Notes on shows I've seen in the last six years

The Producers (March 2006)
St. James Theatre, New York (Broadway)

I'm pretty sure this was the very first Broadway show I saw. This was back when I knew zero about Broadway. My sister and I took the train down to meet up with some family friends. We had no idea what to see, but we had heard of the The Producers so we got tickets to see it from the TKTS booth. Our seats were somewhere in the middle of the theater. Neither my sister or I were very impressed with the show and I fell asleep during the climatic "Springtime for Hitler" number. Our friends, meanwhile, had scored lottery tickets to see Wicked in the front row. Apparently, they had a good time. C

Die Zauberflöte (November 2007)
Saturday matinee, Dress Circle D121, Metropolitan Opera, New York

I went for a doubleheader of Mozart, starting with Die Zauberflöte in the afternoon. I liked Act I, but found Act II dull and fell asleep except for the famous Queen of the Night aria. It was good to see a production at the Met, but this probably isn't my favorite Mozart opera. B

Le nozze di Figaro (November 2007)
Saturday evening, Dress Circle B22, Metropolitan Opera, New York

This is one of my favorite operas, so I was expecting a lot. I love the entire score. I don't think the production hasn't changed much over the years, so it seemed pretty similar to the DVD performance that I fell in love with. I think the famed baritone Bryn Terfel played Figaro. I vaguely recall that it was a good performance, but nothing amazing. B+

Il Barbiere di Siviglia (2007)
Metropolitan Opera, New York

I can't remember when I went to see this, so I'm guessing at the date. My friend, a German and an opera fan, got tickets to see it. The production was beautifully staged and I remember a lot of oranges. Peter Mattei played a very dashing Figaro. I had never seen any production of The Barber of Seville, so this was tremendously exciting. The music was, of course, amazing. I didn't find out until later that the Count who spends all his time trying to get the girl in The Barber of Seville ends up becoming an adulterous jerk in The Marriage of Figaro. A

Sunday in the Park with George (January 2008)
Tuesday evening, Orchestra B109, Studio 54, New York (Broadway)

This show is what convinced me to become a theater fan. I had just found out that the London production of SITPWG was transferring to New York and I was so excited that I bought a ticket to see it during the first week of previews. I'd never seen a show up close, and the best seat I could find was second row center during previews for the next day. I charged the ticket on my credit card without much hesitation and ran down to New York to see it the next day. It was the first time I'd done anything like that and it was one of the best decisions I ever made. Normally, it's not the best idea to see a show during previews, but the show had transferred from the West End with the same leads, so it was more like a tech rehearsal. I do remember the mics having nasty feedback at one point during the show, but mostly it went on without a hitch. I vaguely recall that someone in the audience told me a story about how he had been at the original Broadway production of Sweeney Todd in 1979 and that the set almost collapsed on the cast. It's amazing how I meet these people who've lived in New York for their entire lives.

Daniel Evans (George) and Jenna Russell (Dot) were amazing, especially up close. (After that, I always tried to get a seat in the first five rows. Yes, you pay twice as much, but the experience improves exponentially.) Evans was particularly intense. I recall Russell's interpretation of Dot was very different than what I had seen of Bernadette Peters on the DVD recording. Russell played Dot more sweet and bumbling compared to Peters' feisty portrayal. People say that SITPWG is a sobfest and indeed, I found myself crying (probably during "Children and Art"). I'd never been so moved during a theater production. This was also the first time I had ever stagedoored. Daniel Evans didn't really want to sign; he seemed irritated and wanted to run away with his shopping bag. I tried to tell him how much I admired his "intense" acting and he didn't seem particularly impressed by my compliment. But Jenna Russell saw us kids standing in the rain and felt really touched that we waited for her. She was just as sweet as her character.

A couple months later, I took a friend to see it again from the first or second row of the mezzanine. It didn't seem quite as moving the second time, especially from farther back. I had hoped that my friend, an artist, would like the dramatization of a life in art, but she didn't seem to like it that much, though she admitted that the ideas were very "creative." Still, when I think about an ideal night at the theatre, I think of Sondheim and SITPWG. A+

Sweeney Todd (March 2008)
Thursday evening, Orchestra M30, Ahmanson Theatre, Los Angeles (national tour)

This was actually the national tour of Sweeney Todd, but the same production as seen on Broadway. Back then, I had just become a huge Sondheim fan, particularly after I saw the Sweeney Todd stage and concert DVDs. It was too late to see the show on Broadway but the tour was still going around. I convinced my sister to see it with me in LA. Our seats were in the mid-orchestra. We both liked it, though I preferred the original staging from 1979. I thought the John Doyle actor-musician concept was interesting, but too gimicky and distracting. At the national tour, Mrs. Lovett was played by Judy Kaye and Sweeney was played by David Hess. My sister claimed that she saw Steven Spielburg (or maybe it was George Lucas?) in the audience. B+

Gypsy (May 2008)
Tuesday evening, Orchestra D105, St. James Theatre, New York (Broadway)

Following my experience with SITPWG, I knew what it took to get a great ticket to a hot show. I wanted to give the cast sometime to settle into their performances but I didn't want to see them too late when they were worn out. Patti Lupone had very good reviews from City Center and there was a lot of buzz about the transfer of the show to Broadway. The first day Gypsy tickets were available online, I jumped on them and got fourth row seats orchestra center. I chose a Tuesday evening performance on the theory that the audience would be made up of sophisticated New Yorkers (as opposed to tourists). Also, Much later, I found out that May is high season for Broadway shows. It's the best time to see them because it's after the Tony Award nominations are announced and the cast is scrambling to turn in.

I don't remember a lot about the show intellectually, despite the fact that I had watched a couple of the Gypsy films to familiarize myself with the material. The show was just an emotional blur of incredible excitement. When Patti Lupone (Rose) made her entrance, everyone started applauding. I had no idea this kind of thing happened and I learned another new theater tradition that day: entrance applause for a diva. I remember Laura Benanti (Louise) and Leigh Ann Larkin's (June) amazing voices and harmonies. I remember being in awe of Patti Lupone tearing up the letter at the end of ACT I's showstopper "Everything's Coming Up Roses." At intermission, I walked up to the stage and stared at the little scraps of paper, tempted to grab them as a souvenir. After the show, I met Boyd Gaines (Herbie). He was very gracious and down-to-earth. I told him that I had a friend who did a show with him and he asked me what show but I had forgotten. When Patti Lupone came out of the stage door, it was pretty hectic and she only had time to scribble her initials "PL" on my Playbill. I was very thankful nonetheless.

Three days after the show, I emailed Lupone at her fan page. I wrote that she and her supporting cast were brilliant, that I appreciated her signing my Playbill, and that I hoped she might have a performance recorded on Great Performances. She wrote back the next day and told me how much she appreciated my compliments. She said she would love to have the show recorded but it wasn't up to her. And sadly, the show was never recorded. A+

The Visit (May 2008)
Sunday evening, Right E12, Signature Theatre, Arlington, Virginia

Technically, this was not a Broadway show, but it was a tryout which had the potential to transfer to Broadway. Plus, it was written by Kander and Ebb and featured Tony Award winning actors George Hearn and Chita Rivera. I saw it at the Signature Theatre in the DC area when I was visiting my cousin's family. It was my first time seeing something at a first-rate regional theater in a small venue (about 300 seats) -- which was very cool. Unfortunately, I just didn't really like the musical. It was adapted from a play and I felt like the music didn't add much. It should have stayed a play. I was surprised by how informal things are at a regional show. My cousin and I met a woman who was the wife of one of the actors. The actors just came out into the lobby after the show (none of the crazy stagedooring I was used to at a Broadway production). I got George Hearn's signature and made the mistake of complimenting him on his work in Sweeney Todd. His response was "this show is good, too." Oops. I guess I won't be making that social slipup again. B

Rent (August 2008)
Sunday matinee, Center mezzanine A108, Nederlander Theatre, New York (Broadway)

I caught a Sunday matinee performance of Rent, the month before it closed on Broadway. Will Chase (as Roger) and Eden Espinosa (as Maureen) were in it, but obviously they didn't make much of an impression because I didn't even know until I looked at my records today. All I remember is that the music was really loud and I felt like I could have spent my time and money better. It probably didn't help that Rent seems so dated now. C

In the Heights (November 2008)
Sunday matinee, Front mezzanine B108, Richard Rodgers Theatre, New York (Broadway)

I got caught up in the Tony hype for In the Heights especially after I saw the clip of the recording studio performance of "96,000." I guess there was so much buzz that it was hard to find good seats. Plus, I made plans to see it with my friend, who wasn't going home to New York until the fall. So I got tickets for November, which in retrospect, was a bad idea. The cast seemed tired by then and it didn't help that we weren't sitting that close. Maybe they were tired because it was a Sunday matinee. Still, I was glad that we saw most of the original cast including Lin-Manuel Miranda (writer and star of the musical), Mandy Gonzalez (an awesome belter), Christopher Jackson, Robin de Jesús (Tony nominee), and Priscilla Lopez (original cast member of A Chorus Line). Karen Olivo had moved on to West Side Story. I thought my friend who like the modern score and the rap songs, but she didn't seem impressed. Now I know that musical theater's version of contemporary music (pop, rock, rap, etc) is not the same. Another failed attempt to show a friend a good time at a Broadway musical. B

August: Osage County (February 2009)
Wednesday matinee, Orchestra D106, Music Box Theatre, New York (Broadway)

This was my first Broadway play and not a good introduction. As far as I could tell, it was a play about crazy people who were completely unrelatable. There were too many characters. It's a bad sign if I sit in the front and still dislike the work. And this won the Pulitzer? I was also kind of disappointed to get the understudy for the lead role of Violet. Actually, she was very good, but I learned not to get matinee tickets because there'a a significant probability of getting the understudy. C

Mendelssohn and Mahler, LA Philharmonic (March 2009)
Sunday evening, Balcony C138, Walt Disney Concert Hall, Los Angeles

I went to see this concert with my sister. I didn't know anything about Mendelssohn or Mahler symphonies but they had a pre-concert talk to explain it to us. I had no idea that that are Mahler fanatics. The performance was pretty awesome and I was exposed to music I wouldn't normally listen to. Another plus was getting to see the Walt Disney Concert Hall, which has fantastic acoustics and amazing architecture. We took the architecture tour before the concert.

