sidwich

I could not believe that they would leave out this song, as well as 'Cornet Man', and 'Rat-Tat-Tat-Tat', all of which were part of one of the last great scores written for a Broadway show (and the critics of the times did not pay this score nearly enough homage; it was in the same year as 'Hello, Dolly!' and is light-years beyond it--and yet a much better film was made of 'Hello, Dolly!' in my opinion.) Nor did they do a fully Ziegfeldian version of 'His Love Makes Me Beautiful'. It's true that 'Don't Rain on My Parade' is wonderful in the film, but with a score like that, you should not fool around and throw out great numbers.

I haven't seen "Funny Girl" in a while, but as I recall (and my memory may be shaky on this), "Cornet Man" and "Rat-tat-tat-tat" were used in the stage version of "Funny Girl" because the producers were unable to obtain the rights to some of the period songs Fanny Brice was famous for singing. When the film producers were able to get those rights (and the rights to "My Man"), the decision was made to use those original songs instead of the pastiches and "His is the Only Music..."

As far as "Funny Girl" vs. "Hello, Dolly!," while I prefer listening to the score of "Funny Girl" a great deal, I think "Hello, Dolly!" is still an overall better show, and much of that is due to the superior book written by Michael Stewart based on the Thornton Wilder. I really think it's one of the best books ever written for the musical theatre, and much of why "Hello, Dolly!" is rather indestructible and lives on in regional theatre, community theatre and high schools to this day. (I don't love the film, though). The "Funny Girl" book has some troublesome spots, and I do think that some of the cuts that were made in the film were beneficial either because those moments would have dragged in the film or because the songs wouldn't have really worked in the cinematic medium. For example, I think clipping down "Henry Street" and the changes to "Sadie, Sadie" were probably good choices.

I think one of the problems with "Dreamgirls" is that more of the score (love it, hate it, whatever...) is shoehorned in than works in a feature film at the expense of cutting some of the actual story it's trying to tell.

I can only say, I would have taken Lilly Munster as my mom over Donna Reed any day!

I actually liked "Hairspray" a lot, definitely one of the better musicals I've seen in the last 20ish years or so. (As a barometer, my favorite original musicals during that period were Cy Coleman/David Zippel/Larry Gelbart's "City of Angels" followed by a tie of Lucy Simon/Marsha Norman's "The Secret Garden" and Sondheim's "Passion").

I think, though, that when productions have been up for several years and have been through replacement cast after replacement cast, a lot of the energy that can make a production special in the beginning is lost. What was good about "Hairspray" when I originally was it was its energy, the sharp performances by many of the cast, and (in my opinion only) the better than average score and book. This far into the run, the energy's usually gone, and the reviews I've heard of the replacement casts have been mixed. I would be rather surprised if the production weren't tired at this point.

For some reason, I didn't see "Rent" until years into its run on Broadway, and was severely disappointed when I finally saw it. The production was SO tired... it was actually sad.

As far as worst, let me tell you about the "Jesus Christ Superstar" revival a few years ago...

First of all, the movie looks amazing. The overall design is simply stunning.

That being said, I came away from the film disappointed. I'm not as familiar with "Dreamgirls" as I am with a lot of other musical material, but my sense was that in cutting down a musical that was probably closer to 3 hrs in length to modern feature-length and attempting to make the material palatable to audiences, a lot of material that filled out the characterizations were lost. There are some major leaps of characterization throughout the film. (Actually, my filmmaker brother who had no knowledge of the material other than that it was based on the Supreme came out of the theatre and said to me, "That movie made no sense!").

I think perhaps, there may have been some transitions that Michael Bennett was able to finesse onstage that Condon couldn't make on film, either because of the difference in medium or because frankly, Condon isn't that good at some things. I definitely can't lay it all at Condon's feet because some of it is undoubtedly due to the half-dozen major people working on the film (I'm sure David Geffen had no little say in some of it), but I do think there are some very clunky directorial choices and some of the pacing felt odd at times. I, for one, was not thrilled with his combination of musical pieces that were sung as show numbers, sung as traditional book numbers, and MTV-style sung over pieces.

And I'll lay it down that my favorite performance of the Dreams was Anika Noni Rose, and I also thought that Eddie Murphy and Danny Glover were excellent. (Actually, I'd much prefer the choice of buying a Jimmy Thunder Early album over the soundtrack.)

