A year already? Holy beejeezuses



I still don't know where I got the name of the blog.  But hey, it sticks, right?

 That's right! One year! And a day! 

One year ago plus a day, I started this little blog. Now it has become more than what I expected.  Granted, I don't have a HUGE following, let alone any following, but I know people read it and tell me about it. That's enough for me.  I never really expected it be just what it is now; just a little something to do on the side where I can not only share my thoughts, but hear what others have to say as well, whether about my posts or the show I review. It's been a great experience.

What I have gained is a ton of perspective and a new appreciation for theatre in general. As an actor, I felt that I never really understood what it was like to truly be a patron. I have seen a lot of shows, but writing about it has been fun, challenging, frustrated and above all, freaking wonderful.  I admit, I haven't been keeping up with it lately, especially in the last few months. When I first started writing, it was 2 or 3 shows a month. Now it seems because of the craziness of my current schedule, I can really do once a month, or every few months.  I feel that needs to change, or at least, I need to make more of an effort to see a show.

I have written about 18 reviews, which is not so bad, considering how many things I have going on in my life.  I think I can double that by the fall, if I really buckle down. I read some of my early work and I have to admit, I am improving little by little in my presentation of my thoughts and views.  It's a little improvement, but it's enough to make me feel really proud of the work I put it. Yes, I realize that I am really patting myself on the back and yes, it sounds a bit self-serving, but to be honest, I never thought I would be keeping this going for a year, let alone a few months. I am just super happy that I came this far.

It's been a lot of fun doing this and I think if I make more of an effort this year, I can get back to the point where I will be going to more shows and really experience what the Boston theatre scene has to offer, big and small.
Stay tuned.

Lacking Grandeur and Real Go Go Go: Newton Country Players Present "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat"

Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat

Music by

Andrew Lloyd Webber

Lyrics by

Tim Rice

Director/Choreographer

Michelle Leibowitz

Music Direction 

Karen Winkler

Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice are household names in musical theatre, each having written and created the most fantastical and wonderful shows.  Lloyd Webber has written music for some of the most recognizable shows, including "Evita" and "Phantom of the Opera." Rice has written lyrics for a few Disney movies, including "Aladdin" and "The Lion King." "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" was a collaboration of the two in the 70s, having worked on "Jesus Christ Superstar" together as well.  "Joseph" has been produced thousands of times since its inception by schools and theatre companies alike. Recently, Newton Country Players presented their production.

"Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" is based on a story from Genesis. It tells the tale of Joseph, who was the one of 12 sons of Jacob. Joseph had the ability to interpret dreams and soon discovers that he meant to rule over his brothers.  He is also given a coat of many colors as a sign of his father's favoritism. Jealous, his siblings sell him into slavery in Egypt. He must rely on this wits and abilities to make the best of the situation, which ends up taking him on a most unexpected journey.

The show has little to no spoken dialogue, therefore having music and singing driving the show. The score is catchy and fun, but Newton Country Players does not take advantage of this as much as they could. Granted, they have created a very energetic and good times on the surface, but its not nearly as grand as it could've been. The production fell short as it lacked many key elements to really make a memorable theatrical experience.  

Doug Hodge's Joseph never really stands out amongst the sizable cast.  Needing to really carry the show, his Joseph was not at all engaging, and he almost feels detached from everything that is going on around him. He truly lacked the charisma needed for the character.   The role of the Narrator had been split into three characters.  Lisa Huntington, Kadie Greenfield and Cathy Merlo have shared duties of the character, which didn't really translate that well to the stage.  Their performances were uneven, as some were stronger than others in some moments during the story.  It really took away from the show as it never created a lasting, much needed, powerful impression. There was a significant lack of chemistry between many of the main characters as well.  However, Joseph's 11 brothers did give a fun and enjoyable performance as a unit, especially during the big numbers, including "One More Angel In Heaven" and "Those Canaan Days". However, the rest of the cast, looked like they were just going through the motions.  A few did look like they were having fun, but it was not enough to create a strong production. It had potential to be more. 