Unless I go see some hip musical, I tend to see older people at the theater. But that did not prepare me for a crowd who was all 60+ at the symphony. I was really shocked. If this is what it's like in LA with a top-10 symphony, I can't imagine that orchestras are going to survive much longer. It's truly frightening. A

Wagner's Ring Cycle (May 2009)
Monday/Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday evening, Family Circle standing room, Metropolitan Opera, New York

This was the opera experience of my life. After attending the Ring Cycle at the Met, it's okay if I never see another opera again. The friends I made at the rush line earlier for Don Giovanni told me how to get rush tickets for the Ring Cycle. I took the earliest train, which left at 4:11 am, getting into Manhattan at 5:47 am. From there, I took the subway to Lincoln Center and went to a place underground where a woman took my name to save my place. Then I went to a diner to eat breakfast and came back to get in line around 8 am. The box office opened at 10 am and I think I got my tickets before 11 am. What a steal, standing room tickets to see four Wagner operas for $100. It was the first time I had done standing room at the Met and I really liked it. Yes, I was at the top of the house as far back as you can go, but the sound was great, I could see everything and use my binoculars for closeups. Plus, what I hated about orchestra seat rush was that you had to wait for hours. For standing room rush, you just show up when the box office opens. There are also standing room tickets for the back of the orchestra section, but I wouldn't get those because the top half of the set is cut off from view. It wouldn't be fun to miss the rainbow bridge!

The Ring Cycle is considered the benchmark for a great opera company and I can see why. The insane, strenuous singing, the elaborate sets, enormous orchestra. I started to wonder if Siegfried ever left the stage and I noticed four harps in the pit. The most surprising experience I've ever had at the theater was during the finale of Götterdämmerung, when there are two set changes within five minutes. It was like the set just slammed onto the stage. I think my favorite was Die Valkürie, 'cause women warriors are cool. But Siegfried was also awesome, particularly the ringing hammer that is incorporated into the score. This Ring Cycle was particularly special because it was the last performance of the old Met production from the 1980s. Europeans really like it because it uses traditional staging and costumes. The new production (full of high-tech special effects) has gotten mixed reviews.

Some memories: 1) A European woman who hit me for talking on the cellphone during intermission. 2) A young Asian woman who I met in standing room. She asked me what I thought to the performance. I said I really liked Die Valkürie because I finally saw a strong woman character in the opera. She told me that unfortunately, this changes in the later operas, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung. I also told her that I was disappointed that I didn't like Don Giovanni as a character. 3) A woman gave me her ticket to sit in the family circle. I tried to refuse it at first because I was quite happy in standing room, but she insisted and I accepted. I promptly fell asleep in that seat. Another reason to do standing room. A+

Don Giovanni (2009)
Family Circle, Metropolitan Opera, New York

This was the first Met opera I rushed. I heard about the Varis rush tickets which allow you get really nice orchestra seats. To be safe, I got to Lincoln Center around noon. The tickets aren't sold until around 5 pm, so that's a lot of waiting. Everyone in line seemed to be a die-hard opera fan and they gossiped about things like men lusting over Renée Fleming. One woman was reading a copy of the Opera News. The people were impressed that a young person like me came so early to rush and they were really nice and gave me tips about rushing. I can't remember what I did to pass the time, but I was prepared with a folding chair.

Unfortunately, the waiting made me so tired that despite getting the coveted rush ticket (I also got an extra for my aunt), I fell asleep during the performance. Don Giovanni is supposed to one of the best operas ever written. But I have no way to judge. The parts I did see I didn't really enjoy, maybe because Don Giovanni himself is a pretty nasty character.

Despite my fatigue, I met some really cool people including an older man who lived out near Stamford. He claimed that he came to the opera to escape his mother -- pretty amusing. no grade (since I fell asleep)

Wicked (2009)
Gershwin Theatre, New York (Broadway)

I can't even find my Playbill for this show. That bad, huh. Wicked seemed like the obligatory hit show I need to see at least once. I could never find good seats, but then the recession hit and I was able to score fourth row. Yes, it had big impressive sets, but other than that, I didn't find it particularly compelling. I never connect with or enjoy teen "high school" stories. The songs weren't that great, and the characters weren't well-developed, more like placeholders for teenage angst. C-

A Gala Evening with Kristin Chenoweth (May 2009)
Monday evening, Mezzanine B215, New York City Center

Technically, this was not a Broadway show. It was a concert at the New York City Center. I'm a great admirer of Kristin Chenoweth and wanted to see her. It was a good show and she did some of the songs I saw in the video of her concert with the Boston Pops. Unfortunately, the acoustics at New York City Center suck. Kristin loves her fans, so she came out to sign afterwards. I snickered a bit when a young girl complained that she sang too much "old" stuff and nothing contemporary like from Wicked. I was the last one to get my program signed. I was grateful that Kristin signed her full name. B

West Side Story (May 2009)
Tuesday matinee, Orchestra B116, New York (Broadway)

Another Tuesday matinee. I sense a pattern here: easier to get tickets for Tuesday night than any other night of the week. I didn't buy these tickets myself. My friend who lives in Manhattan dropped by the box office and they were able to find these awesome seats near the front. So my friend (finally a theatre-goer) and I went to see it. It was impressive to see real dance in a musical. It made us realize how much we missed it. I guess if musical theatre is supposed to be a dying art, dance must be in even worse straits. The leads, Josefina Scaglione (Maria) and Matt Cavenaugh (Tony), were good but I don't recall them being remarkable. Karen Olivo (Anita) had great energy and looked fantastic in her purple dress. No surprise that she later won a Tony Award for best supporting actress in a musical. When Olivo came out for the curtain call, we noticed that she had put on the purple dress again. My friend and I remarked, "She really likes that dress, doesn't she?" The production was also notable for using Spanish lyrics in some songs. All in all, a satisfying night of theater. A

Twelfth Night (July 2009)
Saturday evening, Section J Row U Seat 601, Delacorte Theater, Central Park, New York

Ah, this was my first experience of Shakespeare in the Park, a summertime New Yorker tradition. I think Twelfth Night is considered Shakespeare's most popular comedy. Some notable members of the cast: Anne Hathaway (as Viola), Raul Esparza (as Orsino), and Audra McDonald (as Olivia). Anne Hathaway, the A-list movie star, was probably the biggest attraction and Ben Brantley's rave reviews probably also gave the production a huge boost.

I had been thinking about going to see it, but like all Public Theater Shakespeare in the Park productions, you need to line up for tickets the day of the performance. Finally, the last week rolled around, my friend's mom was in town. So I decided to go for it and line up for tickets. At the beginning of the run, you needed to line up at 6 am. Now, at the end, people were reportedly camping overnight on the street. I prepared by bringing a folding chair and my Nintendo DS Lite. That night, I checked Craiglist and saw that someone mentioned their campers were in line at 11 pm to get tickets. I thought "crap!" and immediately got on the subway. Unfortunately, I left after midnight so it was tricky getting to Central Park (subway runs much less frequently after 12 am). I finally got in line around 1 am, on the street outside Central Park. People were clearly more prepared than I. They brought tents, sleeping bags, games, musical instruments, etc. Then there were people like this Indian guy who showed up with nothing except a book and slept on the concrete sidewalk. Sometime around 6 am, they moved the entire line inside the park. Tickets were handed out around noon. Despite being in line for almost 12 hours, I didn't even get a real ticket, but a standby voucher. I came back about a half hour before the performance to see if I got the standby tickets and fortunately I got them! One for me and one for my friend's mom.

As for the performance itself, it was fantastic and kudos to the sound engineers at Delacorte Theater for the best sound I've ever experienced at the theater. My friend's mom had a blast, I had an adventure, and we both had memories to cherish. A+

Promises, Promises (May 2010)
Tuesday evening, Orchestra E109, Broadway Theatre, New York (Broadway)

I went to this show, solely to see Kristin Chenoweth. It was a huge disappointment. Chenoweth (who played Fran) was so skinny that I was concerned for her health. The music was pretty dull, not my kind of thing at least. Sean Hayes (a TV star who played Chuck Baxter) was good, but I'm not really a comedy person, so his slapstick was lost on me. Promises, Promises seemed so dated. Since when is suicide funny? My unhappiness with this show drove me away from the theater for a while. C+

Come Fly Away (June 2010)
Friday evening, Orchestra M4, Marquis Theatre, New York (Broadway)

My sister was visiting for a week, so I had a pretty restricted window to get tickets. Hence the unusual Friday night time. Since my sister loves dance, we went to a bunch of dance shows. The first was Twyla Tharp's Come Fly Away. I enjoyed the Sinatra music and the dance was pretty good. I'm not super into dance, so it didn't blow me away. Still, a good night. B+

By Popular Demand, Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater (June 2010)
Saturday matinee, Orchestra D16, Howard Gilman Opera House, Brooklyn

I tried to squeeze in one more dance show for my sister and I found out about a distinguished New York dance troupe by the name of Alvin Ailey. This was my first time seeing a show in Brooklyn. There was a lot of variety in the dances, and I found it more interesting than Twyla Tharp's choreography in Come Fly Away. I had a good time, despite knowing nothing about dance. At one point, I fell asleep despite the loud music, but that was due to fatigue and not boredom. A-

Billy Elliot (June 2010)
Sunday evening, Orchestra N114, Imperial Theatre, New York (Broadway)

My sister loves Billy Elliot, so I got tickets for us to see it. There really weren't any great seats. I even went to the box office to see if there was something that hadn't popped up on Ticketmaster, but to no avail. The music was largely forgettable, the comedy was lame, a couple scenes were offputting, and the dance was cool, but there wasn't enough of it. I think my sister had a good time though. C+

Carmen (November 2010)
Wednesday evening, Family Circle B114, Metropolitan Opera, New York

I specifically bought this ticket to see the acclaimed performance of Elina Garanca. She was as great as advertised. After seeing this production, I have to put Carmen in my pantheon of favorite stand-alone operas along with The Marriage of Figaro and Tannhäuser. Yay, a strong woman role and more importantly, one of two great roles for mezzo-sopranos (I feel really sorry for them). Carmen is one of the few roles where strong acting really sparkles. A

Follies (October 2011)
Tuesday evening, Orchestra B107, Marquis Theatre, New York (Broadway)

At this point, I was sort of "Sondheimed out," but Follies is almost never put on, much less on Broadway. I skipped seeing A Little Night Music, but I dragged myself to see Follies. The day before I went to the library to get the Follies concert documentary and libretto and listened to the songs on Rhapsody in a furious cram session. I was familiar with a few songs from the Sondheim 80th birthday concert like "Losing My Mind" and "Could I Leave You?"