The ushers at the Met can get overly enthusiastic, though. Several years ago, one of the ushers tried to toss me out of my seat at a Paris Opera Ballet performance, EVEN THOUGH I HAD I HAD A TICKET. (It was a last minute thing, and I wasn't dressed my best, so they thought I had snuck over from standing room).

I'm going to try to see it this weekend. My sense is that it will be good becuase Condon is a good writer (the story itself is powerful and relatively difficult to destroy), but how good is an open question, especially with Condon's relative inexperience as a director. Kind of the same way I thought "Kinsey" was good because of the story and cast involved, but still suffered in some of the directorial aspects and "Dreamgirls" is much more complicated from a production perspective.

I am very happy for its success, though, as it seems to be helping to pave the way (along with "Chicago") for other high-profile musical projects. (Meryl Streep in "Mamma Mia!" meep!)

My favorite Torvill and Dean program is "Encounter" from the mid to late 80s, followed by the 1994 OSP (Rhumba) and the 1984 OSP (Paso). Dean has an outstanding imagination for what can be accomplished on ice.

Torvill and Dean pushed the boundaries, but the Soviet teams pushed them further into what I'd describe as "Ice Theater." It wasn't the first time that Soviet teams changed the face of the sport: in a book published for the 2004 Dortmund Worlds, Gorshkov was quoted as saying that because they could not compete with the British teams, which had dominated for 13 of 17 years from 1952-1969, technically, they had to change the paradigm, which they did with emotionally open and dramatic free dances.

I think what the Soviet teams were able to accomplish was to push the boundaries of the paradigm that Torvill and Dean changed. Up until Torvill and Dean, ice dance generally resembled ballroom dance on ice, with LPs which were often comprised of completely unrelated music cut together to show a slew of different dance styles (for example, a cha-cha, a quickstep, and a samba). By 1982, Torvill and Dean were using music derived from a single source ("Mack and Mabel") and then in 1983, they pushed it a little further with "Barnum," and it culminated in "Bolero" which obviously doesn't resemble Ballroom dance at all and is completely theatrical.

In Torvill and Dean's case, I think their emphatically professional presentation took them out of the running with the judges, while endearing them to their fans. And their bronze is still heavily debated on among figure skating fans over a decade later.

I think all three of the teams in the running were spooked by the results at Europeans (the Soviets that they didn't win, and T&D that they didn't win the LP), and as I understand it, all of them made changes to their programs. I've seen the T&D program from Europeans and it's not *as* different as people have made it sound, although there are quite a few changes. I think what did hurt them with the judges is that there are obviously major portions of the program which were lifted from "Mack and Mabel" and "Barnum."

I think they were probably correct in assessing that they would not win at the Olympics unless they could win the LP, though. Actually, as I recall, one of the major factors in the result at Lillehammer was Grishuk and Platov's improvement in the compulsories over Europeans (due to the old 6.0 system with factored placements), which had nothing to do with T&D's performance in the LP.

In case anyone is interested in this production, Lea Salonga will be taking over the role of Fantine in March. Daphne Rubin-Vega is departing for "Jack Goes Boating" with Phillip Seymour Hoffman in February (which was intended prior to the start of the run). An ensemble member will be assuming the role in the interim.

Tammy Blanchard, a complete unknown to me, was also excellent as the "other woman". Typecasting would have had their roles reversed.

Blanchard's been on the rise, playing with a number of famous and more established actresses. She picked up an Emmy playing the young Judy Garland in "Me and My Shadows" and a Tony nomination as Louise opposite Bernadette Peters in "Gypsy."

I wouldn’t think of Jolie is as the wifely type, unless you count Olympia in “Alexander,” where she was indeed a suitable match for Val Kilmer. (Her looks aren’t very Forties, however.)

I think the subject matter would have been hard for some audiences no matter what, but the idea of Jolie as the archtypal suffering 40s wife is a bit odd. Jennifer Connelly might have been a better choice. (I think Jolie could have made a killer Ava Gardner in "The Aviator" a few years ago, though.)

