sidwich

Hmmm... well, I'll do my best to answer your question. In the competitive ballroom universe, there are Ballroom dances (for example, Waltz, Foxtrot, V. Waltz, Quickstep, and Tango for Standard) and Latin/Rhythm dances (for example, Cha-cha-, Rhumba, Samba, Paso and Jive for Latin). Ballroom is competed in two forms, International Standard (everywhere, including the U.S.) and American smooth (in the U.S.). Analogously, International Latin is competed everywhere (including the U.S.) and American Rhythm is really only competed in the U.S. International Standard is competed in closed hold from beginning to end. That is the partners come together at the beginning of each song/dance, assume closed position and remain in closed positions until the end of the song/dance. There is no open work whatsoever. The technique of American Standard is virtually exactly the same as in International Standard. The important difference is that open work is allowed in American Smooth. Latin and Rhythm compete slightly different dances (Rhythm competes Mambo, Bolero and Swing instead of Samba, Paso and Jive), but the main difference is the acceptance of weight on bended knee (in Rhythm) instead of straight knee (in Latin). Although Bob Powers and Julia Gorchakova who won the Rhythm championship 9 straight times danced a more Latin technique and that seems to be happening more and more. Of course, those are standard dancesport rules and this is DWTS where the rulebook might as well be the Grimmerie. However, the judges have made it clear that they're holding the Quickstep and the Tango to something akin to an International Standard closed hold standard. For me, while I'm something of a dancesport hippie (free to be you and me!), I do like to see balance in competitive choreography. I guess I'm still a purist in that way, but I like seeing a well-rounded dancer, someone who shows a combination of solid solo skills, good lead/follow skills, a sense of position, and expression and showmanship. And I can't really call Laila the frontrunner in terms of dance technique until she shows some substantive partnering and following skills. Maks has noticeably shied away from it in his choreography which is not like him, and it makes me think something is up. The beauty (and technique required) in Ballroom dancing is in the movement together as a unit, even in American Smooth. It's not in vamping and solos turns for four eights, and Maks choosing to highlight that in a Tango is a very suspicious choice. As far as why you choose different dancers than the judges in the PBS broadcast, some of it is politics and the competitive pecking order. Like in all judged sports, a longtime champion is almost always going to be given the benefit of the doubt. But a lot of it is that some things are not as obvious on television as they are when you see dancers live, unless you're watching very carefully and know what to look for and then it's hard to judge some of the subtleties. I think Ballroom is especially hard to judge on TV. The first thing you notice watching a competitive Ballroom couple live in a ballroom is how much speed and floor coverage they're getting. (It's really like a spangled and feathered freight train). That's much harder to judge on television. When I was watching the the Tangos on Monday night, I'm watching for how many steps it's taking them to cross the floor, how well they're maintaining body contact with their partner, how many changes of direction they're making, etc. It's why, even though he still has posture and some other technique issues, I would have said that Joey still had the best Tango of the night.

It was a rather mediocre week for me as well, so I hadn't really posted my general impressions. I did have a couple of comments, though: I'm perhaps the only one, but I actually will miss Brian and Shandi. Brian dances very clean and strong. His major problem so far had been his inability to grasp that he was on a reality TV show, and not actually competing with one of his real students. In my head, I started to nickname him Little Louis because call it stupidity, stubbornness or integrity, he seemed to share Louis' insistence that the celeb actually learn to dance, which unfortunately is not the way to success on this show. He was starting to dial it back, though. The jive was top to bottom beginner level syllabus all the way. Which was still a tough assignment for Shandi since Brian doesn't include the fluffy filler that many of the other pros do for their celebs, but he was on the right track. I was really annoyed with the camera work on Ian and Cheryl's jive because it basically prevents me from giving any substantive commentary on it. Was it great? I don't know! I have a feeling I wouldn't have shared the judge's enthusiasm for it even without the apparent misstep in the end. Cheryl choreographed way too many syncopations in this Jive for me to give it a 9. It makes me think Ian either has conditioning issues or (more likely) has difficulty in making the transitions from one figure to the next. Cheryl's choreography usually is more substantive, but it's been getting rather fluffy since the end of last season. Her technique is also really starting to deteriorate. Surprisingly, Apolo Anton Ohno seems to do much better with Ballroom than Latin. The Jive was sloppy, but more fundamentally he has problems with the weight changes in Latin. He has a tendency to plant and then haul Julianne around with his arm and shoulder, which is probably painful for both of them once the adrenalin wears off. He has a tendency to let his hips get in front of him as well which impedes his lead. If Joey's hips are behind him, Apolo's hips get forward which prevents him from using his hip weight. Leeza's tango was simple, but not bad. Tony needs her to generate more power from her knees and feet. Actually, Tony needs to get her to use her knees and feet generally. The break in Laila and Maks' Tango really bothered me because Maks' choreography for Laila has been extremely light in substantive partnering so far this season, and then taking another three (almost four) eights out of the required closed partnering in the Tango is bordering on the ludicrous. I think she has real difficulty in it. And for some reason, Maks' right hand was riding extremely low on her back in closed hold which also made me think she's having a serious problem with it. Joey is still having real difficulty with the posture. And personally, I had as many problems with his feet as his posture. He really needs to keep his feet closer to the floor, and make clear heel leads (push forward) and point (push back). If he had clearer foot and ankle articulation, it would look so much better. I did appreciate the acknowledgement but minimal "Star Wars" shtick (because really you can't get away from the ridiculousness) and how substantive the choreography was underneath the Princess Leia bikini. Lots of floor coverage, a variety of figures, changes of direction, etc. And I do think that Joey made a concerted effort to improve. His topline was much better than in previous weeks.