Michelle Leibowitz had taken on the roles of director and choreographer, trying to balance both jobs.  As a director, she had made unusual choices, including spliting the aforementioned Narrator into three characters. This potentailly bold choice, again, didn't work as it was inconsistent and hurt the production. Her choreography choices were repetitive and lacked real originality.  Her staging was typical and she did manage to utilitize thespace appropriately. However, sometimes when something needed to be the focus of attention, ie the Phaorah, his placement raised the questions why he was not the main attraction and why was he not center stage?  She also utitlized five featured dancers, but their placement and usage was often distracting, taking away focus during scenes.  Karen Winkler's music direction was decent enough, but she and the orchestra would overpower the actors on the stage.  This was in conjunction with many sound issues that plagued the production as well.  This a rock musical, but there is no reason that the actors could be louder and the orchestra could pull back more.  Liz Peer's costumes were clever in their presentation, having everyone in collage-like tee-shirts as a base, but there was no consistency. Many characters were given lavish and fun costumes, whilst others had jeans and dissimilar footwear. It was distracting.  The set and lighting design lacked any real creativity. There were sandstone steps that were created, but the set almost looked unfinished. Granted, when Act 2 came along and the back pillars were switched from confusing stained glass windows to the Pharaoh's palace, the use of images from Boston and Massachusetts was very cute. However, the lighting design never went beyond lights on and lights off.  The story and big dance numbers were begging for different colors and gobos, but nothing was used and the whole look of the show was very flat.

There was so much potential for this show, but it never went beyond what was presented on stage.  With a few weak performances, low production value and confusing direction, this production fell short.  The story and score offers so much and all the pieces were there, but the show never brought anything powerful or memorable. Newton Country Player's production of "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" fails to bring a potentially colorful and magical experience.

Musicals based on Movies: Is this the future of Broadway?

How many of you have been to New York and seen a show?  If you haven't and you find yourself making a much needed trip to the Big Apple, take some time to catch a Broadway musical or play.  Seeing a live theatrical experience is a wonderful thing and the very memory of it, good or bad, will stick with you forever. I remember my first Broadway show: "Cats". Young me loved the dancing, singing and overall feel of the show.  Mind you, I was 10 or 11 at the time, so at that point, anything and everything was pretty fantastic.  Now, I look back and wondered what was so appealing about the show. Despite my reservations about it now, there is no denying that it stays with me. I have seen so many shows since then, but I will never forget the first time I got see a Broadway show. It was magical.

How do you even pick a show? Broadway offers dozens and dozens of shows, some new, some revamped classics, some starring Hollywood actors, and of course, musicals based on movies.  That's right. Hollywood, with all their reboots, remakes and re-whatevers have become a staple of Broadway.  This is not a recent development, as this has been happening for several years. Decades even. Not all the time mind you, but enough to raise some eyebrows. In the last ten years, however, there have been several musicals, based on well-known movies that have been produced for the masses. Some better than others, but whether good or bad, it seems the main function of these shows is to bring in the new audiences. On the outside, it seems like a great business plan.  Produce shows that are based on familiar movies and bring in the people and new generations of fans. But is that really what's happening?  That raises another question.



Turning off original ideas? 

Is creativity is dead on Broadway? In the last 5 years, there have been new shows based on movies, including "Legally Blonde","Sister Act", "9 to 5", "Priscilla Queen of the Desert", "Catch Me If You Can", "The Adams Family", "Ghost" and now there is news for a musical based on "Animal House." The short answer? Yes. However, the long answer may actually be "Yes, but maybe there is a big plan to bring people back and tell them that even though there are shows like these out, maybe they should come and see the other original shows!" I really would like to think that.  I am amazed, shocked, confused and above all annoyed with the dozens of attempts to bring Hollywood to Broadway.  Then again, I am not completely against the idea. I feel torn and split on the matter because if you think about it, despite all the plot holes and annoying songs in "Legally Blonde" the first half hour actually felt like a real musical, something that maybe Stephen Schwartz might have thrown together after he wrote "Wicked".  My apologies to Schwartz fans, but if not him, some other composer. Jason Robert Brown wrote "13" for goodness sakes. My point is that despite everything, it had the potential to be something more and make itself standout.  In the long run, though, I can tell you it did not. It fell right on its pink, glittery face.  On the other side we have "The Full Monty", a movie which I adore.  They completely Americanized the show, departing from the cheeky and dry fun of the original British film. I was shocked and appalled when I heard about it and couldn't believe the very notion.  I did end up seeing the show several years ago and I couldnt have been more wrong. Final verdict? It blew my mind. It had great music, great characters and it did a fantastic job sticking out as its own little production. Its by far one of my favorite shows.  Years later, I even got to perform in a production of it. 

