Stage Right

And that is why I haven't had much time to post here....

Sorry all. Keep checking on me at Big Hollywood and I will continue to add thoughts beyond the theatre here aas well.

One of the most infuriating arguments that President Obama made in the 2008 election was that President Bush and his administration were "anti-science". It appeared as though this charge was mainly aimed at the ban for federal funding on stem-cell research.

In an incredibly in-elegant and classless display (surprising actually considering I find the man quite classy and elegant) President Obama used the occasion of his inaugural address to make this charge while his predecessor sat eight feet away. And, true to form, within weeks of his swearing in, President Obama used the power of the Executive Order to institute federal funding for stem-cell research. His supporters rejoiced and some Republicans who were uncomfortable with being labeled "anti-science" because it made them feel like they were arguing that the world was flat quietly cheered as well.

But hold on a second progressives. Wait just a minute all of you "pro-science" Republicans. Did anyone catch this part of President Obama's speech made the day he lifted the ban on funding?:

"We cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction," Obama said. "It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society."

Ummm... isn't this a little bit ANTI-SCIENCE? If Michael J. Fox were to believe that the cure for Parkinson's disease could be discovered through human cloning, would he make a commercial supporting it?

President Obama labels human cloning as "dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society". But, why? Why is it so wrong? And, more importantly, why is he allowed to draw HIS moral line in the sand at cloning and not be considered "anti-science" yet President Bush drew HIS line in the sand at stem-cell research and he is a reactionary neanderthal worthy of ridicule as a back-woods rube holding back medicine in deference to make-believe Gods?

Why? Oh, you know why.

Yesterday's National Prayer Day non-event at the White House inspired a fascinating discussion on the always-reliably-entertaining Dennis Miller Show yesterday.

A woman called in and stated that she was repelled from the Republican Party because the extreme Christian Right wanted a theocracy and to push their religious views on the country. Miller pressed and she had no example.

Miller's trusty liberal side-kick, Sal tried to chime in with the idea that the extreme Christian right wanted to "tell people when they should pray" (an idea I had never heard before) and, again Sal could not support this with any actual example.

Finally a caller came in and cited the Christian Right's position against assisted suicide and stem cell research as examples of the Christian Right's attempt to "push their religious beliefs on the country. It occurred to me at that moment that this charge has been levied for decades and never really fought against in any intelligent or logical way by our party's leaders.

Well, allow me.

I believe that most of my liberal (oops.. I mean PROGRESSIVE) friends would agree with the following statement:

"The Republican Party and the religious right wing that lies within it would like to try to push their religious views on the country by banning gay marriage, banning abortion, banning stem-cell research, banning assisted suicide, and re-instituting prayer in public schools."

I would venture to say agreement with this statement is the essence of many people's aversion to the GOP.

But, look at how this argument has been formed and the conclusion reached in a logical way for a moment.

Abortion, banning school prayer, stem-cell research, assisted suicide, gay marriage. Each of these issues are radically new and controversial ideas in the relative history of civilization. Putting abortion and school prayer aside for a moment since they are already allowed due to arguably suspect Supreme Court dictum, the last three, assisted suicide, stem-cell research and gay marriage were completely outside of the realm of normative societal practices.

So what changed? Liber... Oops.. PROGRESSIVE forces in our society proposed to CHANGE current law, long-standing law, based on centuries of reasoned and legitimate arguments on the ramifications to civilization if these things were to be allowed. They are the ones who PUSH their beliefs and force these issues upon the rest of society. We traditionalists, or those attempting to uphold these long-standing ideals by which we have built a triumphant and flourishing society, resist these attempts at radical change and then WE are accused of pushing our beliefs on the rest of the country!

Who is pushing who? Because we do not want to up-end centuries of legitimate and well-reasoned laws at the whim of a minority of PROGRESSIVES we are then accused of wanting a theocracy. How did we end up here?

And please, can someone show me how we can get back?

Last night I saw a play at the Pasadena Playhouse.

This was my dialogue with the ticket taker:

Ticket Taker: "Thank you sir, you are to the right."

Me: "Oh boy, you don't know the HALF of it!"

Feel free to steal it... I want it to become a trend.

Over this past weekend I recorded an interview with the crazy guys at Threedonia.

They just started a podcast, Radio Free Threedonia and it was a thrill for me to get on and talk about the conservative's role in the American theatre industry.

Considering my blue tooth went out in the middle of my opening rant and they had to edit a continuation of the conversation from later when I picked up the handset, it sounds pretty seamless.

I realize that for the small handful of poeple who I have corresponded with as "Stage Right" and yet also know me in my actual identity, they might be able to figure out who I am by listening to this... but, I'm starting to prepare for that inevitable day.

More on that later.

Enjoy the podcast.

A View From Stage Right; Part 2by Stage Right
Part 1 of what I half-jokingly called my “Manifesto.”
In a fiscal conservative’s utopian dreamworld, there would be no federal funding for the arts (or so many other government agencies or programs for that matter). This has been our position since the inception of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in the early 1970’s. We’ve been saying that if elected, we would abolish these misguided programs and departments and bring our government back to the bare-bones constitutionally described role that it has and leave everything else to the states.

