And All That Jazz!...

Unfortunately I don't have many positive comments about this uninspired revival. It was neither good nor bad; it was just....exceptionally mediocre. The lackluster cast, while obviously talented in a general sense, seemed as if they were just going through the motions, motions that they've gone through one too many times, or rather, two hundred too many times. Not only was chemistry lacking amongst the cast, it was lacking amongst individual actors towards their respective characters. It was like witnessing a group of random people sleepwalking on the stage.

This is a bare-bones production, not much of a set aside from a couple of chairs, and the band set up upstage. I think people tend to expect 'big' from a Broadway musical, that they desire, understandably, an elaborate display of extravagant costumes, bright lights, architecturally creative sets, triple-threat performers flying through the air, and pyrotechnics ("poked, poked in their noses")for their $100 ticket. This production of Chicago is the complete opposite of all that, which would not be a negative critique of mine, had it any other offerings of substance. I have a great respect and admiration for productions that are typically minimalistic in aesthetic, such as works by the Greeks, Shakespeare, Beckett, Brecht, etc... And of course that's not limited to plays. I once saw an amazing production of Cabaret in Dallas that had even less of a set than Chicago, and was no doubt working with a much smaller budget. That a troupe can succeed in making you feel something, that they can engage your imagination, that they can leave you with an indelible experience with such minimalism, can be truly intimate and inspiring. But upon leaving Chicago, I felt nothing. One word kept coming to mind- quiet. It was extremely quiet, just plain forgettable, and as irritating as wasting calories on a bad dessert. When you've got Fosse moves and Kander and Ebb tunes as a foundation, I can't comprehend how you could be anything but pretty good at worst. The dancing wasn't very tight. And the energy was- in the words of REM- low, low, low. Perhaps it was a bad night. I know the show has received generally favorable reviews from real theatre critics. But, in the opinion of this humble blogger, this production of Chicago belongs off-Broadway. Off, off Broadway.

Charlotte d'Amboise played Roxie Hart, and this is something I already regret saying because it sounds terribly ageist, but it comes purely from a casting point of view- she just seemed too old for the part. Ms. d'Amboise, in her late forties, looks fabulous- far, far and away more fabulous than I, fifteen years her junior, have ever looked. She could pass for ten years younger, but she is still too old for the role. She is talented, and she is exactly the right type. Fifteen years ago, I bet she was the perfect Roxie. But Roxie Hart should be a woman-child blinded by vaudevillian dreams, selfish and manipulative, yet naive and vulnerable. The script doesn't disclose an exact age, but it does explicitly state that she ran off with Amos at a young age, and that they have been married seven years at the time of the trial. In my mind that puts her around 27, give or take a few years. It's old enough that the character has been able to experience the hardships and disappointments of real life, yet young enough that the threat of a life sentence or of an execution appears more frightening and tragic. The character just doesn't make sense to me as a 50 year old. Not to mention, that the play was inspired by the true story of Beulah Annan, who was 25 in 1924 when she stood trial for murdering her lover. That being said, many actresses older than Ms. d'Amboise have played the role of Roxie (such as 58 year old Christie Brinkley who continues to reprise the role.) Possibly, respect should be given to the theatre world, which has a reputation (supposedly)for not being as bigoted about age/beauty/gender/race/sexual orientation as the film and tv industry certainly are. Although not being as is not the same as not being at all, and I'm not certain that I even believe the not being as part, in spite of this particular show's casting. That there aren't many available (and good) roles for women/older women/minorities is a real issue, but I don't think it's hypocritical to want diversity and appropriate casting. I would acknowledge that this is a unique interpretation, a director's vision, but this production doesn't seem to be one of intentional artistic casting choices by a director. It's just a low budget, profit maximizing machine, with a stream of leading ladies stepping in and out. I do admit that this is all probably just a matter of my personal peccadillos. Ms. d'Amboise has been playing this role on and off for many years, and has been consistently praised for her interpretation of the role, so what do I know? In spite of all this age related criticism, I also felt that d'Amboise was too comfortable and positively bored out of her mind. But I do love her name, which my theatre obsessed mind associates to Blanche DuBois, a character I could really envision Ms. d'Amboise embodying.

It should be noted that the actress in the pics above featured on the playbill and on the Ambassador Theatre billboard is not Charlotte d'Amboise. Is this telling?

