Spiderman: Turn Off the Dark

I've tweeted quite a bit about the road to Spiderman: Turn Off the Dark. How my tickets were cancelled and my seats move to progressively worse locations. How Ticketmaster told me they were excited about the "great seats" they had for me at the December 26 performance, only to discover they were not just bad, but obstructed view. (And a decent usher who moved us to perhaps the best seats in the house.) But I finally got to see Spiderman, and now I get to add my thoughts to the bizzilion others on the web.

The technical difficulties that have made headlines were largely absent. A brief pause during the first act and another during the second act finale actually added a bit of excitement to the proceedings.

Long story short: Pretty much every aspect of Spiderman needs work. The technical effects are exciting, but mostly occur in the first act. The second act, particularly the finale needs a technical marvel to compare to the first act finale. The book and score are passable, but certainly not yet rising to Broadway quality.

Act I is stronger in some key ways. The story is more fully developed and, as noted, has the high-flying technical marvels we've been promised. But overall it feels derivative. This is partly due to the fact that it's an origin story, so anyone who's seen the first film pretty much knows what;s going to happen. The opening seems pulled from Lion King, and a key musical performance repeats the choreography from Across the Universe. Julie Taymor's work is about discovery, but telling an all too familiar story in such a mundane fashion simply doesn't work.

Act II focuses on Arachne, a Taymor creation rooted in Greek mythology, and an original story. While it's ultimately more satisfying and creative, it's also muddled and underdeveloped. It begins with an ill-conceived, ripped-from-Aida fashion show of Spiderman villains. It leads to a finale that lacks energy, comprehension and techno feats. And the big reveals, like Mary Jane finding out that Peter Parker is Spiderman, happen off stage. But at least it feels original throughout.

The flying effects are generally exciting, but the web-spinning effects are mostly absent and uninspiring.

The music by Bono and The Edge is not particularly memorable. The one song that works well, The Boy Falls From the Sky, is a solid second act number. But the music is not really theatrical.

Patrick Page and T.V. Carpio (subbing for the now department Natalie Mendoza) are given the meatiest roles and make for interesting villains. Reeve Carney and Jennifer Damiano are in excellent voice, but in rather thankless roles. The production makes no secret of the fact that multiple actors are playing Spiderman, and the unfortunate effect is that there's no fully developed character.

Julie Taymor is on video discussing the fact that Spiderman is part musical, part cirque, park rock concert. But ultimately it's still a musical that doesn't know what it wants to be. With five weeks of previews left, there are certainly opportunities to make substantial improvements. And Taymor is always up for a challenge.

Wicked Update

I had a chance to see Wicked again last weekend. It's been a few years since I last saw it, but two friends needed to see it. It's holding up well. The producers have made a few modifications to the Broadway production, so it feels mostly indistinguishable from the two touring companies I've seen.

Mandy Gonzales stepped into the role of Elphaba only last week, and Katie Rose Clarke continues her long run in the bubble. Both are just fine and make the roles their own. Gonzales is a bit less intense than previous Elphies, and Clarke has this Ann Reinking/Zooey Deschanel thing going that works well.

The production is still slick, with very strong supporting performances by Rondi Reed (Morrible) and Alex Brightman (Boq). It also feels fresh, which was great to see.

Wicked still remains a show that is better than it should be. It is far greater than the sum of its parts, which is good because the parts aren't all that great. But the lapses in story, the weak lyrics, and the only tangential connection to the Maguire novel disappear into a wonderful time at the theater.

My iPad is Here!

Two excellent reviews sum up my thoughts about the iPad. Check out USAToday and MacWorld for well-written, thorough reviews of the iPad. And check out Gizmodo for all-around excellent coverage of the device.

What would I add? Ever since the rumors started flying around almost a year ago about the entry of Apple into the tablet/netbook market, I have been anxiously awaiting this day. I own a netbook (and a laptop and iPhone), but have never found it to be as functional as I'd like. That is due, in very large part, to the inefficiency of XP as netbook system software. Apple is rarely first on the scene, but Steve Jobs is good at transforming the marketplace. The iPod was not the first mp3 music player and the iPhone was not the first smartphone. But both have changed the way we listen to music and communicate. Jobs has always done a better job of making devices that complement my lifestyle, rather than dictate it.

So, I was giddy and cautious when the iPad announcement came in January. It looked beautiful. It seemed to do amazing things. It was also missing key features and was going to run the closed iPhone/app-store model OS. The reviews referenced above discuss this well.