The cast was a distinguished group including Broadway legend Bernadette Peters (Sally), Jan Maxwell (Phyllis), Danny Burstein (Buddy), and Ron Raines (Ben). Still, I wasn't sure what to expect. The critics were relatively positive about the cast in DC, so that was a good sign. Follies was fun, but I understand now why people say it has a weak book. It felt like we were lurching from cabaret solo to cabaret solo. Janye Houdyshell gave a rousing, enthusiastic rendition of "Broadway Baby." Terri White led the ensemble in an energetic delivery of "Who's That Woman?" I wasn't too keen on Elaine Paige's diva-ish "I'm Still Here." Peters and Raines were good as the Stone couple, but I wasn't crazy about them. Peters sang "Losing My Mind" in tears, which wasn't to my taste, though a valid acting decision. My favorite was Danny Burstein. I could see the sweat on his face as he did the frantic "Buddy's Blues" number. Jan Maxwell was very good, but I already saw Donna Murphy in video clips of the same role, so that spoiled it for me. One thing I liked was the staging, particularly the spectacular colorful sets in Act II. That's really something you can only see on Broadway since Follies is so expensive to put on.

I took my time getting to the stage door, but I was able to catch Terri White and compliment her on the fun ensemble number she led. I also got Bernadette Peter's autograph, but I didn't get to say anything to her since she was busy talking to a friend. The other cast members fled out a different entrance or left early, so that was a bummer not to catch Danny Burstein or some of the other performers. Despite a few disappointments, it was a rare treat to see Follies and Bernadette Peters, so I have to give the night high marks. A

Final tally: 12 Broadway shows, 1 Shakespeare in the Park show at Public Theater, 2 non-Broadway New York shows, 1 Broadway show on national tour, 1 regional show, 9 operas, and 1 symphony concert. A total of 27 shows in 6 years. Not included a couple Shakespeare plays I saw in the 3 years prior.

Review of Alias, Season 1

I watched Alias this summer in 2011 and I couldn't believe this show was made in 2001.

Alias Season 1 has quickly become one of my all-time favorites. I was surprised to find how much I enjoyed this show since I'm not big on the spy genre. On the surface, Alias seems like an action show with a female lead in sexy outfits, but it is much more than that. It is a tour de force of tight writing, sharp dialogue, outstanding acting, and creative vision. Alias is the story of Sydney Bristow -- the girl next door, straight-A student type who happens to sign up for spy work, out of patriotic inspiration and boredom. Most spies and action heroes are cold, calculating personalities, so this is a refreshing concept. The show works for me because as absurd as the plot twists become, I believe in Sydney Bristow. Her character is always grounded and she is easy to relate to, because she is sensitive and wears her heart on her sleeve. This is J.J. Abram's trademark -- the drama that is both realistic and absurd at the same time. Sydney does crazy spy work and juggles both a double-life and double-agent job, but she comes home to hang out with her friends who know nothing about her spy life, and she struggles with her relationships with her father and her paternalistic boss. As weird as the espionage world gets, we can always relate to hating your boss, trying to get along with parents, and managing work-life balance. It's hard to find compelling 20-something female leading roles in Hollywood, which makes me appreciate Sydney Bristow on a personal level.

The show further innovates by mixing different genres: espionage, mystery/thriller, and a little soapy drama. I love cross-genre shows because there is more variety, less chance of falling into cliches, and the audience doesn't quite know what to expect. The action sequences, camera work, and costumes are film quality. You will have fun watching Sydney execute her missions. I'm not a connoisseur of spy shows, but I was entertained by the different wigs/dresses, car chases, and parachuting.

I really enjoyed the writing and fast-paced plotting. Not many words are wasted. The action sequences are cut extremely tight. Unlike other spy shows, there isn't much mission preparation or debriefing shown; we just see Sydney stealing item X and then we're back in Los Angeles. One moment Sydney is in spy headquarters and then she's having beer at her apartment with her best buddies. Yet the show takes the time to explore Sydney's emotional reactions, which keeps Alias grounded in reality. I really like how the show goes for broke -- outlandish costumes, insane stunts, hard-hitting emotional breakdowns, the audience feeling like Sydney is *really* in danger -- and yet it feels organic and not forced. Maybe the writers used up all their best ideas in the first season and that's why Alias started going downhill... but that's a discussion for another time.

The big selling point for me is Jennifer Garner's performance. She is naturally charismatic and has probably the world's best smile, making Sydney probably the most likable spy in cinematic history. (It seems like every male character on the show is in love with Sydney -- a joke, but not far from the truth.) Garner clearly put 100% effort into her acting. Watch her face when she runs -- it's clear that both Garner and Sydney take their job seriously. Sydney Bristow is an extremely demanding role (Sydney is in almost every scene, stunt sequences, foreign languages, dramatic acting) and Garner does everything very well.

The rest of the cast is absolutely stellar. I don't know how many TV shows have ever had a cast this good. There are two critically acclaimed Broadway actors (Victor Garber and Ron Rifkin) and Michael Vartan, Bradley Cooper, and Merrin Dungey have all gone on to great careers (in particular Cooper has become a huge star). Kevin Weisman is funny and charming as the comic relief, and Carl Lumbly, as Sydney's partner, lends gravity and presence to the show. Every single cast member is fantastic and my only complaint is that I wish Vartan and Dungey's characters could have been written better. The superb acting is what really makes the show work. In the hands of lesser actors, the show would have become campy.

I'll leave you with the words of a TV critic:

Alias isn’t a perfect series, by any means. But I do think it’s the most important show of the past ten years that’s been completely swept under the rug. ... I have a sneaking suspicion that few shows have had a greater impact on the television landscape today.
- Ryan McGee, AV Club

(If you are interested in reading more, check out Ryan McGee's essays at AV Club's TV Club Classic.)

What I learned about tablets

A friend of mine recently asked me where I worked. I said either at home or in the office and off-handedly commented that if I had a tablet, I could work in other places like libraries or coffee shops.

I've thought about getting a tablet now and then, but I never read about anything that seemed truly appealing. But I keep coming back to tablets because as great as pen and paper is (fast, cheap, light and portable), you can't index and organize paper anywhere as well as you can with digital media. Yes, you can put your paper in tabbed binders, but digital data can be tagged and is searchable. I thought about scanning paper documents, but these scanned documents are large in file size and no one has solved the problem of recognizing handwriting in images so the scanned document can't be resolved into text and searched. (In case you're wondering, OCR is for properly printed characters.)

This is what I would want in a tablet:

• Lightweight (under 2 pounds)
  
• Storage space of at least 20 GB for my electronic books, notes, files
• Color screen with large viewing angle
  
• Fast internet connectivity
  
• Pen input for taking notes
  

I'd like to be able to just throw the tablet in my bag and carry it without being burdened by its weight. I'd like to be able to carry around my library of electronic files (pdf, djvu, etc) and have speedy access to the internet, so I don't have to bring a heavy, expensive laptop to the library or coffee shop. I'd like to write down thoughts and ideas in a digital notebook.

I didn't realize how hot the tablet market has become. A little curiosity resulted in me getting into some seriously deep Internet research. I ended up learning a lot about tablets, pen input, and Android. I thought I'd write it all up before I forget.

Pen input

The most significant dividing line for tablets right now is pen input.

Tablet PCs are designed to use pens as the main form of input. The older tablet PCs use resistive screens which really need a stylus and don't respond very well to touch. Some of the newer tablet PCs support multi-touch by using a capacitive screen. The best tablet PCs use an active digitizer which allows for a smooth and precise writing experience closer to writing with pen and paper.

The Android tablets and iPad use a capacitive touch screen which is great for finger gestures, but non-ideal for pen input. You can use a passive, capacitive stylus, but writing with one is like using the eraser on the back of a pencil. It's very crude. However, companies are starting to think about focusing on pen input. The HTC Flyer is the very first Android tablet that will come with an active digitizer made by N-Trig.

For precise input, the general consensus is that you must have an active digitizer which means the tablet needs to be designed for pen input. Artists won't use anything besides an active digitizer. The two main companies currently making active digitizers are Wacom and N-Trig. People say that Wacom is the best, but N-Trig is getting better.

For satisfactory pen input, you not only need good hardware but also good software. Most people who want a tablet are interested in using it for work purposes: business people, scientists, artists, architects, etc. It seems to me that pen tablets are a niche market. No wonder Apple had no interest in making a tablet with pen input.

People who are interested in taking handwritten notes and storing them in an organized, searchable fashion will want Microsoft OneNote software. This program allows the user to mix handwriting input with other files, typewritten text, etc in an endless page and organize the pages into notebooks. OneNote uses the excellent Windows handwriting recognition software and can recognize your handwriting in real-time. It can convert your handwriting to text, or you can leave your notes handwritten and search them later. Unfortunately, OneNote is only a Windows program, so you can only use it if you have a Windows-based tablet. The current Windows tablet PCs are heavy and have poor battery life because the Windows OS was designed for desktop machines and not little tablets. Evernote is a popular alternative to OneNote, but people say it's not quite as good.

Artists will want to use drawing and painting programs like ArtRage. (I'm no artist, so I don't know what is the best software.) Most of the great software can only be run on desktop operating systems like Windows and Mac OS X.

So the take home message is that if you want a tablet to do actual work, you have to get a tablet PC that runs Windows. The current favorite is the Asus Eee Slate EP121, which has a powerful Intel i5 dual core CPU, runs Windows 7, and weighs about 2.5 lb. The main drawback is its short battery life: 3-4 hours. If you don't mind having an old model, many rave about the HP TC1100 tablet. It uses a Wacom digitizer, runs Windows XP, weighs about 3.3 lb, and has a detachable keyboard. Without the keyboard, it becomes a slate.

