Mad for Musicals Review- Chicago (2002 Movie)

   In 1975, a stage musical, Chicago, opened on the Broadway stage. It was adapted from a stage play of the same name and enjoyed a moderate amount of success. When it was set back on stage as revival in 1998, it became more successful and today, it is the 6th longest running musical of all time. In 2002, it was adapted into a film directed by Rob Marshall. This version was the one that enjoyed the most prosperity, winning several Oscars, including Best Picture. However, many viewers both critics and ordinary people, see this film as overrated. So is the Chicago movie all that jazz or is it one crummy, bummy, dummy hubby of mine?

   Let's start with the story. During the 1920's in Chicago, Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger) is so desperate to be famous she commits adultrey with a man who claims to get her to the stage. When she learns that he was lying just to get into her pants, she shoots and kills him, and is arrested for murder and sent to jail. Meanwhile, another performer who is already famous, Velma Kelly, kills both her husband and sister after catching them together and is sent to the same jail as Roxie. Roxie manages to hire a famed lawyer, Billy Flynn, who manages to make her famous by lying through his teeth about her. Velma is jealous since Flynn was promised to be her lawyer, and that's the farthest I can go without spoiling anything about the story.
   The Cinematography in this film is absolutely amazing. The use of shadows, lights, colors where colors need to be and the lack of colors where colors shouldn't be, the reflections, all of these and more make the movie look fantastic. I have some grudges against the editing. Although it is very good with the pacing and the timing of the cuts, sometimes it is a little too fast paced and you cannot really see what is going on.
   There are also a lot of good performances. My favorite had to be Catherine Zeta Jones as Velma Kelly. Other than just having dancing chops and a great belt, she made Velma the right combination of theatricality, grit, strength, weakness, determination, and desperation. After watching her, it was hard for me to imagine anyone else who would have pulled off the role in this movie. Other memorable mentions are Queen Latifah as the neutral sided matriarch of the jail, Mama Morton and John C. Reiley as the dim and pitiful Amos Hart, husband to Roxie. Richard Gere as Billy Flynn makes the character appear to be a suave charmer, but at his heart, he is really as greedy and self-centered a jerk as you can get. With his Chicago twang and smug grin, I can't decide weather to smile or spit. Renee Zellweger as Roxie is completely new to singing and dancing, and I would be lying if I said that it didn't show, but since she is naturally an actress, her acting comes through. The hard thing about playing Roxie is that the character must be able to be both a doe-eyed innocent and a cunning schemer who will get what she wants no matter what she has to do to get it. Zellweger pulls off both and is able to naturally combine the two sides into one character.
  What makes this film unique as a musical film is that most of the song and dance sequences take place in Roxie's imagination (with the exception of when a character who is a performer is performing on a stage for an audience), instead of being strictly grounded in reality. This allows two things; first, film can be a genre that can be very strict about its realism and to have something that stretches the mind such as people bursting into song grounded in fantasy gives a new dimension to what can be believed. Second, since it is all done in her imagination, the song sequences can be as over-the-top, surreal, and magical as Marshall wanted.
   Since the story takes place in the Jazz age, naturally, the music and dances are all in the jazz style. Although all of the songs are catchy, they can feel repetitive and musically uninteresting. There were about three that did stand out for me. One was, obviously, Cell Block Tango, with its symbolic choreography, entertaining stories, and perfect camera work. The second was "We both reached for the gun", which not only gave the story its much needed boost, but had a fun rhythm, perfect buildup and climax. Finally, the third was Amos Hart's character number "Mister Cellophane." Not only are the lyrics sadly relate able but First, it makes him a hobo clown, which for Amos is perfect, second, it feels more dynamic than a lot of other songs in the musical, and third, while a lot of the other songs in the film are fast paced and fun, this one is slow and more sober, which makes it stand out.
   I have a couple major problems with the direction. First of all, at its heart, the story of Chicago is a comedic satire. It criticizes our worship of the wrong people just because of an exciting story which may or may not be true and how people crave fame so much they are willing to lower their moral standards to get it. One of the taglines for the movie is "If you can't be famous, be infamous." That theme is not done often and its interesting. It should be the main focus of the film (like the stage show). Sadly, the focus seems to be the fan service, the gratuitous sexuality bumped from a motif to a full out theme, the armies of singing girls scantily clad. Its not that sexuality is not present in the original musical, its just that in the movie, it seems to be too much. Although there are stripes of dark realism in the film, they appear in merely those stripes. A lot of it seems to be just pretty, glitzy, feast-your-eyes and turn off your brain glamour and the issues it brings up it sometimes dodges. This makes it more about the superficial prettiness than about thinking about life and the human condition.    So technically, Chicago is not a perfect film. But no piece of art can ever be perfect and if one person thinks the piece is perfect there will always be someone out there who does not agree. There are problems in the editing and direction, and most of the songs are quite standard. But what is good about the film, from performances to choreography, is really good. But did it deserve Best Picture?
Probably not, but if you haven't seen it, rent it, and see what you think.