To me, no. I think there's an inherent tension in the story that Guettel and Craig Lucas could never quite get over for me, which is that I could never quite buy that Clara was capable of the profound love that Guettel and Lucas were trying to depict when she was still essentially a child. So that part of the story never really worked for me, and the resolution of the story falls apart if the love story doesn't really work. I do buy it as a very interesting mother/daughter story, though. I think part of why Katie Clarke worked somewhat better for me was because she her portrayal of Clara shaded more child-like, and so the ending of the story resolves more ambiguously which I think worked somewhat better. Yes, Guettel's competent, but I don't think he's much more. I don't know that he'll ever take on a lyricist as a partner, though. He seems to have difficulties with collaborators. He lost his first librettist on "Light in the Piazza," and "Princess Bride" has already been shelved because William Goldman quit on him. "City of Angels" is one of my favorite (relatively) recent shows, in no small part because of David Zippel's lyrics. I think he's one of the best around right now.

I've been following the reports on "Anne of Green Gables" as they come in with a great deal of interest. I'm a great fan of "I'm Getting My Act Together and Taking it on the Road" and am very interested in what Cryer and Ford have developed. (And actually, I never realized that there was such a following for the Canadian musical version of "Anne of Green Gables" until the press for the Cryer/Ford version started. Apparently, it's very beloved.) I don't question that Chenoweth could sing it, and probably do an amazing job from a musical perspective. I just don't think she'd be right for for the role by any stretch of the imagination. And actually, although Kelli O'Hara has a huge following in the musical theatre community, I actually preferred Katie Clarke (her replacement) who is a significantly weaker vocalist. I just felt that Clarke worked better dramatically in many ways although I think Kelli O'Hara is a much better all-around performer and very arguably the best young soprano around. (And interestingly, Chenoweth and O'Hara are performing together on Friday in Oklahoma at a benefit in honor of their mutual former vocal teacher at Oklahoma State University.) I would have liked to have seen Celia Keenan-Bolger who did the pre-Broadway tryouts and who many feel was the strongest of them all, but apparently Guettel decided he wanted a purer "legit" soprano for the role after the tryouts. As for the show on the whole, I have a lot of misgivings about "Light in the Piazza," but I do think Guettel is very talented.

