leiter Side) reported that Close gives “a fine, if overripe, performance” in a show that “is, while generally entertaining, simply not that great.”  Though “well-performed,” the Lloyd Webber score “is not particularly memorable”; the “huge” orchestra “makes even the more mediocre numbers sound their best.”  The physical production is “visually sumptuous,” but while the film was “darkly cynical,” Price’s stage revival, “in a fatal mistake, fails to capture the darkness, being surprisingly upbeat, paced at machine-gun speed, and with only scattered moments of the needed gothic anxiety demanded by the story.”  Close’s “pitchy singing voice is not Broadway’s best, but her acting is strong enough, even within the deliberately broad, almost grotesque, theatricality she adopts . . . to jerk tears when she launches into ‘With One Look,’” Leiter felt.  “But the emphasis on her exaggerations takes the show too far from its deeper implications.”  The reviewer concluded, “This revival of Sunset Boulevard is smart to have pared down its visual excesses.  The darkness it evokes, though, is more in its lighting than in the world it creates.  Which is not so smart.”

Matthew Murray reported on Talkin’ Broadway that through Close’s performance of Norma Desmond, “a union of theatrical inevitability” that happens “so arrestingly and so frequently, . . . you’ll be transported to a world and psychology that are once terrifying, rapturous, and seemingly impossible.”  Murray found, “Before long, the ‘real world’ . . . comes to be as incorporeal to you as it is to her.  There's only one way to see things. Norma’s way.”  He explained, “Instinctively, you know that Norma is descending more into madness with each passing scene, but when it’s this reasonable, you don’t notice until it’s too late.”  (Actually, no, I didn’t fall for that parallel delusion.  Maybe I couldn’t suspend my disbelief willingly enough.)  “It doesn’t matter for a millisecond that Close, who was never a spectacular singer, has a more ragged edge to her vocals than she used to,” argued the TB review-writer, “or that there’s a wider gap between her head and chest voices than once was the case.”  (Yes, it does.)  “This is everything a Broadway musical performance is supposed to be, and then some.”  (No, it isn’t.  And I’ve seen Mary Martin, Julie Andrews, Virginia Capers, Chita Rivera, Gwen Verdon, Pat Suzuki, and Bernadette Peters on stage—so I know musical theater the way it’s supposed to be.)  Then Murray wondered, “Whether Sunset Boulevard is everything a musical is supposed to be is another matter.”  He admitted that Sunset Boulevard “plays very well,” but “it doesn’t add much to its source,” Wilder’s “edgier and brighter, and more incisive” movie.  The TB reviewer felt that Price’s “attempts at taming this beast are valiant and largely successful.”  He finished by admonishing, “Not that you’ll worry about that—or anything else—when Close is around.”  (It ain’t necessarily so!)

On Theater Scene, Darryl Reilly declared, “Glenn Close triumphs again in this inventively scaled down and hugely entertaining revival of” Sunset Boulevard in which “Close is still sleek, fearless and riveting.”  Reilly found, “Her singing of the modern standard show tunes . . . is sensational.  There is occasional wavering in her top register that is understandable with the passage of time, but that never deters from her stunning characterization” as she “fuses her own stardom with that of the character.”  He labeled the star’s portrayal “one of those monumental performances of musical theater history.”  The TS reviewer had high praise for Xavier, calling him “youthful but mature and charismatic” and :just as hard-edged as William Holden” (not a chance!).  Reilly also judged, “Most crucially, Xavier is an equal to Close and their chemistry is prevalent” (nope).  He lauded the other principal players as well, and said Price “has strikingly reclaimed the material from memories of its initial, overblown incarnation.” 

Stan Friedman’s review on New York Theatre Guide applauded Price’s “clever direction” of the revival, but proclaimed Close “is smaller than life.”  Among the harshest criticism of the actress among the Sunset Boulevard notices, Friedman’s said:

She might think of herself as huge, but her many costumes (beautiful and crazy, as designed by Tracy Christensen [actually, Close’s costumes were by Anthony Powell]) overwhelm her, as does the towering proscenium of the ornate Palace Theater.  With her petite, 5’5” frame, Ms. Close waddles more than she struts.  Her Norma is not a crazed monster, she’s a wilted Blanche DuBois bereft of the kindness of strangers.

Friedman had praise for Johanson’s Max and the actress who usually plays Betty, but called Xavier “the show’s weakest link . . ., lacking the necessary stage presence.” 

On NY Theatre Guide (not to be confused with New York Theatre Guide, above), Marc Miller deemed that the current Sunset Boulevard revival “isn’t as grand as the venue or as lavish as the 1994 original,” finding that it “rises and falls more than ever on the strengths of the material.”  Miller found, “The material, it turns out, is pretty sturdy,” especially “with a more seasoned Glenn Close bringing new nuance to her interpretation of Norma.”  Lloyd Webber “really did himself proud with this one. Whatever you think of the rest of his oeuvre, this score pours out the melody,” wrote Miller, and Close “plays these big moments, and all of Norma’s many others, with an intelligence and imagination rare among divas.”  Xavier, however, is a “cipher, though a handsome one, with solid high notes.”  He also doesn’t have much complimentary to say about the other supporting actors, perhaps because, the NY Theatre Guide writer felt, Price “is so focused on Norma, he doesn’t seem to be paying much attention to anyone else up there.”  Miller concluded, “In an era where so many new musicals seem to want to tell stories of life-size people . . .[,] it’s a treat to have such an outsize personality, backed by that outsize orchestra, dominating the Palace.”

“Anyone lucky enough to see Glenn Close as Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard . . . will have bragging rights for the rest of their lives,” proclaimed TheaterMania’s David Gordon.  Gordon had quibbles, though, including Stephen Mear’s choreography “with little pizzazz” and actors who “use highly expressive, broad gestures that never really mesh with the witty cynicism of” the lyrics.  He also complained of Price’s “discombobulating staging, which often features his actors running up and down the [M.  C.] Escher stairs to nowhere.”  Still, the TM reviewer affirmed, “All bets are off when Close hits the stage.”  In Gordon’s view, “Close simply plays Norma as a person, albeit a larger-than-life one.”  Though “her singing voice occasionally falters,. . . Close provides a master class in song delivery.”  In all, Gordon believes, “We’re privileged to witness theater history in the making.”  On Broadway World, Michael Dale asserted that “watching Glenn Close completely enthrall and mesmerize an audience . . . is a reminder that musical theatre is at its most thrilling when musical moments are enhanced by incisive acting.”  Dale was complimentary about Lloyd Webber’s music, but he complained that Black and Hampton’s lyrics “rarely rise above perfunctory images and rhyming, getting downright clunky during some of the dialogue-driven recitative.”  The BWW reviewer had good things to say about the supporting cast, but in the end, Close “is the reason to rush to the Palace these days.”  He concluded that “her intelligent and skillful performance is luminous.”

[In addition to her query about Close’s reviews, Diana also asked on whom Norma Desmond was modeled, so I looked it up to see what the common wisdom is.  The character’s believed to be a composite of silent-film stars Mary Pickford (1893-1979), who lived as a recluse after her retirement from movies, and  Mae Murray (1885-1965) and Clara Bow (1905-1965), both of whom struggled with mental illness.  The name of the character is presumed to be a pastiche of actresses Norma Talmadge (1894-1957) and Mabel Normand (1892-1930), and director William Desmond Taylor (1872-1922).  (Taylor was the victim of a famous and mysterious Hollywood murder.  He was found shot in the back in his bungalow but no suspect was ever identified and the crime is still unsolved.)]


