Broadway and "The Dawg"

Last week, Betty Buckley called out American Idol and judge Randy Jackson on Twitter for the constant use of the term "Broadway" as a way of dismissing singers they don't care for .  I was thrilled someone so respected in the industry was finally speaking out against this and saying everything I have been saying since season one of American Idol.  Ms. Buckley's comments were taken seriously by Idol producer Nigel Lythgoe, who said he would "speak to Randy."

Apparently, Randy was spoken to, because he has responded.  Unfortunately, Mr. Jackson's response only reinforces his ignorance on the matter, and continues to anger me.  Mr. Jackson points out that this has been going on for all 11 seasons of American Idol.  Really?  So that makes it OK?  People have also been upset about it for 11 seasons.   Simon Cowell's constant use of "Broadway," "Musical Theatre," and "Cabaret" as an insult turned me off of Idol in the first season.  Betty Buckley is just the first well known person in the industry to be so vocal in speaking out about it.  Randy also played the "free speech" card.  Free speech has to do with your ability to speak out against the GOVERNMENT without fear of being prosecuted for it.  It does not cover making ignorant statements about performance.  Randy further went on to demonstrate he is still ignorant of both "Broadway singers" and how vibrato works.

Randy claims that  "A lot of people who sing broadway, do not have control of their vibrato, which does not easily lend itself to singing other styles of music."  Please clarify this statement, Mr Jackson.  Are you referring to people who come on AI and audition with Broadway?  Are you speaking of people who sing Broadway music for fun, who have little or no training, and no professional credits?  If this is the case, you may be right.  These people don't have the background and training to know how to control their vibrato.  In this case, it's fine and shouldn't even be taken into consideration or mentioned.  


IF, however, Mr Jackson, you are referring to trained professionals who have spent years studying voice, perfecting their craft, and who have worked or currently work on Broadway, you are completely WRONG.  There may be a few EXCEPTIONS to this RULE, but, by and large, someone with the background I have laid out here has FULL control of their vibrato and can utilize it in the manner most appropriate for whatever it is they are singing.

As an example: several years ago, I lost out on a role I worked VERY hard for.  Part of why I lost it was because I listened to my voice teacher and a very respected audition coach about how I should sing in my audition.  Almost every actress I have ever heard sing the role uses what, in my opinion, is too much vibrato.  Both of these people, however, told me to "straight tone" in my audition. While in my head I was screaming "YOU ARE SO WRONG!" I took their advice, adjusted what I was doing - adjusted how I used my vibrato - and sang that way in my audition.  The feedback from the casting director? "Personally, I prefer to hear more vibrato." 

Vibrato is ALWAYS present in the human voice to some degree.  How much, or how little vibrato is used (in a trained singer) is a CHOICE, and different people listening have their own preferences to what is "good."  Further, what is "good" changes depending on what is being sung.


I would also like know what Broadway shows Mr Jackson has seen where a singer has had "no control of their vibrato"?  I find it difficult to believe that someone with "no control" would be cast in a major production.  I have certainly heard plenty of singers in theatrical productions who I feel have too much vibrato, but never anyone who I felt had NO control of their vibrato - no control of their vibrato would mean no control of their breath support.


Is American Idol looking for "Broadway" singers?  No, they are looking for pop singers, and someone who comes in and does not have a "pop sound" does not fit the format of AI. Not having a pop sound is not just an issue of vibrato, either. They need to be told they aren't right for AI, not told they are "Broadway" - they may not be!  This use of "Broadway," "Musical Theatre," and "Cabaret" as an INSULT needs to STOP.

Little Boe's Peep

I realize I'm a bit late commenting on this bit of news.  Unfortunately, I have been working seven days a week at the "pay the bills job," and by the time I get home, I can't focus enough to write.  This article: Opera singer Boe bites the (tiny) hand that feeds him
however, has been on my mind since I read it, and I have been wanting to blog about it ever since.