Is this Broadway's version of writer's block? Creativity may not be dead, but its in desperate need of something else.  These are shows that will bring in audiences, but what about original shows that are waiting for their Broadway premieres?

I guess my point in all of this is that I'm not sure where I stand on all this. Like I said. Torn.  Part of me just boils up in anger and frustration because, how dare they? Whoever these producers and writers are, how dare they even try to capture the magic of its originator? Or, I just end up sighing and rolling my eyes. A lot of people I know feel the same way. I saw "Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark" last year, and despite its high-flying appeal, it was a terrible show, trying so hard to be something it wasn't. That's when I get angry.  But again, on the flip side, I still try to convince myself that its a good idea, and Broadway is just biding their time, making money to hopefully produce a slew of new shows, giving young artists and writers a chance to share their projects and passions. I do love a handful of musicals based on movies, but I get frustrated when you hear how bad they were. Can we predict the outcome of how bad they really are?  Maybe this will just be a moment in Broadway and theatre history where movie musicals will just be a way of life.  Maybe in another few years, we will start seeing some originality. That is, if new artists are even given the chance.

Final thoughts? I have no idea. Either way, I just don't want to see a musical based on "Ghost Rider."

What do you think?

A Fun and Delightful Production: The Footlight Club Presents "Absurd Person Singular"

"Absurd Singular Person"

Written by
Alan Ackybourn

Directed by
Will Luera

Sidney - Scott Colford
Jane - Michelle Bonanno
Geoffrey - Ted Batch
Eva - Frances Vella
Ronald - Stephen Peters
Marion - Anne Colpitts

The Footlight Club recently opened the play"Absurd Person Singular", written by Alan Ayckbourn. Originally written in the 70s, the play has been presented in London, New York and even adapted for TV.  Bordering on British farce and comedy, the show sounded intriguing for a night of theatre.

The play examines three very different couples during their respective Christmas Eve parties, one year after the next.  Each act establishes a different year, all taking place in their respectable kitchens.  We come to view each couple, Sidney and Jane, Geoffrey and Eva, and finally Ronald and Marion.  We see their interactions and marital hang ups, getting a sense of their relationships with each other and the other couples.  Over the course of three years, we see their journeys reach some semblance of resolution.

Each actor does a wonderful job of establishing the typical archetypes in this production.  The show called for the use of accents and the variety of dialects in the show was quite refreshing.  Scot Colford's Sidney is wonderfully impish in delivery and attitude. He plays it delightfully and nearly steals the show.  Frances Vella's Eva is captures the quirkiness of the character very well and in her non-speaking moments in quietly brilliant, adding a great flair of humor in what can seemingly be dark moments. She balances her dramatic and comedic moments with ease. Anne Colpits, gives us quite the performance as the regal and classic Marion, who is quite the liquor aficionado. We all want to have a drink with her and just want to absorb her presence.  Michelle Bonanno's Jane is adorably naive we just want to give her a hug. Her evident excitement for the simplest of things is incredibly fun to watch.   Geoffrey is played cooly by Ted Batch. He is so cavalier, and carries himself with heaps of confidence.   Steve Peters' Ronald is full of experience and a noticeable calm.  During the silliest moments of the show, he marvelously plays the straight man.  The couples' relationships with each other is fun to watch as their chemistry speaks volumes about their characters' friendships over the years. They are all incredibly comfortable with each other.

