The first performance we attended was Macbeth. I'm a Shakespeare fan and know that play particularly well as I taught it for two years. I went along happily, not sure precisely what to expect but pretty sure it would be familiar territory. How wrong I was. Upon entering the theater, I was surprised to see the stage set like a rather dingy mental hospital. I got another surprise when I opened the program to find that there were precisely three actors performing in the play. Er... It turns out that this performance of Macbeth was basically a one-man show. The play began when the unfathomably talented Alan Cummings was escorted onto the stage by a doctor and an orderly. They strip him and place his clothes in bags marked "Evidence," then hand him pajamas. He's clearly been through a lot - he stares vacantly around him, his hair is disheveled, and he has bloody claw marks on his chest that look as though they were made by a human hand. The medical staff exit and stay offstage for most of the play, though occasionally they appear to watch Cummings from an observation window above. Cummings acts out nearly all the roles; the one exception is when he is acting out the part in which Lady Macbeth sleepwalks and the medical staff, watching from the window, talk about what is happening. It was an unbelievable performance; I'm sure I would have been a bit skeptical if I'd known I was going to see a one-man Macbeth, but I wouldn't have been more wrong. We had wonderful seats, so we were able to appreciate Cummings's most subtle facial expressions, which drew me even further into the play, and by the end I was exhausted. So, evidently, was Cummings. After the play's dramatic end, he appeared, unsmiling, for the curtain call. There were three encores, and by the time he appeared on the stage to bow for the third time, there was the ghost of a smile on his face. But he still looked haggard. I can't imagine how draining it must be to become that invested in such a tragic, troubling play, and to hold the whole thing on your shoulders.
I knew a bit about the second play, which we saw a few days later. Lucky Guy is the last script Nora Ephron completed, and her longtime friend Tom Hanks would be playing the lead role. I love Ephron's work and am crazy about Tom Hanks, so the prospect of seeing the first-ever performance of her last-ever play with Hanks as the helm was titillating. The play is based on the life of journalist Mike McAlry, who had gift for getting people to talk to him and sniffing out stories. He started at the bottom rung of the newsroom ladder but climbed quickly due to his talent and nerve. His story was narrated by his colleagues; from the get-go, it was clear that they were remembering him and so he must not be around anymore. He seemed to be a larger-than-life character, so even though there were very serious themes in the play, McAlry's antics penned by the hysterically funny Ephron and performed by a wildly talented cast kept us giggling. Seeing Hanks on stage was both exciting and familiar; he's the kind of actor you feel like you know personally. I found myself feeling proud of his success and talent the way I would if a favorite uncle had hit it big. He's every bit as good on stage as he is on screen, and he was buoyed by a really wonderful cast. I recognized faces from countless movies and TV shows (Maura Tierney, Christopher McDonald, Peter Gerety, Courtney Vance, Peter Scolari... Don't worry, none of those names rang any bells for me either when I saw them in the program, but I recognized the actors immediately onstage and I'm sure most of you would have, too). And star sightings were not limited to the stage, either; actor Victor Garber (Milk, Titanic, countless others) was in the audience just a few rows ahead of us. While I love Hanks's performance, there was something about the script that didn't seem to flow right, which I can't put my finger on. Still, I'd recommend the show to anyone; the performances were outstanding. Since we went, the play has been nominated for a Tony and so have Hanks and Vance, and the director, lighting director, and scenic director.
Our final show was Pippin, a revival of the musical which debuted on Broadway more than thirty years ago. Ed's mother saw it then and said she didn't care for it, but this performance was supposed to be fantastic and so off we went. I knew less about this show going in than either of the others. It had been nominated for a Tony for Best Revival a day or two before we went, and the actress playing the ringleader and the actor playing the king were up for awards, too. As were the scenic and costume designers. And the director. And the choreographer. Phew. The story, about Charlemagne's confused son Pippin's quest to find himself, was told against the backdrop of a circus. Dancers and acrobats accompanied Pippin from scene to scene as he graduates from college and tries his hand at soldiering, politics, love, farm life, etc. There were some really great performances (none of which came from the lead actor, whom I found boring) and the circus theme was a lot of fun. The acrobats leaped through hoops, walked around the stage on their hands, climbed ropes and hung suspended from rings swinging from the ceiling. There were many moments in which I was sure we were going to see someone go tumbling down to land in a heap on the stage, but of course everyone performed their feats of strength, balance, and agility with a flawless grace that made their stunts look almost easy. The ringmaster performed magic tricks throughout the show, some of which I figured out and some of which Ed had to explain. I found a lot of the song lyrics and dialogue cheesy, but it's amazing how far a good performance can go in making you appreciate something that, objectively, isn't that great. I was particularly impressed with the ringmaster, grandmother, and wicked queen - the strongest performances by far were the women's. Then it all fell flat after the intermission. The plotline great boring as it introduced and centered around a rather unlikable main character, the acrobatics fell by the wayside, and the stellar performers were nowhere to be seen. The cheesiness was undiluted. Ed and I liked the show much more than anyone else in our group, but we agreed that it fell flat at the end. It made me think of The Piano Lesson, a great show with wonderful performances whose script ended in a way I simply didn't like. It was a bit of a let-down.
Ed and I had been commenting for a while that we hadn't been to a show in ages and should really see something. This spree should hold us for a while. Even if I haven't loved every minute of every show, I have yet to see a Broadway performance that is not impressive.
No comments:
Post a Comment