Couple of quickies...

1. Christine Baranski looks ugly as hell in this picture. But she was a fantastic Mrs. Lovett at the Kennedy Center, so I may actually go see the show she's going to be in this spring. Even if her "I'm Still Here" did suck in the Follies concert last year.

2. I just saw Sunday in the Park with George. May abridge it, may not. Perhaps this weekend. The point is, it's one of my favorite musicals despite it's flaws (them being: Act 2). So why did I enjoy Act 2 so much more than Act 1 last night?

3. The Scottish Play may be going to broadway. I hear it's as good as Magneto in Lear last year, which really was phenomenal. No opinions on this production yet; I'm seeing it end-of-month.

4. I'm also seeing In The Heights at the end of the month. So no real opinions of it yet, but I promised that anytime a "blogger's outreach" person attempts to use me as publicity, I'm happy to post what they e-mailed me.

[While making cuts and ridiculing it. Is that okay with you, Christina Sees from SpotCo?]

My additions in bold:

Hello bloggers!

In the Heights on Broadway is currently receiving rave reviews even though it hasn't been reviewed because it just opened, so maybe I mean "received rave reviews when it was off-Broadway"? Fans are loving In the Heights! Which what I really meant when I said "rave reviews" Basically, some kids at the stage door last night looked really excited. We'd like for you to share this video with all your readers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoU1HBmNOQ We'd also like your readers to know that they may find this video weird and confusing if they have never seen the show. Sort of like watching the [title of show show] having never seen [title of show]

Here's where I, Christina Sees, simply do some cut and paste About In the Heights:
GET READY TO EXPERIENCE an exhilarating journey

In The Heights is your ticket into a world where
the coffee from the corner bodega is light and sweet, the windows are
always open, and the breeze carries the rhythm of three generations
of music. Kinda like Rent, but with more ethnicities!

Find out what it takes to make a living, what it costs to have a
dream, and what it means to be home...In The Heights.

Thanks!

And thank you Christina, for taking the time out of your day to consider bloggers an important facet so that I can then just ruin it for us all.

4 Comments

franklinshepard | February 15, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply

Actually, I think that's one of the better pictures I've seen of Christine. Did you really think she was an amazing Mrs. Lovett? I thought she was reasonably good, but that entire production was just so bad that she would've really had to work against the grain to be amazing. Especially playing against BSM.Also, it's funny that you think Act 2 of Sunday is a flaw, but you liked it more in this production. I had the opposite experience - Act 2 has never bothered me, but I thought it worked less well in this production than before. And less well in the American version of this production than the British.

Gil | February 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply

Yay, we disagree on everything!- Picture: I more think that the dress looks funny from that angle than anything else.- Sweeney: She was a great Mrs. Lovett despite the fact that Brian Stokes Mitchell blew. She gets extra points for that. I think I prefer her to Lansbury, honestly.- Sunday I'm curious what you thought didn't work with Act 2 in this production. I found Act 1 to move a little too slowly, silently and dryly than I feel like I remember it being. I thought "The Day Off" just didn't feel as dynamic. And Act 2... I really liked the way the projections were used, and I really enjoyed watching the fantasy-filled La Grande Jatte now become this real, literal world that shows so much resemblance yet so much change. I also appreciated finally seeing a bit of what the damned Chromolume is, even though it ended abruptly and weirdly.Perhaps I just didn't like Mandy Patinkin's modern-day-George, and have found everybody else's portrayal (especially Raul Esparza) of Act 2 George to be much better. Perhaps I don't like anybody else's Act 1 George as much as I liked Patinkin's. I really need to go re-watch that video.

franklinshepard | February 15, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply

Well, I liked Christine enough as Mrs. Lovett, but I certainly don't think she was revelatory in any way. I remember people talking about how she played up the sexual aspect of the role, but I got much more of that from Patti than from Christine. I will give her points for being good opposite BSM, but not as many points as I give Celia Keenan-Bolger for being amazing opposite Hugh Panaro, who was the worst-performed Anthony I've ever seen (and I usually like Hugh.)About Sunday - I don't get what Jenna Russell is doing as Marie. I don't get her accent, and I don't understand her choices. I think the chromolume is much sillier here than in any other production I've seen, which makes it more difficult to take George seriously as someone who can create good art, and Evans was really pushing for emotion in "Lesson #8" in a way that he wasn't in London. I think the largeness of Studio 54 works against this production - it was in a very intimate theatre in London, and the accents were all much better (or in Act 2, at least uniformly uneven.)Mandy Patinkin isn't my favorite George. Have you heard the bootleg of Harry Groener? I liked Raul Esparza as well, but actually, again I liked him more in the first act, when he wasn't pushing so hard (IIRC.)

Anonymous | February 19, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply

I bet you look ugly as hell in your pictures.

4 Comments

Leave a comment