Random initial impressions on Week 2: Jonathan is a genius. He's long been one of my favorite pros on the show, but I never in a million years thought he's be able to choreograph a piece that was both entertaining and cleverly masked all of Heather's stability issues with the prosthetic. Carrie Ann was completely out of her mind in declaring the choreography the most difficult, though (I thought Shandi's was far and away the most difficult). Otherwise, I thought all the women had issues coordinating their knees and hips which completely destroyed any Cuban motion in almost all of them. Leeza didn't seem to have any control of bending and straightening her knees at all with the thoroughly predictable result of no Cuban motion. Tony presented her well (unsurprising because out of all the men, he's the one who competes Mambo), but the non-coordination of her knees/hips also affects the upper half of her body (coordination of back and hips). And the nerves still get her (shoulders around her ears). Paulina needs to work her feet into the floor. She's still dancing on top of the floor. She also has issues with bending and straightening her knees although not quite as severe as Leeza's, but it's resulting in one of the most severe cases of Reverse Cuban Motion I've seen in a while. She knows to move her hips but she's swinging it through immediately when she steps as opposed to suspending it and then swinging it through to let the hip work in opposition. I still love her and want to be her when I grow up though. In a lot of ways, Shandi came closer than the other women. She has moments when her hips come very close to working well. Unfortunately, Brian is choroegraphing way beyond her abilities, with (by far) the most difficult choreography of the night, and she fell apart. I would love to see him on another season once he gets how the show works. There is a lot of good in Laila's mambo, but I actually have a lot of problems with it most of which is that I think Laila must have partnering issues, because this mambo has almost no substantive partner work in it (and the foxtrot was rather light in partnering as well). It's almost entirely shines (side-by-side work), which Laila does well, but I kept waiting for the part when Laila and Maks were going to dance, ya know, together. Laila also needs to work on straightening her knees. She's almost always on bended knees (vs. alternating bending and straightening). And I hope she starts cutting out so much shoulder movement. I didn't mind it in the mambo so much, but it bothered me in the Foxtrot and I hope it doesn't continue. Julianne's done a great job with AAO. Major improvement from last week, and was amazed at the attempt at pivots which were not bad for a beginner. Cheryl and Ian had major gapping issues. He is far too tall for her, and she's not a good enough Ballroom (Waltz, V. Waltz, Foxtrot, Quickstep, etc.) dancer to compensate. I also felt like it was rather tentative and tense. Bizarrely enough, I'm still much, much enjoying Edyta's choreography with John over any of her work with any of her previous partners. I'm glad Karina was able to pull an improved performance out of Billy Ray Cyrus. He's not a great dancer. He's not even a good dancer. But if he gets better, it'll be a fine accomplishment. Joey's posture and topline need work and he had some definitely footwork boo-boos. But I think where he took it over the other men was the combination of he managed stretches of connection with his partner (some gapping, but not too bad) combined with absolutely flying around the floor. If you watch how many steps it's taking for him and Kym to cross the floor vs. any of the other men, you can see how much more power he's generating with every step, and it's pretty impressive. They're actually dancing out to the edges of the floor. There are definitely many, many flaws that they need to work on, but there's a lot that good as well.

I'll add my notes as well: I was pleasantly surprised by the field. Unlike last season, I think the producers and casting director did a really good job a putting together the cast for this year. All seem very likeable and genuinely excited to be on the show. I was also pleasantly surprised that no one completely tanked in performance. Some are obviously much better than others (for a variety of reasons), but I think all the celebs managed at least a few basic steps in time with the music and squeaked out a basic execution of their choreography i.e. there doesn't seem to be anybody who is completely rhythm deaf and two-footed a la Kenny Mayne or Tucker Carlson. Hated the camera angles and editing this episode. I really had a difficult time with a number of the celebrities trying to watch both their topline and their feet at the same time because the director would cut between the two. Music was erratic as always (but more about that later). A few notes on competitors: I thought Laila, Joey and Ian all did well. Laila has a lot of natural talent, and she has an exceptional partner in Maks who can teach and choreograph to her strengths. As I said in an earlier post when the training clips came out, she looks like a natural mimic who can reproduce what Maks shows her although she may not understand what she's doing. I think she has her greatest difficulty with close partnering. Her right shoulder looks like she fighting with Maks sometimes in hold, and her frame gets really loose at times, way to shouldery. She seriously needs to work on just stabilizing her frame and letting a beautiful topline come through. Great first effort though. Joey is by far the most experienced performer in this field (and I'm not going to get into whether he should be on this show), and he had a good performance as well. When I first watched this I was wondering about the cha-cha content, but I watched all the performances again with the sound on mute and there was much more content in this than I first thought. It was still somewhat light but better. I'm sure this is going to be a major challenge for him and Kym after all those years on tour, but he really has to watch that he doesn't hip-hopify all his movement and posture. I think that and the music were much of the reason this looked so "disco." He also really needs to neaten and clean up his movement (close his feet, control his legs, watch his arm movement) and work on the details. It's in him to do it, but he needs to focus. Ian impressed me as well for a first time out. His hips are odd, uncontrolled and oddly placed. I also wonder if he has difficulties with transitioning from movement to movement because Cheryl choreographed so many syncopations in parts of this routine which I noticed she tended to do with Emmitt when he was having problems going from movemenet to movement. AAO and Julianne. First of all, the important things. Julianne needs to lose the Farrah hair. Otherwise, AAO seems talented and charismatic, but very, very undertrained and under-rehearsed. The choreography was very simple, and they made it work, but the connection of the ankles, knees and hips was very off. Julianne got him to straighten the knees (which she was working with him on in the clip for the International leg action), but he barely seemed to bend them at all at times, which obviously inhibits his movement. Leeza is not long for the DWTS world. Very tentative, little walk-out in her steps, shoulders are around her ears, head is placed really, really badly (actually, all the women had this problem to different degrees). Unless there is a hidden groundswell of fanbase from ET, I just don't see it. Shandi and Brian looked a lot better without music as well, but not memorable since I can't really remember anything else about this. I remember feeling like she would be a lot better with a few port de bras classes under her belt. I want Paulina to be good, but she's not. A lot of "gapping" between the partners, and her center keeps collapsing. She also has a head placement problem, although not nearly to the degree that Leeza does. Is it sad that I think that the cha-cha for John R. turned out to be one of Edyta's better choreography efforts? I thought so. I think Clyde is going to have problems no matter what. Yes, he needs to "own" it, but from a physics perspective, he is so tall that it does put his stability into question, and the major height differential is going to make connection of the centers difficult. He made a really good effort with the choreography, though. Way better than some of the other athletes have in the first week. Loved that Elena got to show her stuff. Billy Ray had it right. Karina is his strength. It looked a little better with the sound turned off, but the man is just not coordinated. I can't help thinking that it would have been better with the hair off of his face, though. It would at least have helped his performance a bit. I just can't comment on Heather Mills. There's no way she's not going to have difficulty with the prosthetic and Jonathan did his best.