22 September 2016

'School of Rock – The Musical'


[As has occasionally happened on ROT, the coverage of the press response has swelled my report on School of Rock – The Musical beyond my customary limit.  (As you’ll see, the review round-up accounts for more than half the post’s length.)  I’ll make the same explanation I’ve made before for this circumstance: rather than stinting on the review quotations or reducing the selection of press outlets I’ve consulted, I’m letting the report go long.  The discussion and my assessment of the performance of the movical, however, is no longer than more typical posts of this kind.  I hope you’ll at last sample the press response I summarize, but that decision’s up to the reader.  (For discussions of movicals in general, see my posts “Movicals,” 20 September 2013, and “More on Movicals,” 21 February 2014.)]

What’s the matter with kids today? That’s the musical question asked 56 years ago when rock ’n’ roll was still a baby—even younger than the fifth-graders in School of Rock – The Musical.  Back then, the answer, as far as the adults of Sweet Apple, Ohio, were concerned at least, was pretty much everything: their music, their clothes, their language, their dances.  School of Rock’s answer?  Not a thing—as long as they can be in a rock band!

School of Rock is a show I never thought I’d go see, to be honest.  I watched the 2003 Paramount Pictures movie directed by Richard Linklater and starring Jack Black, and it was cute but not really my cuppa.  (I’m not a big fan of Jack Black.  I find him more irritating than funny.)  I figured it was aimed at ’tweens about the age of the kids in the story.  Besides, way back in 1981, when I saw Evita, I decided that I wasn’t going to spend money to see any more Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals.  But my cousin and her husband called me and said they’d be coming up from Maryland for a birthday party and they’d like me to join them for a show—and believe it or not, the only one, play or musical, neither of us had seen or were already planning to see that was even remotely acceptable was . . . that’s right: School of Rock.  It had gotten pretty decent reviews, as far as I’d read, and I really didn’t want to say no to my cousins again, having turned them down in January when they went to Something Rotten! (which I saw later and absolutely loved; see my report posted on ROT on 11 May), so I said yes.  And off the three of us baby-boomers went to catch the one o’clock matinee at the Winter Garden Theatre on Sunday, 21 August.

With a book by Julian Fellowes (Broadway’s Mary Poppins, PBS’s Downton Abbey), music by Andrew Lloyd Webber (Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita, Cats, Starlight Express . . . oh, hell, and a passel more everyone already knows!), and lyrics by Glenn Slater (The Little Mermaid, Sister Act, Leap of Faith), School of Rock – The Musical, based on Mike White’s screenplay, began previews on Broadway on 9 November 2015 and opened on 6 December.  (After the mat on the 21st, School of Rock  had played 31 previews and 295 regular performances.)  The production, directed by Laurence Connor (the current Broadway revival of Les Miz) and choreographed by JoAnn M. Hunter, received nominations for four Tonys (Best Musical, Best Book of a Musical, Best Original Score, Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role) and five Drama Desk Awards (Outstanding Musical, Outstanding Orchestrations, Outstanding Lyrics, Outstanding Sound Design, Outstanding Music) but won none.  It was also nominated unsuccessfully for Outer Critics Circle, Broadway.com Audience, and Drama League Awards.  

The Broadway production is the show’s world première, but Lloyd Webber (who’s also a producer of the show) staged a concert version at the Gramercy Theatre (on 23rd Street near Gramercy Park) in Manhattan in June 2015.  Lloyd Webber has announced that School of Rock will make its London début at the New London Theatre this fall with previews starting on 24 October and an opening on 14 November.  (A U.S. national tour will go out in 2017.)  The original cast recording of School of Rock – The Musical was released by Warner Bros. Records on 4 December 2015.  Also before the play’s opening, Lloyd Webber and R&H Theatricals, a division of the Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization, announced in October 2015 that the amateur rights for the musical would be available immediately for productions starting rehearsals after opening night; there have already been school productions of School of Rock staged around the country.  (The movie also spun off a half-hour cable series on Nickelodeon which débuted last March and started its second season earlier this month.)

The story of School of Rock – The Musical (which runs two hours and 20 minutes with one intermission) follows the film’s plot pretty closely.  Aside from the exchange of original songs for covers, the stage musical changes a few characters’ names, mostly among the kid musicians.  Dewey Finn, played by Black in the movie and Will Blum (the alternate for Alex Brightman) at the matinee performance I saw, is still the central figure in the plot.  He’s still a slacker rock guitarist; he’s still booted out of the band he helped start; and he still impersonates a substitute teacher at the prestigious Horace Green prep school in his anonymous city.  (One other small change: in the movie, the class Dewey turns into a rock band is fourth grade; in the play, the kids are fifth-graders.  That only means the 11- to 13-year-old actors playing the students are supposed to be 10 instead of 9.)

Dewey Finn (Blum) is a wannabe rock guitarist who’s kicked out of his own band, No Vacancy (think Metallica rip-off), for constantly up-staging the lead singer, Theo (John Arthur Greene), with his on-stage antics (“I’m Too Hot for You”).  The band’s moving up, the other musicians think, and Dewey no longer fits in; for one thing, they’re all good-looking (they say) and Dewey’s . . . well, a zhlub.  Then he’s also fired from his day job at a record store (“When I Climb to the Top of Mount Rock”).  Constantly broke, Dewey shares an apartment with his friend and former Maggotdeath bandmate, Ned Schneebly (Spencer Moses), who’s now a substitute teacher with a domineering girlfriend, Patty Di Marco (Mamie Parris).  Dewey’s months behind in his share of the rent, and Patty demands that Ned kick him out.  Patty goes off to work and Ned’s out, too, when Dewey answers a phone call for Ned.  It’s the exclusive Horace Green school in need of a substitute teacher for the rest of the term.  Needing money and a job, Dewey pretends to be Ned and accepts a job as a fifth-grade teacher at the snobbish private school.  

Of course, Dewey arrives late (and hung-over) and finds Principal Rosalie Mullins (Jenn Gambatese) anxiously waiting for him (“Here at Horace Green”).  Uptight Ms. Mullins hardly notices Dewey’s unpreparedness, slovenly attire, or physical state as she ushers him into his classroom.  He promptly declares permanent recess, much to the disbelief and consternation of the over-achieving pupils, as he stretches out on the desk for a bit of recovery time.  When he happens on the students’ music class and recognizes their talent, he forms a plan to realize his dreams of rock stardom.  The sub forms a rock band with his 10-year-olds in an effort to win the prize money (and spotlight) offered by the Battle of the Bands competition—out of which he was cheated when his old combo dumped him.  

Obviously, Dewey has to do this in secret because Ms. Mullins and the children’s parents, who all have expectations for and demands on their offspring, would clearly disapprove and shut him down.  Needless to say, though, the students, after some hesitation, take to the idea wholeheartedly—though Dewey has to convince one or two that forming a rock band is an educational benefit, or even a good idea.  He hands out band assignments to musicians (Zack on electric guitar – Brandon Niederauer, Katie on bass – Evie Dolan, Lawrence on keyboard – Diego Lucano, and Freddy on drums – Raghav Mehrotra), singers (Shonelle – Gianna Harris, Marcy – Carly Gendell), back-up dancers/roadies (Madison – Ava Della Pietra, Sophie – Gabby Gutierrez), a manager (bossy, gold star-craving Summer – Isabella Russo), a lighting techie (Mason – Gavin Kim). a stylist (the Streisand-adoring, Vogue-reading Billy – Luca Padovan), and a security chief (James – Jersey Sullivan) who’s job it is to warn the class when Ms. Mullins or one of the teachers heads their way.  (In an amusing—and serendipitous—bit, Summer, who’s a terrible singer, auditions as a back-up vocalist by croaking her way through Lloyd Webber’s “Memory” from Cats, which originally ran for 18 years at the Winter Garden and is now in revival at the Neil Simon.  The song was used in the same moment in the movie, but takes on special significance in the adaptation.)