Though the performances were quite good, the play on the other hand is poorly written from start to finish. During many points of the play, the sequence of events seemed to be the result of a long improvisation sketch that just needed to end. Much of the play could have easily been cut as some of it dragged. As it with farces, the most ridiculous series of moments are constantly happening. With this play, moments seemed out of place. Some of bits of plot seemed disjointed and the relationships between the characters could change unnecessarily for one moment then not give us any strong or believable resolution. Also, the play couldn't decide whether it was a drama or comedy. With some weak comedic moments and over the top dramatic moments, the two did not mesh well. There was one scene that examined what seemed to be a serious interaction that ended up being played with a hint of humor that collapsed the entire moment. The writing broke the scene, not the performances. Though, the usage of the kitchens for each act was a good choice, as many charged conversations and some escapism from unwanted situations, in this place and in real life,  find their way to that particular room. That felt real.

Will Luera's direction is finely put together. It is far from forced, as he chose to avoid the use of center stage from time to time therefore using the kitchen's many areas. He created beautiful stage pictures that perfectly reflected reality, really connecting with the audiences' own experiences. Cat Stramer's set and Sherilyn Levy's costume work come together well, establishing the 70s and its overall feel nicely.  We are truly visually immersed in this world thanks to the fine work and effort put into creating this production. Even the simple lighting and sound design (with a great creation of lightning) deserves a thumbs up from making it actually look and sound real. Kudos to the produciton value of this show.

The Footlight Club puts in great effort into this production, despite the weak script and story.  Even with the many tropes that comedies and farces produce, it falls over itself many times throughout.  However, the actors and production crew did a wonderful job to keep it fresh and full of energy. This show is a fun little romp presented by a premiere community theatre that has always and will continue to entertain and create memorable theatrical experiences for everyone.

Full of Heart and Love : The Wellesley Players Present "Little Women"

Little Women

Cast:
Marmee:  Suzanne Spezzano
Aunt March: Margaret McCarty
Jo March:  Angela Richardson
Meg March:  Olivia Rizzo
Amy March:  Alissa Palange
Beth March:  Gillian Gordon
Mr Laurence:  Dan Moore
Professor Bhaer:  David Wood
Mr. Brooke:  Matthew Brendan Ford
Laurie:  Todd Sandstrom

Artistic Team:
Producer:  Diane Rothauser
Stage Manager:  Emily Hart
Director:  Celia Couture
Music Director:  Shawn Gelzleichter
Choreographer:  Kelly Murphy
Set Design:  Douglas Cooper
Lighting Design:  Doug Gordon

I recently checked out a performance of "Little Women, The Musical" presented by The Wellesley Players at the Arsenal Center for the Arts.  I was somewhat familiar with the original book and had seen the movie and wanted to see how it translated to the stage. The performance was presented in a black box theatre, which can easily present a challenge with many productions. However, it was a show I wanted to see.

The story focuses on the adventures of the four March sisters:  firey Jo, beautiful Meg, young Amy and tender Beth living in Concord, MA during the Civil War with their mother, Marmee. Mr. Marsh is absent, as he is off in the war, leaving all five at home.  Jo is the main focus as she constantly struggles with her place as a sister and daughter as well as her desire to become a writer.  Each of her sisters do the same, as they start to find their own place.  Along the way, Jo and her sisters meet Laurie, a young man staying in the area, and bring him into the fold, specifically becoming Jo's best friend, creating their little group, continuing their adventures.  But as it is with life, things unexpectedly occur and they all must adjust accordingly. Adapted from Louisa May Alcott's novel, the musical is written by Allan Knee, Jason Holand and Mindi Dickstein. Everything is written well enough, but with only a few moments here and there, nothing is too memorable. It is a good score, but it is nothing too groundbreaking.