I'm not really familiar with Mr. Boe's work - I've only ever heard/seen him perform as Jean Valjean in the 25th Anniversary Les Mis Concert, and, to be very honest, I didn't care for him.  My opinion of Mr. Boe as a performer, however is irrelevant in regards to this.

In a rather public forum, Mr. Boe has admitted to not really caring for the genre of music in which he has made his name as a performer.  He has, of course, been blasted for it by fans and other professionals in that genre.  This brings up the question - Does one HAVE to like the work they do in order to be proficient or to even excel at it?  Mr. Boe is known primarily as an opera singer, however, he admits to preferring (*gasp*) rock and pop music to opera.  He admits to not attending opera and even to (blasphemy!) falling asleep while watching opera.

If you had an accountant who admitted to you that, while that was the way he earned his living, and he had a gift for it, he didn't care for accounting, would you think less of him?  Would you blast him for not eating, sleeping, and breathing his profession even in his off hours?  Would you fire him and look for another accountant?  This is exactly the attitude being projected at Mr. Boe.

Award-winning opera director Sir Jonathan Miller, in defense of opera felt the need to take a dig at Mr. Boe by pointing out that "...he sings rather well but I know he comes from something other than opera. He was a car mechanic, I believe."  Really?  You mean he is less of a talent because he had a job other than singing prior to having a singing career?  Whatever Mr. Boe - or any other singer - did in order to support themselves, in order to pay for their training, in order to pursue their dream, should have no relevance or bearing on the how they are treated by the industry.  The TALENT, what they do in the audition or performance is the only thing that matters.  At least, it is the only thing that SHOULD matter.  This is the kind of snobbery and elitism about the opera world that I detest - and a large reason why I didn't pursue an operatic career, much to the dismay of past voice teachers.

My dream is, and always has been to perform on Broadway.  Yet, when I started taking my singing seriously and studying, most of my teachers were from a classical/operatic background.  I was asked again and again "Why do you want to waste your time on musical theatre? You're a lyric coloratura - you can sing Lakme!"  Well, quite honestly, like Mr. Boe, if I am not performing it, opera, in general, bores me - Nixon in China totally put me to sleep.  I love singing the arias.  I don't care for a lot of the more incidental things, in most cases, I don't care for opera as a whole (there are exceptions - operas and opera singers I will do whatever I have to in order to see them), and, most importantly, I don't like the elitist attitude that comes more often  from the producers, directors, and staff of opera companies than from the performers.  When not performing, I don't feel opera is "my world" any more than Mr. Boe, but when the opportunity presents itself to perform opera, I enjoy it.  I put myself into what I am singing heart and soul.  I am a dedicated performer, whether what I am performing appeals to my aesthetic or not.  Would you know from my performances that I don't particularly care for opera?  Would you know from Mr. Boe's performance?  No.  Our personal feelings are irrelevant as long as our performances do not suffer because of our personal feelings.

A Bit of a LND Rant....

This whole Love Never Dies thing has taken on quite a life of it's own and gotten more than a little ugly as far as fan bases are concerned.  It also seems to be the main theme of my blog and the main thing that gets me worked up enough to write.

One thing that has bothered me from very early on in this "debate" is the fans of Love Never Dies telling those of us who dislike it that we have no right to dislike it if we have not seen it.  Of course, they believe it is perfectly alright to be a complete fanatical fan without having seen it.

I would just like to put a few things out here.  I would like to explain WHY I have the opinion of the show that I have - without *gasp* having seen it.

I was skeptical about a proposed sequel to Phantom of the Opera from the moment I heard about it. The show has a DEFINITIVE ending.  Really, there are no questions left.  Christine CHOOSES Raoul and says her farewells to the Phantom.  There is nothing left to be said between them.  As someone who believes Christine was NEVER in love with the Phantom (and until the moment she gives him the ring back, he was not in love with her, either), I had my own ideas of what happened after the musical ended.  I assumed Raoul and Christine went off together, married, and lived a relatively happy life together.  I thought the Phantom may have had a few different options open to him - but continuing to pine for Christine and behave in an obsessive manner about her was NOT one of those options.