Mad for Musicals Review- Jekyll and Hyde (2001 DVD)

   "Jekyll and Hyde" the musical, like its protagonist, can switch between being bad and being good. Also like the doomed scientist, although it works to ignore that its bad, often the bad wins over the good.
   The "Musical Thriller" is based on the 19th century novel by Robert Louis Stevenson. Although the novels actual plot tends to be forgotten, what has made the story so famous is its main premise: a doctor named Henry Jekyll experiments with himself in an attempt to separate the bad side of him from the good. What results is the birth of his uncontrolled split personality, the sinister and murderous Edward Hyde. The idea of the story is to explore between the duality between the good and bad in every person, so the main premise has been adapted to screen numerous times, even though the plot of the novel itself  is pretty forgotten. It was adapted to the Musical Theatre stage in 1990 by Frank Wildhorn, who composed the music along with Lewis Briscale and Steve Ludgen writing the book and lyrics. After a few productions here and there and a lot of tours, it came to Broadway in 1997. Despite some Tony nominations and some adoring fans ("Jekkies"), the show was condemned by critics and after more than 1,500 performances, closed, deep in debt. The plot of the show is the split personality of Jekyll and Hyde with a few characters from the original book and some  unnecessary Musical Theater stock characters, such as the ingenue, tart with a heart, concerned widowed father, etc. and a plot that also follows in theatricality (but we will get to that later). A DVD was released (on the day of 9/11) and its biggest marketing campaign was that it got an experienced, mature, serious, talented actor to play the complicated title role...

THIS GUY!!!!
   David Hassellhoff!!! The shows advertising claims it to be a sexy, exciting, heart ripping Gothic thriller...but all of these praises the show itself cannot rightfully claim.
   So what worked and what didn't?
   Well, the set- mechanical platforms and simple bareness with the exception of Jekylls house, helps to die down the shows "grandeur", giving it some much needed clarity instead of showiness. The blocking takes advantage of the screens, steps, platform, and especially the scrim. In fact, the geometry and concept of the choreography and blocking can be fun to watch. For example, at the end of "Someone like You", which is sung by Lucy, the Tart with a Heart, the ensemble members all walk past her, from either ends of the stage, to make it look like an ordinary scene in a London street. This gives the impression that the song, which is about Lucy's hope for a relationship with Jekyll, an interesting dimension. That these are merely her thoughts as she is walking around town, an individual mind in the midst of the general population. The supporting cast I actually found to not be that bad, mainly with the two main ladies, despite their uselessness to the main plot. Colleen Sexton, who played Lucy, with her  expressive facial and physical expressions, tender head voice and confident chest voice, portrayed a Lucy who, unlike other "Good Tarts" remains optimistic, despite her circumstances. However, she add some theatrical touches that are a bit much, but this was early in her career and she was only in her early twenties, so I won't condemn her too harshly. Andrea Rivette, as Dr. Jekyll's ingenue fiancee, Emma Carew, is not at her peak with a spread vowel and not needed improvisation here and there, but her acting is pretty believable. She's at her best in her scenes with Jekyll, she is so fiercely loyal, despite her ignorance of his condition, that the tragedy that befalls their romance is actually sad to watch.  Mr. Utterson was probably the weakest link of the supporting cast. The pitches and rhythms in his speaking are repetitive and he seems pretty stiff, but he is not bad. In fact, the rest of the supporting cast are not really bad, they are either passable or just okay. It could be because their characters just are not as developed. It could be that they simply did not work hard enough, but I can't really recall if any of their performances stood out for me.
   The Act I finale- don't worry, its not much of a huge spoiler, was three minutes of pure adrenaline. What happens is that Mr. Hyde confronts a Bishop from the council that rejected Jekyll's proposal to experiment with human nature after the Bishop...does things I would rather not think about (think news media Catholic priests). Not only does Hyde chide him and sing about how good it feels to be evil. Not only does he beat the Bishop with a cane. He lights his body on fire onstage. Being involved with theater myself for a while, I could probably figure out how they got it to work, but though its short, boy, is it scary, impressive, and memorable to watch!
   Some songs I find myself singing all day. This is a Gothic Thriller Musical, and boy, does it show with the chromatic isms, motifs, and power chords. The best songs here include the emotional and powerful "Facade", "Take Me As I Am", "A New Life," and "Confrontation." But since every bit of music in this show works to be dark and powerful, I found myself enjoying the two milder songs "Sympathy, Tenderness" and "Once Upon a Dream", both, in the midst of a show trying to take the torch of Phantom, are a breath of fresh air.
