I like a lot that when Rachel told me that we’d be able to use the tickets, we were forewarned that the show is ‘dark.’ And it is, it really is - but compared to the crap I’m used to (seeing and performing in), this was a walk in the park. And an enjoyable and funny one, at that.

This dark comedy is about a husband and wife who have a baby. The sonogram reads as a ’smudge’ so they don’t get a real good view of the baby till she’s born, and it turns out the baby is a limbless cyclops, doomed to a life hooked up to tubes and respirators. It’s very sad. The play basically follows the life of the two parents (and the father’s brother) and how the crippled child impacts them as people and how she changes their lives.

I took it as a testament to how bad the American medical situation is. That no doctor noticed that their child was to be a hideous monster, and that they would have to live with it forever. It totally, although probably unintentionally, villainizes doctors.

Not a whole lot really happens. It’s mostly about really good writing of characters, and how this one event and new addition to their lives changes them. At first, the mother (Colby) is reluctant to even look at her “child” while the father (Nick) is more hopeful. As Colby begins to lose her mind a bit, staying home all the time to watch the child, gorging on Junior’s Cheesecakes, Nick goes back to work (at the census bureau) with his egotistical, obnoxious, alpha-male brother. The brother character provides a nice buffer for the other two to work off of (and through), and also provides a lot of much needed comic relief.

The performances are great. Cassie Beck as Colby manages to be funny, although a tragically sad character. You see her character arc strongly through the 90-minute show. Brian Sgambati as Pete is slimy as hell, and fully, physically embodies this really hateful but totally watchable dude. Greg Keller is appropriately sad and tragic as Nick. I didn’t feel as though his performance was quite as strong as the other two, though, most likely for the very specific reason that his voice just isn’t as strong. When he got emotional he had a tendency to strain his voice, and all I could think was that he needs to be doing his Linklater exercises before a show. Because that’s where my mind goes when I watch actors. Because I am a dork for a good technique. So sue me.

Rachel, I am going to assume that you are not going to read this. If you are reading this, then I don’t want you at all to think that I am being critical of your writing - and I’m not sure my criticisms are useful anyway, since the show is done, it’s up, it’s been produced. And it is really good. But I did have a couple things I would have liked to see differently. I will mention them here. Most would probably render the show un-produceable.
What I didn’t like:
1) The scene between Pete and Colby would have been better had their conversation not resulted in a kiss. I wish it had just hinted at one rather than fully realized one. Although the audience had clearly been waiting for it, because when it happened there was a wave of ‘oh-snap’ reactions from the people sitting around me. So clearly, Rachel, you knew what you were doing here but I found it to be a convention. Perhaps in all of your playwriting studies you have learned the value of commercialization? Leading us to the obvious conclusion because it’s what most of the audience expects and wants, making the play overall, more commercially viable? I think yes, indeed, you know how to do this.
2) When Colby is alone with the baby, it starts making weird noises out of it’s life-support machines, and eventually, plays music. I wish it had turned out that this was really happening, and that the baby did wield some supernatural power. Instead, we have a crazy mommy. Which makes it sadder, yes, but not as interesting. If the baby had had supernatural powers, we’d be in a totally separate category of play, here, but the second the baby started talking to her, all I could think was, “please don’t let this all be in her head.” So I was a little disappointed when I turned out to be right.
3) Quite heinous is the fact that the character of Colby eats cheesecake throughout the entire show, and pretty much all I wanted to do afterwards was eat cheesecake. This is just mean, for those of us on diets. So I compromised and ate nachos instead (not really a compromise.)
4) MOST HEINOUS. There was somebody talking throughout the show. A low, under the breath male voice, trying to be quiet, yet muttering the entire time. It was infuriatingly distracting. First I thought it might have been the stage manager, calling the cues. Then I thought it might have been a visually impaired person or group, and there might have been a narration situation going on. Could not see or figure out where the voice was coming from. Regardless, it was so distracting. And it happened more often when there were a lot of sound and light cues going on. So it could have been a SM or a narrator, either way, the theatre really needs to fix this. It was horrific.