The thing is, I have all the information I need to have an opinion - positive or negative - of Love Never Dies without having to shell out an insane amount of money to see it.  I picked up the cast album (which, with all the changes made to the show is now more of a concept album) - you can read my initial review of that here and here - I read everything I could get my hands on - plot synopsis, reviews, etc, and formed my opinion.  No, I did NOT base my opinion on the negative reviews - two of my absolute favourite shows were completely panned by the critics.  Upon doing all the same sort of research I have done on LND (although, LIKING these shows, I did put out the money to see them - several times), I formed my own opinion and took exception to the critical reviews.

Here's my problem with LND - the PLOT.  The plot will not change by being seen.  In the end, the Phantom has still learned nothing from the first show.  He is still obsessing about Christine.  He still sounds like a whiny Emo teenager.  He still tricks Christine into coming to Coney Island.  He still makes a bet with Raoul about Christine's fate and takes away her choices.  Worst of all, with the rewrites, he now BLACKMAILS Christine and THREATENS her for no good reason.  Raoul is still a useless, abusive, drunken gambler. He still makes a bet with the Phantom about Christine's fate. Christine is still a faithless slut who has no backbone, takes no initiative, behaves like a battered woman, and allows things to happen to her and her son.  She has lost all the strength she gained in the original production. I couldn't possibly care less that she dies at the end.  I just wish she would do it faster.

I don't like this story.  I don't like the lyrics. I don't like these characters.  I wouldn't like them if they were unrelated to Phantom.  Change the names to Tom, Dick, and Sally, and really, what are you left with?  A poorly written soap opera. A giant pissing contest between two childish and  abusive men (I won't even get into the Meg/Mme Giry sub-plot - frankly, I find it rather forgettable).  Any woman should be offended by the way Christine is portrayed and by the way the men treat her like property. 

One reviewer who saw the show both in it's original form and it's rewritten form liked it originally and hated it the second time.  In his first review, he said the "Andrew Lloyd Webber allows us to fall in love with the Phantom and Christine all over again."  In his second review, he panned the characters pretty much the same way I did here.  When I called him on this in the comment section - as the characters did not change between version one and version two - he said that the theatrical framing - the SPECTACLE of the original version - negated the character flaws.  I'm sorry.  I go to theatre to see a GOOD story and characters I can care about, not to see spectacle for the the sake of spectacle.  There's nothing wrong with spectacle when it is well done and appropriate to the story (the falling chandelier in POTO or the helicopter in Miss Saigon), but when spectacle REPLACES good story telling and character development, it doesn't interest me.

Oh, and, this has bugged the HELL outta me since day one - Gustave, Christine and the Phantom's supposed love child.  According to everything ALW has said and everything in LND, the show takes place EXACTLY 10 years after POTO.  According to LND, Gustave is EXACTLY "TEN YEARS OOOOLLLLDDD!!!"  This EXACT age, his seeming status as a musical prodigy, and his fascination with all things dark and dangerous brings about the "logical" conclusion that Gustave's father is not Raoul but the Phantom. 

OK, let's break this down a bit.  Christine and her father were both exceptionally gifted musicians.  It does not require BOTH parents be musically inclined for the child to be musically inclined.  I am proof of this.  My mother is musical.  My father couldn't carry a tune in a bucket if his life depended on it.  I was a bit of a child prodigy.  Gustave's musical ability is, in NO WAY, an indication of his paternity.

He has a fascination with all things dark and dangerous.  Well, duh!  He's a 10 year old boy!  They are ALL fascinated by the dark and dangerous!  An attraction to the dark and dangerous is not an indicator of paternity.