We’ve held the influential bully pulpit of the presidency for twenty of the past twenty-eight years, and what has happened to the NEA? It has grown. While we have stood on principle, we have also stood on the sidelines. The founding fathers would be outraged that the federal government is funding art with taxpayer money, but because we are on the sidelines standing on our principles, all of that money is going to the people creating art with messages that undermine our very existence.
But, I will also say that as long as the NEA exists, and as long as art is to receive funding by the government, we conservatives are on the wrong side of the argument. There is no way to combat the perception that we are “anti-art” or in favor of closing down the local museum by taking away its funding. I know, there ARE logical arguments to combat that perception, but again I ask: How have those arguments been working out for us?
The “Fairness Doctrine” for arts funding.
At the risk of enraging my fellow conservatives and all of you libertarians, I propose that we re-think our position on the NEA given the realities of the past 35 years. The NEA is here and it’s not going anywhere in the near future. And instead of ceding the cultural ground in our country to the leftist voices and artists who have won the lion’s share of all of that funding over the past three decades, it is time for conservatives to get our asses into the game. It’s time for a “fairness doctrine” of sorts when it comes to arts funding.
It’s the stated policy of the NEA to not discriminate due to the content of the art, so I say we make them put OUR money where their mouth is: Start doling out grants to playwrights and organizations who speak to so many Americans who are disenfranchised at the theatre.
The ESTABLISHMENT is the vast network of institutional theatres who have been living high on the hog in their publicly owned “Performing Arts Centers” or “Civic Theatre Complex” and managing their multi-million-dollar budgets under the guise of the altruistic and benign mission statement of “Bringing theatre to the community.” The Lincoln Center Theatre and The Public Theatre and the Center Theatre Group and the Seattle Rep and The Arena Stage and the Goodman theatre… those guys are “The Man” and I’m tired of “The Man” keeping my people down!
A few decades ago, there was a perceived crisis in the American Theatre for the lack of “voices” from black playwrights, Asian playwrights, female playwrights, Latino playwrights and gay playwrights. Almost every single college and major non-profit theatre dutifully set up specific, targeted programs to nurture these playwrights from these target groups, in the name of diversity.
Well my friends… what voices are missing in non-profit, regional theatres today? OURS! We need to demand a full-throated, passionate and intelligent depiction of the conservative “experience” in America. Also, don’t tell me that a revival of “Carousel” counts as a production reflecting “traditional American values.” The crises the theatre community in America faces today is not that there are not enough revivals.
The Audience is staying home.
Go back and look at the comments from my first post on this subject. You will hear from many people who say they are no longer going to the theatre. And, unlike the conventional wisdom we’ve been hearing at non-profit regional theatres for the past thirty years, it is NOT because of a lack of arts education in the schools. It is NOT because theatre is too inaccessible. The people are choosing not to go to the theatre because of WHAT is being produced. Because, believe it or not, my liberal friends, an adult person does not like to spend over $50 to sit in the dark and get yelled at or called names for two hours.
Unlike any other business, the theatre people who inhabit your local non-profit regional theatre do not look at their PRODUCT and wonder why people are not buying it. They first wonder what is wrong with YOU. I wonder how many folks in that regional theatre in your downtown actually reflect on the content of the plays they are producing and wonder if perhaps the answer to their “audience development” needs lies in the simple fact that about half of the people who live in their area are not interested in hearing the preaching contained within the stories they are telling, no matter how talented the people are in telling them.
For those of you who still find yourselves patronizing the regional non-profit in the major metropolis near your home, I bet you experience something like this: You get to your seat and open your program and three or four pieces of paper fly out. One is an envelope suitable for a donation. One is a letter from the development department or artistic director decrying the current state of funding for the arts. Maybe it mentions that audiences are declining because of the lack of arts in the schools. Another sheet is a survey they want you to fill out (they never give you a pen or pencil). The survey asks questions about your race and age and income and TV or film habits. You look around…. all of these pieces of paper are littered about the floor under the seats around you. Clearly part of the theatre’s green initiative.
Then the house lights dim to half and the excitement builds, it’s curtain time… get ready for the magic of theatre… I love the excitement of that moment, here comes the…. pre-show curtain speech? Oh no! The artistic director or a board member or someone from the theatre staff bounds onto the stage and starts the spiel. First, they describe all of the items that just dropped out of your program and they beg you to read them, fill them out and stick a check in them. These days they throw in a line like: “Thankfully, we now have a president dedicated to supporting the arts and theatre, but we still need …. blah blah blah” - It never occurs to these folks that half of the people in the seats didn’t vote for President Obama. And they often say in their speech some patronizing line like, “We are your theatre, we are a part of this community, we want to hear from you, please give us your feedback, theatre is a living breathing art form and your participation is vital to our growth…”
But, I have a secret to reveal to you: They don’t really think that. Oh, they want you to participate, by subscribing and donating, but it ends there. If you want to meet with someone and express your distaste with the artistic choices, good luck. If you want to complain that too often they bring left-wing politics onto the stage, you’re given lip service. Send a letter asking for an uplifting play that reflects the good in America or perhaps the heroic deeds of our military or perhaps a play reflecting on the negative consequences of the misogyny and patriarchy in the hip-hop culture, and the letter will be treated as a joke from a right-wing wacko bigot. Sometimes the letter is shown around the office and laughed at. They don’t really want to hear from you unless you are calling to make a donation or to tell them how great they are.
If it ever crosses the minds of the artistic decision makers at the major non-profit regional theatres that there may be something about the content of their plays that is negatively affecting their subscriptions or their single-ticket sales, they never consider that it might have to do with the overall message or themes of their plays. They think it’s because they are choosing plays that are risky or edgy and the older, conservative folks out there are just not ready or sophisticated enough to appreciate it. And then they dig in and take an artistic stand. But the problem with the plays has more to do with the themes and the political message they are trying to communicate, not with the edgy characters or nudity or cursing.
Example: A theatre produces “Angels in America” and receives complaint letters about the content. The powers that be at the theatre write it off to homophobia or gay-bashing or just some intolerance from the religious right and they are emboldened with the knowledge that they have made a bold artistic choice and brought this fresh and daring message to their community. But the objection to “Angels in America” that I have and that I’ve heard from others is not that it is fresh or daring, it’s that it’s the same old “Reagan did nothing about AIDS” and “Ray Cohn was an evil closet-case hypocrite” and “Mormons are repressed homophobes” kind of story that we’ve been hearing for years.
But, what if a theatre commissioned a play about the life of the heroic writer Randy Shilts? Shilts was an openly gay journalist who wrote “And The Band Played On” which chronicled the early days of the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco. He rightly campaigned for the closing of gay bath houses as a logical way to help stop the spread of HIV and he was very vocal in his opposition of the trend to “out” prominent but closeted gay and lesbian actors and politicians. For his efforts he was spat upon on Castro Street. Bob Ross, editor and publisher of the Bay Area Reporter, described Shilts as a traitor to his own kind. This would be a play that deals with the same subject matter as “Angels” but it would take a different political perspective. Most of those conservatives complaining about “Angels” would not complain about this play, I guarantee you that the vast number of complaints would come from the LGBT community and GLAAD and all of those other acronym agencies paid to say the same thing.
Trouble is, this play does not exist. Nor does a play exist about the fall of the Berlin Wall, the single most significant international event in the past fifty years. Nor does a play exist about the heroism of our military fighting in Iraq, or about the negative repercussions of abortion in America over the past thirty years. Nor is there a play written in the past twenty years in America showing a member of the Catholic clergy in an unambiguously positive light (unless a drunk priest is there for comic effect). These plays don’t exist because the environment in the artistic corridors are not interested in telling these stories.
******
I promised a solution to this problem in my last post, and I have a few humble suggestions. I’m looking forward to the next round of comments, e-mails, and Facebook messages with your ideas:
A Modest Proposal
I maintain that at the root of this problem is a problem of equal employment.
I remember attending a symposium where a bunch of theatre professionals were getting together to talk about how to get a new audience or keep their existing audience and it was all about educational programs and free tix for children and adding more writing programs for African-American playwrights and I wanted to get up on the stage and say: “Please stand up if you voted Democrat in the last presidential election”… I had no doubt most of the room would stand up… Then I would say… “Look around you… the last presidential election (it was Bush/Gore) was almost exactly 50/50. Now, one of two things is happening here… either your organizations are not ideologically inclusive and that is reflected in your programming and how you represent yourself to your community of ticket-buyers, or some of you are afraid to sit down right now and reveal yourselves as Republicans… either way, we have a BIG problem!”
How can we truthfully say that we are a part of a community and we reflect the sensibilities and tell stories that emotionally move the members of that community when our organizations are staffed with people whose views only reflect half of the community? We can’t, and we don’t. And the results are affecting the bottom line.
Theatres should consider creating a special position, an “ombudsman,” who speaks for that 50% who might have a problem with the message the theatre is putting out. They can also respectfully and sensitively respond to the complaints that might come in and then actually communicate those complaints effectively to the powers that be at the organization. They could also set up after-show dialogues with the writers and encourage people to voice their annoyance at the preaching they are receiving from the stage. I guarantee you that after about a year after the silently suffering patrons are empowered, programming changes will begin to take effect.
Another crucial role for the “ombudsman” would be to solicit plays from a conservative point of view, identify a handful of them that are worthy of development and work with those playwrights to have, at the very least, a main-stage staged reading open to the public so that the artistic decision makers could actually see these plays up on their feet and in front of an audience. Put them in the position where they must justify why they are not producing these plays so we no longer hear quotes like this:
André Bishop, artistic director of Lincoln Center Theater for 16 years, said he reads about five plays a week, and from thousands over the years he could not think of a single one that would fall on the right end of the spectrum. “I’m trying to think if I ever read a play that I would call conservative,” he said, pausing a few moments. “I don’t think I’ve come across one.”
Mr. Bishop, if you agree that this is a problem, hire someone to actively find and nurture these plays. If you had gone two decades without ever seeing a gay play or a black play or a Latino play or a feminist play it would not have been acceptable. So, now what are you going to do about us conservatives?
The Artistic Director and the Board President should introduce this conservative watchdog with their arms around him saying “this is our guy and a valuable member of this team.” The Jackie Robinson of conservative theatre could emerge hence.
The above concept is modest because it really amounts to token change, but, it’s more than we have now and it’s pretty easy to achieve. The ideal situation would be to achieve a little more than just an evening of staged readings with the hope of getting a full production. Ideally, the plays in question would be developed and mounted in full production from the get go.
******
So, beyond my “Modest Proposal” I also have a “Not-So-Modest Proposal” and I have “A Guargantuan Proposal.” Looks like there’s gonna be a Part 3!
Stage Right is on Facebook.

Rob Kendt (The Wicked Stage: Prophetic Brit(s)) highlights a Jeremy McCarter Newsweek article from December which uses Caryl Churchill's 2001 play "Far Away" as touchstone for what the Bush era.

Kendt doesn't draw out the quotes from the McCarter piece which I think says more about McCarter as former reviewer for New York Magazine and now Senior Writer covering arts, culture and entertainment for Newsweek.

George W. Bush's presidency hasn't been especially accomplished, or ennobling, but it has turned out to be awfully fantastical. Almost by the month, things that once seemed barely imaginable became all too real: an election better suited to a banana republic than a mature democracy, airliners converted to lethal weapons (see also exploding sneakers, powdery letters of death), an American city left to drown.

And then there's:

When the play reached New York in 2002, the final scene's vision of all-out war offered a twisted but true-to-life reflection of the paranoia we were feeling in those post-9/11 days. Six years later it speaks well of Churchill's prophetic powers that the other scenes now seem just as timely. The nighttime beatings that Joan witnesses (and the sorry excuses her aunt supplies) anticipate waterboarding, "stress positions," rendition. The hellish parade of hat-wearing prisoners now seems a grisly metaphor for the way that soldiers toyed—sometimes fatally—with inmates at Abu Ghraib.

Finally:

The fact that we've fought two wars, abrogated a treaty here and there, and squandered the affection of much of the species doesn't necessarily mean that fashion-show executions are nigh. But after all the strange twists of the past eight years, we might wake up to a reality that's weirder still.

Again, this speaks to the pervasive attitude that though most main-stream Americans would see these characterizations of the past 8 years as a matter of opinion and worthy of debate, within the bubble the typical theatre critic lives these are given facts.

It seems McCarter is no longer just reviewing plays, but also making social and political commentary in the spirit of NY Times Frank Rich. God help us all.

A View From Stage Right; My Manifesto.by Stage Right

There is a problem with the American Theatre.

The vast majority of plays produced on our stages are intimidating, antagonistic and often downright offensive to 50% of Americans. I know this because I am one of them and I see that half of the country votes like I do.

This is not to say these plays aren’t entertaining; many of them are. The actors are often terrific–one of this country’s rich artistic resources is its acting community. Ditto for our directors, designers and the crews who execute these artists’ visions.

But, the content of these plays are anathema to many of us.

Other than New York, San Francisco and much of Los Angeles, the majority of theatre goers in America find these plays antithetical to their personal beliefs. When this is brought up to Artistic Directors in Middle America, when they are confronted and told that they are producing plays that are offensive to their subscribers, they usually respond: “Good! That is my mission, to challenge the audience, to not just entertain but to make them think and re-think their deep beliefs and to see another part of society.”

The trouble is, it doesn’t work both ways. It’s not like the Artistic Directors of theatres in Berkeley or San Francisco or Manhattan are challenging their audiences by making them re-think their beliefs. The sad fact is that the majority of subscribers at non-profit institutions maintain their subscriptions not because they enjoy the plays, but because they don’t want to lose their season seats. And the people who run these theatres know it. In fact, they count on it. Therefore, they have carte blanche in choosing plays that will antagonize and offend many of their supporters. It’s the classic co-dependent, dysfunctional relationship, and it is a big problem.

This is an issue I’ve been wanting to cover here at Big Hollywood from the moment I was given the theatre beat. Today, I finally found my jumping off point.