What I did like:
1) the freaky baby cradle with the blood tubes like something out of a Sci-Fi monster movie.
2) pretty much everything else.

Totally good show.

I saw the original production in 1998, not with the original cast but with it’s immediate replacement. LaChanze had replaced Audra McDonald at that point which was disappointing but other than that the cast and the production were wonderful, and Ragtime has remained for me, one of my all time favorite musicals. Which is really surprising, given the circumstances. First of all, the subject matter is so heavily historical on paper that it sounds dry as dirt. American race relations at the turn of the century? Snoozers. But somehow, not. Also, the music is very grand, sweeping, and majestic. Usually when this style is utilized you end of with a cheese-ball musical, ala Frank Wildhorn. Yet here, the music is just beautiful and brings tears to my eyes just to think on it. And finally, it’s probably one of the only musicals that I truly love that isn’t either 1) super dark or 2) a comedy. Neither of these elements are really present in Ragtime. It’s more uplifting and moving than silly, campy, or twisted. So - why do I love this show you ask? Because it is just that good.

The book by Terrance McNally, and the music by Steven Flaherty, lyrics, Lynn Ahrens, are all just so lovely. And what I found to be so interesting about this new production on Broadway is this - they really took into account how good the material is, when crafting this production. Ragtime doesn’t really need opulent sets and props and things flying around the stage, because that would be a distraction from what really matters here. That being the characters, and their stories told through songs. I loved how the Model-T was just the frame of one, and he pushed it around while walking. That’s a good example of the theme of this show. The visuals were somewhat skeletal, frame only - but the songs and the lives of the characters fill up the stage until you would swear it’s ready to burst.

Enough good, onto the bad and the sad. The ensemble cast here is very good. Aside from a few duds (I’m looking at you, Little Boy and Evelyn Nesbit), the cast is really solid. I was concerned a bit by how much the woman playing Sarah, Stephanie Umoh, looks like Audra McDonald. I mean, of course playing that role, she has the unfortunate circumstance of inevitably being constantly compared to Audra, so why not cast someone really different? Strange choice. But she was good. And Colehouse (Quentin Earl Darrington) was awesome, in his B’way debut. So was Tateh (Robert Petkoff, a friend of a friend, as it turns out.) The most improved from the original production was that of the role of Mother, here, played by Christiane Noll. She made Marin Mazzie’s version of the role seem cold and flat. Ms. Noll is such a superior actress, she really brought to life this somewhat flatly written character. Also exemplary was Bobby Steggart, as Mother’s Younger Brother. He was so biting and fiery, just an excellent version of this character.

What I don’t really want to talk about, but have to, is how this show pretty much represents the death of the modern American Musical. First of all, it’s about America, it’s modern, and it’s closing - therefore it pretty much represents this LITERALLY. Which is terrifying if you think about it that way. But more specifically, this show ran for I believe, 50-something performances before announcing that it was closing. At which point, the box office was flooded with oh-shit-hurry ticket buyers who were scrambling to see it before it was gone forever. So they decided to extend it - for another week. Horray. So there are enough New Yorkers who like good musicals to fill a show for one week. And that is just not enough to sustain a show.

Essentially the problem is this. Nowadays, for a show to do well on Broadway it has to 1) feature household-name movie stars or 2) be a show for children (Disney) or adolescents (Wicked). Ragtime represents neither camp. Add in it’s high budget and huge operating costs, and you’ve got a show doomed for failure. Had they cast more recognizable actors in the roles, we might have seen it run a while longer. But this cast, together, in that right combination of people, really is magical. And the way the show is constructed, there really is no “star.” They would have had to cast a whole slew of famous people, because it really is an ensemble cast, and no ’star’ wants to just be part of the ensemble. So they were powerless to cast this in any other way, but I wonder if that in and of itself, is the reason for the show’s demise?

Also at 3 hours, and the subject matter being very adult, it’s not a family show. So rich suburbanites are all still going to see Lion King. Which interestingly, opened the same year as the original production of Ragtime - and is still running.

I am just glad for the people that did get to see it. Because it takes a lot to move me to tears, and this show does it - over and over again, and probably always will.