When Tomika (Bobbi MacKenzie), the shy new girl who’d been silent and isolated till now, reveals that she’s a talented singer (with a spectacular rendition of “Amazing Grace” worthy of Vy Higginsen’s Gospel for Teens Choir), she, too, joins the combo; “You’re in the Band” iterates the class’s—and the play’s—point and becomes a catch phrase for acceptance and belonging.  (As in the movie, the young band members really play their instruments, sing, and dance as well as act—as a pre-curtain announcement recorded by none other than Lloyd Webber himself assures us.  There’s also a pit orchestra of eight that supplements the on-stage combo for the non-band numbers.)  Dewey and his anti-establishment anarchism (“Stick It to the Man” is a signature song for Dewey and the new band) soon have a noticeable effect on the fifth-graders’ self-assurance.  (Many reviewers noted the irony of this theme in a play written and composed by two millionaire life peers—Lord Lloyd-Webber of Sydmonton and Lord Fellowes of West Stafford are both barons—who sit in the House of Lords as Tories, the very embodiments of “The Man”!)  The Horace Green faculty is jealous of Dewey’s unconventional success (“Faculty Quadrille”).

At home after school, each of the young band members shows us the difficulties each has relating to his or her parents, none of whom really listens to their children (“If Only You Would Listen”).  (This is the one area of the plot that’s been expanded from the movie: we learn more of the pupils’ family lives.)  In order to secure permission to take the students on a “field trip,” Dewey, having learned that Ms. Mullins was once a Stevie Nicks fan, asks her for a drink at a road house where she reveals what’s under her tight-ass exterior (“Where Did the Rock Go?”).  Back at Dewey’s apartment, Ned and Patty have opened the mail and found a check from Horace Green made out to Ned.  After Patty leaves, Dewey comes clean but makes Ned promise not to tell his girlfriend. 

At school the next day, Zack plays the class a song he’s written (“School of Rock”) and Dewey is so impressed with Zack’s talent, he asks Zack to teach it to the band.  There’s a near-crisis on Parents’ Night when the pupils’ parents discover what the kids have been spending their time on, but Dewey charms them—with a lie, to be sure, but they buy it (“Math Is a Wonderful Thing”).  But just as Dewey navigates this predicament, Ned and Patty burst in and, Patty having gotten the truth out of pussy-whipped Ned, expose Dewey.  In the ensuing chaos, the students and Dewey escape Horace Green, but Dewey’s so dismayed he retreats to his darkened room until the students explain how much he’s meant to them (reprise of “If Only You Would Listen”).  In the end, of course, the School of Rock, the name the fifth-graders chose for their group, manages to make it to the theater. 

In a slight twist, they don’t actually win the competition—No Vacancy, Dewey’s old band, does—but School of Rock does win the hearts of the spectators—including the previously skeptical parents—who demand an encore from the mini-rockers (significantly, a reprise of “Stick It to the Man”).  Dewey explains to the kids that winning isn’t the important thing because together they accomplished something more significant.  They beat “The Man”—the one who makes and enforces all the rules.

Back at Horace Green, following the Battle of the Bands (which is really the dramatic conclusion of the play), Ms. Mullins, who’s the children’s actual music teacher, combines some heavy rock licks with her classical singing (“Queen of the Night” from Mozart’s Magic Flute), signaling that things are in for a change at the school—all due to the School of Rock and Dewey’s influence.

School of Rock is fun—the little kid musicians are fantastic!—but I have some significant quibbles.  One is with the sound system, which muddled the singing so badly neither my cousin nor I could decipher Slater’s lyrics.  Even the non-rock numbers—more-or-less regular theater songs—were blurred.  I’ll get to the other issues in a bit, when I cover the show in more detail, but the music is significant because one of the major differences between Linklater and White’s movie and the Fellowes-Lloyd Webber-Slater stage musical is in the score.  Where the movie used mostly covers of rock songs, the play has original songs whose lyrics impact the plot and characters.  (Four songs are reprised from the film: “Edge of Seventeen” by Stevie Nicks; “School of Rock,” aka “Teacher’s Pet,” by Mike White and Sammy James, Jr.; “In the End of Time” by Jack Black and Warren Fitzgerald; and “Math Is a Wonderful Thing” by Black and White.  James is a member of Mooney Suzuki, a  garage rock band featured in the film; Fitzgerald is a punk guitarist.)

In case no one else spots it, if Harold Hill played an instrument instead of just selling them, and if he were a would-be musician instead of a huckster salesman, School of Rock would be The Music Man—as long as the music’s rock and not Sousa marches.  (Principal Mullins would be Marian the Librarian and Lawrence, the unconfident keyboardist, would be young Winthrop with the lisp.)  I don’t know if screenwriter White, filmmaker Linklater, or stage adapter Lloyd Webber considered this or if its just a universal tale, but the parallels are pretty hard to overlook.  And that’s where my second quibble comes in.  The apparent point of the show seems to be that if you let your kids be rock musicians, they’ll be great, even if they never learn anything else in school.  Of course, that’s bogus—but if you take the play seriously, that’s what it says.  (Dewey delivers a very heartfelt speech to the parents making that point, and it’s not treated as a joke.  In fact, the play turns on this scene.  You have to believe that the whole play takes place in an alternate universe to overlook that and just see it as a charming fantasy.)
                 
Oh, well, as some great philosopher once said: We don’t need no education!  (He also said: Teachers leave them kids alone, another aspect of the play’s philosophy.)

There are other essential problems here as well.  While Blum is a worthy stand-in for Brightman, his Dewey isn’t really loveable the way the character should be to make the play soar.  In fact, he’s pitiful—and that’s the way the character’s written and directed, not just the way Blum comes off.  Now, as I said, I’m not a fan of Black’s, so the movie didn’t work for me in that way, either, but I’m enough of a dramaturg to be able to analyze the performance text to see that that’s what’s supposed to—or what needs to—occur for this story to take off.  The result of the lack of this quality in the anarchic, slovenly, loud-mouthed Dewey is that his message begins to seem potentially dangerous.  He comes close to the Pied Piper luring Hamelin’s children into the cave.  (Indeed, David Rooney of the Hollywood Reporter dubbed him “the renegade pied piper of bad-assery.”)  He’s teaching the kids to be sneaky, dishonest, disrespectful, and defiant (for example, one lyric from “Time to Play,” a song Summer and the fifth-graders sing, is “Look rebellious, act more crude / Bring your best bad attitude”), which is only good if the authority figures like Ms. Mullins and the parents are actually venal (think Nazi prison guards and authoritarian dictators).  But they’re not.  Horace Green may be snobbish and hidebound, but it’s not Animal Farm (it’s also not Matilda or Annie).  The parents don’t listen, but the family lives aren’t The Great Santini or Mommie Dearest.  What’s Dewey up to?  Starting a cult? 