Gustave is EXACTLY 10 years old.  I realize this is theatre and one must - to a degree - suspend disbelief, but, this is just TOO much.  According to the plot of LND, Christine found the Phantom the night before her wedding and had sex with him.  The next morning, he was so consumed by guilt, he ABANDONED her (uhhh...yeah....right), and every indication is that she then went to her wedding and things proceeded as expected - there is no indication she and Raoul did not consummate their marriage.  There is absolutely no way (without a modern day paternity test, or the child inheriting the Phantom's genetic defect) to definitively know who the father is.  However, let's look a bit deeper into this.....if this is truly exactly 10 years later, Christine had to sleep with the Phantom almost immediately after leaving the Phantom's lair.  Now, let's look at biology - a term pregnancy for a human is 9 months.  This means, if it is EXACTLY 10 years after  POTO, Gustave would not be 10, but about 9 years and 3 months.  Looking even more realistically into this....Raoul and Christine PROBABLY didn't get married the second they arrived at street level. They probably would have gotten married as quickly as possible - even so, I imagine it would have been 3 to 6 months after the final lair.  Raoul was an aristocrat after all, and there are certain proprieties to observe.  When all is said and done, Gustave should be more around 7 or 8.  Of course, we all know ALW can't do math.

 This isn't to say there aren't things about the show that I DO like.  Some of the music is absolutely gorgeous.  Out of context - and often without lyrics - I like it.  I have the title theme firmly in my repertoire - with the original lyrics, not the current show lyrics - and enjoy singing it.  The performers do the best they can with the material they are given and cannot be faulted for their contributions.

Yes, I AM a member of Love Should Die.  However, I have NEVER made any kind of personal attack on the Love Never Dies fan base - nor has anyone I know from that group.  While I don't see a problem with people liking the show, I really just want to know WHY.  Given all the points I have outlined, what is the appeal?  My interest is to actually DISCUSS these things RATIONALLY.  Not to attack or insult anyone who likes the show.   No one should be PERSONALLY attacked or belittled for their opinion of a show.  They should, however, be allowed to express their opinions and discuss things in an adult manner without resorting to insults and name calling.

The Jonas Brother and Cosette

With the advent of social networking and sites like Twitter, it has become easy for fans to connect with artists they admire.  It makes it easy for fans to directly contact artists and for artists to safely respond (at least mostly) to fans personally in 140 characters or less.

Unfortunately, the respect and awe that fans have had for performers in the past seems to be deteriorating as artists become more accessible and as a younger generation comes up and can't see the value of the past artists who made it possible for their favourite performer to be where they are now.

This blog was inspired by a recent thread on Twitter between Rebecca Caine (original Cosette in Les Mis, original Christine in the Toronto production of Phantom who I used as an example in a previous blog: So You Want to Play Christine ) and a fan girl of Nick Jonas.

I learned to sing Cosette by listening to and imitating Ms. Caine's recording.  Since she originated the role, she is someone I look up to and admire.  There is a kind of reverence and mysticism I feel toward her.  Since I have begun following her on Twitter, my admiration of her has grown.  She is smart, funny, and entertaining.  I was THRILLED when she began following ME on Twitter, and I have been lucky enough to receive an occasional direct comment from her.

Last night, I saw Ms Caine start to retweet comments from a Jonas Brothers fan girl.  Now, I don't know much about the Jonas Brothers beyond the fact that they're a manufactured Disney singing group.  They seem to have a fairly wholesome image, and, obviously, have a rabid fab base of tweenage girls.  I actually worked one of their concerts.  Before the concert began, they had a dedicated phone number that fans could text comments to.  The comments were then displayed on the big screen above the stage.  Lemme tell you, some of these texts SCARED me!  Completely obsessive.  These fans really don't seem to have a total grasp on reality.  Yes, I was a tween once upon a time, had my celebrity crushes (Ha! STILL have my celebrity crushes), had my moments of silly fan-girldom, but, I never based my LIFE on these people the way these girls do!  I always knew I would probably never meet any of them, and that they would probably never even be aware I existed.


