![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
prusikSaturday afternoon: [Note: Shrek is still in previews. This could all change by the time it opens.]
Saw Shrek the musical, now in previews at the Broadway theater. When they get around to telling the wonderful love story at the core of Shrek, it's terrific. The developing relationship between Shrek and Donkey even works. (When I watched the movie, I honestly coul not figure out why Shrek didn't just flatten Donkey and do the rest of the movie without him.) Fiona's "I Want" song is wonderful. The traveling duet (in counterpoint) where Shrek and Donkey bond is cute. The "squabble duet" where Shrek and Fiona fall in love is transparent, but it works. The act one finale is absolutely stunning. Coming up with a decent stopping point near the middle when the source material wasn't structured that way at all is tricky. This creative team absolutely nails it. The song heightens his relationship with both Fiona and Donkey. It totally raises the takes. Shrek's character deepens. The stage picture is stunning. It's exactly what the show needs at that point.
Unfortunately, you have to wade through the rest of the musical to find these gems. The show is a tad scatter shot. It comes off looking desperate.
The musical clearly wants to be a parody of some sort, but it's inarticulate as to what sort. i.e., there are all of these parodies of other musicals, but they're tossed in with no reason or rhyme and to no effect. Some of the music parodies specific song genres, but I have no idea why they matched a given genre to a given song. However, the love story is played straight. Shrek follows the path of the conventional leading man exactly. The musical gives off serious "fairy tale where things go wildly off kilter" vibes. However, the fairy tale doesn't ever really go off kilter.
Much of the material they came up with to pad it out to a full evening looks like padding. For all the expert singing and dancing, I'm left to wonder why the song, and the lengthy dance sequence is there. That they've expertly musicalized the love story really points out the extraneous material.
They can't decide whether they want to hew to a particular period, or if they want lots of modern references. Personally, I think most of the modern reference come off as cheap jokes. It lends to that feeling of desperation to get laughs at all costs.
They try so hard to appeal to all possible audiences niches that I don't know if they appeal to any audience. e.g., we get a scene where Christopher Sieber gets to show off his not unimpressive chest. Now this (not to mention most of the musical theater parodies) is obviously not aimed at the little kids. It's obviously aimed at the moms and gay uncles who bring the little kids. However, the little kid sitting next to me shouted "Ew!" at that point. Also, Christopher Sieber plays Lord Farquaad. We're not supposed to think of him as sexy. However, I'm straining for a reason why he gets to sing his big song in a (fake) hot tub.
[Incidentally, this brings up a pet peeve I have about the Shrek story. If the idea is that appearance doesn't matter and that one should judge someone by appearance, then why is it ok for the good guys to make fun of Lord Farquaad's appearance, but not for the bad guys to dislike Shrek due to his? To me, a far stronger choice would have been to make Lord Farquaad the very physical embodiment of a Prince Charming. The point would be that just because he looks like the archetypal fairy tale hero doesn't mean that he is one.]
They have a wonderful story. All they needed to do was tell it.
[BTW, if there is a cast album, I will definitely buy it. The songs, even when they may be the wrong songs, are generally terrific.]
Saturday Night: The Encores! concert of On the Town. I enjoyed it. The presentation was a bit weird in that they had a large "dance area" behind the orchestra and a small "acting area" in front of the orchestra. It was a little awkward when they needed to transition back and forth between the two areas. Otherwise, the singing was fine. Tony Yazbek was especially wonderful as Gabey.
Sunday Morning: My Harold class. Yay, I made it through a complete Harold. Not without mishap but it's the first time my class has gotten through the entire Harold structure.
Sunday Afternoon: The Seafarer at SpeakEasy Stage. It's a wonderful production. The cast and direction are top notch. Everything is solidly professional. The actors make the most of their meaty roles. It's hard to imagine how the production could be better.
However, how many plays about impossibly eloquent drunk Irish men talking about their awful lives are there? It didn't take very long to figure out which type each character was. All the beats I'd expected happened when I'd expected them. The ending was exactly what I'd expected to be. (Ok, I missed one twist in how we get there that I should have been.) The ending image was utterly predictable (albeit also right for the play). I found it all obvious.
This isn't to say that the play isn't well written. It is. Each beat is fully realized. The language is beautiful. The craftsmanship is at a really high level. I'm just a bit sad that it felt like I'd seen it before when I knew next to nothing about the play going in.
All through out the weekend: My quest to read something by each of the Clarion and Clarion West authors continues. I'd finished Holly Black's Tithe a little while back. I made a lot of progress on Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars this weekend. So far, it's holding my interest. I'm also learning about how one can structure a novel. (I'm starting to get why novelists say that you never learn how to write a novel. You only learn how to write your current novel.)