Most of what I've heard so far about this production center on Daphne Rubin-Vega's portrayal of Fantine, which is not for everyone (to put it mildly). Her voice is not what most people expect in a Fantine after Patti Lupone, Randy Graff and Ruthie Henshall, and while I've heard a few people who admire her "stomped and spit on by society" concept of Fantine, I've heard an awful lot of speculation on when she may be replaced as well. (I haven't seen her or the production, so I don't have an opinion yet). Otherwise, I've heard a lot of positives about Celia Keenan-Bolger as Eponine.

New York City also has distance issues -- but it does at least have a widespread subway system.

The public transportation system helps A LOT in New York. Even if you're coming from outside the city, you have a fairly reliable idea how long it will take to get into the city, and then how long the subway ride will be. For me, driving to the Music Center could take anywhere from half an hour to an hour and a half (sometimes more). Going down to OCPAC is even harder to gage.

It seems that Miami City Ballet has distance problems similar to LA's. Virtually the entire eastern coast of South Florida from well south of Miami to north of West Palm Beach is a single metropolitan corridor composed of many urban centers. MCB deals with this by performing each program, first in Miami and shortly thereafter in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm. Ditto the Nutcracker. These seems a viable alternative for the LA area.

I think this is what the newly created company in LA is trying to imitate by performing its "Nutcracker" in three different venues around the county. Hopefully, it will help.

This works for the LA Opera and the Philharmonic; why not for ballet as well, if they can attract a big name similar to those two other institutions? Is there a ballet equivalent to Domingo, Mehta, Giulini, Previn, or Salonen availalbe?

While I think a ballet superstar would help immeasurably, I think the LA Opera and the Philharmonic have other advantages. I think the LA Opera scatters it performances throughout the year (3-4 performances a week for a few weeks, then another couple performances a month later and so on), which I don't know is a viable model for a ballet company. And the Philharmonic is helped out A LOT by the Hollywood Bowl season, which is a Los Angeles institution. (The Bowl also provides park-and-ride public transport assistance). I think there's a pretty good percentage of people who would picnic at the Bowl whether the Philharmonic was playing or not.

The article points up one key problem which is distance. I think there are a decent number of ballet fans in Southern California, but they're dispersed across significant distances and commuting becomes a major issue. (It's obviously something that the new company is trying to address by splitting their "Nutcracker" performances across three separate venues). When I hear about a ballet performance I want to see here, the first thing I start calculating is how much traffic am I likely to hit at performance time and how long will it take me to get there and get back, and it's usually quite significant considering the Music Center is downtown (a nightmare after 7) and the OCPAC requires going down the 405 (just a nightmare).

It's very different from when I lived five blocks from Lincoln Center and would go to performances 3 times a week on a whim.

I also think it's hard to keep a resident company of anything going in Los Angeles is difficult, but doubly so when the members can't really support themselves with commercials, voiceovers, music videos, etc. which I think does help the resident acting troupes and hip hop dancers.

I guess someone's going to have to open the Pandora's Box of class. Ballet flourishes when people believe that its ideals and ethos are something to aspire to. I think one of the movements of the 20th century (at least partly because of mass communications) was that the compass of culture shifted its needle away from the upper class. For most of the century it was the middle class that drove culture, but presently it seems we're looking to the street for our aspirations right now. And ballet isn't an art form of the street.

I would disagree that the middle class drove culture during the last century, at least from a mass culture perspective. Generally, the middle class mined African-American culture (generally, the lower class) for its inspiration and homogenized it for mass consumption. Jazz, swing, charleston, lindy hop, blues, and then later R&B, rock & roll, rap and hip hop all have their roots deeply in the streets. Not much has changed in that respect.

In Horatio Alger-style, I think the lower and middle classes have aspired to the capitalistic success of the upper classes, but I'm not so sure that the upper classes have really ever had that much weight as far as mass culture.

She was a great theatre lady, and will be sorely missed.

Now, this is the Sondheim I want to see! I bet she is magnificent! Have you seen it, sidwich (or anyone else)? I imagine it is the very ultimate production of this show. The only review at IMDB laments that there is no DVD. I think I may put a Search Favourite at eBay, because somebody might record it and then sell it. I've gotten other things that way that were never put on commercial video.