I stumbled upon a mediocre review of what seems to be a typical, feminist, anti-misogyny, anti-religious right, offensive off-Broadway play. I was looking for a “big picture” issue to set the show up as an example of the ongoing problem in how plays make their way to the stage in the American Theatre World. In a feature article in Time Out, I found what I’d been looking for:

In telling the tale of a pair of feminist vigilantes slaughtering Christian
right-wingers and gleefully blogging about their spree, Callaghan mashes up Abu
Ghraib and Bon Jovi, Harold Pinter and Jane Fonda’s workout videos. Blood,
Jell-O and other fluids feature heavily.
So does Fonda herself, who appears
as a kind of clueless muse. Putting her onstage as a character began with a
challenge from Fagan, for whom Callaghan wrote the play while in the midst of
fulfilling a series of more straitlaced assignments for theaters like South
Coast Repertory and Playwrights Horizons.
“I was all commissioned up, but I
had other material that I wanted to put into a play and no one to write it for,”
Callaghan explains…

Did you catch it? “I was all commissioned up…” This playwright, Sheila Callaghan, has multiple commissions from mainstream, non-profit theatres to develop her work. You and I finance those commissions, as I explained in a previous post. I want to show you a bit of what you’re paying for.

First, let’s examine her current play, That Pretty Pretty; or The Rape Play. Let me be clear, this play is being produced on a shoestring budget in a 99-seat theatre in lower-Manhattan by a small non-profit called Rattlestick Playwrights Theatre. It is NOT one of the commissioned plays at a larger, non-profit theatre. However, the existence of those commissions allows this playwright to write plays like this. She makes a point to say that mainstream theatres probably would not touch this play, but, because Rattlestick is a non-profit, 501(c)(3), you and I subsidize their existence by allowing them to forgo any kind of tax burden. This is how the Rattlestick Playwrights Theatre web page describes the play:

A pair of radical feminist ex-strippers scour the country on a murderous rampage
against right-wing pro-lifers, blogging about their exploits in gruesome detail.
Meanwhile, a scruffy screenwriter named Owen tries to bang out his magnum opus
in a hotel room as his best friend Rodney (“The Rod”) holds forth on rape and
other manly enterprises. When Owen decides to incorporate the strippers into his
screenplay, the boundaries of reality begin to blur, and only a visit from Jane
Fonda can help keep worlds from blowing apart. Sheila Callaghan’s THAT PRETTY
PRETTY; OR, THE RAPE PLAY is a violently funny and disturbing excavation of the
dirty corners of our imaginations.

By the way, they omitted the fact that the character of Rodney (”The Rod”) is an Iraq War veteran. That’s the guy who “Holds forth on rape and other manly enterprises.”
The mission statement for Rattlestick Playwrights Theatre is also on their web page:

In order to best foster the future voices of American Theater, Rattlestick
Playwrights Theater is committed to the development and production of innovative
new plays.

Our mission is to provide a positive, nurturing experience for
emerging playwrights, to present diverse and challenging plays that otherwise
might not be produced, and to foster the future voices of the American
theater.

Rattlestick is supported, in part, by New York City Department of Cultural Affairs and the New York State Council on the Arts. Ever want to complain about the sales tax or hotel tax when you visit New York? The good folks at Rattlestick thank you for your support.

Two productions ago they featured the 10-year-old play Corpus Christi by Terrance McNally (McNally is hardly an “emerging playwright” in need of a “positive, nurturing experience”). Corpus Christi is infamous for its subject matter; it depicts the final days of Christ with the twelve apostles. Oh, and by the way… Jesus and the apostles are all gay!!! The Last Supper scene cannot be described here.

The production before Corpus Christi was Lady by Craig Wright, creator of ABC’s Dirty, Sexy Money (he too needs a “positive, nurturing experience”?). Here is an excerpt of one reviewer’s take on Lady:

Craig Wright has done a masterful job in cleverly camouflaging his anti war,
anti Bush sentiments within the confines of a hunting trip gone sour. As Vice
Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s son prepares to deploy to Iraq this play
resonates in a most timely manner.

What makes me think that if Andrew Breitbart, Gary Graham and I were watching this play, Mr. Wright’s politics wouldn’t seem too “cleverly camouflaged?” I think you get the picture…

So, let’s reset the stats here:

• Sheila Callaghan was “all commissioned up” but wanted to write another play about two mass-murdering feminists who target right-to-lifers. One of the only male characters is an Iraq-war veteran who “holds forth on rape and other manly enterprises.”
• The play is being produced by a non-profit theatre (that means they do not pay any taxes on income, meaning you and I are subsidizing their efforts) which claims they are producing “diverse and challenging” plays that “otherwise might not be produced.”
• In the last calendar year, they presented a play that most Christians would find offensive and blasphemous written by one of America’s most-produced playwrights,
• and a play written by a creator of a prime-time network show in which he “has done a masterful job in cleverly camouflaging his anti war, anti Bush sentiments.”
  

OK? Everybody with me so far?

Time for my “Big Picture” thesis: Broadway continues to present left-wing, anti-traditional American values, anti-religious, feminist, pro-radical gay agenda plays because that is where the non-profit money is. Yes, Broadway is a commercial enterprise and plays there live or die by the ticket-buyers, but the REAL money for playwrights prior to their big Broadway break is found in all of the commissions and grants doled out by Artistic Directors and Dramaturgs (a position within a theatre that deals mainly with research and development) in non-profit and college theatre institutions all over America. And these Artistic Directors and Dramaturgs are all protected financially by you and me. By living in the protected environment of non-profit status, they are operating in corporations that are not burdened by America’s draconian corporate tax laws and they are not worried about having to actually sell tickets to an agreeable audience for their survival. They get their paychecks guaranteed by the efforts of their Development Department, not by producing quality entertainment.

So, how do these plays get chosen? The Dramaturgs or Literary Managers at a non-profit theatre have many research and development roles within the organizations, but a major component of their role is to be the main gateway for the Artistic Director by evaluating script submissions. Dramaturgs are prime magnets for a whole host of interns who eagerly work for prestigious non-profits as a stop on the road to their dream job as a director or playwright or…dramaturg!

A typical dramaturg has a disheveled office with piles of submitted scripts on the floor around her desk. She has at a master’s degree (if not a doctorate) and her thesis (or dissertation) was probably an analysis of Shakespeare’s patriarchal paradigm or O’Neill’s racist subtext or a revisionist take on Medea as a modern-day Sarah Palin. She only listens to the early Indigo Girls (before they went corporate and sold out) and she never misses the opening of a Michael Moore film. She has a TV but no cable or satellite; it is tuned only to the local PBS station and is otherwise used to watch DVDs of obscure documentaries, foreign films, and Robert Altman movies. If she’s in New York, she takes the bus, not the subway, and if in LA, she drives a Prius or takes the subway. She lacks a sense of irony.

Her staff is a group of graduate students who require certain days off to attend the local anti-globalization rallies yet insist on using iPods, iPhones and Macbooks all built by slave labor in Chinese Contract Manufacturing plants. Irony is lost on them, too. They have fine leadership qualities, so much so that they are now the RA for their dorm and are in charge of conducting sensitivity training and sexual-harassment seminars reminding all of the co-eds that “one in four women in college will be sexually assaulted,” and they believe it. They also believe that the non-profit they work for is too corporate and misogynistic and needs to be more diverse, inclusive and “push the boundaries” of the western theatre paradigm.

These are your gatekeepers. These are the people who will read through three or four scripts a day and boil them down to one page summaries for evaluation and judgment. Which types of plays do you think they will recommend? What have they been trained in college to judge as art? What subjects do they find entertaining? If they are looking to embrace a play with a serious message, what message do you think is worth endorsing?
******
Sheila Callaghan’s play is absurd. I think she would agree. It is meant to be absurd and to ridiculously reflect the over-the-top violence depicted in Tarantino movies. It is also meant to point out the absurdity of rampant pornography and the insidious waltzing partners of voyeurism and exhibitionism found on the Internet that young men and women are embracing with alarming aplomb. The sad irony and infuriating reality is that my fellow center/right thinkers in the entertainment industry agree with the hazards of the disintegration of the culture and the demeaning depiction of women in the media. The real targets of Ms. Callaghan’s 90-minute diatribe should be the liberal music executives promoting gangster rap acts or the leftist network executives at MTV who finance disgusting reality shows that do more to objectify women than any issue of Playboy ever could. But the only indictment of the music business is the use of White Snake album art in the poster design for the play. Let’s please note that the standard audience for White Snake is young, white, Mid-Western males. But which is more relevant to the culture of 2009 America, White Snake circa 1983, or Chris Brown and Akon? The rap industry is not targeted because of obvious political correctness considerations.

But even more frustrating is that statement in the Time Out feature: “I was all commissioned up, but I had other material that I wanted to put into a play and no one to write it for.” All commissioned up. According to her bio, Ms. Callaghan received awards or commissions from South Coast Repertory Theatre in Orange County, California. Playwright’s Horizons and Cherry Lane Theatre in Manhattan. New York State Council for the Arts, New York Foundation for the Arts, The MAP Foundation, The Susan Smith Blackburn Award, The Whiting Writing Award, The Jerome Fellowship… all organizations, foundations and civic entities giving grants to playwrights to support them while they create their works. If you go to the web pages for these organizations and look at their mission statements, you will see pretty much the same thing: “…makes grants that support emerging artists in the creation, development and production of new works…” blah blah blah. Nothing in there about politics. Nothing about pushing a specific agenda. Nothing about challenging the audience with an extreme viewpoint or philosophy.