The Asus Eee Note EA800 is an intriguing possibility. The slate uses active digitizer pen input, only weighs 520g, has a long battery life (~ 8 hours), and will be cheap: around $200. The reason it is able to achieve all these features is because it uses Linux and has a monochrome LCD screen which is not backlit. Unfortunately, the Linux OS means you can't use OneNote though the Eee Note allows you to upload your notes to Evernote via internet. However, people report that the Wifi connectivity is really bad. The fact that the LCD screen is not backlit means that it is very hard to see in dark environments, for example, when people are giving presentations with the lights off. So the Asus Eee Note is probably not going to work for most people. The good news is that Asus seems to be working hard to re-vitalize the pen tablet market and may come out with something exciting in the next generation. Reportedly they are working on a color version of the Eee Note.

Sorry, Mac users, it is doubtful that Apple will directly support pen input, and as I mentioned earlier, you really need an active digitizer for good pen input. This is a hardware problem. However, there are some nice iPad drawing apps out like Penultimate, and Wacom is releasing a capacitive stylus (with 6 mm resolution which is supposedly the limit of the iPad's sensitivity -- compare that to a real pen which is something like 1 mm). If pen tablets become popular enough, maybe Apple will become interested. Finally, I should mention that Microsoft OneNote is not available on the Mac, though Evernote supports OS X.

[Sidenote: If you look at forums about pen input on tablets, people call writing on tablets "inking."]

Tablets without pen input (iPad and Android)

If you are willing to live without pen input, you have a lot more options like the iPad and Android tablets (with the exception of the HTC Flyer mentioned earlier). Due to the success of the iPad, there are a flurry of Android tablets coming out this year. These tablets are all very good when it comes to touch screen manipulation, speed, and internet connectivity with good battery life because they use operating systems that are derived from smartphone OS's.

Three different tablet sizes are being pushed right now: 7", 8.9", and 10". The iPad uses the 10" form factor which is best for multimedia like video and photos. People who prefer a large viewing area will like this form factor, though it starts to get a little heavy. The lightest 10" tablets are around 1.3 lb. The 7" form factor is great for reading ebooks. A lot of people like the lightness and the fact that you can hold 7" tablets in one hand for an appreciable time. The Nook Color has a 7" screen. Most tablets are currently either 7" or 10". A few companies are testing the market for midsize tablets with an 8.9" form factor. This might be a great compromise between viewing area and portability.

For the iPad and Android tablets, the hardware is already very good. The tablets are light and have plenty of processing power. The screens look beautiful and many of them incorporate large angle viewing technology.

The potential of Android tablets is currently restricted by the software. Google designed a tablet-specific operating system called Android 3.0 (Honeycomb). But it's so new and Apple is so dominant in the marketplace that there are few developers for it. Honeycomb is still kind of buggy and there are few apps. Hopefully, in a year, the situation will change.

You could get the iPad, but I'm not a fan of Apple's censorship and closed-source model. It's true that Apple technology is very good, but when you buy an Apple product, you are buying into Apple's culture and dogma. I don't think of daily computing as a religious experience; I think of the computer as a tool that allows for swapping hardware and tinkering with softare. Also, Apple currently doesn't support Flash on the iOS, the operating system used on the iPhone and iPad, so you won't be able to watch most Internet videos (including Hulu and YouTube) on the iPad.

I think if you're willing to wait, the Android tablets will have better hardware and more innovative features, not to mention a microSD or SD card slot for extra capacity and convenience (the iPad doesn't have any external storage options). There are already Android tablets designed to have a removable battery (Toshiba tablet), a detachable keyboard (ASUS Eee Pad Transformer), slideout keyboard (Asus Eee Pad Slider), or pen input (HTC Flyer). The competition among Android tablets will result in dramatic price drops, too.

The coolest thing about Android tablets is their modding potential. There is a huge developer community hacking and tinkering with the Android OS. It is well-known that you can "jailbreak" the iPhone/iTouch and "root" Android smartphones. A couple Android tablets have been well-hacked. The 7" Nook Color and the 10" Viewsonic G Tablet run Android 2.x off the shelf. Both devices are easily rooted and flashed with custom ROMs (essentially operating systems). ["Rooting" means to gain administrative access to a device so you can run anything on it. "Flashing" means changing the read-only-memory (ROM) on the device. This is dangerous because all the low level operations and booting is controlled by this memory. If you mess up, you might "brick" the device, i.e. render it un-operable without any way to restore it to working condition.]

The Nook Color ad G Tablet were targeted by the developer community because they are relatively cheap for Android tablets. With the right software, the Nook Color can be upgraded from Android 2.1 (Eclair) to Android 2.3 (Gingerbread) and overclocked from 800 MHz to 1.1 GHz. The Bluetooth capability of the tablet can also be unlocked.

Essentially, you can buy the Nook Color for $250 and upgrade it to be comparable to the Samsung Galaxy Tab. When you consider that the Galaxy Tab used to cost $400 with a two year data plan or $600 off-contract, this is an incredible deal, so good that if you search Google News for "rooted nook color", you will find at least a dozen articles about ordinary people with no tech-know-how rooting their Nook Colors. Well, it used to be an incredible deal. Now, there is a $350 Wifi-only version of the Galaxy Tab, so the savings isn't quite as much. You could also mod a G Tablet. I don't find that option as attractive because the G Tablet isn't supported as well among developers and because the G Tablet's screen is reportedly quite poor.

With the announcement that the 10" Acer Eee Pad Transformer will cost $400 and the Acer Iconia Tab A500 will cost $450, maybe a rooted Nook Color isn't quite as attractive as it used to be since it has a 7" screen size and only 8 GB storage (compared to 16 or 32 GB). But it's still a good deal and you have the advantage of using a mature OS like Gingerbread (Android 2.3) rather than the "beta" Honeycomb (Android 3.0). All the new Android tablets use Honeycomb and all the old ones use Android 2.1 or 2.2.

The future of tablets (?)

It will take a while for the Android tablet market to grow and mature. But I think it's a safe bet that in the near future, Honeycomb will be refined, people will develop more apps for it, and the price of Android tablets will drop substantially. In the meantime, you can get yourself a Nook Color or G Tablet, root it, and get access to the best and latest Android updates the hacker community has to offer (in contrast, retail Android devices are very slow to get updates). When your tablet becomes outdated, you'll be able to buy a new, cutting-edge device that is very satisfactory right out of the box.

Don't forget about tablet PCs and pen-based tablets. With the growing popularity of the iPad and the huge push by Android to focus on tablets, I think tablet PCs and pen-based tablets will also benefit. A much broader and mainstream audience will be exposed to tablets, the technology will improve, and people will demand more. Manufacturers will be more willing to take a chance on innovating tablets with inking capabilities.

The next few years should be exciting if you like tablets.

Wicked review

Two days ago, I went to the Wednesday matinee showing of Wicked. The musical is loosely based on the novel Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West by Gregory Maguire. Both the musical and the novel are a "revisionist" re-telling of the well-known Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz, from the perspective of the witches. Stephen Schwartz wrote the music and lyrics, and Winnie Holzman did the book.

The plot feels like another Harry Potter or Buffy the Vampire Slayer clone. The coming-of-age story, featuring a misunderstood, outsider protagonist, just never gets old or unpopular with the public. I went into the musical thinking I be jaded about another such story, but Wicked had enough charm and cleverness for me to enjoy it. The main characters Elphaba and Glinda were played by Nicole Parker and Alli Mauzey. They had just taken over from the previous actors and were quite good. The plot starts off pretty stereotypical. Elphaba is the sassy outcast with a chip on her shoulder and Glinda is the ditzy blonde who is obsessed with looks and popularity. However, there are some clever twists, mostly in how the story is connected with the familiar Wizard of Oz story. We find out how Elphaba became the "Wicked Witch of the West" and how the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion, and the Scarecrow came to be. Elphaba utters the famous "there's no place like home" catchphrase for a little laugh.

That's the good news. The bad news is that the cleverly constructed plot doesn't have many real emotional moments. I never felt like I really got to know the characters. Plot developments moved too quickly and everything was resolved too neatly.

I'm also not taken with Schwartz's score. I liked the songs "No One Mourns the Wicked," "What is this Feeling?," and "Defying Gravity." The last song is my favorite and absolutely amazing on the original cast album with Idina Menzel. It cycles through so many emotions and ends on a soaring (literally) belt. But the rest of the songs seemed like pleasant, forgettable pop tunes. I don't appreciate pop scores in musicals. Composers should do better and write more sophisticated melodies. Parker and Mauzey sang well, but Parker doesn't have the belt required for a show-stopping Elphaba.

Some critics have accused Wicked of being overly commercialized. That is true to some extent. The set and costumes are eye-catching (and probably extremely expensive). The pop tunes and relatively conventional plot are designed to appeal to the general public. It's hard to say that Wicked offers any sophistication to the experienced theatre goer. However, most theatre lovers grew up on "popular" stuff. I started with Andrew Lloyd Webber and Les Miserables. These musicals are frequently panned for their over-commercialization, but hey it got me into musicals, right? Sadly, we will never go back to the days of Rodgers & Hammerstein where musicals were mainstream and sophisticated. (People forget that works like Oklahoma were revolutionary for their time.) It's hard to get the attention of kids today, so you need some glam and glitter. One could do worse that Wicked as an introduction to musicals.

Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog review

Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog is an independently produced musical film project originated by Joss Whedon, who created the famous Buffy the Vampire Slayer (BtVS), Angel and Firefly TV shows. Joss and his half-brother Jed co-wrote the music and lyrics. What makes the project unusual is that the film was self-funded without the involvement of a studio and that the film was released via internet channels (iTunes, Hulu). The cast was unpaid, though the production and crew casts were recouped via iTunes and DVD sales.

I am a huge fan of musicals and also a huge fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. After watching "Once More With Feeling" (the BtVS musical episode), I was compelled to watch Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog on Hulu [1].

The story is basically a satire on the comic book superhero stereotype, with a few twists thrown in. I'm not a huge fan of superheros or most comedy, so I wasn't really entertained. I'm not the person to ask though.