This is not a difficult production to find copies of, which is fortunate since none of the many rumored major U.S. revivals of "A Little Night Music" have come to fruition yet. It's well worth seeing. (It's also not difficult to find clips online. *coughcough*)

There was a short limited run of "A Little Night Music" a Lincoln Center a few years ago with Jeremy Irons which was ... interesting (I can't remember the actress playing Desiree, although she is a well-known name as well). I found I much preferred the short clips I've seen of Len Cariou and Glynis John, although neither of them were really well known for robust singing voices.

I checked out 'Phantom of the Opera' from 2004 also, and dread watching it, if I must say..perhaps I could be talked out of it?

It was shot on the cheap, and it's pretty bad. I cringe every time the Phantom opens his mouth (if they were going to get an unknown, couldn't they get one who could sing the part well?), and the sets look like they're going to fall down at the next brisk breeze.

My brother (who is a filmmaker) called me up one day to ask me what I knew about it, because he'd been flipping channels at home and came across it, and he couldn't believe how bad it was from a technical filmmaking perspective (apparently, you can see reflections and glare on the film all over the place).

But apparently someone liked it because it did make money, although most of it was overseas.

It’s a different set of skills. Also, Moore has theatre experience, but it’s not her basic training – she started out in the soaps.

I don't think that's completely true. I think more than anything, it's been a while since Ms. Moore has done significant stage work. I think her original training is in theatre. Scanning her bio, it looks like she received her BFA in Drama from Boston University before going to off-Broadway. Like more New York theatre actors, I would guess she supported herself in the early years with the soaps.

Unfortunately, neither Season One nor Season Two are available on DVD. I'm not sure what the stumbling block to a DVD release is. Maybe securing the rights to all the songs is too prohibitively expensive for a DVD release as compared to securing them for the performance nights?

Music rights are usually the reason DVDs are held up, although in most cases, that is with respect to older series. No one foresaw the advent of DVD and the cash cow it would become to TV production, and as a result they were never written into the original licenses. Music rights issues are the reasons that some older series are sometimes released with episodes missing ("Profiler") or with key music replaced in some scenes ("Quantum Leap") or not at all ("The Chris Isaak Show").

That being said, there's much less financial incentive for the people involved to pursue the release a DVD of a reality TV show. Reality TV show DVD sales historically lag far behind those of scripted shows.

Anyone who has studied and/or performed ballroom (socially or professionally) knows how much is missing in all of these performances of much personality and little technique / connection. Except for Mario, the other "stars" would barely qualify for an average pro-am competition.

I both agree and disagree about Mario. He's unquestionably the best all-around general dancer of the group, but his lead/follow skills are severely underdeveloped in comparison. I actually think he'd be marked down quite a bit for the imbalance in his routines (way too much side by side work, very little partnering) and the lack of fundamental technique (especially in the Ballroom although that is partly due to Karina). I think he's improved somewhat in the last few weeks, but Emmitt, Monique and even Jerry Springer are all much better rounded ballroom/latin dancers in comparison. (Actually, Emmitt and Monique look the most like the students I see at beginner pro-ams.)

It's actually really obvious watching the rhumbas. Cheryl's choreography is very simple, mostly basics, fans and variations thereof with some "man as balance bar" highlights thrown in. It's all very much what you would see at a beginner pro-am, performed pretty competently on a beginner level (Emmitt maintains the rhythm of the dance in time with the music, coordinates his hips with his partner, and leads throughout the piece).

Mario's is much more "difficult," but it lacks a substantive demonstration of the fundamentals. It's actually really strange to watch. Rhumba is considered difficult because it's so slloooowwww. It's very difficult to cheat, and it looks like Karina ended up disguising that lack of real Latin technique with an impressive gymnastic display that didn't actually require Mario to do a whole lot.

I think a more realistic (and not unenjoyable) view to take is that the show is a hybrid consisting of one-third ballroom dance skills, one-third chemistry between the professional and the celebrity amateur, and one-third old-fashioned Hollywood razzle-dazzle on the part of the celebrity amateur.

It's a popularity contest. America is ultimately still deciding who it likes the most, not who is performing the best double reverse or fleckroll. Good dance skills can play a role in that decision (Drew Lachey) or not (Kelly Monaco), but this show is much more about the audience enjoying being a spectator in people learning how to dance than the product itself in most cases. It's about the joy of learning how to dance rather than any true greatness in the dancing (which is good because in most cases it's not there at all and I can't believe that there's actually going to be a tour).