Mary Martin did the National Tour of "Annie Get Your Gun" during the original Broadway run, back in the 40s. It was filmed for TV with John Raitt, and she's quite wonderful in it. I think the album is still available, and it's actually my favorite of the ones available.

In retrospect, there is a very "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" element to it, isn't there? I think there is still some footage of Garland playing Annie in a few scenes before she was let go. I believe some of it was included in "That's Entertainment III" ("Doin' What Comes Naturally"). She still manages to make some magic, but she is obviously unwell. I think she had gotten to the point where she could at times still do well for three minutes like when she pulled it together for "Get Happy" in "Summer Stock" but it's pretty clear that she would not have made it through a full shooting schedule, especially without a familiar co-star and director like Kelly and Walters to support her like on "Summer Stock." (Actually, it reminds me of Andrew Lloyd Webber's comments that the real inspiration of "Evita" was Judy Garland.) I think Hutton did pretty well with Annie. It's a difficult part to pull off well. I'm not sure that I've seen anyone really completely pull off. For me, it might have been Mary Martin who came closest (I've only heard the Merman recordings). I do think that she's another of the many actresses who her best work with Preston Sturges. Surprisingly her manic performing style meshed beautifully with the Sturges. I think "Miracle of Morgan's Creek" is what she's going to be remembered for as time passes, and it's pretty heady stuff. Ethel never came across very well on screen, being Exhibit A of "Superstar on Broadway but TOO BIG FOR MOVIES." She was still okay in her younger years in films like "Alexander's Ragtime Band," but by the 1950s her personality and performance style was just way too much and her age never would have survived the close-ups for "Annie." She all but runs over Donald O'Connor in "You're Just in Love" in the film of "Call Me Madam" and it's not like Donald was ever Mr. Subdued and Restrained.

In the Southern Californian public grammar schools, not a lot. What we had was often because of the volunteer work of parents. Otherwise we mostly did without. In fifth grade, though, I had the schools legendary "spinster" schoolteacher. One of the women who grew up beautifully educated during World War II and never married, and as a result had very few opportunities other than to become a schoolteacher. She introduced us to foreign languages such as French and German (she spoke several), as well as classical music, drama and dance. (I'm not really sure if all the parents grasped that she was showing the Zeffirelli "Romeo and Juliet" and the Olivier "Othello" to a bunch of 10 year olds). I think I learned more about the fine arts from her than from the rest of my public school education combined. The arts programs at my private junior and senior high school were quite fine, though. Enough parents were in the Los Angeles entertainment industry, that they valued good arts programs. Drama and Dance were extremely strong, and Music improved significantly becoming quite fine as well.