Back to the fan girl in question....  As near as I can tell, this all started because of the upcoming O2 concert performance of Les Miserables.  Nick Jonas - who has already been playing the role in the West End - has been cast as Marius.  I'm sure this has all the tween fan girls swooning.  For some unknown reason, it appears some of these fan girls got it into their heads that Ms Caine knows him.  Now, she was Cosette TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO!  She has no involvement with the current production/cast.  She has moved on to other projects, and has been doing quite well for herself, thank you very much.  Fan girls apparently began sending her pics of said Jonas Brother, and asking her questions about him and the production.  As any sane person would, Ms Caine sent out this plea: "I don't know Nick Jonas, I've never heard any Jonas bros music and I wouldn't recognize them in a police line up! Why me?"  Seems fairly reasonable to me.  Her next tweet: "Oh dear God, I don't need photos of the young Jonas brothers. I did Les Mis 25 years ago! I am old enough to be the kids granny!" Still seems pretty rational.


Apparently, however, a fan girl disagreed - calling out Ms. Caine for being rude.  Wait...what?  Letting everyone who is tweeting unwanted fan-girl Jonas Brothers propaganda at you know that you have no information or interest in Nick Jonas is rude?  What about the unwanted Jonas Brothers spam?  What about speaking disrespectfully to someone who has done nothing disrespectful to you?  Fan girl then Tweets: "Then whyd you say "why me?" He's a handsome&talented young man. Nothing to complain about. Big whoop, you "created Cosette""

Hold up!  "Big whoop" ?!?!?!  This is the first moment that I began to get offended.  Hell YES that's a "big whoop"!  Ms Caine's performance is part of the reason Les Mis became such a success!  Because of her - and the other performers who originated that show - it is STILL running, and Nick Jonas has a JOB.  Without the people who created these characters, there would be no show running now!  And, I'm sorry...no disrespect to Nick Jonas here - I don't know him or much about him - but, performers like Ms Caine have longevity (25 years after Les Mis, she STILL has a career) and the teeny bopper teen icons rarely do.   

The final straw for me was this Tweet from said fan girl: " FYfuckingI You should feel damn lucky playing Cosette opposite of NJ. Rude. Rude. Rude. Twitter name suits you well, diva;)"  EXCUSE ME?!?!!?  I doubt this girl can be more than 16.  Forget WHO Rebecca Caine is for a moment.  She is old enough to be this twits MOTHER.  What is wrong with this girl that she feels she can speak to ANYONE like this?  I'm not sure what offends me more...the profanity or the IGNORANCE.  You'd think she'd at least know Rebecca Caine is NOT playing Cosette opposite Nick Jonas...seriously, that would be creepy!


As an artist, if one of my fans were behaving in such a manner towards another artist - ostensibly in DEFENSE of me for something that does not NEED defending - *I* would be offended if I were aware of it.  I HOPE that someone who looks up to me and considers them self to be a fan of mine would have more class and DO THEIR HOMEWORK on the career of another artist before saying ANYTHING negative about that artist.


Honestly, people need lessons in RESPECT, BOUNDARIES, and CLASS.  NO ONE should ever speak to someone in such a disrespectful manner.  You are a CHILD addressing a theatrical ICON.  A woman who has CREATED some iconic roles, and continues to create.  A woman who made it POSSIBLE for your tweenage crush to be performing in the O2 concert.  For all that, she deserves the RESPECT and admiration of the "younger generation."

I wish Nick Jonas the best in the O2 concert.  I wish him the best in his career.  I don't hold the poor behaviour of a small portion of his fan base against him.  I do hope, if he becomes aware of this situation, he addresses his fan base and explains that it reflects badly on him when they behave badly in his name.

Ah, the Internet Dating Profile.....