Very true, and the show actually performs a useful function on those rare occasions when you do learn something about ballroom dancing. I for one would appreciate the opportunity to increase my knowledge, which is not extensive, to understate the matter considerably. Dancing for the Stars doesn't help much, thought, except to make this untutored eye appreciate the skills of the competitors that show up on PBS.

I wouldn't use DWTS as any guide to ballroom dancing. I appreciate that it's brought ballroom and latin to greater public consciousness and brought great talents like Louis van Amstel and Charlotte Jorgensen into the public eye, but Carrie Ann Inaba and Bruno Tonioli really know nothing about Ballroom and Latin, and Len's comments seem way too scripted by the ratings at any given time. Three seasons into the show, Carrie Ann still can't tell that Louis is choreographing a by-the-syllabus samba? Joey has even good ballroom technique, let alone the best on the show? And I could not get over the judges gushing over Stacey's non-existent frame last season (Stacey had good posture, but posture and frame are not the same thing, and her frame was extremely weak).

sidwich writes:

It's about the joy of learning how to dance rather than any true greatness in the dancing (which is good because in most cases it's not there at all and I can't believe that there's actually going to be a tour).

I was a little taken aback by that, myself. I wonder how it will do?

Some friends of mine in musical theater just get so angry on the subject of the movie "Cabaret." They see it as the beginning of the end of movie musicals, the first one where none of the characters ever bursts into song--the show was completely rewritten so that all the songs happen as part of the cabaret act. The songs that didn't fit (and sometimes the characters that sang them) were chucked.

I think more than anything Fosse's "Cabaret" reflects the development of musicals on stage, and the rise of the "concept" musical, and relative decline of "book" musicals at the time. Fosse takes the concept that Prince started with on stage, the cabaret as a microcosm of Weimar society, and extends it to the inevitable conclusion. (As an aside, I don't think "Cabaret" is the first movie musical with non-bursting-into-songness. All of the musical staging in the Warner Bros. /Busby Berkeley musicals occurs "onstage" as well.)

I do think "Cabaret" is one of the last hurrahs of the film musicals, though.

I thought Emmitt and Cheryl had an up-and-down week. Given that Emmitt is generally better in the Latin dances, I was surprised to see him dominate in the foxtrot instead of the rumba. For reasons that I can't quite fathom, Emmitt looked somewhat sluggish in the rumba. And, at times, Emmitt and Cheryl looked too much like they were doing the kind of slow dance that you would do in the 9th grade. Not the best look for a team whose strength lies in their refreshingly adult sexuality.

I thought this was a very mediocre week for Emmitt and Cheryl. For some reason, Cheryl seems to have a hard time choreographing Foxtrot. Last year, the one she did for Drew was rather weak, and "Witchcraft" was very showdancey for me, lots of side-by-side work, lots of arms length work, very little work in closed hold or even shadow. The rhumba was good, but very simple, lots of basics, fans, and "man as balance bar" work. All very basic and beginner level, although very solidly performed. Cheryl played it very safe which is probably good strategy, but I didn't find it all that interesting from either a choreographic or dance perspective.

As for Monique and Louis, I wasn't surprised by their ouster and I put much of the blame on Louis. He ostentatiously claimed in one of the backstage interview segments that his choreography was "more difficult" to perform than that of the other choreographers. To an extent, I admire his doctrinal purity in these matters but, unfortunately, he doesn't seem to realize that a moderately difficult routine presented cleanly is more likely to lead to advancement in a competition like this than an extremely difficult routine presented unevenly. Or, to put it another way, he needs to realize this is a pro-am competition where the audience is voting as much for the overall effect and chemistry as for the difficulty of the steps.

Out of all the pros, I think Louis is the one who most approaches the show as an opportunity to actually teach someone to dance. As a result, Monique probably has the most solid technique out of all the celebs at this point (on the Ballroom side of the it, it isn't even funny), but her routines sometimes resemble practice exercise at times. I like Louis' choreography, though.

I think what is frustrating to Louis is that many of the other celebs' routines aren't even moderately difficult, or in some cases containing much substantive Ballroom/Latin choregraphy, and on the men's side, most of the male celebs aren't even leading (so their difficulty level goes down exponentially). It's the audiences to perogative to vote as it sees fit, but the judges have been a joke in their commentary this season, even worse than in previous seasons.