"Best New Artist" is a category at the Grammy Awards (infamously won by Milli Vanilli). It also used to be a category at the Golden Globes, but I think after Pia Zadora won it was discontinued. I don't think "Introducing...." is quite as common as it once was. In the past, it was used when a performer (usually a young actress) was debuting in a prominent role, and the studio wanted the public to take note. For example, as I recall, in "Roman Holiday," Gregory Peck is given top billing and Audrey Hepburn's credit is "Introducing Audrey Hepburn." Julia Roberts' credit in "Ocean's Eleven" is a very cheeky "And Introducing Julia Roberts." ETA: In "Roman Holiday," Audrey Hepburn's credit started out as "Introducing..." and was changed prior to final release to a full starring credit.

Yes, I think something similar happened with Justin Henry when he was nominated for "Kramer vs. Kramer." I don't know... I think there are a lot of things that are far less fun in the film business than being nominated (which yes, is still a great honor, and potential boon to a career) even if it's against a child actor. As for the child actors, I guess it's a question of how much we feel we should treat them as professionals, how willing are we to subject them to the ups and downs of a professional acting career. If we're willing to let them suffer the rejection, exploitation and ridiculous scrutiny of an actor's life at such a young age, shouldn't we allow them to share in the accolades as well? (Mind you, I have a lot of misgivings and mixed feelings about professional child actors generally. Witness the Olsen twins.)

I'm not against the idea, but I wonder how such a practice would play today. First of all, who would pick the awardees? Would someone like an Abigail Breslin in an $8 million independent film be likely to be picked to receive an award (which would not be voted on), or would it be far more likely to go to someone like Dakota Fanning in (oh, I don't know...) the big-budget, heavily publicized studio offering "War of the Worlds." As I think about it, I guess I prefer that everyone just is entered into whatever category they fit into, and their peers vote. If they were good, they deserve to be recognized whatever their age. If it's awkward, well... oh, well, it's Hollywood. I think it's much more awkward that Dakota Fanning can greenlight a film, (which she basically can) and everyone's managed to get over that.

I think the cynicism vs. schmaltz dichotomy is true to an extent, but I think the cultural and cultural reference issues are at least as important. I'd never really thought that the focus of "Carousel" was the Industrial Revolution until I saw the Hytner/MacMillan production at the National in London. :blush: But I think that's also true of productions in New York vs. productions elsewhere in the United States as well. There are a number of productions that have done extremely well in New York that have only done mediocre business elsewhere in the U.S. (like "The Producers") or in some cases outright bombed (like "Fiorello"). Actually, as I recall even with NY audiences, Matthew Broderick noted that the matinee and evening audiences at "The Producers" didn't laugh at the same things at all in many cases. I think in some cases casting may be an issue as well. When I was going back and forth across the pond a lot, I saw a number of productions that transferred between London and the U.S., and in some cases the original and transferred casts were not comparable in some important aspect or another which I think has affected the success of some productions.

My money's on Joey and Kym to win. Joey's a very good dancer and a great performer, and he has a large and loyal fanbase. He's also extremely likable, and I think both his personality and performing style will mesh very well with Kym. Clyde Drexler is my other favorite to make it to the end because of his fanbase, although the height thing is going to be a definite issue as far as his dancing. Ziering is going to be interesting because there is going to be a significant height gap between him (6') and Cheryl Burke (5'3ish), and Cheryl's Ballroom (vs. Latin) technique and choreography is relatively weak. I think Heather Mills is going to have a tough time. Leaving aside the divorce issues, she's not going to have any foot pressure down her prosthetic leg side, and I can't believe that the coordination of bending, straightening and balancing is going to be a simple task. Of the male pros, Jonathan's probably the one most up to the task, but I can't see them getting that far.

I'm actually not a big fan of "The Light in the Piazza," although I think Guettel is a great talent. (And apparently we won't be hearing from Guettel anytime soon, since his new project "The Princess Bride" is now dead in the water. And unfortunately, one thing Guettel did not inherit from his grandfather is speed). And I don't think that it's really a "problem" on the part of either Chenoweth or those writers. Some performers are just inherently more suited to certain styles than others, not unlike how some dancers are more suited to certain repertory than others. Audra MacDonald performs almost exclusively more recent work (she's actually the other performer I can remember a piece being written for recently, "Marie Christine"). Rebecca Luker is the princess of the Oscar Hammerstein soprano parts, and so on and so forth. Kelli O'Hara is one young performer trying to go back and forth, but unlike Chenoweth, I don't think her legit-trained voice is going to be suited to the Jazz Baby repertory that Chenoweth does so well. Moreover, most young writers write with the idea that the work is the star, not any particular performer and for the most part that has been true for much of the last 50 years. Interestingly, judging from her most recent projects, at the moment the areas Chenoweth seems most interested in exploring some of her operatic roots and country western music (we may see that Dolly Parton project yet!).