The cast manages to come together well, and they each give strong performances.  Angela Richardson plays the outspoken and tempestuous Jo incredibly well. She is strong as well as caring, whose desires in this world are evident. Richardson has the pipes to carry the role and we see her develop a solid arc from girl to woman, while still managing to stay true to herself. Gillian Gordon plays the sweet and soft-spoken Beth, who in many ways, represents the heart of the family, as she is incredibly supportive and loving. Gordon carries herself well, especially with her interaction with her family.  In "Some Things Are Meant To Be" she and Jo have a particular sweet moment on the beach, as you see their bond and love as sisters created effortlessly. Olivia Rizzo plays Meg as a full-hearted romantic, while remaining consistent in her desires.  Her chemistry with John Brooke, played by Matthew Ford, is sweet and adorable to watch. They both fall so hard for each other initially that it overwhelms them to the core.  Ford bumbles yet remains a gentleman throughout. They both share a wonderful duet "More Than I Am" and we see how much they truly care for one another and it is played wonderfully. Alissa Palange plays a wonderfully catty and spoiled Amy initially, especially as a young girl.  Though she is comfortable in the role, there are a few moments where there is conflict between her and Jo that falls short, as the writing lends to a more intense moment.  Also, her transition into a young woman at times felt forced, and her as a young frustrated individual seemed to be her only side. Todd Sandstrom plays the jovial and sweet Laurie, who is full of life and love. He manages to fit well with the March sisters, as it is clear in "Five Forever". Sandstrom shines with optimism and a care-free attitude that is constant throughout.  Margaret McCarthy plays the cold and stern Aunt March, but with such subtle humor. Her deadpan is uncanny and she shows us there might be bit more to this character, hinting at some kindness here and there. She remains vigilant in her character and is indeed fun to watch. Dan Moore, who clearly belongs in every period show, plays the stern Mr. Laurence who might have more to him as well. Though Moore attempts to be commanding and intimidating, it doesn't play as well as it could, as we see more transition to a sweeter version, something we desire to see more of. He seems uncomfortable at times, but his arc is fairly interesting to watch.  Suzanne Spezzano's performance as Marmee is solid as well, as she struggles to keep her daughters strong and we feel that she truly misses her husband. Her motherhood though, seems more like an acting governess at times, sometimes never truly connecting with her children. Her connection as a mother does however come in strong during "Delighted", a sweet dance number, where we see her beautiful support to make her children truly feel special.  David Wood plays a bumbling and proper Professor Bhaer who clearly harbors feelings that even he can't understand sometimes.  His interaction with Jo has something more going on, and their awkward yet strong friendship longs for more.  Wood could have easily given more to the role sometimes in his moments alone, perhaps enhancing his desire to accept his emotions, but he brings it home nicely in the end.  The entire cast all comes together in one particular wonderous moment during Jo's second retelling of her story in "The Weekly Volcano Press". Each actor plays a vital part in the story and bring it home in the climax of the song, with all their voices coming in strong.  Again, the cast each brings their own flavor to the production, creating wonderful moments.  It is a joy to see how much chemistry is evident amongst this particular cast as they all work to bring Louisa May Alcott's characters to life.

Ceclia Couture's direction works well for this space.  She does manage to do her best to not create too much congestion when characters were on stage.  At times, a use of levels might have worked in some moments, but there was only so much that could be done. All in all, it is clear that Couture is no stranger working in black boxes as she utilizes each area very well. Shawn Gelzleichter's music direction is strong, as he as well must do what he can in the space.  The show is clearly called for a much larger orchestra, but Gelzleichter pulls together his wonderous skeleton crew of musicians to create a solid sound, having all his string players working in tandem.  He clearly works hard to have the space work for him, rather than against him. Kelly Murphy's choreography is very well executed as well for this production. With minimal and simple movement, she doesn't create too much congestion either.  It is light and adorable, continuing to contribute to the heart of this production.

Douglas Cooper and Libby Ostrowski create a very functional set within the space itself, but it is not as nearly belieavable as it could be. Black boxes present so many different challenges when it comes to staging, but the use of multiple white walls really took away focus from the world. Granted the perfromances became the focus of attention, but the world must be present as well. However, with some minor set pieces, some scenes played well, as it was established where one thing began and one thing ended. The lighting design, created by Doug Gordon,  had some good use of colors in some scenes, especially in Jo's storytelling moments and a usage of gobos were present throughout that gave some good texture. There was a particularly nice look to create the light coming through in attic scenes.  However,  more colors could have been used and there was no clear establishment and sometimes the lights felt flat. For the most part, the effort for the costumes were strong, as it seemed like multiple people were involved.  The pieces were very much period, which really helped with the production.  Many dresses were beautifully constructed and really helped in character development.  However, some of the costumes were not particular appropriate for some moments, as a vision was not in place. The hair and make-up was very well done, though many of the wigs did not seem natural.  They were used well to establish each character, but they became distracting throughout the production. There was strong balance for all aspects but there could have been more in each design. 

