"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.
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.
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