(By the way, the parents are another small thing that bothers me.  In an entire fifth-grade class, every single parent suffers from the same shortsightedness and inattentiveness to his or her child?  Not one ’rent pays attention?  And while I’m at it, this is a whole class of musical prodigies?  Really?  What are the chances of that?  I guess we are in that alternate universe.)

And if we presume that somehow Dewey is redeemed in the end by his encounter with the kids or maybe the reborn Ms. Mullins, that doesn’t happen, either.  (Actually, he goes into this gig for his own selfish purposes.  Like Professor Hill, Dewey only pretends to care about the children—until he sort of comes around near the end.)  When Dewey’s exposed for a fraud and an imposter, he escapes punishment because Mullins tells a lie to cover for him.  (And Patty—who, granted, is a harridan—is the one who’s threatened with legal consequences.  Even though she’s actually right about Dewey, she’s made to be the heavy of School of Rock )  Why does he deserve this outcome?  Because the band kids capture everyone’s heart—not by saving a baby from drowning, the theater from burning down, or the school from closing, but by being good at playing rock music.  Wait, let me amend that: by being 10-year-olds who are good at playing rock music.  In School’s Brigadoon universe, this is apparently the highest of human aspirations.

(I think you’re getting an idea why I didn’t figure I’d buy a ticket for School of Rock.  I have the wrong temperament for it.)

Let me repeat, however, what I said at the start of my assessment: School of Rock is fun.  Despite what may seem harsh criticism, I did enjoy the performance overall.  It’ll never go down on my list of best-ever theater experiences, but it was far from one the worst.  Blum’s performance was fine, but what really puts School of Rock – The Musical over the top as a piece of musical theater are the 13 band members.  No matter how well Dewey’s performed, no matter how good Fellowes’s book is, and even no matter how tuneful Lloyd Webber and Slater’s score is, it’s the performances, both the acting and the playing, provided by the pre-teen members of the cast that sets this movical above the run-of-the-mill.  (I haven’t seen Matilda, but I’ve heard those youngsters are even more astounding—but I can’t make a comparison.) 

The members of Dewey’s fifth-grade School of Rock are a mixed group now, some from the opening cast and some replacements; at the mat I saw, there were even a couple of understudy/standbys on stage.  Nonetheless, they're by far the best things in the whole show, both as characters (Isabella Russo’s Summer is deliciously bossy, Diego Lucano is touchingly insecure as Lawrence, and despite the stereotypicality of the character as written, Billy is compellingly determined in Luca Padovan’s hands) and rockers.  (I’d like to think that in the real world, in an ironic reversal, School of Rock would have beaten No Vacancy in the Battle of the Bands.  Lloyd Webber’s music and Slater’s words are pretty derivative—it’s one of the problems that turned me off Lloyd Webber years ago—but “School of Rock” and “Stick It to the Man” are both more interesting pieces of music than “I’m Too Hot for You” and the kids’ musical staging was more fun than No Vacancy’s been-there-done-that posing!  I’m just sayin’.)

The acting of the adults is a different matter.  With children, I think, it doesn’t matter if the roles are written as clichés and stereotypes because I don’t think that registers with really young actors.  They just commit to what the playwright and director give them and go for it.  As Matthew Murray of the website Talkin’ Broadway explained it, they do “exactly what all great musical theatre actors do: transcending the falseness of their surroundings to create a new and better reality through nothing more than their impeccably honed and applied talents.”  It’s part of the childlike quality actors try to retain—believing fully in what they’re doing in the moment.  It’s acting as playacting, and the closer the actor is to childhood, the stronger that impulse is.  But adult pros lose more and more of that the more experienced they get and they have to work at getting it back.  They’ve been around long enough to recognize stereotypes and stock characters and it’s harder for them to play them truthfully without signaling what they feel.  In School of Rock, the adult characters are in such a category and for the most part, the actors don’t or can’t disguise that or play though it.  The parents and teachers (played by the same corps with doubling: Steven Booth, Natalie Charle Ellis, Josh Tower, Michael Hartney, John Hemphill, Merritt David Janes, Jaygee Macapugay, et al.) certainly don’t add anything to their characterizations beyond the caricatures Fellowes wrote for them.  They follow their graphs faithfully, but never rise above cartoons—sort of like the grown-ups in a Peanuts animation. 

I’ve had my say about Blum’s Dewey (and, from the opening-night reviews I read, the same holds true for Alex Brightman, so it’s apparently not entirely the actor’s responsibility): he doesn’t turn Dewey from an unlikeable slob into a charming and child-like rebel.  But Jenn Gambatese manages to make the transition with Rosalie Mullins.  In the opening scenes, she’s the classic tight-ass, even costumed with glasses and a hair-bun.  In the bar scene with Dewey, however, when she almost literally lets her hair down (now, that would be a cliché) and lets her inner Stevie Nicks loose, we get a peek at a Roz that’s genuine and personable.  Her little speech about how she hates the social and academic politics of Horace Green that’s the foundation of her job may be a little too on-the-nose dramatically, but it apparently gives Gambatese enough fuel to take her into a more human characterization and it’s even possible to see her fall a little under Dewey’s spell at that moment.  (It’s a tad incredible, but that’s because Blum doesn’t make the concomitant shift in Dewey that makes him loveable—but that’s hardly Gambatese’s fault.)  When it comes time for Ms. Mullins to release the fifth-graders for their “field trip” and then, more momentously, for her to lie to save Dewey, it’s almost justified by her left dogleg after her Fleetwood Mac turn. 

Director Connor seems to have worked better (or perhaps just more) with the children than with the adults, and he achieves more with them as a result.  Most of School of Rock is staged perfunctorily, but the young wannabe rockers get the best moves.  Hunter’s dances, too, are less than sparkling except for the children, though their numbers tend to be repetitive (and even perhaps derivative) in their pogo-stick jumping movements that look a lot like the kids in Matilda in that show’s commercials.  Anna Louizos’s sets and costumes are fine (her get-ups for Dewey’s grunge-wear couldn’t be . . . well, grungier), with mostly minimal scenery to allow room for movement (except Dewey’s classroom where shifting desks and furniture around to disguise what he’s up to is part of the play’s performance text).  The three rows of sliding panels that make up the detailed back walls of various rooms work well here, and re-jiggering the pupils’ school uniforms for their band costumes (and giving Dewey an adult version for the Battle of the Bands bit) is, if not inspired, then just this side of kinky.  (Blum, in his knee socks and high-tops, looks like an off-kilter scout leader in his maroon plaid shorts and Horace Green blazer.  There should be a prize for the most disturbing costume at the contest.  I wonder what stylist Billy was thinking . . . .)

Natasha Katz’s lighting is well-conceived, from the under-lit atmosphere of Dewey’s bedroom, where the curtains are probably never opened, to the institutional blandness of the prep school hallways, to the rock-concert LED glare of the Battle of the Bands (which caught me right in the eye—but never mind).  The musical direction of Darren Ledbetter works perfectly well for Lloyd Webber’s orchestrations, especially in the faux-rock numbers, but I’ve already said my piece about the sound design of Mick Potter (which is why I have nothing to say about Slater’s lyrics).  Since I feel the musical is a showcase for the ’tween band, all the production elements are really just eyewash for those moments anyway, so as long as they don’t get in the way, they’re perfect for this production.