Again, as mentioned before, black box spaces are small and come in all shapes and sizes.  However, with each, they all present challenges. Wellesley Players had their work cut out for this show, but manage to bring together a solid production.  With some incredibly shining moments and features, well-honed performances and strong direction, this production of "Little Women" is a joy to watch.  The Wellesley Players will only continue to put on future productions full of heart for all audiences to enjoy.

A Second Visit to the magical Garden: MIT Gilbert and Sullivan Present The Secret Garden

The Secret Garden

Book and Lyrics by Marsha Norman

Music by Lucy Simon

Based on the novel by Frances Hodgson Burnett

Producer

Kelsey Peterson W '05

Stage Directors

Garry Zacheiss '00 and Ky Lowenhaupt

Music Director
Ian Garvie

Stage Manager
Kristyn Brophy

Technical Director
Garry Zacheiss

Dramaturg & Dialect Coach
Bridgette Hayes

Set Designers
Garry Zacheiss
Ethan Tyndall

Lighting Designers
Garry Zacheiss
Paul Quimby

Cast

Archibald Craven
Shawn Gelzleichter

Dr. Neville Craven
Rishi Basu

Mary Lennox
Abigail Dickson

Martha
Bridgette Hayes

Dickon
Sam Lathrop

Mrs. Medlock
Jennifer Ryan

Ben Weatherstaff
Michael DeFillippi

Colin Craven
Alexandra Upton

Lily Shannon
Rose McAuliffe

Rose Lennox
Rachel Baum

Capt. Albert Lennox
Terry Tamm

Alice
Lauren Burke

Lt. Peter Wright
Sean Benak

Lt. Ian Shaw
Brad Amidon

Maj. Holmes
Robert Morrison

Claire Holmes
Kelsey Peterson

Maj. Shelley
Brett Popiel

Mrs. Shelley
Lorraine Fryer

Fakir
Jenn Woodward

Ayah
Branigan LaCount

Nurse
Lorraine Fryer

Jane
Kelsey Peterson

Mrs. Winthrop
Lorraine Fryer

Children's Chorus
Ryan Burke
Andy Edelman
Sara Molano
Alexandra Upton

Theatre companies in and around Boston tend to do the same show as another company and I realized thats just the way it is. In the last several months, I have heard of multiple productions of Chicago, Spelling Bee, Rent and now The Secret Garden. These are wonderful shows and its always interesting and often rewarding to see them done differently.

This past weekend I had the pleasure of seeing MIT's Gilbert and Sullivan put up The Secret Garden. This was the 2nd production I had seen and another chance to talk about a completely different production. The musical is based on the famed novel of the same name, telling the story of young Mary Lennox, orphaned in India after the cholera epidemic took her parents. She is sent to live with her reclusive uncle, Archibald Craven in Yorkshire, England. Living in such a new and seemingly empty house, young Mary finds solace in trying to bring back a once-thriving garden on the estate grounds. She soon also discovers her sickly cousin, Colin, and forms a unique bond with him. As this goes on, we see Archibald dealing with the loss of his wife, Lily, ten years later, struggling to live his life while falling deeper and deeper into depression. As the book focuses more the children, the musical looks at the story of the adults. We see Archibald's and Mary's struggle to come with grips of this new situation, the best they can, but soon discover that it takes a great deal to overcome everything and try to find a semblance of family to help them get through their losses. With the use of flashbacks and then seeing the present, we see more into the lives of each characters. Family is a glimmering hope in all this, and we hope all comes together in the end. The driving force bringing everything together is a garden that causes something more than each character expected in not only themselves but for their world around them.

As I mentioned before, the music itself is very unique and works well with the particular period. Its a great score and is used very well to heighten several emotional scenes and moments. The book is based off the novel, and it does again, take several liberties. The aspects of India from Mary's past comes in when its convenient to attempt to fuel the story. My only complaint about the show itself is the book, as it tries to add additional exposition to an already established story. India is shoe-horned and makes some of the story feel uneven.  It doesn't make it less of a tale, just another look into different perspectives. This worked sometimes, but not as a whole. Also, some scenes where the ghosts from the past and Cholera epidemic would appear on stage were confusing, as there was no real establishment of reality and dream.