Well, I think there are two issues in that paragraph: 1) is "On a Clear Day" revivable from a dramatic perspective?, and 2) is "On a Clear Day" revivable from a commercial perspective. 1. I don't think "On a Clear Day" is revivable from a dramatic perspective, and I think that that's a generally held belief in the musical theatre community. There are too many problems with the book. My statement about Lerner's dependency was not a statement that Lerner's chemical dependency = book problems, but that that was part of the reason that Lerner was unable to produce a coherent book. Even for the Encores! staff has problems with the book because there were so many different versions of it because the creative team at the time kept trying to rewrite it during its run to make it work. Actually, I'll amend my statement. It might be possible If there was a substantial rewrite by someone like Ken Ludwig. But it would probably be on the order of becoming a different musical as "Funny Face" became "My One and Only" or "Girl Crazy" became "Crazy for You." But that might require changes to the score as well, and Lane and Lerner didn't write that much together and there would probably be problems with the estates, and well... I think there's a reason people haven't tried it. "Wonderful Town" may not be that well-known to modern audiences, but it was quite critically lauded in its day. The book is pretty good (at least it makes sense), as is the score even if it lacks "hits." It probably wouldn't have been revived on Broadway without Donna Murphy's performance at Encores! bringing attention to it, but there's no dramatic reason not to do it as there is with "On a Clear Day..." 2. Strictly, commercially-speaking, I think "On a Clear Day" is as revivable as any other semi-success/semi-flop of the period, certainly as much as "Bells are Ringing" which had an unsuccessful Broadway revival a few years ago. It has some name recognition and a recognizable title song. It's not the question of the commerciability of its name. It's always been the dramatic issues with "On a Clear Day" which are widely recognized, and why it is never revived. (And believe me, the Encores! concert was the first time I had seen it, and I've seen more than one revival of "Leave it to Jane.") "Composers with a feeling for a more intimate and personal kind of Broadway show" are emerging, a number of them in fact. I just don't know of any who are writing for Chenoweth, and honestly, Chenoweth doesn't seem to gravitate to them. She seems to do best with big splashy commercial pieces by older composers ("Steel Pier," "Wicked" and "Young Frankenstein") and revivals.

First of all, there is no possible way that "On a Clear Day..." could ever be revived in a regular commercial run theatre, its glorious score nowithstanding (which is actually what made it perfect for "Encores!"). The book was written at the height of Alan Jay Lerner's drug dependency, and the interesting themes degenerate pretty quickly into a total quagmire (actually, I should say books because there are so many of them floating around because it's been rewritten so many times in an attempt for the story to resolve in a satisfactory matter at the end). I was sitting at the end of the concert, going "Huh?" Second, I don't know that I would say that Chenoweth "opened" "The Apple Tree." The production certainly could never have been done without her (or the "Encores!" concert), but it's being produced as a limited-run production by the Roundabout, partly on the basis of its substantial subscriber base. Third, I think it's very different to talk about someone "opening" a show on the strength of their name and starring in a revival which has a built-in recognizability factor with a wider public. If opening a revival were the same, you could argue that Rebecca Luker (who starred in the revivals of "Show Boat," "The Sound of Music" and "The Music Man" and is currently starring in "Mary Poppins") has that "opening" name factor which she clearly doesn't. And it's a great deal of the reason why there are so many revivals (vs. new work) being produced today. I agree that Chenoweth is in demand, very much in demand in fact considering "The Apple Tree" was shoe-horned into her schedule prior to rehearsals for "Young Frankenstein." She's already the biggest Broadway star of her generation, and I think she's going to be one of the first-offered actresses for many of the major productions opening in or coming to New York for a long, long time. But as far as whether she's going to be the muse of a new generation of writers and save Broadway.... I don't think so. The economics of Broadway don't support it, in the way that the Broadway of the 20s could support a string of Marilyn Miller vehicles or the Broadway of the 60s could support Gwen Verdon vehicles. And so far, she hasn't really attached to and championed any of the up-and-coming writers in the way Audra MacDonald has or Bernadette Peters a generation ago. I think part of the thing is that she is very "old-style Broadway star" in a lot of aspects. She has an amazing presence and personality onstage, but I don't know that that performance style is very well suited to some of the work of the younger generation of writers that would presumably be the ones most likely to write for her. I really can't imagine her singing Jason Robert Brown for example. I think that's part of why she is so successful in revivals and "Encores!" loves her so much and casts her so often. Actually, I prefer Chenoweth's performance of "Hurry, It's Lovely Up Here," but I had the advantage of seeing her perform it rather than knowing it solely through recording like Harris'. Oh, I disagree. I'm actually much more hopeful for the future of musical theatre and Broadway than I have been in a long, long time. There are more and more young, talented writers like Adam Guettel, Jason Robert Brown, Ricky Ian Gordon, etc. writing for musical theatre than I can remember for some time, and they're producing some very interesting and exciting work.