The press coverage of School of Rock – The Musical was immense.  Show-Score tallied 60 reviews, including out-of-town papers (Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune) and even abroad (London’s Telegraph), giving the movical an average score of 74.  The site reported that School of Rock got 75% positive notices against 3% negative ones and 22% mixed reviews.   (My round-up will cover 33 press outlets, some different from Show-Score’s.)  The one aspect of the show which united almost all the reviews was the nearly unanimous praise for and delight in the performances of the 13 children who play the members of the School of Rock combo.  From the highest scoring to the lowest rated notice, not one reviewer dissed those kids. (As it happens, I saw then-12-year-old Niederauer, who plays lead-guitarist Zack, on Stephen Colbert’s Late Show last November and his musicianship was indeed remarkable.)

Among the dailies, the highest Show-Score rating (85) went to Matt Windman’s am New York review, in which the review-writer called School of Rock “highly enjoyable and heartwarming” with music that’s “occasionally serviceable and sappy” but “contains [Lloyd Webber’s] best music in a very long time, bursting with excitement more often than not.”  Windman made a special point of stating, “The dozen or so children are wildly talented and absolutely adorable.  I dare you not to smile as they stomp around and chant that they will ‘stick it to the man.’”  In the shadow of the blockbuster of last season, Hamilton, School isn’t “a game-changer,” the amNY writer offered, “but . . . it is a solid, well-structured musical comedy.”  (Windman also caught that School of Rock is “a modern version of ‘The Music Man.’”)  With a “Bottom Line” of “The kids are definitely all right in Andrew Lloyd Webber’s enjoyable show,” Linda Winer’s Newsday review labeled the movical “high-energy, enjoyable, [and] unrelentingly eager-to-please.”  The production, Winer asserted, “is as slick and sure of itself as if it had been running at the Winter Garden Theatre since Lloyd Webber’s ‘Cats’ closed 15 years ago.”  The pre-teen musicians are “all terrific,” declared Winer, and Slater’s “easygoing lyrics” are set to a “hard-rocking and comfortable” score by Lloyd Webber. 

In the New York Times, Ben Brantley described School of Rock as Lloyd Webber’s “friskiest [show] in decades” and “is about as easygoing as a show can be that threatens to break your eardrums.”  Brantley reported that “for its first half, at least, [School of Rock] charmingly walks the line between the cute and the precious, the sentimental and the saccharine.”  Brantley cautioned, however, that “in the more lazily formulaic second act . . ., you can taste glucose in the air.”  The adaptation’s creative team “translates [the film’s] sensibility into Broadway-ese with surprising fluency.”  In sum, the Timesman declared that “‘Rock’ is surprisingly easy to swallow, in large part because everyone involved seems to be having such a fine time,” adding that “family audiences should be grateful for a Lloyd Webber show that only wants to have fun and hopes that you do, too.”  The New York Post’s Elisabeth Vincentelli  pointed out that every part of the show except one is “on the plot’s outskirts” because “the story is centered on the relationship between the children and Dewey.”  Vincentelli, though, did complain of the play’s sexism since the “adult women are either straight-laced or shrewish, while the little girls are stuck in rock’s traditional parts.”  The musical’s “whole heap of new tunes by Andrew Lloyd Webber,” says the Post reviewer, are his “catchiest tunes in years.” 

The unsigned Daily News review (which Show-Score identifies as Joe Dziemianowicz’s) described School of Rock as a “wildly energetic but uneven show” made up of “the great and fantastical stuff” of Broadway musicals.  The News review-writer named a few songs that “jolts [sic] the show awake,” then complained that “they’re exceptions.  Most of the new songs tend to be just okay at best.”  The songs, Dziemianowicz said, feel “generic” and at many points, “the music is just too loud for its own good, suppressing what may be decent lyrics under amplified purple haze.”  Overall, the Newsman complained, “The show wants to rock your socks off, but it just moves in fits and starts and feels labored” and director Connor’s “staging is inconsistent.”   Still, the “young actors/musicians all kick axe,” but it’s “a show that can’t get out of its own way—or add much to the classic movie.”  In the U.S. edition of London’s Guardian, Alexis Soloski labeled the movical a “perfectly pleasant, perfectly innocuous new musical,” though she warned that early scenes “are wholly predictable” and “musical numbers are unhappily anodyne.”  Then Soloski added, “But things perk up when the younger cast members finally get a chance to sing and play.”  She explained: “The children are universally adorable and several of them are staggeringly accomplished musicians.  It is an absolute treat to hear them.”  Soloski complained, however, that Lloyd Webber’s songs don’t really rock: “any hard electric edges have been sanded away.”  School of Rock – The Musical, the Guardian reviewer concluded, “wants to please and please it does.  But rock it doesn’t.”

Robert Feldberg of the Bergen County, New Jersey, Record called School “old-fashioned and predictable” in a review entitled “Remember when people thought rock-and-roll would save the world?”  He responded to his own question by asserting, “That mantra is the ringingly dated message of ‘School of Rock,’ a throwback musical in more ways than one.”  Then, however, Feldberg added, “But it’s also fun, demonstrating how entertaining a formulaic evening, smartly executed, can be.”  “Directed . . . at a rapid pace,” School of Rock has “a strong, if simple, story . . ., apt songs . . ., [and] lively performances.”  With “all-around theater know-how, the show is a tribute to professionalism,” affirmed the Record review-writer.  Feldberg concluded that School of Rock “is meant to be a feel-good musical, and, despite its manipulativeness and cartoonish characters, it largely succeeds.”  

On NJ.com, Christopher Kelly of the Newark ­Star-Ledger predicted that the “faithful-bordering-on-slavish adaptation of the” movie “will win no prizes for originality.”  Labeling the movical a “big, noisy musical,” Kelly asserted that it “transposes virtually every scene from the film onto the stage.”  The Star-Ledger reviewer found that the music and  lyrics “are a forgettable pastiche of contemporary Top 40 pop-rock,” then reported that School of Rock “nevertheless keeps a smile plastered on your face” because “there can be no denying the verve and indomitable energy of the young cast.”  Connor and Fellowes “do a fine job moving the story along at a pleasant clip”; however, “the real stars of this show are the thirteen children who play the members of Dewey’s class, pint-sized forces of nature who sing, dance and play instruments.”  Kelly’s last thought was that spectators

could wish that choreographer JoAnn M. Hunter had come up with something more inventive than the stomp-heavy moves so reminiscent of the dance numbers in “Matilda.”  You could also complain that the two main female parts . . . are such tired, rhymes-with-witch clichés.  Or you could sit back and enjoy a musical that reminds us that “family-f[riend]ly entertainment” need not also be an insult to a grown-up’s intelligence and good taste.  “School of Rock” may not be one for the history books, but it nonetheless has plenty of valuable lessons to teach. 

The Wall Street Journal’s Terry Teachout opened his notice with a declaration:

The commodity musical, that parasitical genre in which Hollywood hits of the relatively recent past are repurposed for profit by turning them into paint-by-the-numbers big-budget Broadway shows, is the worst thing to happen to American musical comedy since maybe ever. 

Then he conceded that “there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be theoretically possible to write a good commodity musical,” and grudgingly allowed, “Turning ‘School of Rock’ into a musical isn’t the worst idea in the world.”  In fact, he affirmed that “if you need a safe, undemanding show to take your baby-boom parents to see over the holidays, it’ll do perfectly fine—but if that sounds like lukewarm praise, it is.”  Teachout reported that “Fellowes’s version isn’t funny” and the Lloyd Webber-Slater songs, except “Stick It to the Man,” which “is catchy, fun and extremely well staged by” choreographer Hunter, “are filler, synthetic and innocuous.” The WSJ reviewer also complained, “The music is loud but not ear-shreddingly so, though it’s impossible to hear the lyrics when the pit band cranks up.”  As for the “good stuff,” Teachout said only: “The kids are absolutely wonderful.”  His final comment?