The set of the show, designed and created by Garry Zacheiss and Ethan Tyndall is a beautiful world. Kresge Little Theatre at MIT presents many challenges, as the stage is a bit small for such a large scale show. However, they use it very well, creating different areas for Archibald's office, the garden area, and bedroom. Behind the bed, there were several doorways that were created, overlaid with see-thru curtains that were used as portals almost, for different characters to use to blur the lines of past and present. Almost like a curved balcony area, the area was effectively used to join both worlds. Each doorway was lighted different colors from time to time, which was the fine work of lighting design by again, Garry Zacheiss, who apparently does everything and does it well, and Paul Quimby. Not only do they have excellent eyes to blend such unique colors like purple and reds effectively, but they are not afraid to use gobos. Gobos are often terribly underused in staging but also can be dangerously tacky if overused. However, the lighting designers used them as they were intended to create a believable and engaging environment. With a strong understanding of design, much love and appreciation was put in to bring the audience in, making it simply captivating. It was very impressive. The set and lights complimented each other well.

As for the direction, I appreciated the spacing and the proper usage of the ensemble. Garry Zacheiss, strikes again it seems. During a particular moment, he was able to create a nearly startling moment when he paired them up during the cholera breakout. With the use of white handkerchiefs, each ensemble member almost seemed like wind-up toys, one by one, running out of time. It was a great use of stylized movement combined with the reality of death and fear. However in some moments, I felt he could've given more for some characters to do. The space, is again, limited, but the director should give more freedom to his actors. In some numbers, more movement could've been used, causing a contrast between the song itself and the actor singing it. A minor issue, considering the show came together fairly well. Zacheiss is clearly a Renaissance Man, who accepts the challenge of creating such a world and manages to do a pretty great job.

There were plenty of strong performances in this production. Shawn Gelzleichter is at ease in the role of Archibald Craven, a character with such a soft, yet conflicted demeanor. Gelzleichter brings more to the surface then a man in mourning. We see bits and pieces of a once, sweet and happy man, but time and sadness has hidden that part away. He plays the role extremely well, fighting the coldness that may consume him. As all his numbers are beautifully sung, its his number he sings to his son, Colin, "Race You To the Top of The Morning" that was the one that stood out. He carries the story of the song from beginning to end with utter sadness and beauty. Another performance that stands out is Bridgette Hayes, who plays Martha the maid. She full of spritely, no-nonsense pride, and brings a bit of color to previously dark intro to the show. She is having fun with the role and her song "If I Had A Fine White Horse", is a joy to see as she brings amazing energy, clearly having fun. Rishi Basu, playing Archibald's more practical brother, Dr. Neville Crane, has a commanding presence that is only broken down briefly from time to time, as we see he is only human as well. Basu looks like he belongs in that period indefinitely, and he creates a wonderful performance. It plays well, especially with his duet with Archibald, "Lily's Eyes" where see these two vocal powerhouses share the stage. They are believable brothers and are strong contrasts that work extremely well together. Shannon Rose McAuliffe plays Lily, Archibald's wife, simply beautifully. With a marvelous voice, we see her move in and out of the present and past, creating such tender moments with Archibald. McAuliffe's chemistry with Gelzleichter is so wonderful to see, and we see each actor giving so much. Their duets together blend so perfectly that we only can imagine how strong their love was before her passing. Mary, played by Abigail Dickson, gives a strong performance, and it is clear she is on her way to many other great roles in the future. She plays the role with a obvious, simple maturity beyond her years, but her overall character arc is a bit muddled, due to the script and not a reflection on her performance. Alexandra Upton, plays Archibald's son, Colin. She is comfortable playing the young boy and many of the scenes she shares with Dickinson are memorable as we really see a strong bond created between the two. As for the Ensemble, they were strong as a unit and worked well with each other. With swelling voices, they help us see more of this world, coming in and out, wonderfully establishing their individuality. Even though there were stronger singers on the female side, it did not take away from the performances. All in all, everyone in the show gave good performances, bringing a wonderful story to life. There was much love for the material and it showed. We see the characters find their journey and destination unexpectedly, discovering that despite everything, they never truly lose those in our hearts.