Neil Patrick Harris (Dr. Horrible) and Nathan Fillion (Captain Hammer) were very good. I expected no less from Harris, who in addition to being an actor, has sung professionally in Sondheim's Sweeney Todd and Assassins. Harris sings very well, with nice expression in his voice. In contrast, I'm not aware of Fillion having any musical experience. I was pleasantly surprised with singing. He acts very well through his singing. Fillion steals the show as a swaggering Captain Hammer. Felicia Day (who plays Penny, the love interest) has a weak voice and not much expression in it. It was weird to have a love interest played by an alto. Her vocal range overlapped pretty heavily with Harris's tenor. This is definitely not typical in most Broadway musicals.

The music and lyrics were decent (worse things have been put on in multi-million dollar Broadway productions), but not as good as "Once More With Feeling." I enjoyed "My Freeze Ray", "Brand New Day," "So They Say", and "Slipping." A few songs seemed repetitive. I didn't like any of Penny's songs. Fortunately, there weren't too many obviously pastiche numbers besides the Bad Horse songs (where pastiche was done for the comic effect). I would have liked some ensemble songs (think "Into the Woods" or "A Weekend in the Country") and there just weren't any in this musical. I realize that wasn't possible with the small-scale production values and the brevity of the work. The lyrics were good, but nothing remarkable except for Captain's Hammer's amusing posturing.

I don't understand all the internet hype about this musical. It's a decent musical and impressive for the small cast/crew/budget, but who are all these people -- Whedonites? I suspect that Dr. Horrible is a romp for comic book fans (in the same way The Guild is for MMORPG diehards). Maybe that's what I'm missing.

I do appreciate Joss Whedon's efforts to bring musicals and small, independent projects to a wider audience. It's sad but musicals are a dying interest in the US. Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog is a good introduction to musicals for the superhero nerd but non-musical nerd in your life.

[1] The free Hulu viewings expire in two days.

In the Heights review

I finally went to see the musical In the Heights, winner of the 2008 Tony Award for best musical. The musical has a fairy-tale story behind it. Lin-Manuel Miranda originally conceived of the concept while in college. The story is about a Hispanic neighborhood in Washington Heights (near 181st St in Manhattan) and loosely modelled on Miranda's childhood experiences growing up in New York City. Miranda wrote the music and lyrics and also ended up playing one of the lead characters, Usnavi.

As previously mentioned, the story is set in a Hispanic neighborhood of Washington Heights. It's July 3rd. Usnavi owns a deli/grocery store; his cousin Sonny also works there. Usnavi is very close to his Abuela (which means "grandma" in Spanish) Claudia. Nina is home from her freshman year at Stanford. She gets into trouble with her parents (who own an auto business) because she dropped out of school and because she starts dating a black guy, Benny who also happens to work at the auto business. Benny happens to also be Usnavi's best friend. Carla and Daniela own a salon. They really like to gossip. Vanessa works at the salon and Usnavi has a crush on her. (All the characters, other than Benny, are Hispanic.) The characters are brought together when Usnavi discovers that someone in the neighborhood holds a winning lottery ticket to $96,000.

The musical doesn't have a traditional plot. It's a mosaic of the American dream as interpreted by the different characters. Some characters, in particular Usnavi and Nina's family, illustrate the tension between family and the American Dream. Some critics have criticized the lack of cohesiveness in the book due to this approach. I agree that it does detract from the emotional resonance of the musical because there is no take-home message. Everyone has a different interpretation of the American dream and the musical doesn't single out any interpretation as the right one. The theme of tension between family and the American Dream is interesting, but it is not explored deeply in the musical.

In the Heights follows in the footsteps of Rent and tries to fuse modern music styles with the traditional Broadway musical. It was cute that the traditional overture was worked into the musical by having a guy put a boom box on the stage. Often the characters are associated with a particular style, for instance, Usnavi/hip-hop, Benny and Nina/pop, Carla and Daniela/Latin. The musical is an ensemble work. Almost everyone has a song, even the piragua guy!

The music is definitely the strong point of the work. Hip-hop has never been used extensively in a Broadway musical until In the Heights. It's definitely a very refreshing and novel sound. The ensemble numbers like "In the Heights", "96,000", and "Carnival del Barrio" are outstanding, and the pop duets between Nina and Benny are nice. The rest of the music seems forgettable, but the good songs make the cast album worth getting, just to hear the innovative hip-hop and the energy of the ensemble.

I found the performance itself a little disappointing. The actors seemed tired and flat, in particular Lin-Manuel Miranda during the opening number. The second act was more energetic, a shame since the best songs are in the first act. The best performances came from the supporting cast, such as Olga Merediz as Abuela Claudia. Maybe I should stop going to weekend performances. The actors must be exhausted by the end of the week. Or maybe the original cast is getting tired of performing the same thing for eight months. Fortunately, the cast album is excellent and captures the energy that must have been present during the first month after opening.

In the Heights is a musically innovative work with a weak book. However, it is a great first work from Lin-Manuel Miranda and I hope to see more from him.

Rent review

I went to see a Sunday matinee of Rent at the Nederlander Theatre in New York City today. I wanted to see it before Rent closes on September 7.

Rent was originally performed on Broadway in 1996. The music, lyrics, and book were all written by Jonathan Larson, a promising young composer. Unfortunately, Larson died shortly before the show's first off-Broadway performance.

I remember Rent being a huge hit during my freshman year in high school. My high school choir sang "Seasons of Love" for our Valentine's concert (as well as "Loveland" from Stephen Sondheim's Follies!) I also have some family friends (a few years younger than me) who are big fans.

Going into today's matinee, I had only previously seen the movie and listened to the movie soundtrack. I was pretty disappointed despite my great view from a front row center mezzanine seat. The sound was over-amplified and the energy level of the cast overall seemed low. The singing was subpar compared to the movie. I did like the actors who played Mark and Joanne.

It's interesting to think about why I got hooked onto this musical after seeing the movie. At the time (about three years ago), I related to the angst of feeling alone and helpless. Today, I felt the same, but I also appreciated the theme of relationships. A friend of mine told me recently: "Relationships are hard." I thought the song "Tango Maureen" was pretty funny especially when Joanne sings: "She cheated / She cheated / Maureen cheated / F**kin' cheated / I'm defeated / I should give up right now / Gotta look on the bright side / With all of your might / I'd fall for her still anyhow." Then later in the second act, Maureen and Joanne sing their spat duet "Take me or leave me," which is equally amusing.

However, it was bizarre to watch the actors create "bohemian" New York on stage. I couldn't relate to a bunch of HIV-positive people who are so poor that they burn scripts to heat their apartments. I simply don't have any friends with life-threatening chronic illnesses. As many people have pointed out, HIV is no longer a death sentence, so the musical is dated.

I haven't changed my mind about my favorite songs. The musical numbers that resonate most with me revolve around the theme of love/friendship/being alone: "Seasons of love," "Life support," "Will I?" Also, the songs "La vie voheme" and "Take me or leave me" are extremely fun and entertaining if you are in a sassy, rebellious mood.

I'm still glad I went to see Rent, though I wish it had been better. Maybe by putting together my live viewing today and the movie, I get a feel for the original Broadway cast, which everyone claims was fantastic. After 12 years on Broadway, Rent feels old and the producers have wisely made the decision to move on.

Eat Drink Man Woman review

Eat Drink Man Woman has become one of my favorite movies. Or shall I say Drink Eat Man Woman since that is the literal translation of the Chinese title <<飲食男女>>?

The movie is about a father, Mr. Chu, and his three daughters living in Taiwan. The father (as typical in many Chinese families) is not very good at verbal communication. He only knows how to show his love through cooking. Even though his three daughters are adults, they still live with him and they are required to be home for a special Sunday dinner every week. As time goes on, one daughter after another leaves her father's house and becomes independent. That's all I can say without giving anything away.

I really enjoyed watching a film that depicted modern Chinese society. I was frequently struck with the feeling of seeing my own family on camera. Chinese people tend towards stoicism and this aspect was emphasized in the family interactions. I can relate to the way that the Chu family struggles to communicate. Asian families don't hug or express verbal affection. Just doesn't happen much. They express their love through actions like Mr. Chu's cooking or the second daughter's criticism.

Eat Drink Man Woman has often been called a food lover's film because there are extended scenes of the father cooking extravagant meals. He uses all the freshest ingredients including fish out of the tank and chickens from the coop. It's almost as if the passion is focused on the food in the first half of the film, rather than on the people, who seem repressed. In the second half, this dynamic flips around and we see people's emotions boil over. Another great foodie film is the German movie Mostly Martha. The food aside, it's also an outstanding movie overall.

Eat Drink Man Woman is a funny movie and even more so to me, because I have the personal experience of growing up in a Chinese family. In one scene, Mr. Chu worries about his friend's elementary school aged daughter. He doesn't think the girl has a proper lunch, so he cooks a hot lunch for her and swaps this lunch with the lunch prepared by the girl's mother. Of course, the girl's mother is a terrible cook, and Mr. Chu ends up having to eat it. I can see my own father doing the exact same thing. The final kicker is that the girl starts "taking orders" from her classmates and sells her lunch to them for extra cash. Another scene I really like is when Mr. Chu goes to the bedrooms of each of his daughters and wakes them up in the morning. In particular, he tells the second daughter not to sleep at her desk because it's bad for her posture. My dad did the same to me when I was growing up. Although this was not supposed to be funny, I liked how the sisters talked while washing the dishes by hand. You know it's a Chinese family, when there are only human dishwashers. There are many other humorous scenes, but these three are the ones that were most personally relevant to me.

[Spoilers below]

The main source of tension between the three daughters is who gets to leave home and who has to stay behind and take care of the father. I expected that the eldest daughter (the spinster, religious schoolteacher) would be the one who stays at home and takes care of the father. In fact, it's the rebellious, independent-minded second daughter who ends up staying at home. She realizes how much she has in common with her father (she loves to cook) and how much she loves him. The ending scene where she cooks dinner for her father is especially touching.

Gypsy review

I just got back from seeing Gypsy on Broadway, fourth row center. :-D (If you're wondering how I got that seat, I bought it months in advance.)