I’ve seen worse and so have you, and if that’s enough to get you to spring for a pair of $145 tickets to “School of Rock,” go for it.  Just be forewarned: This is the kind of musical that sends you home wanting to rent the movie.  I don’t know about you, but that’s not why I go to the theater.

Brendan Lemon of the U.S. edition of the Financial Times, another wag on the theater beat, mused:

“Are you not entertained?” bellows Russell Crowe at the arena in the 2000 movie Gladiator.  All during School of Rock, Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Colisseum-loud [sic] musical . . ., I kept asking myself the same question.  Like the victims of those enslaved warriors, I felt pummelled [sic] by the experience.

He, too, conceded that “the tremendously talented children in this cast perform with an intensity that only a churl could deny”; this is where the “show’s chief pleasures reside.”  Still, Lemon observed, “None of the new songs created by Lloyd Webber and Glenn Slater, his lyricist, do much to enhance the existing tunes from the source material” even if the show “has been energetically directed.”  Fellowes’s book “honours the movie’s storyline with a Dowager’s dutifulness,” though “the transitions are abrupt and the characters’ backgrounds a little sketchy.”   

Elysa Gardner started right in by asking in USA Today: “How could you possibly resist them, these fresh, sunny faces and sweet pre-pubescent voices that dominate the cast of School of Rock – The Musical?”  Gardner reported that Lloyd Webber “happily, has approached the project with a healthy sense of humor, though he and lyricist Glenn Slater also provide a few earnest ballads.”  Repeating that “it’s the younger cast members who engage us most,” Gardner concluded that “you’ll root for all of them, and have a grand time doing so.”

The New Yorker’s “Goings On About Town” column declared that School of Rock “goes straight for the pleasure center” and that the Lloyd Webber-Slater songs “really do rock.”  (The New Yorker reviewer was another who saw “a latter-day Harold Hill” in Dewey Finn.)  The columnist concluded by pointing out, “But the chief triumph of Laurence Connor’s production is the child actors, who give winning, distinctive performances.”  Also making comparisons with Meredith Willson’s classic Music Man, Jesse Green remarked in New York magazine, “If you are willing to overlook trite sentiments like” those expressed in the lyric “Wreck your room and rip your jeans / and show ’em what rebellion means” (from “Stick It to the Man”), School of Rock “has a fair amount to offer: . . . a clean, swift staging by Laurence Connor; and, for those who like it, temporary deafness.”  Green confirmed, though, “The big gimmick is of course the kids,” whom he labeled “terrific” (and, the man from New York assured us, “not overly adorable”) even if each “has a predictable arc and a backstory full of clichés” that’s “completely pro forma and signboarded like crazy.”  The adults, said Green, are saddled with the need to “turn salesmanship into character,” but “Fellowes’s book doesn’t allow it, offering no psychology, only traits.”  Comparing the score to that of “the best musical comedies,” Green asserted, “But School of Rock, like many rock musicals, has a problem availing itself of the genre’s full power, because reasonably authentic rock of the type imitated here, circa 1975, has such a limited vocabulary.”  Slater’s lyrics,” when they can be heard, are clean and on point,” but Lloyd Webber “is not, in any case, a real rock composer” and his music “grabs whatever tropes seem handy” for the moment at hand.  But, Green proclaimed, “The problem is what the point is”:

If Dewey represents the anarchic spirit of rock, and we are meant to cheer when he gets the kids to share that spirit, do we suddenly not notice that he’s, well, a loser? . . . .  Looked at squarely, this is a show about a poseur, not just liberating but undermining everyone around him.  (The musical’s villain is his roommate’s girlfriend, who is punished for the crime of wanting him to pay his rent by being turned into a hideous nightmare bitch.) 

“There is [a] tremendous amount of talent . . . behind School of Rock," asserted Jesse Oxfeld in Entertainment Weekly

And yet, without a doubt and by a long shot, the best things on the stage of the Winter Garden Theatre are the dozen or so unknown kids who steal the show . . . .  They bring to what might otherwise be a dutiful screen-to-stage retread an inspiring jolt of energy, joy, whimsy, and—do the kids still say this?—mad skillz.

School of Rock isn’t perfect,” the EW reviewer observed, but Lloyd Webber “has written a fun, catchy, rock-ish score,” reported Oxfeld, continuing that “when those kids . . . take the stage, School of Rock is a delight.”  Time Out New York’s David Cote said the adaptation from film to stage by the “unlikely creative team” of School “successfully execute such a smart transfer,” even if those who saw the movie will know what to expect.  “It worked for the movie, and wow, does it work on Broadway,” declared Cote.  School of Rock is “one tight, well-built show,” according to the man from TONY; having “absorbed the diverse lessons of Rent, Spring Awakening and Matilda,” it “passes them on to a new generation.”  He asserted, “You’d have to have zero sense of humor about pop to not enjoy Webber’s jaunty pastiche score.” 

In the Hollywood Reporter, David Rooney, labeling School of Rock “disarming,” asserted that “the show knows full well that its prime asset is the cast of ridiculously talented kids.”  Still, Rooney reported, “In terms of screen-to-stage remakes, this is neither the most imaginative nor the most pedestrian of them.”  The HR reviewer said that “the musical is funny and endearing for much the same reasons as the movie,” but went on, “Where it distinguishes itself is in providing the sheer unalloyed pleasure of being in the same physical space as the baker’s dozen preteen stars.”  While extolling Lloyd Webber’s “commercial instincts,” Rooney found that “his songs are ersatz rock at best, and more often efficient than inspired, while Slater’s lyrics tend to express feelings rather than advance the action.”  Connor’s direction, the review-writer felt, “is not always the most elegant,” but the production design is “first-rate.”  In conclusion, Rooney stated, “Ultimately, what makes this show a crowd-pleaser is the generosity of spirit.”  Variety’s Marilyn Stasio, describing School of Rock as “an exuberant feel-good musical,” declared, “Andrew Lloyd Webber unleashed his inner child to write” the movical, as he and his creative colleagues “are clearly child-friendly.”  The only change Stasio found between the Lloyd Webber-Fellowes-Slater stage adaptation and the film was that the creators managed “to lay on the energetic rock songs” of the new score. 

David Roberts called School of Rock a “powerhouse musical” on Theatre Reviews Limited and said it “reflects significantly ‘what and how we are now’ and moves forward in creative ways to address significant cultural and—perhaps surprisingly—political issues,” referencing the late Elizabeth Swados.  Roberts added that Dewey’s “antics in the classroom are over-the-top joy to watch and hear” and the four musicians at the center of the band “will make the audience fall back into their seats in awe at the craft of these young musicians.”  The TRL blogger continued, “The electrifying twenty-eight (some reprised) songs literally rock the walls of the iconic Winter Garden Theatre.”  Connor’s direction is “galvanizing,” the cast is “uniformly excellent,” and Fellowes’s book “is refreshing.”  Roberts concluded, “‘School of Rock – The Musical’ succeeds because audience members can so easily identify with its characters and connect to their conflicts.” 