But the recipients of these grants all tend to do that. Coincidence? I doubt it. I bet if we take a look at the people evaluating the plays and playwrights who receive these grants, they’ll look a lot like our friendly neighborhood dramaturg and her staff. And so it goes… on and on… the circle continues… all the while talented playwrights who celebrate traditional American ideals with stories of hope lose out to those who proclaim the false courage of “pushing the envelope” of societal norms. And I do not begrudge Ms. Callaghan her livelihood or her well-earned honors. I think she is a talented playwright. My beef is with the ideological vacuum in which she is allowed to create her work. Wouldn’t the American theatre be much more vibrant if ideas and voices were allowed to flourish from all sides of our political and cultural zeitgeist?

This is the problem, or more accurately, the root of the problem with American Theatre today. And the solutions are not easy or cheap but they could actually take effect with relative haste and with very real results. The solutions? You’ll have to wait for Part 2 of this manifesto.

Stage Right is on Facebook

Sunday Matinee: Oscar Special… “The Sound of Music”by Stage Right
This week’s Sunday Matinee is dedicated to Hollywood.
Because it’s Oscar Sunday and the whole world is focused on the Kodak Theatre and the red carpet parade about to happen, it seems fitting that Broadway throws Hollywood a bone today. Also, considering every other Broadway show these days seems to be a staged version of a popular movie, (”Shrek”, “Wedding Singer”… Really?) it seems appropriate to shine a little light on a Broadway Musical that has been adapted to film.
My opinion is that in most cases, Broadway musicals are rarely improved by their film adaptations. Even the good film versions of musicals are still not as theatrically thrilling or as emotionally impactful as the experience of seeing these shows live. “Chicago”, “Hairspray” and “Phantom of the Opera” are all very recent examples of fine film adaptations. But I contend that even in the case of ”Chicago”, an Oscar winner, the theatre version was superior.
However, there are a few exceptions and in one extraordinary case, the film version is so superior than the stage version, that it is almost painful to sit through the original theatrical piece. That exception is “The Sound of Music”.
The film version of “The Sound of Music” is superior to the original play in every way. In fact, lately many local amateur productions of the stage version of “The Sound of Music” have even adopted some of the changes made for the film and implemented them on stage.
Since I come from the theatre perspective, it’s difficult for me to fully analyze what makes a film great, but I will point out the major differences between the original stage version and the brilliant movie.
Locations, locations, locations.
The biggest difference, and in many ways the most significant, is that through the film version we are actually transported to the beautiful locations discussed in the show. We actually SEE Maria singing at the top of her lungs on a beautiful mountain on the Vienna/Swiss border. We follow the children through the streets of Vienna as they learn to sing. We are caught in a high-speed chase as the family flees the Nazis in the dark of night. Austria is one of the characters in “The Sound of Music” and when you have to sit and watch a stage version you really miss those beautiful scenes in the film.
Nothing, nothing, NOTHING beats this incredible opening sequence and it can ONLY be done on film:
Now THAT’S a nun I could fall in love with.
OK, I know its a bit of theatrical heresy to state my next point, but thankfully, I am still anonymous and the theatre police will not come after me and lock me up for whispering a truth that we all know but are not supposed to reveal: Mary Martin was never really that great. I know, I know, she’s a legend and she has more Tonys than a good Little Italy restaurant and she was box office gold… but, come on! Do you really believe that Captain Von Trapp would mess up a good thing with a baroness to take a chance on Sister Mary Martin? And, wasn’t she a little too old to be a young novice? I think she could have been a Mother Superior back in 1959.
Meanwhile, Julie Andrews was nothing short of perfection. Her’s is a timeless performance and she is utterly believable not only as a young, innocent nun, but also as a beautiful romantic love interest and as a mother figure to the children.
Also, Christopher Plummer is brilliant in the very thankless role of Captain Von Trapp. Again, believable as a stern but loving father, but he also makes a perfect transition to romantic love interest. A huge improvement over the original Broadway casting of folk singer Theodore Bikel.
A few of my favorite things.
When the film version of “The Sound of Music” was written, the creators made a few structural changes to the show and re-arranged a few songs. The minor adjustments they made are so incredibly logical and improve the flow of the story and the pace of the first act that it almost seems a crime that the original stage version is not officially re-written to reflect the film version’s structure. The major differences are:
On Broadway, during the rain storm when the children all come to Maria’s room to hide from the thunder and lightening, the song Maria sings to make them feel better is “Lonely Goatherd”! Can you even imagine that song in that context now? “My Favorite Things” is the PERFECT song for that scene and how they didn’t put it there in the first place is a mystery.
Wait, it gets stranger… in the original Broadway version, “My Favorite Things” is actually a duet between Maria and Mother Superior sung at the convent prior to Maria going to join the Von Trapp family as a governess. Mother Superior sings it to Maria to give her confidence to leave the convent.
In the Broadway version, the characters of Max and Elsa (the baroness) are given a couple of ill-advised songs, “How Can Love Survive” and “There’s No Way to Stop It” that are wisely and thankfully excised from the film. Max and Elsa don’t need to sing, and keeping these songs from them does not diminish their characters, in fact it gives them more weight and importance by keeping them “straight”.
The love song between the Captain and Maria on Broadway is a real clunker called “An Ordinary Couple” which sounds more like an older couple planning their retirement years rather than two star-crossed lovers throwing convention aside and following their overwhelming emotional desire for each other:
An ordinary coupleIs all we’ll ever be,For all I want of livingIs to keep you close to me;To laugh and weep togetherWhile time goes on its flight,To kiss you every morningAnd to kiss you every night.
We’ll meet our daily problems,And rest when day is done,Our arms around each otherIn the fading sun.
An ordinary couple,Across the years we’ll ride,Our arms around each other,And our children by our side…Our arms around each other.
Zzzzzzzzzzzz….oh, I’m sorry, is the song done yet? Compare those lyrics to the ones written for the film version:
Perhaps I had a wicked childhoodPerhaps I had a miserable youthBut somewhere in my wicked, miserable pastThere must have been a moment of truthFor here you areStanding thereLoving meWhether or not you shouldSo somewhere in my youth or childhoodI must have done something goodNothing comes from nothingNothing ever couldSo somewhere in my youth or childhoodI must have done something good
Doesn’t that better reflect the seriousness of the romance? And the way it is filmed is romantic and kinda hot!
So this may be the only time you hear me say it, but if a stage version of “The Sound of Music” is playing near you…. ehhh…. skip it. Get the DVD of the amazing film, and make your kids watch it. The movie’s got EVERYTHING:
GREAT songs
GREAT cast
Cute kids
Beautiful scenery
Funny nuns
Beautiful romance
And the bad guys are NAZIS! What more do you want??!!??
What better song for this week’s finale than: “So Long, Farewell”? ENJOY THE OSCARS!
One more encore….
OOPS! I almost forgot the trivia! I ALWAYS like to share a little trivia or an inside theatrical anecdote about the shows we discuss on Sunday Matinee. So… This week, I’ll merge the two themes: “The Sound of Music” and award shows!
1960 is still one of the most debated and talked about Tony Award seasons ever. It was chock full of competition and incredibly surprising winners.
In the Best Musical category “The Sound of Music” was up against another classic: “Gypsy”, as well as “Fiorello!”, “Once Upon a Mattress” starring Carol Burnett in here legendary Broadway debut AND “Take Me Along” starring none other than Jackie Gleason in his triumphant return to Broadway. Also starring in “Take Me Along” and nominated for Best Actor in a Musical: Robert Morse and Walter Pidgeon… also nominated for Best Actor in a Musical: Andy Griffith in “Destry Rides Again”!
There’s more… while you were in town and you wanted to see a play instead of a musical, you could have seen: Sidney Poitier in “A Raisin in the Sun” or Jason Robards, Irene Worth and Maureen Stapleton in “Toys in the Attic” or George C. Scott in “The Andersonville Trial” or how about Melvyn Douglas in “The Best Man”? Or, Geraldine Page and Rip Torn in “Sweet Bird of Youth”! Or, perhaps you couldn’t get tickets to those plays… you could settle for Anne Bancroft in “The Miracle Worker”! Meanwhile, Jane Fonda in “There Was a Little Girl”, Roddy McDowell in “The Fighting Cock” and Warren Beatty in “A Loss of Roses” round out the “youth movement” in the 1960 season.
Imagine that season: Jackie Gleason, Carol Burnett, Mary Martin, Ethel Merman, Andy Griffith, Robert Morse, Walter Pidgeon, Sidney Poitier, Jason Robards, Irene Worth, Maureen Stapleton, George C. Scott, Melvyn Douglas, Geraldine Page, Rip Torn, Anne Bancroft, Jane Fonda, Roddy McDowell and Warren Beatty… top ticket price: $5.00
So, since this is awards day, let’s reveal the winners from 1960:
Best Musical: A very rare TIE! And NOT the two shows you expect: “The Sound of Music” and….. that timeless classic, the often revived and unforgettable….. ”Fiorello!” That’s right: “Fiorello!”… NOT “Gypsy!” NOT Jule Styne and Stephen Sondheim and Arthur Laurents and Jerome Robbins creating a masterpiece of American Musical Theatre… no, instead we honored “Fiorello!”. What were they thinking (drinking)? (Makes that whole “Shakespeare in Love” over “Saving Private Ryan” & “Life is Beautiful” almost acceptable, doesn’t it?)
Best Play: “The Miracle Worker” beating out “Toys in the Attic”, “The Best Man”, “A Raisin in the Sun” and Paddy Chayefsky’s “The Tenth Man”!
Best Actor in a Play: Melvyn Douglas over Poitier, Robards and Scott.
Best Actress in a Play: Anne Bancroft
Best Actress in a Musical: NOT Ethel Merman giving a performance anyone would give there right appendage to have witnessed. NOT Carol Burnett in a performance anyone would have given their OTHER appendage to have seen… no, the winner that year was…. Mary Martin…. seriously… Mary Martin. {sigh}
Best Actor in a Musical: The man who never won an Emmy Award for his groundbreaking work on television… Jackie Gleason. How sweet it is!
Stage Right is on Facebook

Sunday Matinee: Fiddler on the Roofby Stage Right
1964’s Fiddler on the Roof (Book by Joseph Stein; Lyrics by Sheldon Harnick; Music by Jerry Bock) is a timeless classic of the traditional musical theatre format and reflects the tumultuous times of America in the 1960’s better than Hair could ever dream of doing. You better not be thinking: “What? Fiddler on the Roof? THAT old chestnut!!???!!” Today, I hope to enlighten you on the resounding voice contained within Fiddler and its relevance to the past century, this century and centuries to come. Fiddler demands respect, and despite the myriad of amateur and school productions you’ve probably had to sit through over the past thirty years (as well as the somewhat misguided but beautifully filmed movie version), its original form is actually one of the more sophisticated, influential and artistic achievements in the American musical theatre.