Doreen played Camilla, and she was fantastic. One of my favorite things about the show, and not because I was biased in knowing her. She was great. I was happy.

The show? Not so much. Not really my style. I went in knowing that the music is basically all the forms of music that I dislike - salsa, hip-hop, rap, etc. But I thought it would be Broadway-ed up enough to appeal to a mass audience. It was, it just still wasn’t very interesting or very good. Some of the lyrics in the rap pieces (for the character of Usnavi) were good. But it’s weird to have a leading male on Broadway not sing a note. Call me a purist.

My main issue with the show is that there is NO PLOT. NONE. It’s a portrait of a neighborhood. People living in Washington Heights. And unfortunately, a pretty inaccurate portrait. Washington Heights is where the Dominicans live. Maybe there are some Puerto Ricans, but not too many. This show however, chronicles the neighborhood as if they both live there in equal numbers and all live together in peace and harmony. Not true. These two ethnic groups traditionally stay pretty separate and have massive rivalry. But not in the squeaky clean version of this play, oh no. And I’m sorry, I’ve spent some time in the Heights, it is pretty scary up there sometimes. In this play there was no crime, no crackheads, no white ladies getting leered at - or even harassed - basically all the things that I see when I go up there - did not exist in the world of this show. It’s like a fairy-land depiction of how the writer romanticized about his old ‘hood while his parents sent him off to Wesleyan, where he wrote this show.

Again, back to the lack of plot. None. Usually there’s some kind of villain or conflict. Nope. So….it was two and half hours of mediocre songs with nothing happening.

The romantic leads had zero chemistry and their love duets were painful to watch.

The comic relief, the character of Sonny, was very funny, and the best part of the show besides Doreen.

It has SO many similarities to Rent I couldn’t believe it. Basically, In The Heights is an updated version of rent. it’s set further uptown, has more ethnic people, the music is more ethnic rather than pop, but that’s about it. Even the set looks pretty much the same. And each song and moment in the show can pretty much be compared to a moment/song in rent.

And speaking of the set, if you sit in the back half of the orchestra (where I was), the seating is so raked that you can’t see the top 3rd of the set. You miss everything that’s going on in the second floor windows of all the buildings on stage. I suspect there were things happening up there. I didn’t see any of it.

I really don’t get why everyone thought this was so groundbreaking when it came out. Because it gives a voice to Latinos on Broadway? Because it employs Latino actors? Because it represents a portion of NYC that is largely ignored in the artistic community? Sure. But Best Musical of the Year? Better than freaking Next to Normal? I think NOT. You can’t even put those two shows in the same category, in terms of quality. I think In the Heights does not deserve all the hype. I just don’t get it. Maybe as a white female, I’m not supposed to. Which again, pisses me off. I don’t enjoy being alienated.

And the saddest part of the show? When they tell the character of Nina that she has to stay in school to earn her Bachelor’s degree so that she’ll be the one to get out of the Heights and make something of herself. All I could do was sigh, and think depressingly, oh honey, it’ll take more than just a bachelor’s degree nowadays. You need a masters’ at the very least, and maybe then you’ll be able to move to, oh, I dunno, Morningside Heights. (Still, the Heights, hehehe.) But her whole family is banking on her to earn this degree that none of them have - which in the real world - totally useless. Somebody should tell them. It’s sad. So is most everything else about the show. Except the Piragua guy. He was awesome. And on stage for like 3 minutes total.

Best song in the show - Inutil, sung by Kevin. Probably also the most emotionally driven, broadway-ish song.

Oh and I didn’t get why we were supposed to care about any of the characters, either. They were mostly unlikable stereotypes. Why does Usnavi like Vanessa? For her afro and ability to dress like a prostitute? Because she’s stupid and vacuous. Why does Benny like Nina? He’s kind of a loser and she’s a self- hating snob. These were not people I wanted to spend my evening with.

The part of the show that was supposed to be all sweet and nice and happy, literally made me groan and triggered my gag reflex. The rest of the audience oohed and aahed with glee. Apparently, sentimentality wins points over actual content. This partially summarizes the continued success of the show. Fuck that.