The book was written by Arthur Laurents (who is also directing the current production at 90+ years of age), the music by Jules Styne, and the lyrics by Stephen Sondheim. The story is pretty simple. It's about a stage mother, Rose Lee, who will do anything to make her two daughters stars on the vaudeville circuit. She seduces a theater agent, Herbie, into helping her. Eventually, her meddling and inflated ego drive away her younger daughter June, the star of her act. Rose resolves to take the hit in stride and re-works the act to center around her other daughter, Louise. The act is so bad that they end up in a house of burlesque (basically stripping). Rose finally decides to call it quits on her stage dreams and marry Herbie as she promised, but at the last minute, there is an opportunity for Louise to take the star strip spot. Herbie realizes that he can never marry Rose and leaves. Louise becomes a star stripper and with her newfound confidence, becomes an independent woman. Rose is left feeling empty and wondering what "she did it for." Gypsy is often considered one of the best written musicals of all time; someone even calling it the King Lear of musical theater.

Now, my comments on the actual performance. Patti Lupone played Rose, Boyd Gaines played Herbie, and Laura Benanti played Louise. All three have been nominated for Tony Awards. I came to the musical expecting Patti LuPone to belt her way through (LuPone had a tendency of doing that in her earlier years), but she really did a great job acting, so much that I noticed her acting just as much as her singing. I think LuPone has been working very hard in the last ten years to become a better actress and it shows. She was very controlled and focused acting-wise all the way through, only really belting in the Act 2 finale, "Rose's Turn." I felt like LuPone's singing voice was a little off, but it could have been my imagination. LuPone played Rose as a very human creature. Some people (I'm thinking Bette Midler) have played Rose as this crazy superwoman and that choice just doesn't work because I can't imagine Herbie falling for that kind of Rose. I really liked Boyd Gaines and Laura Benanti as well. Gaine played Herbie as a really sweet guy who's seduced by Rose. He plays along until he explodes right before Louise becomes a stripper. It's hard to imagine a more likable and believable Herbie. You really feel like Herbie is madly in love with Rose. Gaines and LuPone have great chemistry in songs like "Mr. Goldstone, I Love You" and "Together Wherever We Go." Benanti does the transition between Louise the eager-to-please girl and Louise the confident stripper very well. I thought the actor who played Tulsa was good, but not outstanding. There was just some spark that was missing. The orchestra was fantastic, especially the brass, and they had a full 25-member complement. Yay for old-fashioned overtures! Interestingly enough, Arthur Laurents chose to put the orchestra on the stage behind the set. I liked that choice because it made the orchestra part of the story more and the actors were closer to the audience.

Even if you've seen other productions (I watched both movies before attending this show), there are some new, thoughtful touches. During the "You'll Never Get Away from Me" number, Rose starts dancing with Herbie and somehow Rose drags Herbie onto the ground and they end up rolling around on the floor. It was hilarious. They end the number with a tender kiss, while sitting on the floor -- aww, how sweet. In the "You Gotta Have a Gimmick" number, Electra is played as a lethargic woman who wearily turns the switch on her costume. The ironic joke is that the woman with the flashiest costume has the opposite personality. That is a directing choice I was not expecting and very refreshing.

Laurents's direction emphasizes how Rose and Louise's roles are gradually switched over the course of time. Louise becomes more and more confident with each strip and she starts talking down to her mother. Rose breaks down during "Rose's Turn" and in the conversation with Louise aftewards, she starts crying. Pretty shocking. Louise (Benanti is conveniently quite a bit taller than LuPone) comforts her mother like she's a child. Rose regains her composure and tells her dream about having her name in lights -- "Madame Rose and her daughter Gypsy." Louise walks off chuckling, obviously not taking her mother seriously. In the movies I've seen, you are given the impression that Rose and Louise reconcile -- walking off the stage arm in arm, but in this performance, I didn't get that sense at all. Instead as Louise walks off alone and Rose is seen with her back to the audience, grasping at her name in lights -- a very dark ending.

One of the things I really like about Gypsy is that it has something for everyone. Kids will enjoy the silly vaudeville acts and Tulsa's dance number. Adults will appreciate the complexity of Rose's character and the fine supporting acting from Louise and Herbie. The score is wonderful, upbeat, and jazzy (something I didn't appreciate until now). There is a lot of humor in the musical (especially in the "You've Gotta Have a Gimmick" number starring three strippers), but also a lot of darkness especially in "Everything's Coming Up Roses" and "Rose's Turn".

Anyways, all the rave reviews from theater critics are true. The play is beautifully acted, beautifully sung, extremely entertaining, and extremely thoughtful.

Sunday in the Park with George review

Sunday in the Park with George (SitPwG) is the first musical Sondheim wrote in the second "act" of his career. Sondheim's collaboration Merrily We Roll Along with book writer George Furth and director Hal Prince was a horrible flop in 1981, lasting less than ten performances. Sondheim publicly declared he was going to stop writing musicals, but fortunately, he changed his mind when James Lapine suggested that he write songs for a musical about the life of Georges Seurat. SitPwG was a great critical success in 1984 and even won a Pulitzer prize for drama (only one of seven musicals to do so).

The first act of the musical centers around Georges Seurat during the time of his painting of his masterpiece "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte." He has a lover named Dot who bears his child, a girl named Marie. In the second act, Marie's grandson is also an artist named George. The actors who played Seurat and Dot double as young George and Marie.

This review should have been written a while ago, but I was planning to see 2008 Broadway revival a second time and thought that a second viewing might bring some new insights. That wasn't the case, but I still need to write up this review.

SitPwG has an incredibly challenging score that is written to mirror the Pointilism style of Seurat's painting (making the painting with very short strokes, almost like dots). The prime example of this style is the song "Color and Light" where Seurat sings about painting "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte." I didn't truly enjoy the score until the third listening. The music is bright and shimmering (apparently the painting itself has also been described in the same way). These qualities in combination with the unusual pointilistic style give the music a freshness and uniqueness so amazing that I have to drop everything I'm doing when I listen to the soundtrack. If I have one negative comment, the song where Seurat impersonates two dogs ("The Day Off") is really weird, but maybe it serves to show how self-absorbed the artist is in his work.

I haven't even mentioned the lyrics which are some of the best Sondheim has written (and that's saying a lot considering that Sondheim is probably the best lyricist in musical theater history). There are gently comic and witty songs like "Sunday in the Park with George" (Dot complaining about being a model), "It's Hot Up Here" (a whimsical fantasy where the characters in the painting complain about being stuck in time), and "Putting It Together" (George complaining about the hassle of fundraising and hobnobbing to get your art on exhibit). The duet between Seurat and his mother "Beautiful" has one of my favorite lyrics "Pretty isn't beautiful, Mother/Pretty is what changes/What the eye arranges." The bittersweet song "Finishing the Hat" is considered one of Sondheim's very best songs. It's beautiful the way Sondheim weaves in the metaphor of seeing as an artist and sitting by the window watching the world go by because you have to do your work. The song ends with the line "Look I made a hat... where there never was a hat." This idea, the uplifting nature of creation, is brought to a climax in the Act I/II finale "Sunday." What's interesting about "Sunday" is that the lyrics seem like a meaningless jumble of words: "Sunday, by the blue purple yellow red water/On the green purple yellow red grass." But you realize that it's really saying how a bunch of dots painted by Seurat can come together into a beautiful piece of art.

Book writer James Lapine does a wonderful job turning the creative process into a coherent, touching, and wise play. It would be a stretch to say that SitPwG has a plot or story; it's more like a portrait which captures all the joys and disappointments of making art. Seurat is a controlled, anti-social character who doesn't speak much, so Lapine cleverly comments on the artist through the other characters. Dot notes that artists are "bizarre, fixed, cold" (hmm, sounds like a lot of physicists). Franz, a German servant, says "Work is what you do for others, art is what you do for yourself."

Lapine also directed the original 1984 production (rare, since book writers don't usually direct their own work). His conception of the Act I set as the painting itself holds the play together. It's so clever how the characters interact on the island and suddenly at the end of Act I come together as the painting itself. It's ironic that these lively characters end up as being stiff, faceless figures in the final painting, but Seurat wasn't interested in personality. He wanted to understand the interplay of color and light. For some elements of the painting, Lapine uses paper cutouts (for instance, the dogs and one of the soldiers). The metaphor of arranging people and papercuts is extended to the beginning of Act II. In a bit of perversity, the young George is using his artist vision not to make art, but to arrange the critics, sponsors, etc to fund his art.

Comparing the two acts, I feel like the songs in the second act aren't quite as strong. "Children and Art" is a really touching song mood-wise, but the lyrics just don't seem very interesting. "Lesson #8" has to be acted very well; otherwise it comes across as excessively self-pitying.

It doesn't help that the Act II is less coherent than Act I. The second act starts off strong and promising, but it seems like James Lapine didn't know quite how to end it. The idea of Dot's ghost coming back to help young George find his way back to creative productivity is far-fetched and feels like a hack. Unlike some people, I do feel like Act II is important because if Act I is the "head" of creating art, Act II is the "heart." Young George is the opposite of Seurat. He lacks confidence, feels like a failure at times, and cares about his personal relationships. It's easy to be an artist with tunnel vision, but how do you do hard creative work when you can't help being distracted by other things (some of them arguably important like human relationships)?

Finally, I'll discuss the actual performances. My first introduction to SitPwG was a video taping of the 1984 stage production with Mandy Patinkin and Bernadette Peters as the two leads. The 2008 Broadway revival is actually a transfer of a transfered production. The revival was originally put on in a tiny 190-seat theater called the Menier Chocolate Factory. Then it was moved to the West End of London before moving to Broadway. The two leads, Daniel Evans and Jenna Russell, who play Seurat/George and Dot/Marie, transferred to Broadway from the West End but the rest of the Broadway are American actors, new to the production. Menier Chocolate Factory is tiny, so they only used a 5-piece orchestra. Even when the production was transferred to Broadway, they kept the 5-piece pit which I find very strange. I prefer a larger orchestra for SitPwG (I think the original 1984 production had 20+ musicians). The other difference is that the paper cutout of the scenery and animals have been replaced by computer animation. The technology is more modern, but the basic concept of the paper cutout hasn't changed. They just happen to be digital this time. Comparing the stage video of the 1984 original production to the live 2008 Broadway revival, I prefer the acting of the British actors Evans and Russell, but I prefers the singing of the American actors Patinkin and Peters. But these are minor quibbles; both productions are fantastic. SitPwG is so sophisticated (most audiences probably won't "get it"), the music and set design so challenging, it's rarely put on. I'm just glad to have seen it twice.