I ordered my iPad at 8:32 on March 12, two minutes after it went on sale. And I tracked it from China on March 30, got very concerned when I saw that it was still in Louisville at 4:22 yesterday morning, a happily greeted the UPS guy at 10:17 when it was delivered.

Do I love it? Oh yeah. And even some of my more skeptical friends who've now played with it are crowing. Is it a game changer. No! But I'm pretty sure it will be. Remember, the first iPod wasn't, and neither was the first iPhone. But the second generations were revolutionary.

Put the iPad into the hands of a 3-year old. She'll be able to use it. Put it into the hands of my mother. She'll be able to use it. The ease of the iPad comes two ways. Set up is beyond simple: download latest itunes, plug in. Within ten minutes of doing this I was off listening to music, watching Up and sending tweets and email.

The iPad is insanely simple to use, too. Why? because you need to know nothing about the operating system. The OS truly operates in the background. Now, I do understand that the downside of this is that everything goes through the iTunes Store and the ability for creativity is within a range and under the control of Apple. But there's so much potential.

The other thing the iPad does is separate consumption for creation. Laptops have largely brought those things together in hugely effective ways. This has, among other things, transformed student learning. But I digress. I'm not too concerned at the moment. Ultimately this will change, and I've been hugely impressed with the day-of-release apps available for the iPad.

For the record, I'm very disappointed in the opening of the iBookstore. I had a list of 6 books that would be my first ebook experience. None of them was available on opening day. My first book? Dorian Gray. Free!

When I travel with my netbook, I often bring my laptop. I can easily see myself traveling sans laptop with just the iPad and my wireless keyboard.

People are still figuring out how they'll use their iPads. Me, too. But, except when I needed to multitask, I have been able to function easily with just my iPad over the last 24 hours.

And it is quite simply a gorgeous piece of equipment.

The Donkey Show

Got to see The Donkey Show at Oberon in Boston (American Repertory Theater) last night. Thoughts later, but here are some pics so you can get an impression of how joyful and fun the show is.

Let the Wild Rumpus Start

Where the Wild Things Are is Spike Jonze's near perfect adaptation of Maurice Sendak's dark children's book. Jonze has created a work beautifully inspired by Sendak's book and yet uniquely his own vision. The film is an emotional rollercoaster that is breathtaking in its beauty and yet grounded in the realities of childhood.

From the frenetic opening scenes in which Max (Max Records) is a bundle of energy bounding around the house, Jonze captures the energy and loneliness of Max's life. These brief scenes of a regular dysfunctional every-family become the references for Max's adventure on the island of the Wild Things.

The film transcends the sum of its parts, and what incredible parts Jonze has assembled. In Max, Jonze has found the perfect lead. Records has such a range of emotion and expressiveness, he seduces you within the first moments of the film. It's an expression of such nuance that he barely moves a muscle when his teacher says the sun is going to die, and yet the horror he's feeling is devastatingly shared. Records is supported by great voice work from James Gandolfini, Chris Cooper, Lauren Ambrose, Forest Whitaker, and, particularly, Paul Dano and Catherine O'Hara. Catherine Keener is also fine as Max's mom.

The creative elements are equally important and equally fine. The cinematography and art directions are simply breathtaking. Max's home is 20009-real, and the island seems to flow perfectly from Max's mind, or the mind of any lonely child relying on his imagination to combat that loneliness.

Karen O and Carter Burwell provide a score that also supports the film. The music is essential to the effectiveness of the film. Jonze always foregrounds the score, giving it a dramatic level of importance.

This is not an uplifting children's tale. Where the Wild Things Are is dark, haunting and glorious. Max is "exercising" his demons. We experience the film through the wide eyes of a child but with the knowing perspective of an adult. That makes for a serious, layered experience in which not a frame, a note or a line is wasted.

Oh, how I loved this film. Let the wild rumpus start!

Taking Woodstock

Taking Woodstock is Ang Lee's loving portrait of the 1969 music festival in Bethel, NY. Based on Elliot Tiber's memoir of the same name, the film follows Elliot over the summer preceding the "3 days of peace and music."

I can only describe Taking Woodstock as a docudrama on ecstasy. There is such love and affection for the subject. Lee loves the music (though there should be more of it); he loves the sex and the lack of inhibition (and there's a good amount of it. He even loves the drugs (except for the brown acid, of course). The result is a film that is completely seductive, as long as you go along for the trip and let yourself be seduced.