Watching the results show on Thursday, I think part of Monique's problem is also a nerves issue. Seeing the same cha-cha performed on Thursday, her performance was significant, significant improvement, to the point that if that is how she is executing in rehearsal, I totally get why Louis choreographs to the difficulty level he does.

Based on their performances this week, I have to say that the competition is Mario and Karina's to lose. I don't see Joey and Edyta posing a significant threat to them given Edyta's choreographic problems. Emmitt and Cheryl could beat Mario and Karina but they will have to step up their dancing significantly to have any chance of walking off with the coveted glittery disco balls. We shall see if Emmitt's competitive instincts kick in more than they have so far.

I predicted Emmitt and Cheryl to win before the season started, and I hold to it. DTWS has never been a dance competition, but popularity contest with a tasty dressing of dance. (I have to believe that, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to sleep after Kelly's Monaco's victory). I'm pretty sure Emmitt had one of the biggest fanbases when this competition started, and I think he's just added to it over the course of the season. I don't think Mario's is anywhere near, and I can't see him having built enough over the course of the season. Actually, if Sara Evans hadn't withdrawn, I'm pretty sure she would have been with Emmitt in the final.

I actually don't mind Emmitt winning, though. Emmitt leads the most and his lead technique is by far the best out of the male contestants. Mario's is erratic. He's a good solo dancer, but his partnering skills are actually pretty weak, and they've only started improving in the last few weeks. And leaving aside Edyta's choreographic skills, based on her DWTS results, she's never impressed me as a coach. Joey's all-around Ballroom and Latin skills are painful. His mambo was one of the most painful exhibitions I've seen in my life, and I've seen plenty.

Compare that to Jennifer Jason Leigh who I didn't see but was told played the character in an annoyingly tic ridden way and deliberately sang badly though she wasn't a real singer to begin with and her natural voice would have been mediocre enough. Or Liza Minnelli who is so incredible and in her prime in the movie that you think this girl must be seriously screwed up that with all that obvious in your face talent that could take her to the biggest venues in Berlin and she is performing in a seedy club just getting by.

I don't think I've ever seen or heard good reviews of Jennifer Jason Leigh on stage. I don't think she translates well to the stage medium.

I remember at the time Mendes said that his big problem with the film was the unbelievability of Minnelli singing in a seedy dive club, and that was much of the reason he cast Richardson (good actress who can't sing) in the role. (As an aside, while I was waiting in the cancellation ticket line, I saw Natasha Richardson on her way into the theatre, and she is probably one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen. Truly, someone whose "glow" doesn't translate on film like it does in person).

Depp did start out in a rock band. I think he started acting as something of a "day job" to pay the bills. Hopefully, he'll turn out to be one of those rock singers who can actually sing, as opposed to screaming in default. And despite his resume, it's not like Len Cariou was ever Ezio Pinza. Cariou's voice is pretty much shot now, but he and Lansbury still managed a mesmerizing "Little Priest" at the Sondheim Hollywood Bowl celebration last year.

Mirren is wonderful in "The Queen," but I had mixed feelings on the film as a whole. It felt like Frears was trying very hard to resolve to a conclusion at the end, and he didn't quite full it off.

Actually, I thought one of the more interesting characters was the Prince Charles character. I used to see Alex Jennings onstage in London and NY quite a bit, and I think he did a great job pulling together a fully-fleshed out character with very little screentime.

The original Hal Prince production of "Cabaret" predates me, I'm afraid. Regarding Jill Haworth, from what I understand Kander and Ebb were extremely upset about her casting as Sally, and refused to allow "Maybe this Time" to be used in the original production.

I did see the Sam Mendes version when it was still at the Henry Miller, and it was a very interesting re-imagining of the stage musical, not the film. I liked certain aspects of it and not others. I will say I know that Mendes' use of a string of actresses with very limited vocal abilities bothered a lot of people, although not me so much.

"Evening Primrose" is not publicly available, but it is available at the Museum of Television and Radio (in either NY or LA). The complete song cycle is available on a number of CDs as well (pick your favorite fantasy cast!), and it is well worth a listen.