Bahiyah Hibah had a great voice and powerful stage presence (and envy-inducing arms!), and I could conceive of her being absolutely brilliant in other roles, but she just didn't do it for me as Velma Kelly. She had the strength and the sassy attitude down, but when it came time for the character to exhibit desperation and vulnerability, it wasn't there. Hibah has such a strong presence, physically. She is small, but muscular and hard. She emanates so much intensity that 'weaker' character traits don't feel genuine. And not to keep harping on the age issue, but it doesn't make sense to me for Velma Kelly to be younger than Roxie Hart. Velma is the role that could and should be played by a 35+ year old actress, as the character has been around the block a few times, personally and professionally. I wonder if casting a younger actress in the role is due to Velma's number "I Can't Do It Alone," which is an exhausting routine to watch, let alone perform twice a day for weeks or months on end. Or perhaps the director simply had a different vision.

The suave Billy Flynn was played by John O'Hurley of Seinfeld fame. A familiar face on the stage probably has some kind of psychological advantage for the actor, in terms of receiving a favorable review. I don't have a tv now but I watched Seinfeld during its heyday and I know that reruns are on 24/7. His face is etched into a lot of hearts and minds. I have to admit that it was difficult not to think of him as Mr. Peterman. He's not a great dancer, and he's an average singer, but he certainly has a hell of a lot of charm. He knows this, and he milks this, and it works for him. Not only did he have Ms. Sunshine eating out of the palm of his hand, but also most women in the audience.

The entire cast appeared so bored of having to perform yet again; like they couldn't get through the show fast enough. I can't imagine how difficult it is to try and keep the performance fresh night after night for weeks, months, or even years on end. But the audience deserves a performance with opening-week focus and energy. Chicago was my very first Broadway show; to say it was a let down after years of studying theatre and dreaming about living in NYC is an understatement. One might think my expectations were too high after years of anticipation, but in fact they were low- I was prepared to love whatever came at me simply because it was my first show and I wanted to have a good memory of it. But it wasn't to be.

The most entertaining part of the evening (yes, this is tragic) came at intermission when whispers spread throughout the audience that Billy Ray Cyrus was in attendance. Yes, king of the mullet, and possessor of an achy breaky heart that just doesn't understand. I saw the suspect in question, as he was sitting in the row behind me, and I can say without a shadow of a doubt, that it was not Billy Ray Cyrus. I think people were so bored by the actual 'entertainment' that they just began creating a story of their own in an attempt to stir up excitement that was otherwise not present. I would have created someone more along the lines of George Clooney myself. You gotta love the Midwestern tourists.

I've always found myself attracted to things of an ephemeral nature, which is why I find theatre so intoxicating. Unlike a film that can be viewed over and over, a theatre performance exists only in that moment, making each one distinct. The role of the audience is just as important as the roles on stage, and you are helping to create and sharing a collective empathy with a group of people that will never be repeated. I find so much beauty in that. When everything aligns, it can be magical.

I'm not a huge fan of comparisons, as I prefer to judge works independently. But when the same story is told in a variety of mediums, it's only natural to make associations. I'm sure Broadway actors loathe it when a film comes out and then people attend their shows with a set of unrealistic and unfair expectations; I do sympathize with that, but if it's a great show, then it's not something one has to worry about, as it will stand on it's own. Cabaret is one of the best movie musicals of all time, and one of my favorite films, yet I didn't think of it once while watching the production in Dallas. Nor did I recall the film version while watching The Lion King in London's West End, as the production was so spectacular. But there I was at the Ambassador Theatre on Broadway thinking about director Rob Marshall and his excellent 2002 feature film debut Chicago, and realizing it was far, far superior to what I was witnessing. [I'd like to call on him to remake the film version of Rent because the 2005 Chris Columbus release was atrocious.] Check out my fellow Texan, Renee Zellweger, and Buddhist extraordinaire, Richard Gere, in We Both Reached For the Gun:

"Mmmm, I'm a star.../ And the audience loves me/ And I love them/ And they love me for lovin' them/ And I love them for lovin' me/ And we love each other/ And thats 'cause none of us got enough love in our childhoods/ And that's showbiz.../ Kid" -- From Chicago the Musical, Roxie