As long as we're all sharing our favorite cabaret performers, mine is Andrea Marcovicci. You know, I don't think there are going to be any shows written as a star-specific vehicle in the way they were 60 years ago. At the time, shows would turn a profit in a season, close, and a new show would open the next season. A cast could very well stay intact for its entire run, or at least most of its run. Because of the intense capitalization costs of a modern production, shows need to run years and years in order to turn a profit, and I don't think it's nearly the same. Chenoweth is a wonderful performer, but she is not enough of a name to open a production by herself. Unfortunately, usually the only people who can really "open" a production at this point are people who make their names elsewhere and then return to the stage, e.g. Bebe Neuwirth who never was an above-the-titles star until she was "Lilith" on "Cheers." The tourist dollar is far too important, and they've never heard of Kristin Chenoweth before. Actually, the only recent shows I can think of that have been written for someone were "Jeckyll and Hyde" and "Scarlet Pimpernel" and frankly those were because Linda Eder was married to Frank Wildhorn at the time. Chenoweth gets cast in new work (I think her next season's project in "Young Frankenstein"), but I don't know how many pieces are going to be written for her. Well, I think that's one opinion. A lot of people who are not Stephen Sondheim would agree that Bernadette Peters is the last true Broadway star, and I do think she is one of the few who can "open" a new show. And interestingly, she is one of the who has been able to do exactly what you describe, parlay her appearances in other media into attention on her stage endeavors. Streisand really isn't suited to live performance. She can do it, but between her stage fright and difficulties in pulling off 8 good shows a week, she's much better off in recordings and film. Unfortunately, this trip is going to be short, and because of "The Apple Tree"'s short run, I'm going to see that. I'm hoping for a longer trip in the spring, work permitting, so I can catch up on my NYC theatre, ballet and restaurants, and that trip would include "Spring Awakening."

While I totally agree that altering art in order to appease modern mores is artistically questionable and intellectually dishonest, I do think that the "The Birth of a Nation" comparison is interesting in that "The Birth of a Nation" is widely acknowledged to be racist (as well as a masterpiece, but that's neither here nor there). "The Birth of a Nation" is very rarely shown publicly without a major demonstration (The last one I remember at the Silent Movie Theatre here in Los Angeles resulted in a demonstration that shut down the theatre). I don't think "Madame Butterfly" is acknowledged as racist so much by the general public so much as in intellectual circles, and as has been commented in this thread is performed very widely. I do think there is a question as to whether it continues to perpetuate the "Butterfly" myth of the beautiful, fragile, submissive (and perhaps stupid) "Oriental" woman willing to die for the love of the big strong, Western imperialist. I think it's worth considering that it was not even 20 years ago that "Miss Saigon" was a hit with exactly the same story (okay, somewhat more sympathetic Western imperialist). And looking at the personal ads in the newspapers, somebody's buying into it judging by the number of ads seeking "Single Asian Female, between the ages of 18-25."

Kristin's not even 5' tall. She's 4'11 (or as she puts it "5'2 in high heels"). I would disagree that her voice is richer than Barbara Cook's, though, although I find her voice more versatile than Cook's. It would be interesting if she were to attempt Bock and Harnick's "She Loves Me" to see how she would compare on "Ice Cream." It would probably be fabulous but different than Cook's wonderful rendition. I don't disagree with Sondheim. There are so few productions these days that very few people ever have the opportunity to develop into a "star." Melissa Errico was an overnight sensation a number of years ago in "One Touch of Venus," and then languished with few opportunities and poor choices, and now seems to mainly content herself with being a wife and mother (not that there's anything wrong with that). Heather Headley was hailed as a new star after "Aida" and chose to concentrate on a recording career. I agree that Kristin Chenoweth is extremely talented (arguably more talented than either of Errico or Headley), but she's also been fortunate in the opportunities that have been available to her, and the choices she's made, not unlike Bernadette Peters a generation ago. I don't think there's any other young talent I've seen in more different productions in the last 10 years. It's not Chenoweth's height that keeps her from being a film or TV star, and actually, I don't think she would have become a film or TV star 65 years ago when musicals were at their height. Like a lot of the great musical theatre stars, she doesn't translate well to screen (and actually, she doesn't doesn't come across well in recordings either), and her sitcom "Kristin" was a bomb, lasting about 6 episodes a few years ago. The force of her personality is too great, her persona is too eccentric. What makes her thoroughly charming onstage becomes tremendously grating onscreen and in recording. If you look back, a lot of great film and TV stars come from stage, but most true Broadway legends didn't do well in Hollywood. Ethel Merman, Ray Bolger, Mary Martin, Marilyn Miller, etc. all made an attempt at Hollywood, and ran back to the stage which was their home. Weather willing, I should be seeing Chenoweth next weekend in "The Apple Tree," and I'm looking forward to it.