As I did last week, I like to start Sunday Matinee with a little-known fact: Many people know that Fiddler is based on a play written by Arnold Perl called, Tevye and his Daughters, based on Shalom Aleichem’s story, Tevye the Milkman. But, the title “Fiddler on the Roof” as well as the iconic imagery of the Fiddler used in the production does not come from that original source material. It comes from a series of paintings by Marc Chagall, the foremost Jewish/Russian painter of the 20th Century. Several of his paintings utilized the fiddler image to represent the precarious life of the Jews living in Eastern Europe at the time. The creative team of Fiddler recognized the powerful and poetic imagery and used it not only in the text of the show, but also set designer Boris Aronson used Chagall inspiration for the original Broadway production’s scenic elements as well.
I’m not going to bother with a *Spoiler Alert* on this post because if you haven’t seen Fiddler yet, I genuinely feel sorry for you and reading and learning the plot will actually do you some good! The full Fiddler plot is here.
Tradition:
When you first think of Fiddler, 9 times out of 10 you probably think of the lead character Tevye, with his hands raised singing If I Were a Rich Man. It is one of the many iconic images and phrases from Fiddler. But despite that, Tevye’s anthem of yearning for money and a comfortable life free from work should not be mistaken as the song representing the theme of Fiddler. It’s not even the main motivation for the Tevye character. The show’s theme and Tevye’s focus are revealed within the first five minutes of the show: (Editorial note: For any video examples in this post, I am purposely linking to high school productions so you can enjoy the purity and transcendent genius of the show. If teenagers can make it work, it’s a strong piece! Also, the energy and exuberance from a youthful cast and a youthful audience always makes the hair on my arm stand up straight.)
YouTube
“A fiddler on the roof. Sounds crazy, no? But in our little village of Anatevka, you might say every one of us is a fiddler on the roof, trying to scratch out a pleasant, simple tune without breaking his neck. It isn’t easy. You may ask, why do we stay here if it’s so dangerous? We stay because Anatevka is our home. And how do we keep our balance? That I can tell you in a word-TRADITION!”
Traditional values. Traditional families. Traditional gender roles. Traditional societal norms. Traditional religious rules and dogma. And, unquestioned adherence to those traditions: “You may ask, ‘where do these traditions come from?’ Well, I’ll tell you… {pause}… I don’t know. BUT IT’S A TRADITION!” This was the paradigm presented by Fiddler in its opening number. And the greatness of this opening number goes beyond the introduction of the themes and structures in the show, it also instantly introduces the audience to major characters, their personalities, the importance of the matchmaker, the penchant for loud and boisterous social conflicts which will be further revealed in the show, and the under-lying conflict with the gentiles. When one musical number can introduce all of this and set the stage for the plot and the social themes to be addressed, and yet still be entertaining and hummable, then you’ve got true greatness. When we discuss a great opening number, it’s time to address the master of the great opening number: Jerome Robbins.
Legendary director and choreographer Jerome Robbins has always preached the importance of an opening number. Robbins would frequently ask, “What is this show about?” until he got a satisfactory answer from the writers. When they reached the conclusion that ultimately Fiddler is about a complete breaking down of a former way of life and the ushering in of a new day full of new ideas, Robbins immediately helped construct Tradition. Robbins famously came to “fix” Stephen Sondheim’s first solo musical, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, which was having big trouble in out of town tryouts. At the time the opening number was a cute song called Love is in the Air, which set the stage for the love story of the show, but the main drive of the production was Zero Mostel and Jack Gifford’s hilarious performances. Robbins advised Sondheim to re-write the opening number to better reflect the bawdy, raucous humor contained in Larry Gelbart’s book. Almost overnight, Sondheim came up with, Comedy Tonight and the rest is Broadway history.
Robbins contribution to the creative process in Fiddler was just as instrumental. This was his first Broadway production with no real dance piece like in West Side Story or Small House of Uncle Thomas in King and I, Robbins last two mega-hits prior to Fiddler. Instead, this show was a triumph of storytelling through the art of staging rather then dance and he became the first director/choreographer to be so intertwined with the writing and creative development of a play. Until then, the formula for success on Broadway was to have a strong writing team deliver a show to George Abbot, and then let Mr. Abbot direct it. After Fiddler, the great directors and choreographers would join the writers in the collaborative effort like never before.
I’ve got FIVE daughters!
After tradition, we follow Tevye’s family through a critical time in their lives. The three oldest daughters are of marrying age and they eagerly await a visit from Yente, the matchmaker, a legendary role created by none other than Bea Arthur in the original Broadway production. The three daughters, Tzeitel, Hodel and Chava sing one of the most charming and elegant forms of the “I want” style of song for the musical theatre. An “I want” song, obviously, is a song where the character reveals to the audience their inner-most desires and allows the audience to root for and be a part of that character’s journey in getting what they desire. Alan Menken is the master of the “I want” song with “Somewhere That’s Green” from Little Shop, or Part of That World from The Little Mermaid. In Matchmaker, we learn about each daughter’s personalities and their desires, their interplay with each other, and the important concern they have about being stuck with a bad match. It is clear in this song, that they have no say in their future husband, a key plot point in Fiddler.