The end.

I will say a few things.
1) Apparently the only reason really to see this show is for Nancy Opel’s perfomance. But of course, she was on vacation when I went. I did not like her understudy, at all. She smirked her way through the show. Just awful. But the show wasn’t good enough that I would go back and see it with Nancy. Also, I think it closed.

2) Either I am getting too old, or it was way too loud. No - it was way too loud. But only when Toxie roared. The rest of the time, it was fine. So, just bad sound balancing.

3) I later watched the film of The Toxic Avenger, for comparison’s sake. It seems to me, the whole point of that movie is not the mutant, but the murderous 80’s vixen health-club rats. The musical featured no 80’s hair and no health club. What was the point in that? So sad.

4) Diana DeGarmo, who came in second on the only season of American Idol I didn’t watch, therefore I do not care or know who she is, was actually really good in her part. She was one giant Blind joke, but her comedic timing, cuteness, and downright good acting made the show somewhat fun. And of course, singing-wise, the girl can WAIL. And I was watching her during the first performance of a three-show day for them, and it didn’t sound like she was holding back vocally at all, so good for her.

5) The two guys that play ALL the characters (white guy and black guy) were awesome. And ran around like monkeys, changing characters, changing wigs and accents and costumes and literally running around like nutballs. And were totally hilarious. Although the show I saw, the role of “black guy” was being played by a white actor. I just don’t think they cared anymore.

6) There needed to be way more gore (like in the movie, or in the NWS production of Evil Dead from last year). Either way more scary gory or waaaaay more funny campy. It sat in an uncomfortable line, right in the middle, and never made up it’s mind.

7) Some of the music was ok. Written by someone that may or may not have been in Bon Jovi at some point.

So I think I probably would have enjoyed it a lot more if Ms. Opel had not been on vacation. Bad timing. (also, bad show.)

Just do Evil Dead again. I’ll be there.

But other than that the show is so much fun! Really, really stupid, but stupid in a way that made me giggle and scream and laugh and sing along and yell a lot. Very much my sense of humor. The show is completely self-referential, as in, “hey look at us, we’re doing a musical right now.” Very meta-theatrical without all the thinking.

It’s a jukebox musical featuring hair metal rock and roll from the ’80s, mainly. Plot involves just a small town girl livin’ in a lonely world….took the midnight train goin’ anywhere. You get the idea. Undiscovered rock star boy meets small town girl new to LA. They fall in love at the rock club at which they work. Evil German developers want to demolish the club and build a supermall. The good guys band together to save the club. Pretty stupid. But the plot just serves as a loose cohesive device to group together 2 acts of rock and roll and comedy. And it does rock. And it is funny. Really quite funny. The narrator character (who is also the manager of the rock club - I think) is so supremely over the top and breaks the 4th wall from beginning to end. Always entertaining. He’s like a gay Jack Black on crack. That rhymed. And a role like that - narrator, comedy guy, rock singer - also participated and LED most of the dance numbers. Normally a role like that would exit the stage and let the dancin’ girls take over, but this guys is a take-no-prisoners-I-can-do-anything- threat! His name is Mitchel Jarvis and he is great.

Playing the young boy is American Idol alum Constantine Maroulis, who is way better here than he was in The Wedding Singer. He really gives his all to the role, totally gets the silliness of what he’s doing and sells the comedy and vocals like a pro. I was really impressed. Unfortunately for me, Amy Spanger was OUT when we saw the show and we saw her understudy. I always say that the understudy is usually better than the star. Not the case here. I didn’t understand the choice of this person at all. She was totally bland and boring and not that pretty or good of a singer it was SO disappointing. Maybe Amy doesn’t like to be overshadowed by her understudy. There absolutely nothing charming about her and I really feel like we missed out, not seeing Ms. Spanger. She’s ever so lovely yet trashy. The girl we saw was waaaay too innocent, naive, and wasn’t funny. Amy is funny. It was sad.

