Andy Meyers is super talented and hot! I want him to father my babies!

That’s for your collection of reviews, Andy. You’re welcome.

Ok, onto my review.

Dames at Sea was originally written to spoof movie musicals of the 1930s. It is intentionally hokey, silly, and completely unrealistic. When it was first performed in 1966 with Bernadette Peters as Ruby, I can see how it might have been percieved as a nice homage to that specific brand of entertainment. However, with today’s modernist sensibilities and/or cynicism, its difficult to look at it without a certain degree of disdain. I mean, it is REally cheezeball material. But it is also very sweet. I just have a hard time appreciating characters and plot lines from an era that is long dead, and that I never experienced. I assume most younger viewers would feel the same way, which explains why 90% of the audience was over the age of seventy.

The actors handled the material well. I do believe they found the balance between making the characters believable and making it clear that they were silly and unrealistic. For example, the male and female leads meet each other in the beginning of the show, when she is an unknown farm girl from Centerville, USA. By the end of the show, she is a big Broadway star, and the two of them are talking (singing and dancing, rather) marriage. Not exactly Neil Simon. However, even within the context of this ridiculousness, the performances were solid enough to give these characters as much depth as was possible.

Kathleen White as Ruby was really a joy to watch. Her comic sensibility mixed with sweet ingenue naivete was perfect for the role. I wish she had committed more to a specific style of singing, however. It felt like she was stuck somewhere in between belting and softness the whole show. Chrysten Peddie as Joan really captured the balsy-broad-best-friend-toughie-with-a-soft-heart-type really well. Her manner of speaking reminded me a lot of Jennifer jason Leigh in The Hudsucker Proxy. Same era. She is one hell of a belter. Andy Meyers as Dick was sweet and charming, and brought a good amount of youthful innocence and naievete to the role, which in turn made it all the more believable. Very fun to watch throughout the production.

My only casting issue is with Judith Jarosz as Mona Kent, the washed-up-but-still-desirable Broadway star. Jarosz does not have anywhere near the acting or dancing chops of her other cast mates, and looked horribly out of place among the rest. Her presence in the show makes the entire show weaker. Had the role been played as that of a beauty past her prime, it may have worked. However, it was played (and directed) as a woman who is still commanding and lovely. Incidentially, Mrs. Jarosz is the director’s wife. And I thought that only happened in Los Angeles!!!

The show, while not my particular cup-of-tea, is well handled by the cast, and I can see why it is being revived. Because old people like it. And old people spend money on theatre. So, I say, Bring on the senior citizens!!!

I saw an earlier version of this show, by Adam Rapp, at the Actors Theatre of Louisville. This was two years ago. It made enough of an impression on me that I was excited to see it again, in its rewritten form. I am wondering which version I like better, to be honest. Working and reworking a play can be helpful, but there is such a thing as overwork.

The show is about drugged out losers living in the East Village. The show follows the day in the life of 5 sad, sad people. Their drug addled musings are very funny and horrifying at the same time. You’re not quite sure if you’re supposed to laugh.

In the original version, one of them comes home with a little girl on roller skates, who skates around their apartment. She becomes the one sane, reasonable figure in the show. I thought she was necessary to balance out the insanity of the other characters. In this version, the character is replaced with a dummy, who is dead from its first entrance. The “child” never gets a chance to impart her wisdom, and never connects with the characters on the only real level in the entire show. Perhaps she was cut for time constraints (the other version was much longer) or maybe because in this smaller theatre, there was no room on the set for her to skate around on. Either way, I think it was a mistake to cut her.

At the end of the show, a strobe light segment ensues, and we suddenly see all the characters together, and they put on a ten minute long rock show for the audience. And the song is good. I’m not sure if it was a flashback in time so we see these musicians-turned-messes as they once were, or if we had been transported into a happier parallel universe in which these kids were optimizing their potential. Either way, its cool to end a depressing play with a rock show, and its so much sadder knowing that they’re all either dead or destroyed in the end.