YouTube
Tzeitel:And you have your eye on the Rabbi’s son.
Hodel:Well, why not?We have only one Rabbi and he has only one son.Why shouldn’t I want the best?
Tzeitel:Because you’re a girl from a poor family.So whatever Yenta brings, you’ll take, right?Of course right!
Again, the elegant melding of lyrics and book to perfectly convey the characters needs as well as the major conflict keeping them from their dreams. And all of this put to an impossibly perfect melody that you feel like you will hum for the rest of the week. That’s what makes great musical theatre.
So through Tevye’s three eldest daughters we are introduced to the main conflict in the story: He wants to marry them off to the best possible husbands (based on his traditional criteria) and they wish to marry whom they, themselves choose (a revolutionary idea for Anatevka). And with this storyline comes the main cultural impact and societal message that Fiddler conveys. In 1964, the traditions and societal norms that were so grounded and reliable in the Western World were just starting to be upended (for better and for worse) and through Tevye, the Broadway audience could reflect their own struggles in accepting the radical changes going on around them.
The idea of Tevye resisting his 1st daughter’s desire to love the poor tailor that she has chosen for herself rather than the very old, but wealthy butcher that the Matchmaker has chosen for her seems quaint by today’s standards as well as 1964’s, but as the story progresses, Tevye is asked to continue to waiver and bend on his traditions and beliefs to the point where he cannot bend anymore. At a time when sons and daughters would soon be coming home from college with interchangeable hairstyles and wardrobes, Tevye’s problems resonated with the public, and still do. This was the generation that was about to be targeted with the offensive slogan: “Don’t trust anybody over thirty.” Watching Tevye cope with his troubles was no doubt good preparation for these poor folks and the trouble they were beginning to experience.
L’chiam, TO LIFE!
Another over-riding message in Fiddler is happiness and triumph through adversity. There is no doubt that the people of Anatevka had hard lives. They were poor. They lived in the Ukraine which was not really known for its lovely climate and living conditions. They were religiously and politically oppressed by the Tsarist police state. And yet, these people knew how to party! In the joyous tavern scene when Lazar Wolf, the butcher, is celebrating his engagement to Tevye’s daughter, we watch as the men of Anatevka explode with exuberance and a love of life that teaches the audience that life is for living and enjoying and we are to find happiness no matter what our circumstance. The same in the wonderful wedding scene which starts with the timeless Sunrise, Sunset which, again, conveys characters inner-most thoughts and melancholy at seeing their eldest child get married. The lyrics of Sunrise, Sunset are so wise and clean that it has also gained the status of timeless classic:
Is this the little girl I carried?Is this the little boy at play?I don’t remember growing olderWhen did they?
When did she get to be a beauty?When did he grow to be so tall?Wasn’t it yesterdayWhen they were small?
Sunrise, sunsetSunrise, sunsetSwiftly flow the daysSeedlings turn overnight to sunflowersBlossoming even as we gaze
Sunrise, sunsetSunrise, sunsetSwiftly fly the yearsOne season following anotherLaden with happiness and tears
But after that lyrical and dream-like song, the cast yells “Mazel Tov,” and the wedding celebration begins. A cacophony of dance highlighted by the iconic bottle dance performed by formally dressed, orthodox Jewish characters. This is not your standard vision for a show-stopping Broadway dance number, but when done with control, energy and passion it elicits screams of delight from the audience.
YouTube
L’chiam and The Wedding Dance, as well as Tevye’s overall approach to life with humor and whimsy provide a joyous lesson for the Fiddler audience: “Sure, life stinks, but what choice have you got but to smile and enjoy whatever little pleasures we get.” A smart guy I listen to would use that lesson as a formula for life-long happiness.
Bend, but don’t break.
It is Tevye’s third daughter, Chava, who provides him the greatest challenge. Like Tzeitel and Hodel before her, she presents her father with an ultimatum: Give my marriage your blessing or lose me as your daughter. But this time, Chava is marrying outside the faith. And although we see her fiancee associated with the Cossacks earlier in the play, he has renounced the Tsar and the pogroms in Anatevka because of his love for Chava. The only objectionable thing about him is that he is not Jewish and we discover that this is too much for Tevye to accept. And although inter-faith and inter-racial marriages are so common today, we are sympathetic to Tevye’s decision as it is a metaphor for the line that each of us has within ourselves. We recognize in Tevye that moment when each of us is prepared to say “Enough,” and even at the risk of losing the love of a family member, we must adhere to our principals. In this case, Tevye puts his love of God and how he was taught to observe that love higher than even his daughter and it comes across not as stubborn or bull-headed, it is seen as admirable.
And in the discomfort of this scene, after Tevye pronounces that “Chava is DEAD to us!” when learning of her eloping, the writers reward us with one of the sweetest and unappreciated songs from Fiddler providing the most moving moment in the piece:
Little Bird, Little ChavalehI dont understand what’s happening todayEverything is all a blurGentle and kind and affectionateThe sweet little bird you wereChavaleh, Chavaleh.
Little Bird, Little ChavalehYou were always such a pretty little thingEverybody’s favorite childGentle and kind and affectionateThe sweet little bird you wereChavaleh, Chavaleh
This is careful and brilliant writing. At a moment when our favorite character in the play, the one we have had the opportunity to be alone with on stage while he talks to God, therefore making us part of his conscious as he navigates these moral choices, at the moment when he could, potentially be unlikeable to us, the writers allow him to sing such exquisitely beautiful lyrics. As he wistfully remembers the young girl who had stolen his heart as a child, now breaking his heart as a young woman, we the audience are allowed to weep with Tevye rather than judge him for the choice he has made.
“Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum”
You gotta love any show tune with Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum as a genuine lyric. If I Were a Rich Man is a gift to any actor privileged to play the role of Tevye. In just over three minutes they get to convey, on behalf of Tevye, their humor, their desire, their love for their wife, their reverence, their passion, their pride and their humility all finished with the last tableau of their raised arms to the sky on the final beat of the song (Yul Brynner’s old secret for demanding a rousing cheer from the audience at the end of his solos). And the melody of Rich Man is so infectious that it stays with you forever after one listen.
Often times, the strength of a production of Fiddler is reliant on the strength of the actor playing the role. Therefore, debates have ensued for decades over who is the quintessential Tevye. Zero Mostel originated the role on Broadway and Chaim Topol was awarded the part in the Oscar-winning film. Two different types of actors you will never find. I feel personally cheated that I was never able to see Mostel play this part, but listening to the original Broadway cast recording almost makes me feel like I saw him. His performance leaps out of the speakers and I swear I can see him on stage. I was fortunate enough to see the great Paul Lipson, who actually holds the record for playing the role more than any other actor, more than 2,000 times. He understudied Herschel Bernardi in a production back in 1981 and it was my first exposure to the greatness of the role. I suppose you never forget your first Tevye.
The movie version of Fiddler is an astounding achievement as a film. It beautifully portrayed the realism of life in Anatevka and in being as realistic as it was, it ultimately failed as an adaptation of the stage musical. You see, by being as realistic as it was, it lost all of the charm that the stage production had. The stage production is presented as a whimsical fable that deals with very serious issues. The film comes across as a very serious important film which deals with serious and important issues…. Where’s the fun? The magic of Fiddler is that it addresses these serious issues without ever being too serious, or,worse, taking itself too seriously. It is written in a rhythm and pace that never forgets there is a live audience in the room with the actors. It never gets bogged down in melodrama. The seriousness of the situations sit in beautiful contrast to the joy and lighthearted love that the characters have for each other. In the film, the joy is gone and with it the magic that makes Fiddler so great.
Topol’s performance in the film is solid, it’s not his fault that the realism of the film undercuts his character’s charm and our sympathies for him. But, the good news is that Topol is now touring the USA with what they are calling his “Farewell Tour” of Fiddler, and if it is coming to your town, see it and take a child. Here is a link to the itinerary for the Fiddler tour.
So as the finale for this week’s Sunday Matinee, I offer a rare video of the great Zero Mostel. Out of costume, but bringing that joy and exuberance to the song that will always be his. Enjoy the magic:
YouTube
Stage Right is on Facebook

Pippin: The Original Obama?by Stage Right
I saw a really solid production of the Stephen Schwartz’ musical “Pippin” at the Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles. There was a sequence that made me think of our current political climate. The character of Pippin realizes that his father, the King, is a tyrant and must be overthrown. He delivers an eloquent speech to the people (book by Roger O. Hirson):
I think it’s time for a change. We’ve got to dedicate ourselves to a better world for all people. Peace and justice must be restored to this great land. The tyrant must be overthrown. Terror and bloodshed must be ended. We need a leader with the wisdom and the courage to seep out the old order and create a better world. Down with Charles! Up with ME!
Pippin assassinates his father and assumes the throne. Immediately, he begins to implement the changes he promised:
BEGGAR:Thank you, sire. I am a very poor man. I can’t find work. You have much and I have nothing. Is that fair?
PIPPIN:No. That’s completely unfair. Treasurer? I order you to distribute money to the poor:
(THEY ALL applaud as the BEGGAR thanks him)
LEADING PLAYER:King Pippin, the Charitable:
PEASANT:Sire, I’m a peasant. A simple working man. I own not one millimeter of land on which I’ve worked so hard all my life. Is that fair?
PIPPIN:No. That’s terrible. But I will do something about it. I hereby decree that from now on all peasants will own the land that they cultivate.
(THEY ALL applaud)
LEADING PLAYER:King Pippin, the Just:
NOBLE:Sire, now that you’ve given the land to the peasants, we loyal nobles have no source of income. Therefore, we can no longer pay taxes.
PIPPIN:Well then I hereby abolish taxes.
(THEY ALL applaud)
SOLDIER:You realize sire without taxes you’ll have no money to support an army.
PIPPIN:That’s all right. I don’t need an army. That’s it. No more taxes, no more army.
(THEY ALL applaud)
LEADING PLAYER:King Pippin, the Peaceful:
FIELD MARSHALL:Sire, it is my duty to inform you that the Infidel hun has attacked in the East. He has destroyed three villages, raped hundreds of women. Tortured and murdered thousands of your royal subjects.
PIPPIN:Can he do that?
FIELD MARSHALL:He has. But he will withdraw:on one condition.
PIPPIN:Well, that’s very reasonable. I’m certainly willing to make any small concession. What’s the condition?
FIELD MARSHALL:He demands your head on a pike staff.
PIPPIN:Oh. Well, in that case, I guess you’ll just have to go out and destroy the Infidel.
FIELD MARSHALL:But sire, I have no more men to wage a campaign:I have no money to buy supplies:I have no army.
PIPPIN:Excuse me a moment. Nobles? You remember that decree I made a little while ago about land and taxes?
NOBLE:Yes, sire.
PIPPIN:That’s off.
NOBLE:You mean you want me to pay taxes again and raise an army?
PIPPIN:Yes. That’s right.
NOBLE:But sire, without land I have neither money nor power over the peasants.
PIPPIN:Oh, yes, that’s a very good point. I hereby suspend land reform.
PEASANT:Suspend land reform? Why the hell should I work when the poor get handouts from the royal treasury?
PIPPIN:You’re absolutely right. I hereby revoke charity to the poor.
BEGGAR:Up thine, sire.
PIPPIN:Take that man away and hang him! No. Stop! Wait! Could you just let me think a minute, please.
Now THAT’S a great example of change you can believe in.