Overall, Sunday in the Park with George is a daringly beautiful and touching work about the creative process which manages to capture all the joys and struggles of living life as an artist, writer, or even scientist. It's not perfect, but even slightly flawed, it's one of the best works I've seen in a long time.

Sweeney Todd on tour review

Last week, I saw Sweeney Todd on tour in Los Angeles. There were reports of sound problems in previous performances, but fortunately they were fixed when I saw the show.

It was a good performance, but I just wasn't crazy about the whole actors being musicians thing. I didn't really see how the instruments added to the story telling. Sure, it was cute sometimes, e.g. watching Judy Kaye (Mrs. Lovett) play the tuba badly and Lauren Molina (Johanna) perform slides on her cello, but hardly necessary to the play.

I felt like the two standout performers were Judy Kaye and Benjamin Eakley (who played the beadle). Both were fine actors and singers. Judy chose to play Mrs. Lovett as a sweet, charming character whose only fault was being too fond of Mr. T. She felt bad about locking Toby in the bakehouse.

The judge (played by Keith Buterbaugh) was pretty bland and I felt like his voice was too high for the part. I like a strong bass for the judge.

Lauren Molina did a nice job being a crazy Johanna. The guy who played Anthony was good but pretty much the same as every other Anthony I've seen.

Sadly, I didn't really care for Sweeney Todd's performance (played by David Hess). He didn't really vary his volume much during "My Friends" (he seemed loud for the parts when he should have been soft "whisper I'll listen" etc). His Epiphany was good, but not as good as other previous performers. I didn't like the fact that he tried to threaten the audience from the back of the stage while standing on a ladder. But that's the fault of the director.

I'm just not a big fan of John Doyle's style for Sweeney Todd. I thought he did a much more effective job with the Company revival. The Sweeney Todd revival came off as being clever and novel, but the abstract, minimalist presentation took away some of the emotional punch compared to the original Hal Prince staging. John Doyle often had the actors stand next to each other and act towards the audience rather than facing each other. I didn't like this choice. What's wrong with traditional person-to-person acting? Doyle also chose to substitute the famous barber chair with a baby coffin. I found that really weird and missed the shock value of dumping bodies from the barber chair down a chute.

A Little Night Music review

A Little Night Music is one of Sondheim's earlier musicals and probably the most straightforward and approachable of his works along with A Funny Thing Happened On The Way to the Forum.

The book (by Hugh Wheeler) is based on Ingmar Bergman film Smiles of a Summer Night. The story revolves around the romantic follies of four men and women in late 19th century mid-summer Sweden. The sun just doesn't set during the summer in Scandinavia, which is enough to scramble anyone's brains. I haven't seen the Bergman film, so I can't comment on how closely the musical follows the film.

The musical is light and playful (Jonathan Tunick, the orchestrator, calls is "scherzo") and as many people have remarked, most of the score is set in 3/4 waltz time. In a sense, A Little Night Music is a dance gone wrong. The musical opens with a short Greek chorus song followed by men and women waltzing. Unfortunately, the people are dancing with the wrong partners. Everyone is chasing after another person who doesn't return their affections. The dance has turned into a romantic game. By the end of the musical, all is set right and everyone is dancing with their proper partners. Sondheim's lyrics are always fantastic, but I especially enjoyed them in this musical. The words are sophisticated and witty and roll off your tongue like a Cole Porter song or an Oscar Wilde play.

But like any Wilde play, the characters portray a world that appears peachy and creamy but where darkness lurks underneath. There's waltzing, gorgeous costumes, and a glamorous actress, yes, but also people living out deluded lives. The central characters are Frederik Eggerman, a lawyer, and Desiree Armfeldt, a glamorous actress. Both are middle-aged people who had a love affair in their youth, fourteen years earlier. Frederik has re-married an 18 year old girl named Anne and Desiree is still acting in touring companies and having flings with married men. Henrik, Frederik's nineteen year old son from a previous marriage, struggles with being in love with his stepmother Anne and tries to drown his sorrow in cello playing and religious studies. Meanwhile, Anne is so naive that she still hasn't consummated her marriage with Frederik eleven months after the wedding day. To complicate matters, Desiree is having an affair with the married Count Carl-Magnus Malcolm, but she wants to get back together with the married Frederik! Desiree's affair has also made an enemy of Countess Charlotte Malcolm, Carl-Magnus's wife.

The musical comments on this tangled romantic web in several ways. There is a Greek chorus (a quintet) which breaks into song at certain points. They never sing about specific people or places, but they mirror the mood of the characters. For instance, when Frederik goes to see Desiree after her performance, the quintet sings the song "Remember" which recalls a youthful fling. Madame Armfeldt and Frederika, Desiree's mother and daughter respectively, explictly discuss Desiree and romantic follies in general. Madame Armfeldt tries to instruct Fredericka in human life so she can avoid her mother's mistakes. Henrik and Charlotte are both sharp enough to see what's going on around them, but being ensnared in the web themselves, they aren't the innocent bystanders like Madame Armfeldt and Frederika. In "A Weekend in the Country", Henrik sings that he's going to tag along with his father on a trip to the Armfeldt estate, in order to observe "frivolous lives." The servants Frid and Petra bring in the low-class perspective on love. They are simple people but they recognize real love when they see it. Petra offers her commentary on romance in "The Miller's Son." No matter who you marry whether a peasant or the Prince of Wales, you will grow old, have to feed children, and/or get bored. One should "celebrate everything passing by" since it doesn't last. Sometimes all that money, choice, and sophistication muddles people (e.g. Frederik, Desiree) rather than enlightening them.

Light comedy is done to perfection in A Little Night Music. Frederik's song about unconsummated passion "Now" is hilarious. I still can't get over the line "I'm sorry to say, but is Hans Christian Andersen ever risque?" But that can't compare to the duet "You Must Meet My Wife" which includes one of the funniest lines ever written: "Isn't that alarming? What is she, a bird?" That song is shortly followed by a comic acting scene involving Count Malcolm discovering Frederik and Desiree in their night clothes. Act I ends with a fantastic ensemble piece "A Weekend in the Country" where the characters argue with each other and scheme romantic plots. Charlotte's look of consternation when Carl-Magnus decides to crash the Armfeldt party is truly priceless (to which he sings "Happy birthday, it's your present"). Finally, there is the dinner party scene where Charlotte and Desiree trade insults while Frederik tries to be charming and Carl-Magnus tries to restrain his wife.

I was fortunate to get my hands on a taped video of the New York City Opera's 1990 production, broadcast on PBS live from Lincoln Center. The cast is very good and the sets and costumes lavishly beautiful. Two standout actors were Regina Resnick as Madame Armfeldt and Maureen Moore as Charlotte. They had many of the best punchlines in the book and they delivered them well. Charlotte is my favorite character and Maureen Moore really brought out the self-deprecating, stingingly sarcastic nature of the woman. I think Moore's version of "Every Day A Little Death" is the best I've heard. George Lee Andrews as Frederik and Sally Ann Howes as Desiree were good in the leading roles, but nothing to write home about. Andrews sounded like Len Cariou (the original Frederik in the 1973 Broadway production), but not quite as good.

It's nice to have some (relatively) light, charming Sondheim music that I can actually listen to while working. Most of Sondheim's works are too heavy or emotionally-involving for me to listen to while doing something else!

Sondheim musicals ranked

It's a bit unfair to rank anything, but I want to record how I feel about the Sondheim musicals I've listened to and seen thus far.

Amazing:
Sweeney Todd
Company
Sunday in the Park with George
A Little Night Music

Really good, but not my favorite:
Into the Woods
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum

OK:
Assassins
Passion

Company review

I finally saw a real production of Company on PBS's Great Performance series. This production was from the 2006-2007 Broadway revival. Company originally debuted in 1970 on Broadway.

Company was one of first shows where Stephen Sondheim wrote both the music and lyrics for the songs. The idea for the music came about when George Furth showed Sondheim a bunch of one-act plays he had been writing about marriage. Sondheim consulted his friend director/producer Hal Prince who told them, "Gentleman, it's a musical!" So in the end, Company became a series of sketches about five married couples who are friends with the perennial bachelor Bobby. The sketches are tied together by the emotional development of Bobby. He goes from being a bachelor who is skeptical of marriage to being a man who realizes how much he needs somebody and how commitment is part of what makes a person alive. Historically, Company is considered one of the first (if not the first) "concept" musical. There is no clear plot, but the music and dialogue are centered around a theme. In fact, it's not clear if the events are real or if they are going on in Bobby's head. Bobby blows out his birthday candles three times. Have three birthdays really occurred or does Bobby have a dream about his birthday?

Company is one of my favorite Sondheim shows so far (the others being Sweeney Todd and Sunday in the Park with George). It's a show that requires good acting and showcases outstanding acting. The ensemble numbers are beautiful. The Original Broadway Cast recording sounds very 1970s-ish, but John Doyle has updated the music to sound modern and classy. The musical has three of my favorite songs: "Being Alive," "The Ladies Who Lunch," and "Getting Married Today." The show is funny and witty, but it carries a strong message, too. Marriage, in fact any kind of commitment, is a compromise. It sucks that when we choose one path, we close many others, but that's what life is about. Life is about making choices. There's nothing wrong with Bobby being a bachelor. The problem is that it's all he knows. He's never tried anything else. He's never made a choice; he's always waiting to see what other people do. Joanne's stinging number "The Ladies Who Lunch" reminds Bobby (and the audience) that you can sit around wasting your life pretending you're actually living it. Delusion is insidious. There are so many ways to waste time, whether it's going to fittings, taking in high art like Mahler symphonies and Pinter plays, mocking other people, surfing the internet (wait, that's not in the musical...) [I have too many interests and it's so hard to commit to doing just one or two. I'm trying to wean myself off this Sondheim craze, so that I get some research done.]