   And that's where my praise of this production in particular stops.
   There's an old saying in Theater that if anything goes wrong, the writer is always to blame. This show, looking at its lack of success on Broadway, is a perfect example. To begin with, the script and lyrics are just plain bad.As pointed out by another Musical Reviewer, Paw, instead of exploring Humanity's dual sides and exploring themes that would be relevant to both life and people, the show merely brushes off righteous people as hypocrites who deserve punishment. It claims to be deep when there is only a thin and fragile layer. Its predictable, "Sex-ified", and romanticized to the point of eye rolling. Whats worse is that none of these elements really help the plot, only gives stupid and immature audience members what they want to see.
   The story of Jekyll and Hyde works as a mystery, a character study, and a horror study, but due to Hyde not appearing too often, the show itself is a melodrama, and with its premise, the genre of melodrama simply doesn't work, like you can put an apple into a salad, a pie, or a juice, but you cant put it into a steak. Its unbelievable to think that the book got nominated for a Tony at the time! Was there really absolutely nothing that year? Also, the lyrics can become miraculously stupid, and just as predictable, silly, and needlessly complicated as the plot. If you think logically, the lyrics of Lucy's showgirl song, "Good n' Evil", work as a metaphor for chastity vs. Free Love (and the staging hints this), but Jekyll tells Lucy that the song "made him think" and if you look at the lyrics and take it literally, which talks about doing evil is actually good and vice versa, it doesn't make sense and you will wind up arguing philosophy and psychology to your computer screen (which I may or may not have done).
   The Lyricism here not only can be nonsensical and non-poetic when its not just decent, but repetitive, boring, and juvenile. A mere few memorably bad lyrics include "To Kill outside St, Paul's/requires a lotta balls", "Forbidden pleasures I'm afraid to make mine" (interesting, coming from a prostitute), and the crown prince of the stupid lyrics- "Nay! Nay! Nay! Nay!" Also, as Peter Shaffer once penned, there are moments in the score where there are "too many notes." There is so much background music, that it can be distracting and obnoxious. It fails to realize the beauty of silence.
   But wait, I forgot to mention, what about Jekyll and Hyde himself?
   Oh, Hassellhoff. You could have been much worse than you already were, but you are still 2nd worst. Your biggest problem with your acting is your superficiality. Nothing about Jekyll or Hyde seems honest or genuine, it sometimes seems that you are parodying your own character.You fail to realize that when you open your mouth to sing, you are not in your world of eighties pop, you are in Show tune World, and, David, my dear,  the score might sound like your cup of tea sometimes, but at its heart, these songs are show tunes and you just don't have the right training for the style. Sweet, sweet, darling David, if I ever need to laugh, I will think of your performance during "This is The Moment" when you "Power Walk" and twist your hips while bending your knees to do some jazz hands as your house becomes your lab behind you. I will giggle like a madwoman when I recall you transforming, squiggling like a worm with a seizure with a staccato inspired line "oh-dear-God-what-is-this?" The show insists that I should be scared for your character, but I often found myself bored and...not caring. Yes, you are sometimes good as the childishly mischievous and vengeful Mr. Hyde, yes, you can switch between the two personalities, which is the number one requirement for the role,, and yes, I actually liked you during "The Way Back" and found you to be honest and me to be worried for you...but you just did not do a good job and Robert Cuccioli and Anthony Warlow will always be the best performers in this role.
   Just be glad you aren't the walking American Idol head Constantine Maroulis. You severely wounded the show, David, my dear. Constantine murdered it. With the rope. In the study.
   Jekyll and Hyde can be enjoyable with the right cast and staging, or at bare minimum guilty pleasure, but when it doesn't have either of these, it shows how incredibly lame of a show it is. I guess with this production, if you are a fan of the Gothic horror genre then you can find something here, or if you yourself like the show, then you will enjoy it. There are a few enjoyable scenes and songs here and there, but just as Jekyll was unable to control Hyde, even a few good things cannot save the show from its condemning book and lyrics. And when it is especially obvious, as it is here, no one can realize how likable the show can be. There was simply not a good enough cast to save the show from succumbing to its own evils.I would recommend to listen to the original Broadway recordings, if you want to experience a part of the show at its best.