Paleo-Feminists Visit Jane Fondaby Stage Right

I knew Jane Fonda’s blog would be a treasure-trove of fun information!
Last night was the first preview for “33 Variations” at the Eugene O’Neill Theatre, and to celebrate her triumphant return to the Great White Way, Blog-erella posted pics of all of the very, very important people who came to see and support her. I suggest you check it out and look at the pics… It is a veritable “Jurassic Park” of feminist raptors!
Gloria Steinem, who according to Jane, lectured the actor playing Beethoven:
“Zach Grenier who plays Beethoven said today that he had a glorious conversation with Gloria Steinem about Beethoven. No surprise to me that Gloria could teach him a few things about the master. She’s so amazing.”
Ugh! Can you imagine THAT insufferable cocktail conversation? You’ve just finished your first preview… you’re trying to relax with a Wild Turkey on the rocks, and here comes MS. Gloria to tell you everything SHE knows about Ludwig Von! CHECK PLEASE!
Eve Ensler, famous for only one thing: Writing an excruciatingly painful-to-watch play about a woman’s body part that rhymes with Regina (long vowel sound on the “i” please)
Rev. Debra Haffner, an ordained Unitarian Universalist Minister who created the Religious Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing; the National Coalition to Support Sexuality Education; the Commission on Adolescent Sexual Health; and the Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education, Kindergarten - Grade Twelve.
Cristina Biaggi, (Jane spells her name wrong) a doctor in anthropology, a sculptor and an author whose most famous book is, The Rule of Mars: The Origins, History and Impact of Patriarchy. She seems obsessed with “Goddess Culture” and…. oh, I just can’t finish this… you get the picture!!!
The only mention of a human with male body parts is a picture of a stunning bouquet of flowers sent by none other than Val Kilmer, Jane’s neighbor in New Mexico (Those must be really fun block parties).
It’s so ironic that the actress who starred as a prostitute in “Walk on the Wild Side” and “Klute” is now surrounding herself exclusively with feminist leaders and icons. Is she trying to cleanse herself from her notorious past with domineering husbands like Roger Vadim, Ted Turner and even Tom Hayden?
Did you ever notice that Henry’s daughter always seemed to allow the men in her life to shape and mold her persona?
While married to Vadim, she was the international sex kitten movie star who would participate in threesomes so as not to lose her man.
While married to radical leftist Hayden, she suddenly dropped the uber-femininity and became a denim-wearing, hippie-hairstyled, radical war-protester living in a “shack” (as she described it) and funneling all of her millions from her workout empire into leftist organizations.(did you ladies know that when you bought that video you were supporting radical leftist groups set up by Hayden and Jane?)
While married to Ted Turner, she became a tomahawk chopping, Southern-belle wife of a billionaire. She went from living in a shack to living in 28 homes and moved her life to Atlanta and happily gave up her film career (which he requested) to make her man happy.
And now she’s surrounded by feminists of the highest order. I wonder if they’ve ever discussed the fact that Jane used to procure prostitutes for those infamous three-somes with Vadim? Here’s the best part of these stories… Jane characterized the situation as Vadim FORCING her into these threesomes by “bullying” her.. but it doesn’t really sound like Roger had a really tough sell:
Also on “60 Minutes,” Fonda acknowledged that she had participated in sexual threesomes at the encouragement of her first husband, French film director Roger Vadim. “One night Vadim brought another woman into my bed and I went along with it. … I’m competitive … I was going to keep up with the Joneses. It was the ’60s and whatever,” she said.
She told the program she isn’t sure if she enjoyed the ménage à trois, but said she consented because she worried he would leave her otherwise.
Let me get this straight: “I’m competitive,” “It was the 60’s,” and she’s not sure if she enjoyed it? THAT’S the extent of the “bullying” and FORCED sexual activity? Well, this should be easy to clear up… let’s just ask Roger Vadim for his side of the story. Oops! We can’t. Vadim died five years before Fonda wrote her autobiography in which she revealed their intimate secrets and these charges.
What a courageous woman she is.
I love the irony that MS. Steinem all but anoints Blog-erella as a sister in the fight for women, especially given her past track record of exploitation of prostitutes and history of succumbing to and being compliant with male patriarchy. But at the mention of Sarah Palin’s name, Steinem says:
“It’s such an insult,” and she goes on to add, “Having someone who looks like you and behaves like them — who looks like a friend but behaves like an adversary—is worse than having no one.”
“Behaves like them… like an adversary?” Really? You mean like a woman who throws away her career for her husband, gives all of the profits from her business to her husband’s favorite causes, and pimps for prostitues for threesomes rather than alienate her husband’s affections… is that adversarial behavior?
Oh, apparently that is the definition of a feminist.

Frank Rich is a Big Fat Liar, Part 2by Stage Right
Hollywood loves a sequel, and so does Big Hollywood. My post about Frank Rich and his penchant for repeating left-wing urban legends as fact garnered many comments from both sides of the issue asking for the post to be longer or to add more examples. I admit that calling Rich a “Big Fat Liar” with only one example may have been a bit thin. So here is another quick example, and I’ll keep bringing them if Theatre-boy Frank keeps writing them.

Big Lie: “Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies”
In his October 11th column, Theatre-boy Frank cites, “At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets…”. I’ve included all of his links so you can hunt them down yourself. I find it interesting that his three sources are Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, MSNBC and The Huffington Post. What happened to the paper of record as a source for news? Are you really citing another opinion columnist, a left-wing blog and MSNBC as your news sources?
The great John Leo unmasks the lie behind these statements and then concludes: (by the way, I get the irony of linking to his post at the HuffPo considering I just lambasted Rich for sourcing HuffPo, but it’s John Leo for crying out loud, and I’m not the NY Times!)
By the time the outrage on the left reached Frank Rich’s Sunday column, the narrative line about two-person abusive crowd was set in cement. At Rich’s hand, the one racial remark in Clearwater became “the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets.” The one shout of “Kill Him!” aimed at Ayers after Palin’s description of his bombing career became “raucous and insistent cries of “terrorist’ and “Kill Him!” All untrue. This is a classic example of awful journalism. Adam Clymer, the former New York Times reporter and Congressman John Lewis both issued statements alleging that the Palin crowd in Clearwater reminded them of George Wallace. Lewis, who also accused McCain, pointed out that Wallace never killed anyone; he just set the stage for the Birmingham bomb that killed three black children.
But don’t take his word or mine, the Secret Service investigated the “Kill him” remark and concluded:
The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.
See what they did there? It says “when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned,” but reread Dana Milbank’s description of what happened:
“One of his earliest supporters is a man named Billayers,” she said. (”Boooo!” said the crowd.) “And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,’ ” she continued. (”Boooo!” the crowd repeated.)
“Kill him!” proposed one man in the audience.
Clearly, even if you take the report from Milbank as fact, the “Kill him” remark was directed at William Ayers. But by the time Theatre-boy Frank “reported” it, it was right out of Nazi Germany.
Please take a look at the pattern here. Left-wing blogs misunderstand or, in some cases, purposely misrepresent a comment or event and start to spin a tale that paints Republicans in the standard, racist, bigoted, sexist, fascist, homophobic way. It spins on the web for a week or so, and then Theatre-boy Frank puts it in the paper of record and it becomes mainstream media Gospel.
But, at the heart of it is a half-truth and in some cases a lie. And when a voice as powerful as Frank Rich’s in a paper as influential as the NY Times repeats lefty BS from the Huffington Post, it’s worse than sloppy journalism, it’s a Big Fat Lie.
Stage Right is on Facebook.