On Theater Pizzazz, Sandi Durell stated, like so many of her peers, that School is “all about the fabulous talented kids and louder than loud music.”  She warned, though, “You may not be able to make out all the lyrics, and may find some of the tunes repetitive but that’s okay, it’s all about the hot, high energy.”  Nonetheless, “Anna Louizos’ fine eye designs the detailed sets and costumes; Natasha Katz’[s] first rate lighting adds the rock stadium quality, while choreographer JoAnn M. Hunter moves [the cast] all around like supple chess pieces.”  The TP reviewer also felt that director Laurence Connor “stirs ‘em up and voila . . . you’ve got a hot ‘School of Rock’ blend of audience pleasers.”  Calling much of Lloyd Webber’s hard-rock score “uninspired” on Theatre’s Leiter Side, Samuel L. Leiter acknowledged that under the “enthusiastic” direction of Connor, the stage musical, with a plot “offering some additional material” by Fellowes, has “its success . . . practically guaranteed.”  Leiter pronounced the story “a fairy tale,” but asserted that “you believe and you accept [it] because it’s presented with a just enough skill and charm to make it irresistible.  In fact, you’ll probably even wipe away a happy tear or two.”  While he praised the work of the design team, Leiter concluded that it’s the “extraordinarily talented kids” who make “a B-minus show into an A-minus one.”  CurtainUp’s Elyse Sommer dismissed School as “not . . . big on originality, depth or high art” but acknowledged (like so many others) that the “kids are irresistible.”  The production, centering on the “super talented” ‘tween band members, is “smoothly directed,” but Sommer warned, “Forget about looking for any especially deep or controversial themes” since “this really isn’t a message musical.”  In the final analysis, “School of Rock [remains] strictly what it is—a not to be taken seriously hard rocking, feel good romp.”

On NY Theatre Guide, Marc Miller, while acknowledging the connection to The Music Man like some of his colleagues, also compared School with other recent musicals centering on children and observed, “You’ve seen a lot of it already”—although “School of Rock has its share of fun.”  Miller asserted that the movical’s creative team “are out only to entertain, logic and character development be damned.  On a ground-floor level, they succeed.”  Fellowes, this cyber reviewer complained, “knows how to land a laugh and where to introduce sentiment and conflict,” but doesn’t “probe beneath the surface.”  The tease of the musical scene in which the children sing about the inattentiveness of their parents made Miller want “to know more about these parent-kid conflicts and how they’d be resolved.  But they’re resolved in the most pat way imaginable.”  There’s “not much depth,” but the “surface-skimming along the way” is “enjoyable.”  The score, he reported, is Lloyd Webber’s “friskiest in years” and the “lyrics are well crafted and clever, when you can hear them.”  Miller found that “more than half the words are distorted beyond intelligibility or drowned out by the ear-splitting kid rockers.”  He lauded the designers, but Connnor’s “direction is more efficient than inspired.”  Despite its assets, however, “there’s an unadventurous carefulness to School of Rock’s approach that somewhat undercuts what little it’s trying to say.”

Michael Dale of Broadway World labeled School of Rock an “enthralling, high-energy kickass new hard-rockin’ musical” with a “solid set of lyrics, the funny and sincerely touching book . . . and a top flight cast.”  The result, said Dale, “is a big, beautiful blast of musical comedy from start to finish.”  (Instead of The Music Man, the oldie to which Dale likened School was “basically THE SOUND OF MUSIC without the Nazis.”)  The BWW review-writer acknowledged that the “crisp production is enhanced by Anna Louizos[‘s] fluidly moving set” and, despite some plot moments “that defy logic” and some “clichéd” small roles, “the musical’s exuberant score and meaningful theme . . . glosses over any weak spots.”  Dale’s conclusion was: “School of Rock is a great night out.”  Suggesting that a theatergoer’s expectations for a show with child actors might be “way too high” and that such a show would be “courting disaster,” Talkin’ Broadway’s Matthew Murray assured us that “those expectations arent just met, theyre exceeded—by several orders of magnitude.”  Of course, Murray went on to heap lavish praise on the work of the young musicians and singers of School of Rock and then moved on to state, “Lloyd Webber still knows how to craft and orchestrate a rock melody, his tunes at once ultra-cool and searing hot.”  Then Murray backed off a little: “Unfortunately, whenever [Dewey] and his glittering charges aren’t center stage, School of Rock satisfies considerably less” because, due to Fellowes’s book and Connor’s staging, “all of the supporting characters are bloated and unbelievable”; the TB reviewer characterized them as “brain-dead stereotypes and dramatic one-dimensionality.” The rest of the score, aside from the kids’ numbers, are “a series of lame songs” and Murray demeaned the production design and choreography as “the straightforward, at-face-value variety” that ends the evening as “one big, loud question mark.”  (Murray was another reviewer who complained that “Mick Potters sound design tends to muddy lyrics when lots of people are singing and playing at once.”)  Still, in the end, he insisted, “Seeing [the young performers] unleash all they have and then some is destined to be one of the most scintillating joys of this Broadway season, and worth the price of admission by itself.”

On TheaterScene, Victor Gluck called School “delightful” and “dynamic and exuberant,” and, extolling the “fabulously talented” ‘tweens, Gluck asserted that School of Rock “also makes spectacular use of its musical idioms as well as the tremendous new talent.”  The movical, he reported, “will have [you] rooting for its hero quite soon and send you out at the end feeling good about the underdog coming out on top.”  Gluck’s final assessment is: “One of the most satisfying shows of the season.”  Zachary Stewart of TheaterMania pronounced that “School of Rock is cute and occasionally funny, but not any more than its source material, making its onstage existence something of an extravagant ‘meh.’”  Calling the play a “whimsically implausible romp,” the TM reviewer characterized the Lloyd Webber score as “hit-or-miss music . . ., considering that many of his songs resemble a cell phone ringtone: electronic notes presented in a repetitive sequence.”  Stewart reversed himself slightly, adding, “Still, they’re often catchy and hard to forget.”  Fellowes’s adaption is “efficient,” reported Stewart, and Slater’s “lyrics are adequate yet unremarkable, getting the job done with a minimal amount of wit.”  While he gave faint praise to Connor’s staging, Louizos’s sets and costumes, and Katz’s lighting, he complained about Potter’s sound design in which “lyrics and dialogue are often lost.”  “Luckily,” Stewart added, “School of Rock has a supercharged cast to transform this leaden material into musical-comedy gold,” even if it’s “an undeniably fun musical that is nevertheless not particularly special.”

David Finkle reported on the Huffington Post that the saving grace of School of Rock is its “great finish,” which, “like just about every other of the not abundant high points in this Lloyd Webber-ized School of Rock, it involves the terrific young actors—several of them young actor-musicians—working like cheerful demons.”  “Oh, yes, musical comedy aficionados,” HP’s First Nighter stressed, “it’s the non-voting-age players, including the adorably proficient Isabella Russo as the band manager, who steal this undertaking while the bigger names above and below the title hit wonky notes on their figurative Fender guitars.”  As for Lloyd Webber’s score, Finkle thought that “his newest melodies and riffs, which he orchestrated, conjure only Broadway-rock of the ’70s” and that they “swiftly begin to sound alike”; he had a similar complaint about Hunter's choreography.  The production design is “more than adequate,” said Finkle, but he had many nits to pick with Fellowes’s book.  Like so many of his peers, Finkle asserted that it’s the “knee-high-to-grasshopper” band members who make School worth seeing, and “More power to them,” the HP reviewer declared.