Saw Shrek the musical, now in previews at the Broadway theater. When they get around to telling the wonderful love story at the core of Shrek, it's terrific. The developing relationship between Shrek and Donkey even works. (When I watched the movie, I honestly coul not figure out why Shrek didn't just flatten Donkey and do the rest of the movie without him.) Fiona's "I Want" song is wonderful. The traveling duet (in counterpoint) where Shrek and Donkey bond is cute. The "squabble duet" where Shrek and Fiona fall in love is transparent, but it works. The act one finale is absolutely stunning. Coming up with a decent stopping point near the middle when the source material wasn't structured that way at all is tricky. This creative team absolutely nails it. The song heightens his relationship with both Fiona and Donkey. It totally raises the takes. Shrek's character deepens. The stage picture is stunning. It's exactly what the show needs at that point.
Unfortunately, you have to wade through the rest of the musical to find these gems. The show is a tad scatter shot. It comes off looking desperate.
The musical clearly wants to be a parody of some sort, but it's inarticulate as to what sort. i.e., there are all of these parodies of other musicals, but they're tossed in with no reason or rhyme and to no effect. Some of the music parodies specific song genres, but I have no idea why they matched a given genre to a given song. However, the love story is played straight. Shrek follows the path of the conventional leading man exactly. The musical gives off serious "fairy tale where things go wildly off kilter" vibes. However, the fairy tale doesn't ever really go off kilter.
Much of the material they came up with to pad it out to a full evening looks like padding. For all the expert singing and dancing, I'm left to wonder why the song, and the lengthy dance sequence is there. That they've expertly musicalized the love story really points out the extraneous material.
They can't decide whether they want to hew to a particular period, or if they want lots of modern references. Personally, I think most of the modern reference come off as cheap jokes. It lends to that feeling of desperation to get laughs at all costs.
They try so hard to appeal to all possible audiences niches that I don't know if they appeal to any audience. e.g., we get a scene where Christopher Sieber gets to show off his not unimpressive chest. Now this (not to mention most of the musical theater parodies) is obviously not aimed at the little kids. It's obviously aimed at the moms and gay uncles who bring the little kids. However, the little kid sitting next to me shouted "Ew!" at that point. Also, Christopher Sieber plays Lord Farquaad. We're not supposed to think of him as sexy. However, I'm straining for a reason why he gets to sing his big song in a (fake) hot tub.
[Incidentally, this brings up a pet peeve I have about the Shrek story. If the idea is that appearance doesn't matter and that one should judge someone by appearance, then why is it ok for the good guys to make fun of Lord Farquaad's appearance, but not for the bad guys to dislike Shrek due to his? To me, a far stronger choice would have been to make Lord Farquaad the very physical embodiment of a Prince Charming. The point would be that just because he looks like the archetypal fairy tale hero doesn't mean that he is one.]
They have a wonderful story. All they needed to do was tell it.
[BTW, if there is a cast album, I will definitely buy it. The songs, even when they may be the wrong songs, are generally terrific.]
Saturday Night: The Encores! concert of On the Town. I enjoyed it. The presentation was a bit weird in that they had a large "dance area" behind the orchestra and a small "acting area" in front of the orchestra. It was a little awkward when they needed to transition back and forth between the two areas. Otherwise, the singing was fine. Tony Yazbek was especially wonderful as Gabey.
Sunday Morning: My Harold class. Yay, I made it through a complete Harold. Not without mishap but it's the first time my class has gotten through the entire Harold structure.
Sunday Afternoon: The Seafarer at SpeakEasy Stage. It's a wonderful production. The cast and direction are top notch. Everything is solidly professional. The actors make the most of their meaty roles. It's hard to imagine how the production could be better.
However, how many plays about impossibly eloquent drunk Irish men talking about their awful lives are there? It didn't take very long to figure out which type each character was. All the beats I'd expected happened when I'd expected them. The ending was exactly what I'd expected to be. (Ok, I missed one twist in how we get there that I should have been.) The ending image was utterly predictable (albeit also right for the play). I found it all obvious.
This isn't to say that the play isn't well written. It is. Each beat is fully realized. The language is beautiful. The craftsmanship is at a really high level. I'm just a bit sad that it felt like I'd seen it before when I knew next to nothing about the play going in.
All through out the weekend: My quest to read something by each of the Clarion and Clarion West authors continues. I'd finished Holly Black's Tithe a little while back. I made a lot of progress on Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars this weekend. So far, it's holding my interest. I'm also learning about how one can structure a novel. (I'm starting to get why novelists say that you never learn how to write a novel. You only learn how to write your current novel.)