Sunday Matinee: Les Miserablesby Stage Right

Sunday matinee will be a weekly post focusing on an individual Broadway show. I’ll discuss some of its history, trivia and little-known anecdotes as well as analyze the political, social or cultural ramifications of the piece. In fact, let me start with a little-known theatre fact: Did you ever wonder why Saturday matinees on Broadway are at 2:00 and Sunday matinees are at 3:00? My understanding is that years ago, the Sunday matinee was scheduled for 3:00 so the actors would have time to go to a late church service on Sunday morning. Because of the late hour of the prior night’s performance, actors tend to sleep in rather late on Sunday mornings. The Noon Mass is sometimes the only option for church and then a nice lunch after church would have made a 1:30 call way too tight. I wonder how many actors on Broadway these days take advantage of that schedule. Les Miserables I’ll start with a rather blunt declarative: “Les Miserables” is the greatest musical ever written. It’s taken me years to get to this point. “My Fair Lady” was there for a while for me, then “A Chorus Line,” then “Sweeney Todd”… but after over twenty years of reflection from seeing that first invitational dress rehearsal at the amazing Broadway Theatre in the Spring of 1987 and after seeing the under-appreciated revival from two seasons ago I have reached the conclusion that there is no better piece of musical theatre than “Les Mis”. *Spoiler Alert* If you are a regular reader of my Stage Right postings, I assume you have a certain affinity for the theatre. And after almost 25 years I would assume you’ve already either seen the show or at least heard the score. But if you haven’t I have to warn all readers that it will be impossible for me to discuss this show without revealing major plot points. So, if you don’t want to read spoilers, then kindly click on one of the discreet banner advertisements to your right and be on your way! Click this link for a detailed synopsis of Les Miserables. Is the story liberal or conservative? At the beginning of Les Mis when we follow Valjean’s journey off of the chain-gang and observe his attempts to integrate with civilization after 17 years of imprisonment for stealing bread, it is easy to think that this play is about government oppression, law and order versus compassion, social prejudice… you know… liberal crap! And throw in the conditions of the starving and the homeless and the heroic intellectual college student’s stand against authority and on the face of it this is just left of “Hair”. At the end of the day you’re another day olderAnd that’s all you can say for the life of the poorIt’s a struggle, it’s a warAnd there’s nothing that anyone’s givingOne more day standing about, what is it for?One day less to be living. At the end of the day you’re another day colderAnd the shirt on your back doesn’t keep out the chillAnd the righteous hurry pastThey don’t hear the little ones cryingAnd the winter is coming on fast, ready to killOne day nearer to dying!
These lyrics could be the anthem for ACORN for God’s sake. But look deeper in to the story and you’ll see that although the plot does use the plight of the poor and the anger at the aristocracy in 19th Century France as a catalyst for the tragic events to come, the over-riding theme of Les Mis is redemption. And, more specifically, redemption through God. Valjean is the protagonist, and Valjean is the epitome of a conservative. After a bishop shows him mercy, Valjean vows to start a new life and leave his past behind him: One word from him and I’d be backBeneath the lash, upon the rackInstead he offers me my freedomI feel my shame inside me like a knifeHe told me that I have a soul,How does he know?What spirit comes to move my life?Is there another way to go? I am reaching, but I fallAnd the night is closing inAnd I stare into the voidTo the whirlpool of my sinI’ll escape now from the worldFrom the world of Jean ValjeanJean Valjean is nothing nowAnother story must begin!
And what a story it is. In eight short years he has become a factory owner and mayor of Montreuil-sur-Mer, now that’s a capitalist… this dude is Victor Hugo’s Mitt Romney. Within the next twenty minutes of the show, Valjean shows compassion (forces Javert to put Fantine in hospital instead of prison), honesty (reveals himself as 24601 rather than let an innocent man be jailed in his place), and integrity (by keeping his vow to Fantine and going to rescue Cosette). When we next see Valjean in the slums of Paris, he and his now grown adopted daughter Cosette are distributing money and care to the starving homeless. He isn’t petitioning the government for programs, he is using his own funds for charity. He goes to the barricades not necessarily because he believes in the students’ cause, but so he can watch over Marius for the sake of his daughter… what a father would do out of love for his daughter is the greatest example of conservative values. And what is Valjean’s great, second-act show stopping song? A prayer to God. Bring him peaceBring him joyHe is youngHe is only a boy You can takeYou can giveLet him beLet him liveIf I die, let me dieLet him liveBring him home
Finally, on his death bed he sees a vision of Fantine and Eponine welcoming him to heaven and he sums up Victor Hugo’s over-riding theme of the show with the lyric:
To love another person is to see the face of God.
Valjean is a combination of Ronald Reagan, Rudy Giuliani, John Wayne and Pope John Paul II. Les Mis is a conservative show, but, what makes it so great is that liberals don’t know it and they can enjoy it without any qualms. Is it just another big, British “spectacle” musical? The timing of this production (mid to late 1980’s) as well as set-designer John Napier’s affiliation (he had just done “Cats” and “Starlight Express”) allow some people to categorize Les Mis as just one of the many “spectacle” musicals which came out of London at this time. Those shows were all lumped together as, shallow, reliant on sets and special effects, loud, overwhelming… I heard them written off as Burger King of Broadway meant to appeal to unsophisticated tourists, but not real theatre mavens. I’ll utilize another post defending these shows, but despite how you feel about them, it is absolutely wrong to lump Les Mis in with them. True, Director Trevor Nunn’s prior forays into musical theatre were Cats and Starlight, but Les Miserables has much more in common with some of his other efforts like 1984’s “Cyrano de Bergerac” with Derek Jacobi (a production like you have never seen!) and, mostly, his landmark production of “The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby”. Both Les Mis and Nickleby were co-directed by Nunn and John Caird. The fact is, Les Mis is such a huge and sweeping story that it would be nearly impossible to tell the story without major scenic elements. However, other than the giant pieces used for the barricade scene (which also double as the slums in the first act) Les Mis is actually a very spare set. A genius use of turntables in the stage (which is hardly a “special effect”, turn tables have been used for years in theatre) which effortlessly bring minimal set pieces (a table, a gate, some chairs) as well as the various performers sweeping in and out of Valjean’s life give the impression that this show is a technical wonder, but it’s actually a very traditional scenic design, just updated to utilize the computerized stage-animation technologies of our time. And to call Les Mis “loud” is to be too simplistic. Are their loud moments? Of course, they are depicting a gun battle and a rebellion for crying out loud. But the most moving moment and emotionally impactful are the quietest moments. Fantine alone on stage in a spotlight singing “I had a dream my life would be, So different from this hell I’m living, So different now from what it seemed“. When she holds out the note on “seeeeeeeeeeeeeeemed” the music stops for a moment and all the audience hears is the silence in the theatre before she sings the last line of the song. Same thing when Eponine sings “The world is full of happiness that I have never knooooooooooooown.“ In Les Mis, the most meaningful moments occur when we are alone with one character and they are revealing their most personal thoughts to us. That is not spectacle, that is drama.
“But I don’t want to see a show about a bunch of college protesters fighting against the police!” That’s what my Uncle said to me when I forced him to see Les Mis in 1987. And at first glance, I understand that this plot line is a trouble spot for a lot of conservatives. So let’s address this issue. First of all, understand that the students are protesting against an in-effectual government. Their hero is Gen. Jean Lamarque who is often described as a leftist. But the rebels in the June Rebellions of 1832, which are depicted in Les Mis, were rebelling against the monarchy and in favor of Republicanism. In the context of 1832 France, Republicanism stood for self-government with liberty, popular sovereignty and civic virtue. You see, back then, left was right! And even though a good conservative would not advocate street riots to advance one’s cause, the real epitaph of the student rebels is sung by Marius in the stirring Empty Chairs and Empty Tables:
From the table in the cornerThey could see a world rebornAnd they rose with voices ringingI can hear them now!The very words that they had sungBecame their last communionOn the lonely barricade at dawn…… …..Oh my friends, my friends, don’t ask meWhat your sacrifice was forEmpty chairs at empty tablesWhere my friends will sing no more.
Not really an anthem to the cause. More of a song of regret and reconsideration, I think. The greatest Act One Finale of all time I’ve discussed how Les Mis is a triumph of storytelling and stage direction as well as technical theatre excellence, but in the end, this show boils down to a really great score. The music is sweeping and powerful, tender and moving, funny and raucous, and climactic and chilling. And in one song in particular, composer Claude-Michel Schönberg and librettist Alain Boublil achieve all of these things at the same time. Act 1 finale “One Day More” became an instant classic upon its first public performance and continue to be the single most impressive song written for the musical theatre. It borrows much from Leonard Bernstein and Stephen Sondheim’s “Tonight” from “West Side Story” but it achieves even more by expressing to the audience every character’s individual storyline at the end of the first act by utilizing a different musical motif for each character individually, and then in a triumph of overlapping counterpoint the different musical themes heard in songs earlier in the show combine into a cacophony of music that dares the audience not to come back for Act 2! In One Day More the writers manage to convey to the audience:
Valjean’s plan to run away with Cosette to America.
Marius and Cosette’s despair at being separated after falling in love.
Eponine’s heartbreak over Marius.
Marius’ torn feelings of wanting to follow Cosette but feeling obligated to stay and fight with his friends at the barricades.
Enjolras rallying the students for tomorrow’s rebellion.
Javert’s plans to disguise himself as a rebel to undermine their plans.
Mssr. and Mdme. Thernardier’s plans to loot and steal from the fallen corpses at the barricades.
Marius’ final decision to stay loyal to his friends and fight by their sides.
All of these plot points are brilliantly conveyed through song. And what an amazing song it is. Here is the original Broadway Cast, without the benefit of turntable or an on-the-ball sound technician, from the 1987 Tony Awards (with a 1 minute prologue of “At the End of the Day”):
YouTube
Frankly, to see One Day More at the end of Act 1 is reason enough to see Les Mis. Timeless Finally, what makes Les Mis so great is that it is timeless. Its story resonates now as much as twenty years ago and as much as it did in 1862 when Victor Hugo released the novel. I think it would have resonated in 1770 America, and even in Shakespeare’s Elizabethan England and even way back in Euripides’ Greece. Because it speaks to the greatest struggles on human kind. Man vs. himself, Man vs. God, Man vs. Man. And Man’s struggle against power and the wicked, tyrannical use of it. I fully expect to see a breathtaking production of Les Mis with my grandchildren some day (and my oldest kid is not even 10 so it better be a while). Do You Hear the People Sing? If you’re like me, you need a regular fix of Les Mis and, now that the Broadway revival has closed it looks like a trip to London is your best shot where it is currently in its 23rd record-breaking year. But, in the mean time, I highly recommend this 10th Anniversary Concert Version of Les Miserables filmed at the London’s Royal Albert Hall. Watching this proves that this show doesn’t need any of the special effects and technical wizardry to sustain its greatness. It is performed with no staging at all. Just the actors at microphones singing the show. It is an all-star, dream team of Les Mis performers including:
Colm Wilkinson as Valjean - He is the original and the greatest. This role will always be his. Like Yul Brynner in “King and I”, any actor to play this role will not just be playing Valjean, they will be playing Colm Wilkinson as Valjean
Lea Salonga as Eponine - Yes, she is known as Kim in “Miss Saigon”, but her turn as Eponine is the single greatest interpretation of this role. Always tender, always sympathetic, and never whiny like some Eponines are.
Michael Ball as Marius - Yes, he’s a little old and a little chubby to pull it off completely, but his voice is the purest I have ever heard sing these songs.
Michael Maguire as Enjolras - This role sort of became his one-hit wonder. He won the Best Supporting Actor Tony for it but he hasn’t been able to sustain a huge Broadway since. But when 6 foot plus Michael Maguire thrusts his fist in the air holding a rifle and the lights catch his white sleeves and he belts out in a clarion tenor voice “One More Day Before the Storm!” I dare you not to get shivers.
Judy Kuhn as Cosette - The first and only Cosette to not come across a little bit annoying. For the love triangle to work the audience can’t be thinking “My God, what does he see in her? He should totally go for Eponine!” and with Judy Kuhn, you don’t say that. I totally saw what Marius saw in her.
There are a few other great things about this DVD. First it is performed with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra which is a much lusher orchestration than the Broadway production. The additional chairs make the music that much more thrilling. There is also a chorus of hundreds of singers seated behind the orchestra who stand and punctuate the larger musical numbers with a triumphant sound unheard in a theatre production, only in a concert like this.
Finally, this DVD boasts a remarkable finale where 17 different actors from around the world parade down the center aisle with a flag representing their country. It is revealed that they are Valjeans from all of the International casts of Les Mis. They perform a breathtaking rendition of “Do You hear the People Sing” and “One Day More”. Thanks to YouTube, I’ll use it for the finale of this Sunday Matinee: (keep a sharp eye for the Japan Valjean)
YouTube

Stage Right is on Facebook.