Also awesome is the character of Regina, a lesbian activist type who at first works for “the man” but then turns and tries to help them all save their nightclub. I recognized her voice (Lauren Molina) and realized she had played Johanna in Sweeney Todd. Quite a different role here - she dresses up in next to nothing and plays a stripper / dancer in some of the group numbers. Quite the versatile performer; playing a soprano ingenue in Sweeney and here belting, dancing, and doing comedy. Also supremely awesome is the German developer’s son. The super gay super hilarious character of Franz played by Wesley Taylor. Some of the best comic timing I’ve ever seen, in that kid. Looking forward to seeing him in The Addams Family musical.

The costumes are crazy, over the top, LA rock sceney. The set is pretty basic - looks like a rock club. The band is live and onstage for the whole show. And they shred. It’s hot.

The whole experience is super hot. I was in a really bad mood beforehand and afterwards… was still in a bad mood but for the 2 hours the show was happening I was having the time of my life. It’s more like going to a rock show, or even more like a stand up show, then a Broadway musical. I’m actually really surprised that this show managed to make the jump from off-Broadway to Broadway - it’s not the kind of thing I would expect to draw massive crowds, but apparently it does. I really wish I had seen it in a smaller theatre when it was louder, closer, and cheaper. Still totally a shocker that this little show made it all the way to Bway. Must be a lot of people in their 30s and 40s for whom this is total nostalgia-land.

So when my mom came into town to see some shows, we asked the booth guy what he had the best seats for (out of a list of 3 options.) Surprisingly, Mary Poppins won, putting us in the 3rd to last row of the orchestra. But they were center, and the design of the New Amsterdam Theatre is such that you don’t feel like you’ve very far back. The audience is raked steeply upward as you reach the back of the house, making those seats feel much closer than in other theatres. Something to remember when booking at Broadway shows - row X is sometimes fine, sometimes miserable.

Anyway I wasn’t too excited to see this again, after seeing it in London (in a massive theatre, in the second balcony, on the side) and feeling like it was really big and impersonal. I felt it lacked the charm of the film. I still feel that the musical does not hold a candle to the movie, but seeing the American production years later, much closer to the stage, I enjoyed it so much more.

I wish they hadn’t Disney-fied it quite so much. I guess they had to. After all it is a “family” show. I.e. you bring your kids. (Or your moms.) But the movie is just so much quirkier. You lose a lot of that with it’s translation to the stage. Not helped is the fact that no matter how good Mary and Bert are, they will never be as good as Julie Andrews or Dick van Dyke. No way, no how. Although this Mary was super awesome (Scarlett Strallen). I wasn’t a fan of the Burt, tho. He wasn’t a great singer, or a great dancer, or a great comedian; really fell short of the original dude’s performance. I actually think he might have been new. And he almost fell off the roof in the first roof scene, it was pretty terrifying actually, because he’s not yet on a safety wire at that point. Yikes. And he missed an entire verse of “Chim Chimmeny.” Definitely nervous.

I also am pretty livid, still, about what they’ve done to the character of Mrs. Banks. Rebecca Luker plays the role well but the sassy, womens-rights suffragette marching lady from the film has been replaced by a bland housewife. Her only character is that of a supportive woman who worries about her husband. That’s it. All the personality stripped away. I guess they felt the suffragette movement was no longer interesting. (not true.) And Mr. Banks, in the film at least was quirky and weird enough to be lovable. Here, he’s just a cold, disinterested finance man who treats his family badly. You wonder why they love him at all.

But, I think I covered all this in my first review of this show (see my archives). There are lots of good things to be said about the production, however. It’s big, bright, colorful, fun, and light. The scenes are a bit boring but as soon as a musical number comes on it’s a pile of toe-tappin’ fun. The new songs are a bit of a snooze but it’s worth it to sit through them for awesome show stopping numbers like Supercalifragi…you know the one….and Step in Time, with all the chimney sweeps tap dancing on the roofs of London town - such a sight. And It’s a Jolly Holiday…the statues in the park come to life and start dancing…and in Just a Spoonful of Sugar, they destroy the kitchen and then put it back together again. So it’s actually quite different from the movie. Oh, also, in this version, Mary is a witch who practices black magic, sends the ‘mean’ nanny to the firey pits of hell, and then resumes being a nanny as if it never happened. They touch on this very briefly, it is very disturbing, and I’m the only person that seems to be bothered by this part of act 2.