In the end, Bobby realizes that he can't put off the inevitable. He wants to live a real life and feel real feelings. Hence the song "Being Alive." In a touching finale, he hides from his married friends, blows out his candles, and makes his own wish. He doesn't need his friends anymore. He's had his party and he knows that it's time to leave.

Some people find Company bitterly pessimistic about marriage. I think that's a misconception. First of all, we are seeing the married couples interact from Bobby's point of view. There are never any scenes where the couples are alone on stage (except "Poor Thing" where the couples are commenting on Bobby's non-married state). As Larry (Joanne's husband) says, his wife likes to grandstand in public. She's actually wonderful in private. Of course, since Bobby is a perpetual bachelor, he's looking for reasons why marriage is bad. Second, even though we see marriage depicted in a negative light, it's clear that Sondheim and Furth think that being a playboy is even worse. If commitment at its worst is still better than staying on the sidelines, it's clear what the best choice is.

As for the PBS broadcast, I loved Raul Esparza as Bobby. He played a very calm, sweet guy who gradually becomes more and more distraught about being as an outsider. The New York Times review described him as being icy like the drink perpetually glued to his hand and that as the show went on, he thawed until he exploded at the end. In the second act opening, Raul has a broad smile on his face as he watches his friends march around party-style. Towards the end of the number, two of the couples play solos on their instruments. The husband plays and the wife answers. When it comes to Bobby's turn, he attempts a few notes on a kazoo but no one is there to respond. He just stands there glowering for the rest of the song.

Raul's performance of "Being Alive" is my favorite so far (better than the recording on the original cast album by Dean Jones). I wasn't too crazy about the other performers. They were good, but not outstanding. The New York Times critic (name?) thought that since the the rest of the cast was slightly bland, that it gave more attention to Bobby (in a good way). I could see that. It was a bit disappointing to see my favorite songs "The Ladies Who Lunch" and "Getting Married Today" not come off as the showstoppers that they are. Still, who can top Elaine Strich's "Ladies" (one of the most legendary Broadway performances ever) and Madeline Kahn's "Getting Married Today"?

The Company revival was yet another John Doyle production. Doyle's trademark in recent years has been to take old musicals and redo them with the actors doubling as the orchestra. He pulled off this concept previously in the revival of Sweeney Todd to great critical acclaim. I enjoyed the doubling of musicians/actors. It wasn't as gimmicky as I thought it would be. I was amazed that some actors played two different instruments! How do they play with no conductor??

The fact that the instruments were onstage gave the musical a cabaret feel (not that I've ever been to a cabaret show, this is a guess). The cabaret feel was enhanced by the simple, black costumes and mostly bare set. Marriage and relationships are an intimate topic and the intimate setting works wonderfully. The piano was used very effectively. I liked seeing Marta sing while sitting on top of the piano. I liked watching Bobby clumsily climb on top of the piano (emphasizing that he's still a boyish voyeur). I liked how the actor stopped playing the piano and closed the keyboard case just as Barbara Walsh was finishing "The Ladies Who Lunch." I enjoyed seeing the actors walk around marching-band style in "Side by Side by Side".

However, having the actors play instruments wasn't good in all cases. I don't think they added anything to "You Could Drive a Person Crazy." I thought they were downright annoying in "Have I Got a Girl for You." Why would John Doyle have David play the cello while singing "have I got a girl for you"? What was Doyle thinking??

If you missed the PBS broadcast, don't worry. The broadcast will be available on DVD in a few months. I'll certainly be in line for it!

Passion review

OK, I admit all these Sondheim musicals are wearing me down. I rented Passion which opened on Broadway in 1994 and only lasted for about eights months. It was a flop but not anywhere as bad as Merrily We Roll Along (lasted less than one month). Although Passion was short-lived on the stage, Stephen Sondheim and director/book writer James Lapine had the presence of mind to film it shortly after the musical closed.

The musical is based on a movie called Passione d'Amore. The story is about a handsome Italian officer named Giorgio. He is having an affair with a married woman in Milan. Her name is Clara. Giorgio is suddenly transferred to a new station in a little town far away. His superior officer, Colonel Ricci, has a sickly and ugly cousin named Fosca who falls in love with Giorgio.

I have to say that I was bored out of my mind during my first viewing. I wasn't exactly sure where the plot was going and watching an obsessive woman (Fosca) throw herself desperately at a man is not much fun. I didn't really start liking the musical until almost the end when Giorgio has a radical change of mind and decides that he admires Fosca and even loves her (though not as much as she loves him). He realizes that he wants real love, love that is without "reason" or "mercy" or "pride" or "shame," love that is not simply a "practical arrangement."

My second viewing was much more enjoyable since this time I knew where the plot was going. The music, costumes, and set design are lush, gorgeous, and of course very romantic. The acting is extremely good, the standout being Donna Murphy who played Fosca and won a Tony Award for her performance. Sondheim tries to hard to draw parallels between Fosca and Clara with both of them using some of the same songs and lyrics. Clara appears to be an angel (always wearing bright, breath-takingly beautiful dresses), a salvation of sorts, but it's clear that it is an empty one. Fosca is an emotional force (who in contrast wears dark green dresses) and seems like an obsessive maniac, but Donna Murphy's acting in the train scene (where Fosca follows Giorgio to the station) really sold me on the fact that Fosca is just misguided. She doesn't know how to control her feelings and she sincerely loves Giorgio. Fosca rightly points out that Clara and Giorgio's relationship is only surface deep. She understands that because she once made the mistake of falling for a handsome man who cheated her. However, I'm still not completely convinced of Giorgio's change of heart (when he starts loving Fosca).

It was a good show. I enjoyed the music and appreciated the novel concept, but I'm not sure I'd watch it again. The characters struck my emotional cord weakly; Passion didn't seem that passionate to me.

Assassins review

Assassins was Sondheim's last musical on Broadway. It opened on Broadway on 2004 as a revival of the 1991 Off-Broadway production. Assassins is a musical with an unusual premise: who were the men and women who tried to assassinate US presidents and why did they do it? The said assassins include famous figures like John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, and John Hinkley as well as more obscure people like Charles Guiteau, Leon Czolgosz, and Sara Jane Moore. Each assassin has their own song, their turn in the spotlight to explain why they did it.

Like Sweeney Todd, much shock value is derived from having dark and manic characters sing beautiful songs in the style of Civil War ballads, Sousa marches, and other patriotic music. I'm a big fan of pre-1950s American tunes, so I certainly enjoyed Sondheim's music (after my elementary school unit on the Civil War, I ran around singing "Goober-peas").

The motivations of the assassins are as varied as their personalities. Sometimes they are political. Leon Czolgosz claims to have done it for the sake of the poor and oppressed (he tried to join anarchist organizations). John Wilkes Booth claims that he did it to save the South from that tyrant Lincoln. However, the commentary of the Balladeer and Booth's subsequent appearances in the musical make it seem like Booth was after fame and theatrics (Booth was a charismatic actor). Other people are simply insane. Charles Guiteau was a megalomaniac who wanted to be ambassador to France and felt insulted when the president wouldn't grant him the position. Guiteau and Booth are the most flamboyant and outgoing assassins. The loner John Hinkley wanted to impress the actress Jodie Foster. Giuseppe Zangara suffered from severe abdominal pain, which seems to have driven him crazy. To relieve the pain, he decided to murder a president; he wanted everyone to hear his suffering. The women assassins, Sara Jane Moore and Lynette Fromme, are treated unfairly, in my opinion. They are simply reduced to comic relief characters. Moore is depicted as a klutz who can't even load a gun. Finally, there is Lee Harvey Oswald. No one really knows what his motivations were, so the musical invents a story about how Oswald wanted to kill himself, but the other assassins goad him into killing the president. Huh?

The musical does not celebrate these assassins. Not a single person really gets their "prize", except maybe Guiteau who finally got the media attention he wanted. In fact, as the Balladeer points out, Lincoln ended up being one of the most revered American presidents because his term was cut short by Booth's assassination -- surely not the result Booth would have wanted.

What is the audience supposed to make of Assassins? The obvious answer is that it's about the corruption of the American Dream. The office of president is the pinnacle of the American Dream, so assassinating the president is equivalent to trying to destroy the American Dream. What seems like a beautiful idea - "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - has a dark underside. If you have money, health, and joy in your life, there's someone else in the country who doesn't have that and wants it badly, maybe badly enough to take it away from you by gunpoint. However, I don't think this idea is unique to America. How is the American Dream different than the generic yearning for a better life? Because we have a legacy of freedom and anti-aristocracy in America, (some) people feel entitled to a perfect life, the most coveted objects being money and fame. If popular television is an accurate barometer of American culture, it seems like people value fame more than anything (e.g. acting like morons on talk shows like Jerry Springer). Killing is about the quickest shortcut to fame I can think of. You can "make your way to the head of the line" as the Balladeer explains in "Ballad of Czolgosz." Even in our jaded modern society, killing can emotionally devastate people and thus generate media attention, if you pick the right targets (presidents, innocent students). Moreover, in a land which celebrates diversity and welcomes immigrants, we have to take the bad apples (the insane, deranged) with the good. The dreams of the assassins (wanting fame, wanting to impress Jodie Foster, wanting to make political statements, etc) are just as valid as our own. The problem is that they went to unacceptable extremes.

I noticed a chronological progression in motivation from political (Booth and Czolgosz) to self-absorbed and fame-grabbing (Hinckley and Fromme). Are we supposed to think that TV and popular culture is responsible for increasingly senseless killing like the Virginia Tech massacre? There is probably some truth in that, though I'm not sure pop culture can account for all of it. With the internet, TV, cable, etc, you can isolate yourself completely from sane human beings and warp your perceptions. If someone can achieve fame by singing terribly on YouTube, why can't you get your moment in the spotlight by murder?

After some deliberations and several listens of the cast album, I felt like I learned a lot about some obscure historical figures and added to my conception of what the American Dream is about. I'm cerebrally satisfied, but emotionally, no. If I went to get a personal take on revenge and killing, I'll turn to Sweeney Todd. Assassins is indeed a thought-provoking and original piece of work, but when it comes to the music that resonates with me, it's the heart and not the head.