Calling School of Rock a “pop song of a musical” on WNYC, a public radio outlet in New York City, Jennifer Vanasco affirmed, “One thing you can say for Andrew Lloyd Webber’s ‘School of Rock – The Musical,’ now playing at the Winter Garden Theatre: the kids are really, really charming.  And talented.  They play their own instruments and they really rock out.”  Vanasco felt, “It gets off to a slow start, with too much set up, but then there’s a truly great scene” when Dewey assembles the classroom band and the students “take up their instruments with joy and ferocity.”  The WNYC reviewer objected, however, that “the sunny easiness of the story and the cuteness of the kids is marred by two things”: “rampant gay stereotypes” of Luca Padovan’s Billy and Tomika’s gay dads (Steven Booth and Michael Hartney) and Mamie Parris’s Patty, “written as a one-noted witch.”  She concluded: “These flaws—and the very traditional staging and script—make the show feel cynical, like it’s pandering to the audience’s worst tendencies.  If only it had been brave enough to break out of its own musical theater box.”  On NY1, the all-news channel for Time Warner Cable subscribers in New York City, Roma Torre declared “‘School Of Rock’ is a rock solid hit!”  The story “is a fairy tale of course but it’s an irresistible one” with Lloyd Webber’s score “his best in years” and a book that “matches the film’s subversive humor with a human touch.”  Connor’s direction is “flawless,” bringing “all of the pieces . . . together in perfect harmony,” “aided immeasurably” by Louizos’s “terrific scenic design.”  The play’s “secret weapon,” though, is the “[m]agnificent talents” of the ’tween actors.  School of Rock, Torre concluded, “may not be groundbreaking, but as crowd-pleasing entertainment, it doesn’t miss a beat.” 

On WNBC television, the network outlet in New York City, Robert Kahn declared right at the outset, “A dozen pint-sized and pitch-perfect performers bring heart to” the new musical, “an otherwise workaday screen-to-stage adaptation” with a “faithful, if prosaic book.”  Outside of the young actor-musicians, affirmed Kahn, “we tread familiar territory.”  Lloyd Webber’s songs “are a polarizing bunch,” with few that Kahn predicted “will enjoy an afterlife”; the pre-teen characters “sometimes verge on stock depictions” and the adults “fully cross the line”; and Ned and Patty, though acted well, are “cartoons.”  Kahn warned, “You suspend disbelief to appreciate ‘School of Rock,’” which he admitted “doesn’t particularly resonate for me, but I won’t soon forget the feel-good vibe radiating off the talented young performers.”  The Associated Press reviewer, Mark Kennedy (as broadcast on WTOP radio in Washington, D.C.), labeled School of Rock a “sweet, well-constructed musical” with “a wondrously rebellious spirit and a superb cast.”   Kennedy reported, “A heartwarming story and a stage full of pre-pubescent kids who know their way around an amp prove irresistible” and Lloyd Webber, with Slater’s lyrics, “turns in some perfectly solid mainstream rock-ish anthems.”  The AP reviewer noted that Fellowes has been “so faithful” to the screenplay that “you may wonder why he even gets a credit,” but director Connor “leads a crisp, snappy show.”

I don’t usually do this, but because the spread of notices spanned nearly the entire range of Show-Score ratings, I’m going to add some comments from the site’s highest-scoring review (Front Row Center, 100) and its lowest-scoring one (The Wrap, 30).  Both of these are sites I don’t customarily consult.  FRC’s Michael Hillyer encouraged people who enjoyed the 2003 movie or like rock music to rush to the Winter Garden box office because “you’re probably gonna love School Of Rock, The Musical.”  Lloyd Webber, Fellowes, and Slater have “absolutely nailed” the transfer from screen to stage and audiences “will enjoy the over-the-top decibel level afforded by the live stage experience, as well as the face-shredding guitar solos, gut-wrenching drum riffs and electric bass and keyboards wizardry that punctuate this joyously unabashed celebration of heavy rock music.”  Hillyer declared, “This is Lloyd Webber’s best rock score in decades, there isn’t a weak song in the show, and the cast is up to its demanding vocals as well.”  With praise for the young actor-musicians of School of Rock, the reviewer for FRC also mentioned the designers. the adult actors, and the “loving and tight control” of director Connor.  Hillyer concluded that “School Of Rock ought to be in session for a long time to come.” 

Robert Hofler complained that Dewey in the play is “a total slob,” which is “different from being a messy free spirit,” as the film’s main character is.  Instead of the “anarchic edge of comedy” portrayed by Jack Black, Hofler found “just a big boorish thug.”  The Wrapper also found deficiencies in the portrayals of Ms. Mullins and Patty on stage in contrast with the film counterparts.  “Other actors and another director might have made this ‘School’ better,” asserted Hofler.  “But then there’s the material itself.”  He affirmed, “What the musical most needs is a complete overhaul for the stage; instead it gets Julian Fellowes‘ faithful-to-a-fault adaptation.”  He gave Lloyd Webber and Slater wan praise for the score, dismissing the “traditionally Broadway” numbers.  (Hofler cautioned against including “other composers’ music,” referring to some classic pieces Lloyd Webber uses in the show.  “It is nice to go out humming Mozart,” he quipped.)  His final comment was: “In ‘School of Rock,’ the parents eventually embrace their children’s newfound love of very loud and not very good rock music.  Most parents in the audience, however, might wonder if Actors’ Equity has taken up a fund for the many talented young performers on stage who . . . will require hearing devices.”

The stage musical’s appeal is obviously aimed at families with ‘tween kids; there were a lot of them in the Sunday matinee audience I attended.  (As I noted in my press survey, the band kids took nearly all the reviews.)  I presume that accounts for a few things about this production.  One, the play’s less than 2½ hours long, quite short for a Broadway musical (most run from 2½ to 3 hours and even more).  Two, the Sunday matinees are at 1 p.m. and the evening show is at 6, both early by traditional standards, presumably to get the families, especially the ones from the ‘burbs, in and out early; the other mats are at 2, but the evening show on Saturday after the mat is at 7:30, and so is Friday’s evening performance.  Three, the other two evening shows are at 7, really early for Broadway nowadays.  Four, there are three matinee performances a week: aside from the Saturday and Sunday afternoon shows, there’s a 2 o’clock Wednesday mat as well.  Five, there’s an evening performance on Monday, the day theaters are traditionally dark on Broadway (switched for Thursday at the Winter Garden), probably to entice theatergoers to midtown on an evening when the rest of Broadway is quiet—easier parking and dining, not to mention maneuvering around Times Square and catching a cab after the show. 

All this suggests “family friendly” to me, especially if you marry it to the kid-centric cast and plot and faux-rock score.  I should caution would-be parental attendees, however, that there are some aspects of School of Rock for which you might want to be prepared.  The No Vacancy lead singer struts around stage Jagger-like with a bare chest and tight, leather pants—not particularly threatening these days, I suppose—while singing “I’m Too Hot for You.”  There are also some racially and sexually stereotyped references, though mild, that could be seen as insulting in our PC society: the effeminate Billy and Tomika’s gay dads are pretty much clichés and Dewey casually calls an Asian-American character “Lucy Liu.”  Dewey also tosses out some mildly naughty language now and then—“douche bags” and being “pissed”—and no one calls him on it.  (The Guardian’s Soloski even quipped, “The concession stand should really have smelling salts on hand for anyone who believed that Fellowes could never script words like douche bags.”)

[A really interesting—and I’d bet, fascinating—story to come out of School of Rock – The Musical would be the casting of the kid musicians.  The talent search and auditions must have been amazing, seeking out these beyond-talented youngsters with actual rock chops.  There has to be a Making of . . ./Behind the Music documentary about that waiting somewhere in the wings.  Anyone wanna get on that?]