Shout out to Marc Price, who plays the houseboy/servant and who’s makeup I did for his headshots. He’s great in it! Kind of gets swallowed a bit by the gigantic-ness of the show, but everyone does a bit. Disney shows are not about great performances from actors. It’s about making big, pretty spectacle. And while I’ve seen bigger and prettier, I can’t deny that I really enjoyed the production.

I remember the film fondly from my childhood. I’m pretty sure I had a copy on VHS and would watch it at my Grandma’s house with my uncle Joe. So, unsurprisingly, I already knew the entire plot and characters and all that. But what they did with the fairly simple plot is really astounding. The musical follows three women in an office in the 1980s. Allison Janney plays the role of Violet, which was Lily Tomlin in the film. Violet is a smart, sassy career girl who’s sleazy, sexist boss keeps her down. Then we have Judy, played by Stephanie J. Block (Jane Fonda in the film), who has just gone thru a messy divorce, has never had to work, and is unskilled and incompetent, and therefore, suffers from lack of confidence. Rounding out the trio is the character of Doralee, made famous by Dolly Parton in the film. Here, Megan Hilty plays the role of…well, Dolly Parton. Blonde, Southern, sassy, and known for her rack. So…Dolly.

The three girls have a rotten lech of a boss, Mr. Franklin Hart, Jr. Played awesomely (and aerodynamically) by Marc Kudisch. Stuff happens, mixups and the like, and comedic chaos mixed with song ensue. It’s so much super fluffy fun I could barely stand it. What was most interesting was how they took a somewhat light plot and filled out the gaps in between plot happenings with songs. A lot of subtext, as in, what is going on in the characters’ brains as told thru song. And also one hell of a dream montage at the end of Act one. Showstopper. Crazy. Costumes and dancing galore.

I also really appreciated how none of the 4 leads were really that similar to the film characters. The essences of the characters remained the same, yet the actors really made the roles their own. Even in the case of Hilty, who is basically forced into doing a Dolly Parton impersonation, didn’t really seem to be doing one.

There’s also a lot of feminism/girl power themes here which might come off a bit trite, but because it was based on a film made at a time when this subject matter was very fresh and real, I think it doesn’t grate because it can be viewed almost as a period piece. Were the show to occur in 2009, it might feel dated. But the show very much exists in the early 80’s. Costumes and dialogue clearly indicate so. So you’ve got kitchy 80s nostalgia going for it as well, and for those of us that remember the 80s it’s a lotta fun. Also fun for young people who weren’t born yet.

Basically just a hell of a lot of fun and an unmissable show for any fan of the musical theatre. Sondheim, it is not. But Dolly Parton, who has never written a musical before, just jumped in and was all like, ok cool I’m writing a musical - and naturally it’s way better than people that have been working in this genre their whole lives. I guess musical legends tend to be versatile.

But anyway yeah, some of the best fun I’ve had at a show in a very long time.

Also I had heard that it was a “new” version of the play by Zinnie Harris. I’m always curious to see when a classic has been updated - butchered or improved? It’s hard for me to say really - not knowing the original all that well. But whatever changes Harris made to the original text, it worked.

The story line is so dated it’s almost painful to watch, and makes me glad I wasn’t born in that era. Basically, Nora loves her husband Torvald (”Thomas” in this Britishized version), a politician. So when he has a nervous breakdown, she takes him out of the public eye to save his career. In order to do this, she has to take out a loan under her father’s name - who is dead - and for whom she’s forged a signature on the loan papers. This is fraud. Because in this time period, women weren’t allowed to borrow money. And if this fraud was exposed both she and her husband would be shamed and her husbands political career, over.

What?

Man am I glad stuff doesn’t suck as bad for women these days. I mean, doesn’t suck as bad.