Meissner is a competitor, and she does tend to do a stronger LP than SP (not quite a bad as Lysacek, but still usually stronger in the long). I'd read somewhere that she could only fly in in time for the SP because of USFSA commitments and missed all the practices, which would explain the even weaker than usual SP. It sounds like Pam Gregory has her peaking for Worlds again which bodes well. I know she has a lot of fans, but I really don't see Czisny as a year-in, year-out contender. She just doesn't seem strong enough either mentally or physically. Whenever I watch her skate, I feel like I'm just waiting for her to fall apart.

Sheldon got to be delightfully trashy in his later years, but I think my favorite is still "The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer." It's a great script and Cary Grant, Myrna Loy and Shirley Temple are a cast who can do it justice (and do).

I think that's the case in many areas. On this board alone, how often do we lament the low audience turnout for mixed bills relative to full-length story ballets? I really don't think it's all that difficult for an "enterprising non-profit MBA" to figure it out how to reach a broader (oftentimes younger) audience and bring them in a variety of ways including using smaller and/or family-friendly venues, programming at times and places more convenient for people with families or other commitments, tiered/discount/rush ticketing, advertising in media likely to reach younger people, etc. I think some groups do very well in introducing non-warhorse programming in those ways. It's not really rocket science. I think there is a period of time when people are far less likely to go out for events generally, though. It's usually when they have young children. The expense and trouble of hiring a babysitter and planning and evening out is really nontrivial, and I think the numbers go down across the board in that demographic even in more "modern" and "trendy" media like cinema. Because of the trouble, people are just far more likely to stay at home with a DVD until their children are older.

I rather suspect it is the subscription issue. Younger audiences are less likely to commit to a subscription either because of financial reasons or because of other commitments like work. (When I lived in NY, I rarely bought ballet tickets more than a week advance because of scheduling around work issues, let alone a subscription). And if you only have the financial resources to go once or twice during the seasons or know you will only be able to take a couple of evenings off during the season, I think people are far more likely to pick something they know they will enjoy rather than take a chance. I think older audiences who are more professionally and/or financially set are far more likely to make that kind of commitment to a subscription.

Sadly enough, the 2002-2003 season was actually one of the better ones for musicals in my recent memory. Taking a quick scan of the Tony nominees that year, besides "Hairspray," other productions that season included Twyla Tharp's "Movin' Out," the Sam Mendes revival of "Gypsy" with Bernadette Peters, Michel Legrand's "Amour," the Roundabout's revival of "Nine," Baz Luhrman's "La Boheme," and "A Year with Frog and Toad." I can remember several recent years where there were barely sufficient number of productions to fill all the nominee slots. I think that out of the likely productions, "Hairspray" was by far the most likely to win. Twyla Tharp's "Movin' Out" divided a lot of people in much the way that Stroman's "Contact" did earlier, and "Amour" was far too slight, whimsical and French (I didn't have a chance to see "Frog and Toad"). The "Gypsy" revival was the most likely to be its critical rival (on sheer pedigree), and frankly it wasn't that good, poorly directed and miscast. I think to an extent, it probably also benefitted from the desire for "fluffier" entertainment in the wake of 9/11. I can still remember the ecstatic review the "New York Times" gave "Mamma Mia!" that season. But yeah, I'd still say that "Hairspray" is definitely one of the better original musicals I've seen in the last ten years. It has a pretty good book, decent score, great performances and energy (in the original cast, at least,) and I think at least in its original incarnation, a nice sincerity that I don't see that often in commercial musicals these days. That's just my opinion, though.