Mad for Musicals Review-1776 (1972 film)

   1776 is a musical that was first released in 1969, with music and lyrics by Sherman Edwards and a book by Peter Stone. It details the historical events surrounding the founding fathers trying to debate weather or not to break from England and become a country, and the creation of the Declaration of Independence. Two Tony's, three years, and 1217 performances later, a film version was released, directed by Peter Hunt and produced by Jack Warner, to mixed reviews. It seems odd that many people either highly enjoy this musical or completely forget about it. So is it dreadfully dull or an underrated classic? Time to put on your breeches and tricorner hats, because we are about to find out! 
   Let's start, as always, with the acting, which, for the most part, is not too bad. Its believable with some theatrical, signature flourishes of the characters. William Daniels portrays a feisty and stubborn, but passionate and determined John Adams. In the film, Adams appears to be the most focused and mature of the congressmen to the point where any lollygagging grinds his gears. He is fiercely patriotic and deeply wanting to help form a country, but he soon learns to listen to others and to compromise his own wants with the wants of others in order to form the country he so desperately wants to see. My favorite among the cast also plays one of my favorite characters in history-Howard DeSilva as Benjamin Franklin. He brings all of the elements of the character to the role that you would imagine Franklin to have-wit, bawdiness, charm, and wisdom. His delivery of some of the shows best lines -both the funny and touching ones- are dead on. There's a twinkle in his eye and a happy bounce in his head that immediately wins you over, Ken Howard is in tune with the quiet, talented, and lovesick Thomas Jefferson, but his singing is, to say the least, sometimes weak ("Mr. Adams, leave me aloooone!" hurts my ears). But thankfully, he does not sing much. Virginia Veltoff is a joy as Abigail Adams and there is a bright chemistry between her and her on-screen husband (as well as great vocal blend). Despite the distance between them, the Adams help each other and trust the other one to listen to their thoughts and feelings just as the real couple did (research John and Abigail Adams, its actually a very heartwarming love story). There are more minor characters whose acting range from solid to mehhh decent. The most...theatrical (and annoying) is Ron Holgate as Richard Henry Lee, he was too loud and boisterous to be considered a real person!! 
   As for the music itself, there is a range, like the acting, between fantastic and meh. A lot of it is styled after the classical era of music (which occurred during the 1770's) which aimed for a clean sound with lots of patterns and symmetry, with only a few frills here and there. Let me just say that in vocal music, men's groups of three or more are always a goldmine. I was charmed by the operatic choruses of "Sit Down, John" and the trio harmonies in "The Egg" (even Jefferson blended!). The only parts of "Cool, Considerate Men" I enjoyed were the choruses and to see them dancing the minuet (a popular dance of the era. There is almost no choreography in the show-try doing a high kick in those clothes!), the solo parts are actually forgettable. Beyond the chorus songs, "Molasses to Rum to Slaves" is almost the most haunting moment of the film. The song includes dark imagery in the lyrics, a wide range of instrumentation from strings to drums, a minor that actually sounds threatening, dark red lighting in the Congress hall, and a chilling performance by John Cullum, as Edward Rutledge, but sometimes the words are hard to make out and the song goes on a bit too long for my taste. Like I said earlier, I loved the John and Abigail Adams duets, for the harmonies, and romantic mood-without being too sentimental. Before I even listened to "He Plays the Violin" I was told that it was to be a very seductive song, but Blythe Danner performs it as more of a celebration of love and the wedding bed, yet it works perfectly well. Never the less, the happy progression, violin instrumentation, and soaring melismas won me over. My favorite song, hands down, was "Mama, Look sharp"-the ballad of a courier who recounts the last thoughts of a friend who was killed on the battlefield. The soft minor, tear jerking lyrics, added voices at the end, and dark lighting with faces near lighted candles sent shivers up my spine. My least favorite was "The Lee's of Old Virginia." Although it is not performed terribly and the tune is catchy and peppy, the repetitive lyrics are really, really, really annoying and childish. Here's a fun game, when listening to the song, punch yourself for every time he says "Lee", chances are, you will wind up at the hospital before the song has even ended. 
  
 The costuming is very characteristic and straight to the point, but sometimes exaggerated. The plaid doublet Thomas McKean wore was just hammering the scottishness in. Martha Jefferson's skirt looked way too full to be historically accurate, but was only there to add movement to her choreography during "He Plays the Violin." Some hairstyles are believable, others are quite obvious wigs-but weather these were wigs for the characters real hair or wigs on purpose for them to wear as a part of men's period fashion is up in the air. 
   But what about the most important element-the story? The film handles the plot as seriously and realistically as it can. We can read all about the Declaration of Independence and how it was founded in our textbooks anytime, but we tend to overlook how difficult and even frighting it was to do so. America was, at the time, just a frail string of colonies that was being unfairly treated by its possessor. Their enemy was an empire of rich history and vast amounts of power that could easily crush anyone who stood in its way. Was it treason to go against the hand that fed them? If they decide to form a country, will it survive on its own? The writing makes this conflict and tension very, very clear. In fact, the dialogue far outweighs the music and there are long periods of time with the congressmen discussing and debating that one can forget that the burst into song. It doesn't feel like a traditional musical-it sometimes feel more like a film with songs in it. The story itself centers around these conflicts and debates. This is not a movie you can mindlessly stare at. In order to enjoy and appreciate it, you have to be awake, alert, and ready to think and focus, if not, chances are, you will be confused and bored. But if you do pay full attention to it, your eyes will be opened to how incredible a task forming the country was and how brave these men were. Though the film and even the musical itself is not entirely historically accurate. Part of it is due to the fact that is wants to make history entertaining and the other part is that the events surrounding the forming of the declaration are unknown since the congressmen kept windows and doors locked for privacy. What we know about the story, we know from letters and memoirs of the men. But the inaccuracies are never outlandishly far. 
   Overall, I actually enjoyed 1776, despite the half of critics who condemn it and I'm thankful to have watched it. I will admit that its not perfect-a song or two encourages snoring and there are some stretches and distortions and a few moments are misses instead of hits. But there is some great music, acting, and above all, a superb story that makes and not breaks the film, just be sure that you have had enough sleep prior to viewing. I would also reccommend that you view it if you are interested in American History, if this was your least favorite subject in school, well, proceed with extreme caution. 
P.S. "JOHN, YOUR'E A BORE"

Review-Pippin (1982 Television recording)