And the kicker of it is, Torvald/Thomas denies ever having a breakdown and never thanks her for the sacrifice she made for him. Quite the opposite, sadly. Nora is a strong, decent, moral woman who did what she had to do, and is punished for it, and feels horrific guilt. It’s very sad. Hence Gillian Anderson crying for 2 hours. She really did. I was amazed that she was able to stay so deeply emotionally committed to the role, for such a duration. Usually you have to do one or two crying scenes but she basically cried the entire play. I mean, tears running down her cheeks. Very impressed. And of course as we know already from her film work (Bleak House, House of Mirth), we already know she can do period drama and has a flawless British dialect. It’s so good in fact that I just saw her in the film “How to Lose Friends and Alienate People” and it was almost odd to hear her speak in her regular American speech pattern.

I wonder with roles of this emotional depth, how long will she be able to keep up that level of performance? We saw the second show, but I wonder how much of a wreck she’ll be after 2 months of that? Or will she be just numb to it? Acting is hard work.

Christoper Eccleston I only know from Dr. Who and from season 2 of Heroes, but he seems to do one thing really really well - and that’s to play super intense scary dudes. He is just as effective, if not more so, in his portrayal of Kelman. He is downright terrifying. Threatening and ominous is he. It’s very well done. Each entrance - just the clomping of his boots as he throws himself onstage - signals an upping of the stakes. Really good work from him.

Toby Stephens as Thomas is quite good as the slimy politician who doesn’t know he’s slimy. You forgive him because of the time period. But he plays the deeply flawed character well, but perhaps a bit over the top. His last moment on stage was a bit maudlin for my taste.

I really liked Anton Lesser as Dr. Rank. Another tragic character. A trusted friend of Nora’s for years and years, he is dying of some unnamed disease (syphilis?) and deeply, secretly in love with Nora. You pity him from his first entrance, you know things just do not go well for this guy.

Rounding up the cast is Tara Fitzgerald as Christine Lyle, who is the most out-of-place character. An old school friend of Nora’s, she’s come in search of a job with Torvald, and Nora lands it for her, provided she can keep Nora in macaroons. (Torvald doesn’t approve - doesn’t want his wife getting fat. Ah, men.) It’s an interesting take on the character - sort of gruff and manly, almost. This actress makes a lot of surprising choices with the role. Good work.

The set is interesting - the action takes place in their new home’s library, at Christmastime, but hardly any of the books have been put on the shelves so it’s mostly just empty shelves up to the ceiling. Very sad and lonely in appearance. Effectively so.

So - rounding out my theatre experience in London of seeing shows I don’t care much about but great productions of - this definitely fit the bill.

A special shout out and big Thank you to the group that canceled and allowed me to purchase their center floor seats at the last minute.

So - when there weren’t any returns for A Doll’s House (it was their opening night, after all), that’s how we ended up at this show. And I’m glad we did. Even tho we had mostly already seen it.

So…upon entering the Hippodrome (which is a converted nightclub), the staff is brusque and sort of rude to you, I guess that’s part of the appeal - it’s dingy, it’s crass, and the staff can treat you like dirt because they’re “in character.” I’m not sure how I feel about that; rude is still rude. They were giving us shit for buying the cheap tickets. Ha ha, very funny. If you only knew how much I’d spent in the last month on theatre tickets alone…

Anyway we get into our standing area and I hear a voice in the dark as the show begins and turn to Chris and say, “Wait, is that Meow Meow?” And indeed it is. Having seen her perform I think 3 times in the last year or so I can apparently pick her voice out in the dark. Confusingly, she is not billed as one of the performers in any of the literature, so I didn’t know she was involved. Had I, I would have seen the show even earlier. She’s amazing. I don’t understand why they producers of the show don’t promote her at all; if I know who she is, she’s certainly somewhat of a name.

So it’s her, then the first act comes on and it’s the acrobatic guys I’d seen in the show Absinthe at Speigletent 2 years prior - not just the same guys, the same exact routine. I’m like, cool, this was an awesome routine, glad to see it again. But as the show progresses, I’d say roughly 60% of it was acts from last years’ Absinthe. I guess there is only one mainstream world-wide burlesque circuit nowadays?

But that’s really ok. The familiar acts were just as good as ever and the new ones were great too. And we even stole some seats and got to sit in actual chairs for the second half. Score.