The film is populated with dozens of people, as you might expect, and it's amazing to see such a strong impact from actors in the tiniest of roles (many uncredited). Demitri Martin is excellent as Tiber. Ultimately, it's his journey we're following, and his transformation over the summer of 1969 is beautiful and oh so subtle. Martin gives a nuanced performance that is both quirky and deep.

Imelda Staunton and Henry Goodman are breathtaking as Elliot's parents, Jake and Sonia. While nothing about these characters would scream "subtle," the performances are incredibly nuances. These three get the bulk of the screen time, but it's not that the myriad of other characters simply provide a context. The large cast is critical to the feelings that wash over you throughout the film. They are all Elliot's spirit guides.

Jonathan Groff is so seductive as promoter Michael Lane, his sensuality alone seems to bring the concert off (and kept my heart beating faster for the entire film). Nothing rattles. Emile Hirsch plays Viet Nam veteran Billy. Half crazed and half transformed, when Billy yells, "I love this hill!" tears welled up in my eyes. And it's the tiniest of moments, easy to miss. Liev Schreiber, Paul Dano and Kelli Garner all make indelible impressions in brief moments.

The film is a powerful and emotional journey, but not a perfect one. The massive undertaking means that characters disappear. Groff disappears for far too long. His sensuality is needed in the final acts. Conversely, Mamie Gummer takes far too long to register, though her final scene is wonderful. And the journey is a personal one. The film won't resonate strongly with everyone.

The biggest problem with the film is that it contains no concert material. The music from the concert is always heard in the distance, and Elliot never quite makes it. This is a problem because it's so obviously missing.

Certain events can change the trajectory of our lives. The lasting interest in Woodstock 40 years out is that it changed the trajectory of so many lives. It's quite intimate and beautiful to see Elliot become comfortable in his own skin, to come to peace with who he is during this summer of love.

It's also relevant today. There's something going on in our culture now that makes Hair the most successful revival of the Broadway season and Taking Woodstock so powerful. Maybe the age of peace and love is returning in some trippy form. At Woodstock, half a million people came to share, care for and love one another. The myth may have overpowered the fact even before the concert ever took place, but it showed us that we're all connected and that's a lesson really worth remembering.

Next to Normal

Oh yes, Alice Ripley deserved the Tony Award for Best Actress. She expresses a vulnerability and range of emotion rarely required in a performance. Next to Normal is the journey of Diana, a woman with severe and longstanding mental health issues. It's a study of the effect on her family.

The brilliance of Next to Normal is absolutely in the acting. Besides Ripley's riveting performance, Jennifer Damiano and J. Robert Spencer are exceptional as daughter and husband respectively, coping with Diana's delusions, suspecting they're the cause and, particularly in Natalie's (Damiano) case, afraid she's next. Kyle Dean Massey is also very strong as Diana's son Gabe, as is Louis Hobson as her therapist.

But in many ways, it's the work of Adam Chandler-Berat that stands out. As Natalie's boyfriend Henry, he's the outsider. He's us. Chandler-Berat doesn't get to play the wide range of emotion everyone else does. He captures the boyishness and innocence that any high school nerd/stoner might have for his first girl crush. But Henry is much more than that. As the person who must handle Natalie's own panic about becoming her mother, he is loyal and committed to supporting her. He is also recreating the father, a subtlety Chandler-Berat brings to his nuanced performance.

A new musical with a contemporary score is always welcome when it's done well, and Next to Normal certainly is. It breaks some new ground, though there are certainly moments in the score that evoke the similarly themed Falsettoland. In Falsettoland it was AIDS, here it's mental health. The point of both is that even amidst great tragedy, life goes on. We go on. Brian Yorkey and Tom Kitt capture this beautifully and painfully.

With all this greatness, why didn't I love Next to Normal? Well, because I was constantly distracted by the very weak staging of Michael Greif. Greif uses a three level set that is so deep, most seats have an obstructed view. Sit too close and you miss most of what's on the third level and much of what's on the second (that was me). Sit too far and you can't see the third level. A week later and my neck still hurts. (I remember a time when productions disclosed that you were purchasing seats with an obstructed view.) Greif has directed his actors well, but he's put them on a set that does things because it's Broadway and not because the play demands it. But mostly, he puts them on a set that leaves you saying over and over again, "dammit, i wonder what's happening."

Next to Normal was never the immersive experience it needed to be. I tried to justify the distractions by crediting Greif with some intentionality (it certainly is "alienation" well deployed), but in the end it stripped the play of it's most powerful emotion. Very good, yes. Great, not really.