This production of The Secret Garden is filled with wonderment and possibility. Through the characters' past and present, we see so much that can be realized, at the most important moments of their lives. Its the fact that they know in their hearts that they cannot give up and must go through so much to discover the things that matter the most. With all the pieces of performance, design and music, MIT's Gilbert and Sullivan's production is full of heart and establishes that even at our saddest and darkest moments, something hidden can be found again.

Anectodally Polictical: Lyric Stage Company Presents According to Tip

According To Tip

Again, one the most rewarding things about doing this blog is of course is able to see so many interesting productions in the city of Boston. I've talked about it before, but I think I find myself in a state of constant euphoria when I am about to attend a play or musical in and around Boston.

This was again the case when I went to go check out According to Tip, a one man show about the late and great Speaker of the House, Thomas "Tip" O'Neill. Truth be told, I discovered a few days before I was actually on the schedule to usher the show. I put on my blacks and headed downtown.

Produced by local film group, Harborside Films, According to Tip explores a local Cambridge man, Thomas O'Neill, who found his way through the trials and tribulations of local politics to the great House of Representatives in Washington DC. The show is a one person show, set between Tip's local office and his office in DC. We see his journey all through the elegant means of storytelling from his humble beginnings to the giant arena of the House of Representatives during the 60s, 70s and 80s. We get a chance to see the life and times told by the man himself.

Played subtly and simply by Dick Flavin, Tip's depiction is a kind man, full of spritely humor and has a knack for bringing you into his stories. Dick Flavin, a local radio personality, was very close with O'Neill and it made sense that he would be the one depicting him. There were some moments, in which Flavin would do a little jig or sing a bit to a piano track and would be a bit off, but that was mostly a sound issue. This particular device was used to break up much of the show. There was one adorable moment where Flavin as Tip sang a song to his wife and pantomimed a dance with her, reliving his wedding day with her. It was particularly cute to watch and it really showed us what kind of man Tip was. He commits fully to the role, and weaves his stories beautifully. Not being a politically minded person myself, I found it hard to follow some of the stories, but the script was written in a way that it not only did its best to describe the events and stories simply, but it managed to hit home with the born and bred audience. We hear his tales of his friendships and working relationships with the past great presidents, including Ford, Carter and Regan. He opens the show with a one-sided phone conversation with Ronald Regan and his establishing relationship, though are meant to imagine the other side of the talk, is believable. We see and believe that Tip’s friendship with Regan is real and genuine. Its Tip's story and Flavin takes us through his life, his events and his regrets. You see the genuine feeling in Flavin as Tip, especially since he knew him so well.  He interacts with the audience as well beautifully, really solidifying his relationship with us. He doesn’t speak at us but to us. It’s that connection that helps contribute to a strong experience. He was just a man, who like all of us, lived his life and did what he loved. It was that part of this show that I immediately identified with and appreciated.

The set is again, Tip's Washington DC office and his local Massachusetts office. Each office is dressed nicely, with keepsakes and collectibles from Tip's life. Giving us a sense of the time period as well, we are given a look into where he worked. With photographs and props, everything compliments the set fairly well. There also was a podium that was set up for Tip to show us various moments where he would be speaking up in a town hall or at another political event. Each moment is a bit of his history and a chance for some relive those times. I appreciated the attention to detail in the set design, especially because we were transported into his world.  It was put together not as an afterthought, but as a believable place where this man could have been working, knowing his personality and what kind of man he was. At times it was difficult for one side of the theatre to see what was going on, as the space worked against the show. Being only one person in it, Flavin had to play as much as he could to everyone else, though there was room to it do it a bit more.

As this play is again about the life of a political individual before my time, I found a lot of it hard to grasp some of events that he mentioned during his time. However, as I mentioned before, it was the fact that it was his story and we were drawn in as an audience. Thomas "Tip" O'Neill lived his life and chose his path to fight for what he believed in and to give voice to those that couldn't be heard. According to Tip is a well put together theatrical production that highlights the stories of a great man who was really there in the trenches, fighting the good fight. It reminds us that everyone has a story to tell, big or small, but like all great stories, it should one that cannot be forgotten. A great man who was just like us brings us into his world so we can truly understand where we were and where we are going.