   "Pippin" is a musical composed by Stephen Schwartz ("Wicked") and directed/choreographed by stage and dance legend Bob Fosse. It is one of the longest running musicals known and has a revival that's currently already starting to run. The plot takes place in the middle ages where Pippin, the son of King Charlemagne, feels unsatisfied with his life and tries different lifestyles in order to seek his purpose. And without giving away anything that happens, and that's the show in a nutshell. Although Pippin and Charlemagne were both famous figures in history, this show is about as historically reliable as Disney's Pocahontas. Coming into this musical knowing very little about it, I did not have high expectations, I thought it would be dry and cracked with age, but I also knew some people listed this as one of the best musicals of all time. I decided to watch the 1981 television recording of the show once I found it on Youtube. After watching this, I found myself actually enjoying it, but its nowhere close to my top ten. 
  Let's start with the acting. The show calls itself a Musical Comedy, so naturally, the people in this cast are all really funny. There are a lot of characters who only pop in for a while, do something or sing something and then leave and never really appear again more than once or twice, but they are still memorable performances Its to the point where I want to know what happened to them later on in the musical, but it never even gives a hint about them since Pippin's "life and times" are the focus. Benjamin Rayson makes a robust and boisterous King Charlemagne, along with his flawless timing ("Lewis is an asshole, my dear lady" the quotable lines in this musical are bountiful).William Katt is always youthful and energetic as the idealistic hero, Pippin, without making the character another bland dreamer hero., while also adding comedy to a character you might not expect to be comedic.I know Chita Rivera only from West Side Story, so I was surprised to see her cast in the role of Fastrada, Pippins scheming stepmother. She manages to be devious and selfish while adding a touch of her familiar hip swinging, leg stretching sex appeal. I utterly ADORED Martha Raye as Berthe. She has a charming presence onstage and is definitely the funniest performer out of the whole box ("Well some men raise flags when they can't get anything else up."). I was disappointed that she was in only one scene and never appeared again. But with this cast, the icing on the cake is Ben Vereen. As the Leading Player (the shows narrator), he's charismatic to the point of no return and a joy to watch onstage. There's a twinkle in his eye, a slide in his step (holy cow the man can dance Fosse), and a ring in his voice where you cannot lay your eyes or ears off him. That man deserved every award, including the Tony, he got for the role. 

   When I read that Fosse directed and choreographed the show, I thought his sexy, smooth jazz style would not fit. But Pippin already knows what limits the Middle Ages has on a show, especially a comedy, so they use an anachronistic (breaking the period to help the audience gain an emotional understanding) approach. With the anachronism, the choreography obviously functions much better. The "jazz" style can crescendo and decrescendo from graceful and slow to fast and intense. It might seem simple at first glance, but a closer look reveals small, complicated details that add intricacy. Vereen, Rivera, and the chorus (of course) are the stronger dancers. In fact, this is an ensemble show. Since the show focuses on one main character and has a narrator, the chorus does everything else. But the chorus sometimes even upstage the principals! 
   This is definitely not a rollicking comedy. Though the show is lighthearted (except for a few moments here and there). The humor is mostly carried out through clever (sometimes bawdy) wit, staging and the breaking-no, more like tearing apart and then crushing every surviving bit of the fourth wall. Although it's trying to avoid too much humor to the point where it cannot be taken seriously, I'm sure a little more humor could have still been effective. 
   The Shows music is drenched in the seventies ballad style, which, I'm sorry to say, I am not a fan of. To me, it always sounded cheesy, boring, and painfully slow. There are three songs in the show I can say I loved. The first is the shows opening number, "Magic to Do." Its fun, mellow, catchy, foreshadows the show straight off the bat and gets you excited for the magic of a night at the theater. The Second one (which follows "Magic to Do") is Pippin big ballad about purpose, "Corner of the Sky." It's lovely intervals and hopeful melody help show off Pippin's tenor range and although Katt sometimes sounds like his voice was tired in the song, his enthusiasm and acting make it work. The third song, which is a little later after "Corner" is "Glory." "Glory" details the joy and duty of fighting for the crusades. It starts with a Gothic organ, and then changes to a steady, catchy show tune beat, and then an upbeat, kitschy jazz piece and switches around the order that these three parts of the song are done. There is sharp red lighting, body parts being thrown onstage, and chorus members cheerfully singing into vintage microphones with "WAR" on them. This song is not only highly enjoyable, but an epitome of satire, hands down, the best part of all one hundred and seven minutes of the show. But all of these songs are placed in the first act and the rest of the songs don't live up. "Spread a Little Sunshine" has a catchy tune, yes, and "Love Song" has tongue-in-cheek lyrics indeed, and I will give credit to "War is a Science" for the comedy and chorus bits being well done, but everything else is musically and lyrically slow. 
   However, what is really interesting about the show is the message, which is never really clear until the very end. Its funny because the theme is supposed to be a contrast and one side is exploited throughout the show in about every way you can think of so when the other side shows up, its somewhat of a surprise. I am not going to spoil what it is but the way it is staged and delivered make it all the more powerful and enjoyable, and for a comedy to actually be powerful is quite an accomplishment. 
   So has Pippin gone bad with age or is it "ZOMAGAWD AMAZING" ? It's not a bad show in the slightest degree, and with this puppy, a bad casting choice or a stupid staging idea could cause it to sink, but the recording is well-cast, well-staged, and quite humorous. Though the age can naturally show up and slow it down (especially in some of the songs). Perhaps if more songs were as memorable as "Glory" and if there was a touch more comedy, I would rank it higher than what it already is. But even with this show being what it is, I do not regret watching it in the slightest bit. I would definitely watch the revival, just to see what it does differently. Overall, Pippin is not one of my personal top favorites, but I still enjoy it. If you like smart, not too forward comedies and the seventies music style, I'd say give it a shot.