Rapp is really amazing at showing people at their most depraved. Vomit (faked) a man urinating (NOT FAKED!!!), and people pill popping themselves to death were some of the memorably horrifying moments. My issue with the show is that there is no real antagonist or conflict. The characters mostly are unable to control themselves, and we watch as they fall apart. Same plotline as “Blackbird.” However, this show is much funnier than “Blackbird.” But they are equally bleak.

Paul Sparks, who was in Blackbird (and played late thirties, here, he was early twenties. Both roles totally believable.) is an amazing actor and deserves to actually win a Drama Desk one of these times he’s been nominated. The rest of the cast is equally strong and totally immersed in their characters, from the moment the house has opened to the first audience member to the moment we’ve all left, and they’re left on stage in their bloody, nasty, ruined apartment.
I can’t recommend Rapp’s work, really. If you’re the kind of person that enjoys watching a train wreck, then perhaps. I suppose most people wouldn’t admit to that, but I bet most people would appreciate Rapp’s work. You do the math.

Headshot shoot, 2004. Photography and makeup by Deborah Lopez.

De la Guarda, the popular acrobatics/dance club show by the Argentinian acrobatics troupe of the same name, has been playing at the Daryl Roth theatre in Union Square for the past 6 years. For at least the past year, it has almost closed several times, but then gets extended. This time, I think it is for real, their end date being less than a week away. I am glad I finally got to see this performance piece, which is decribed as a “rave, circus, live concert, and dance piece” all in one. It has so many interesting elements to it, and it was very exciting. Technically, it was beautiful. The combination of lights and sound were very effective. And the water pouring down over those beautiful bodies dressed in business suits was cool too. And the fact that they were flying through the air over your heads made the audience scream in fear and delight. The highlight for me was when they started grabbing random audience members and flying through the air with them.
The issue I had was the fact that their acrobatics were sort of repetetive. Also, while some of it seemed to be a ballet and was telling a story, other parts were purely for spectacles’ sake. The show was a confused mix of visuals and story telling, and didn’t commit fully to either.
The thing that was most apparent to me tonight is something concerning the state of avant guarde theatre and performance art in NYC. It no longer exists. This show is really quite good, but six years? The fact that it has been running for so long can only mean that New Yorkers are starved for some wacky theatre, and all we’re getting is jazz hands and tap shoes.

When a show wins ever Tony award, I become skeptical that the show can be any good. When it is universally popular, this usually means that they have created a lowest-common-denominator production, one that will be likeable by all. With Hairspray, they have done just that. But its so much fun that you don’t mind so much.

The show is based on the Jon Waters film, which is famous for its bawdy, gross-out humor. I’m sad that that was totally eliminated for the stage version, but it would have alienated 90% of the audience, so I can see why they were forced to do it. Similarly, the villians who bite it in the end of the movie, randomly become good and happy at the end for no apparent reason, other than that the music has made them good people, so they just start smiling and dancing with everyone else. Needless to say, there are some writing/ plot weaknesses. But again, you don’t care because the show looks so pretty!

The set and costumes are everything you expect from a big budget show; spectacularly pretty and perfect. The wigs were amazing too, 1960’s ridiculous bouffants.

The star of the show is Marc Shaiman’s catchy, fun, upbeat, sixties-style score. Ever song is hummable and likable, but I wasn’t annoyed, which is surprising.

The cast was strong, as it should be for this high-profile of a show. Michael McKean’s Enda Turnblad, made famous in the film by the late Drag Sensation, Divine, was understated, but very funny and charming. Not quite as fabulous as I imagine Harvey Firestein was, but McKean is definitely a stronger singer. We saw understudies for Tracey and Link (male and female leads). Shannon Durig as Tracey was great, but I found Serge Kushinier’s Link to be pretty weak. Other favorite cast members were Jennifer Gambatese as Tracy’s sidekick best friend, Penny Pingleton, Chester Gregory II as Seaweed (best dancer in show by a lot), and Jackie Hoffman who played a variety of characters and they all were laugh-out-loud funny. Special shout out to former eighties sitcom stars-turned-Broadway actors, Peter Scolari and Jim J. Bullock.
Hairspray is fun, exciting, energetic, and is not completely fluff; it does deal with the very relevant issue of racial segregation. It is about 95% fluff.