And there’s a Queen singalong at the finale. Who doesn’t love a singalong. Clarke McFarlene plays “Mario, Queen of the Circus,” with a fake Spanish accent. He’s a Freddy Mercury wanna-be, clad all in leather, but is much funnier and a better juggler. His riding a unicycle while juggling pins to the tune of Queen’s “Bicycle Race” was a highlight, especially cuz he messed it up, and stopped the music so he could start over. In addition to comedy and juggling, the character also acts as the MC throughout the show. He actually reminds me a lot of Sasha Baron Cohen.

Other acts include Captain Frodo the Rubber Man (hilarious and disturbing!), Amy G. from the NY cabaret circuit, The Skating Willers (terrifyingly fast spinny roller skatey tricks to techno music), Marawa (hula-hoop act), and a super fabulous Canadian on a flying trapeze swinging around to 80s emo rock and being all bendy and hilarious. He’s not listed on the La Clique website leading me to believe that performers probably come and go quite a bit.

So - La Clique is highly commercial vaudeville, really, more so than burlesque. Much more circus oriented than nudity oriented. I suspect “burlesque” has become a buzz word to sell tickets but were it actual burlesque, people wouldn’t be filling the Hippodrome to capacity every night.

Definitely a super awesome fun time. You’ll giggle and gasp and cheer and laugh.

I had actually never seen A Little Night Music before, having been told by many musical theatrey friends that it is one of Sondheim’s weakest pieces. After seeing it, I can see why that might be the assumption. It’s not a terribly marketable or upbeat show, but really, none of his stuff is, so I’m not sure why this one in particular gets such a bad reputation. It’s right up there with Merrily We Roll Along on the scale of “everyone hates it but it’s brilliant and I love it.”

Perhaps it is the weak-ish plot? Not a whole lot happens. The plot centers around Frederick, a kind, older man who’s married a sweet but stupid girl young enough to be his daugher, named Anne. Frederick gets in touch with an old flame, the aging but still glamorous actress, Desiree Armfeldt. Act one is general exposition and introduction to the characters, and it ends with the somewhat known song “A Weekend in the Country,” which sets the scene for act 2. Joining Desiree and her mother and daughter at their summer home is Desiree’s married lover, Carl-Magnus, who is a violent dolt, and his wife, Charlotte, a complex character because she knows of her husband’s affair and yet stays with him. Also joining them is Frederick’s son Henrick (from his previous marriage), Petra, the family maid and Anne’s best friend, and Frid, the Armfeldt’s servant.

So, the show is heavy on characters and their development and how they intertwine and where they end up and how. Not so heavy on actual events. Perhaps this is why people tend to not like it? Because there’s no helicopter landings on stage? I don’t know. I found it fascinating. It is essentially just a classed-up slamming-door sex farce, but done with style and all the characters have a lot of money.

I liked that it truly feels like an ensemble piece as well, no one person stands out as the superstar and everyone else as supporting cast - it had a real family feel to it - which is great, because that’s the underlying theme of the piece. Family and love. Also, deception and betrayal and all that.

I was also glad to see that the vocal prowess of the cast was solid throughout. I’ve always felt that West End singing pales in comparison to that of Broadway, (and conversely their acting is usually better)- but I suppose as the market gets more and more saturated with talent from all over Europe, the West End is finally catching up to us in it’s singing talent.

I’m finding it hard to write about this piece. Probably because while there was nothing particularly bad about it, I also can’t think of anything to rave about. It was just very, very good overall and in every capacity. I do hope it comes to Broadway, and I hope it does well. And I hope they keep the same cast. The casting really was great.

Oh and I totally didn’t know that it’s Desiree who sings the most famous song of the show, “Send in the Clowns.” I always imagined the character as being much older. But Desiree (played convincingly by Hannah Waddingham) is still kinda hot - maybe only in her mid 40s. So that was a surprise. When we meet the character of her mother (hilariously portrayed by Maureen Lipman) and not knowing the play at all, I assumed it would be she, the old lady in the wheelchair, to do that song. I was wrong. It happens.