Review- The Phantom of the Opera (2004 Review)

   For every Musical Fanatic, there will always be that one show. This show proved to them that musicals were far more than anything they have ever known or seen. This show was the white rabbit that lead them into a phantasmagorical land of diva ballads, chorus numbers, and red curtains. For me, personally, this show was Phantom of the Opera. I had first learned about Phantom when I was 11 and at the time, there were no nearby touring productions. But thanks to the wonders of YouTube, I knew a film of the musical existed and rented it as soon as I could. This film became the center my pre-teen fascinations, I watched it numerous times, and doodled half-masks all over my schoolwork while daydreaming about playing Christine.As I grew older, I got into more musicals and drifted away from Phantom. Years passed without watching it. After a while, I heard numerous negative things about the film via the web so I was scared about reviewing the film. I didn't know how much it would change now that I'm older and wiser. But plucking up my courage, I popped in the disc and braced myself to completely loathe this film. I failed. Say what you will, but, for me, there are some good elements and guilty-pleasure characteristics about this picture. 
   For those of you who don't know, the story of the Phantom of the Opera takes place in the 19th Century Paris. The Opera House there is haunted by a disfigured musical genius (The Phantom) who trains and loves a young singer, Christine. He blackmails the managers to give her the leading roles and either murders or humiliates those who get in his way.But then the Phantom learns that Christine loves another man, a young Viscount named Raoul ...and you do the math. 
   With the acting, the supporting cast is very enjoyable. The mugging and timing of the two managers, Firmin and Andre, and even the mousy conductor Rayer, are delightful. Jennifer Ellison had an adorable light mezzo as the ballerina Meg Giry. Miranda Richardson is sometimes stiff, but still manages to play a strong and motherly Madame Giry. Minnie Driver is incredibly over-the-top as the Italian diva Carlotta, and its hilarious to watch her be as bratty and stereo typically Italian as humanly possible. 
   As a pre-teen and even to this day, I idolized Emmy Rossum. As Christine, she is one of my favorites. I swear, she is almost female Jesus. Her Christine is the embodiment of all things pure, sweet, innocent...etc. in a way that isn't wimpy, or boring like many ingenues tend to be. She also never goes over-the-top and carries a (mostly) subtle performance. While there are a few moments where her vocal performance is not 100% perfect, and only lightly operatic...holy smokes, that voice! Her singing is honestly one of the most beautiful singing voices I have ever heard. I also like the idea of Christine being 16 (Rossums age when the movie was filmed), her actions and decisions make more sense with a teenager rather than a 25 year old. Patrick Wilson, for me, is the ideal Raoul. I know this varies with directors, actors, and audience interpretation, but I never thought of Raoul as an arrogant fop. I thought of him as a brave, caring gentleman who loves Christine and would die for her. It is sad to me when the actor playing Raoul goes for the fop, but Wilson, with his smooth, clean baro-tenor fulfills the gentleman picture-his Raoul is willing to defend Christine from the Phantoms murderous rage. Yes, you heard me, I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH CHRISTINE CHOOSING RAOUL OVER THE PHANTOM AND I AGREE WITH HER (a subject I would like to write a book on, and even may, but will save for later).
 
   What about The Phantom himself, Gerard Butler? I have a lot of mixed feelings about his performance. His singing tends to be flat, pushy, and even speak-singy, but he has lots of presence and great chemistry with Rossum. He also shows different shades of the character, from charmer to victim to threat, which I admire when other Phantoms are just "MEEHHH PITY ME!!" However he also can have some really over-the-top moments, too ("YOU LITTLE LYING DELI-LAH"). He makes all of the issues I have with the character of the Phantom way more obvious, like he seems to be more concerned with his wants and needs (which is lust) rather than thinking more about Christine's wants and needs (which is love) until the very end. Its not that I don't pity the Phantom or think he doesn't deserve happiness, it just keeps me from wanting him to 

win in the end.

   Schumacher is notorious for camp, and this movie seems to be pumped with it in its every vein. Even small details that you think wouldn't matter look like they cost a fortune to be made and these things are seen in a split second and then hardly to never seen again. But Schumacher does not want this film to be thought-provoking Oscar bait. No, this is meant to be a gorgeous better-than replica of the stage show to please the audience. But some moments come off as silly rather than grand. For Example, the stage version of "Past the Point of No Return" is better at playing with subtlety and mystery of the sexuality in the show. But the staging and delivery of this number in the film screams "COPULATION! COPULATION! WAHOO!" to the point of stupidity. This is a film that prefers emotion and fantasy rather than realism and logic. Like when it snows during "All I ask of You" when its supposed to be in October, but snowy weather is more "romantic." Another example is in the flashback with the Phantom being beat as a child in the freak show in front of an audience that laughs at him. I don't think people are that cruel to laugh at a kid being beat, even if he was deformed, but it's used to get the audience to pity him. Despite these "alterations" from the show, I still prefer the ending in the film over the stage ending. I won't give it away if you haven't seen it, but it adds a tender nostalgia and bitter sweetness to the story's "tragic" ending. It is a much more satisfying and believable conclusion rather than the ghastly insult to humankind known as "Love Never Dies." 

   The set was modeled after the actual Paris Opera House, and from photos and videos I have seen of the building, even though the background can look fake at times, its very accurate. The set, costumes, and use of light are elaborate and intricate and the cinematography does an outstanding job showing us all of these nooks and crannies. Its best job is during "Masquerade" where the unique costuming and bright lights are at their best and the camera allows us to soak up all of the grandeur. But sometimes there is a scene where more than one person is talking and the camera is not wide enough to show both speakers and only stays on one persons face (Especially during "Notes/Prima Donna"). While I am pointing out certain numbers, I should say that the 100-piece orchestra is out of this world. This is a large score that required a large and talented orchestra. The music under their care sounds even more lush, and romantic, which is the "Phantom" score in a nutshell. 

   So despite its many sins, I still cannot find it in my heart to hate this movie. The number of things that pour on the cheese can raise eyebrows, even for Phantom. Some performances and ideas for the adaption are not the greatest, and the direction is pretty weak. Its a musical that fits the stage better than the big screen. But to me, "The Phantom of the Opera" is one of those organically good stories. So even an adaption that is not the best adaption is still enjoyable if it has a thread of the original tale. It is visually and (mostly) musically stunning. While there are bad performances, there are also some appealing ones. Its perfect for a winter morning, or as a popcorn-muncher after a hard day at school or work. I would not recommend this if you are a hard-core Phan of the stage show or a Phantom purist who has to have things done in specific ways like they do it on the stage. But if you have not seen the stage show or you are interested in or curious about the "Phantom" story or even just musicals, give it a try. This is definitely one I'll save for a Saturday Morning or late night every month or so.

Review- Les Miserables (2012 film)

   Years before the announcement of the film, I was away in my giant Les Miserables phase, and enjoying every bit of the fandom from writing comics about the characters (involving voodoo dolls) to wasting my time on forum boards reading potential cast members for the film. After watching the King's Speech and hearing the announcement of Tom Hooper's direction, I was thrilled that this long-awaited baby would be delivered by what seemed to be a good midwife. After months of anticipation, I saw the movie Christmas Night 
I know I am going to be speared for this, but I adored the film adaptation. I think it is one of the strongest adaption of stage to screen since West Wide Story. Are there problems with it? Yes. Are they major problems? You bet. But even these problems did not hinder my adoration for the film musical. Besides, we all have ONE movie or musical that isn't 100 percent perfect and yet we still enjoy. 
   Let's point out the problems and start with the one everyone talks about first-Russell Crowe is a robot. He has a few good moments in his face as Javert, but for the most part, his voice and body do the same thing over and over. You do not see Inspector Javert, you see some random dude droning in this flat baritone voice and walking around not looking impressed at anything. The Camera also tends to be pretty ornery. In some songs, all we get is a close up on the actors face and although its nice to see the character flourish to the most intricate detail, it can get tiring to watch. 
   Since the songs were sung on the spot and not pre-recorded with lip-syncing, the singing can be pretty hard to listen. Although some voices are not at their peak (Hugh Jackman sometimes sound like a goat Micheal Crawford sometimes, and the Crawford voice is for Phantom, NOT Jean Valjean), it is refreshing to see the focus on the acting. I have listened to Colm Wilkonson, Patti Lupone, and the rest of the original cast so much that I almost became desensitized with Les Miserables. Its one of those shows that grows to be so popular that we want to dress it up and put a bow on it. But Les Miserables IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PRETTY. With a version more based on acting than singing, the story becomes fresh and excThe strongest part of the movie is definitely the acting, especially with Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway as Valjean and Fantine. I especially admire the personification and risks they took to make the iconic characters honest, and believable. Eddie Redmayne actually was NOT an annoying Marius (and for me, that's considered a feat). Aaron Tviett made a very dashing and charismatic Enjolras. Don't hurt me, but I normally I don't care for the character of Eponine (if I have to listen to Frances Ruffle one more time I will have a major migrane for days), but this changed after seeing Samantha Banks. She gave a beautiful, heart breaking performance. I think she is the best Eponine out of the many I have heard and listened to.As for Amanda Seinfield as Cosette, she just fulfilled my problem with actresses playing Cosette. Although the character can be portrayed as very strong-willed woman, every single actress just see's a bland ingenue and plays her as such. Seinfield is no exception. The Thenardiers were hilarious and provided much needed comic relief, yet that is the only role the movie gives them, the comic reliefs. The Thenardiers are actually very, very evil, if not, more so than Javert. They actually can be frightening and threatening, but this is not the case in the movie (hence the cutting of the song "Dog Eat Dog", which the director also felt was distracting from the main story). 
   It was thrilling to watch the new ways the songs were filmed. I especially enjoyed the bawdy subplots during "Master of the House" and the gritty, even painful-to-watch romp of "Lovely Ladies." It creates mood, and sets environment fitting for the characters. The song cuts can feel a little choppy, and you sense that there are holes in several places, but its enough to get a full portrait of the story without either leaving any plot holes or having to watch a 4 hour movie. 
   Now here comes the opinion where I risk my life...I LIKE the new song, "Suddenly." Yes, I like the new song. I agree that it sounds different from the rest of the score (so does my least favorite Les Miz song, "Little People", mercifully re-done well in the film) and the composers wrote it to get a "Best Song" award just in case the film flopped. But it develops the Valjean-Cosette relationship very well. This relationship tends to be overlooked in the musical. The song, other than being a sweet little lullaby, helps us realize how much she changes Valjean's life and gives us more insight into why Valjean would go into the barricade for her ("I'm so afraid of failing you").The story feels fresh and  exiting again and fans can feel re-kindled. 
   The set can sometimes be too large for the movies good, (Did they really intend that window to be there for Enjolras's death? Ugh) and theres not much variation in color, but it does it job pretty well. The costumes are fantastic (I loved the red motif in Valjeans prison garb and Fantine's prostitute dress). As a fan who actually took the time to read the book, I was delighted that the movie adds some elements from the book the musical leaves (like Marius's grandfather and Fantine selling her teeth, to name a few). 
   Overall, say what you will about the Les Miserables Film, I enjoyed it tremendously. This is a very difficult piece, yet the film is able to pull it off very well. It is epic and sometimes cheesy, but always honest and passionate. There are moments you will want to cringe, but it is either intending for you to cringe or makes up for that cringe. It is wonderful to see such good actors give the story breath and life anew, even though I already know this musical by heart. However, if you are a Les Miz purist and are expecting a very musically "pretty" version with pure, angelic singing, it would not be a good idea to watch it. But if you love Les Miz none the less, heck, if you are a musical fanatic, check it out and see what you think. 
PS, OH SANTA

Review- Elisabeth Das Musical (2005 Vienna DVD)

   What better way to kick off a series of reviews than with a musical I am sure only 20 percent of you have heard of!!!????...yeah. Well, for the 80 percent, here is some background information:The Austrian musical "Elisabeth" is one of the most successful German language musicals of all time. It tells the story of the historical Empress Elisabeth of Bavaria, who was married to the Emperor Franz Josef of Austria at 16.She was legendary for her beauty and her free spirit, rejecting the restrictions of court life. However, her life was very tragic. She faced a critical mother-in-law, and the deaths of two of her children. She was finally stabbed to death by an Italian Anarchist named Luigi Lucheni.

  In the musical, Lucheni is our narrator who throughout the show tries to convince us Elisabeth is a horrible person (think Che from Evita), and all the while Death (yes, literally, DEATH), or "Der Tod" is personified as a dark magical man who is Elisabeth's lover (think Jareth the Goblin King).
And my thoughts?

   First, lets look at the Actors. Maya H. is on the borderline of okay to fantastic as the title role. Her Elisabeth is complex and even dark, with a lust for life, despite its pain. She can flexibly portray the age range of 15 to 60. But she's not my favorite. She tends to get a tad too intense with both her singing and acting. I adored Serkan Kaya as Lucheni. He is a blast to watch and his belt is a wonder to the eardrums. For a matter of time, he convinced me that Elisabeth deserved what she got! After watching him and comparing him to some other Luchenis, I could not imagine anyone else playing him! I enjoyed Mate Kamaras as the passionate , manipulative, and sometimes even charming Der Tod. His performance of "Der Letze Tanz" is one of the funnest villain songs I think I've ever heard. Andre Baures made a sweet, loving Franz Josef. He made me believe that if he was not born into royalty, his marriage with Elisabeth could have worked! Else Ludwig's performance as Sophie, Franz's mother, makes you want to crush her guts, but Sophie is supposed to be just as sympathetic and complex as Elisabeth. Ludwig only showed us the evil in-law. 

   The Songs and Dances? The music. kicks. TAIL. There are heavy ballads (Ich Gehor nur Mir), epic chorus numbers (the "Prolog"), light-hearted diddy's ("Wie Du"), and that's just to name a few. My favorite song is probably "Die Schatten Werden Langer" The darkness and intensity in the song's execution...is...for lack of a better word, epic. The choreography of quick, mechanical movements seem really weird at first, but I realized it symbolized the puppetry and routine of court life and it grew on me. 

   The Sets and Staging...well, lets just say money is spent extravagantly and it shows. The coolest is the bridge that is lowered down throughout the show. Although a lot of numbers consist of conversations and flashes of events of years going by, the use of moving stage, and scrim, make it pleasant to watch. Although the horses used in "Wie oder sie" were awkward and dorky. If it was supposed to be like a chessboard, why not make them actual chess pieces? 

   The only problem I have is that in the book, Elisabeth falls in love with Der Tod only after he just catches her and carries her to bed. Its the superficial "love at first sight" cliche we have seen a number of times already.But not only does she love him, but she jumps to the conclusion that he is the only one who understands her (even though its unclear if they even talked before) just because she felt free in his arms. If it was implied more that she knew him her whole life since she was a child (like Rudolf), it would have worked better. But, to be fair, the relationship is supposed to be more metaphorical than real. 

   Overall, I loved Elisabeth. Its sometimes pretty cheesy, but the cheese never really bothered me as much as other musicals and even movies have. I am a sucker for darker, bigger musicals, and this was no exception. It has the same sort of grand scale as an Andrew Lloyd Weber show, so if this is the kind of musical you enjoy, then you should definitely check it out. Elisabeth Das Musical is just as tragic, beautiful,and proud as the Empress herself.

To watch the Musical! (with English subtitles)