I've been single for about 4 years now.  Like so many people in this day and age, I've resorted to internet dating.  I've met some interesting people there.  Been out on a few dates.  Nothing has ever really gone anywhere, but, hey, it's something to do, and just another way of meeting people.  A conversation recently with a guy who didn't want to actually make the effort to put up a profile - partially because "I'm a private person" - prompted me to write this on my profile blog.  I was kind of pleased with it, so, I thought I'd share it here as well.  Who knows?  Maybe some of you are also on dating sites and something here might make sense/help.  

 I've seen a lot of internet dating profiles.  Some well done, some not so well done, and some completely useless.  

I am speaking mostly of guys profiles here since I very rarely look at other girls profiles.  These are just observations I have made in the course of my internet dating experiences - things that frustrate me about the profiles I come across. *laugh*  

Pictures:  Pictures are probably the most important thing on your profile.  When doing a search, a good main picture is going to be the difference between whether or not I actually view a profile.  My room mate and I are both on dating sites, and we are both shocked at what a lot of guys think is appropriate to put up as a picture on a DATING site.  We've been trying to figure out how to start a business to take dating site specific pictures for people. *laugh*

Seriously, have a GOOD picture of your face.  IN FOCUS.  If, from your picture, I wouldn't be able to recognize you on the street, I'm not interested.  If you feel you can't post a picture that clearly shows YOU, I have to assume you're hiding something.  What?  Like it or not, physical attraction MATTERS.  If I don't see something in your main pic I like, I am NOT going to be interested enough to check out your profile.  This may seem shallow, but, ya know, I've been rejected by guys purely based on my photos.  I accept that not every one will find me attractive - no matter how much we may seem to have in common, no matter how high our match percentage is.  It is what it is, and far better you know that from my picture than investing time getting to know me, arranging to meet, and finding out you just aren't attracted to me.

Have a few different kinds of pics.  Yes, a head shot is good, and really, I think everyone should have one, but, also have a full body shot.  Please, don't post something that looks like a mug shot. Have a picture or two of you in casual settings - doing something you enjoy.  Pictures that give a glimpse into your personality.  Candid pictures are good.  Drunk pictures are not. *laugh*

Do NOT - and I cannot stress this nearly enough - DO NOT have pictures of yourself with attractive women in situations that look like you're romantically involved with her.  This is a DATING site for goodness sake!  The idea is to meet someone you would want to date.  It's one thing to have a picture with you and a group of friends (including female friends) or you and your sister (and, be SURE you caption the picture to indicate she's your sister!), it's quite another to have a picture of you and some random girl - or worse, GIRLS - hanging on you.  Makes you look like a player.  You're trying to sell yourself as a desirable, eligible bachelor.

In this day and age, with the low cost of digital cameras and the accessibility of cell phones with pretty darned decent cameras, pictures are EASY to get and upload.  It's also a good idea to have a basic photo editing program (I use Picasa, which is a free download, VERY basic, but fixes the things I need fixed) and be able to do basic photo editing - cropping, rotating (there is NO excuse for an upside down or sideways picture!) color balancing, red eye removal, etc.  

Profile essays: Oy, gawd!  I come across so many "empty" profiles and profiles that start out "I hate talking about myself..." or "I'll fill this in later..."  Come ON!  You are here to MEET people!  You are here to find someone you have common interests with.  SELL YOURSELF.  I don't mean be cocky and braggy, but, how hard is it to say what you're doing with your life?  A sentence or two about the kind of work you do?  What you ultimately want to be doing with your life?  What you're interested in?  What you want to do on a date?  The kind of girl you'd like to meet?

You're picture is going to get my attention what you SAY - or don't - is going to hold my attention.  Or not.  Your profile essay is the main difference between whether I feel I want to get to know you better or not - whether I will message you or not.  You don't have to write a book.  You don't have to reveal every single personal detail of your life, but, if I see that we like the same movies, or music, or food, or...whatever...that gives me an opening. 

Personally, I want to know that I have something in common with someone. If I come across a profile that is empty, but the pic shows a guy who is TOTALLY my physical type, I won't message him. I have no idea what I would say to him that might interest him enough to respond. Just telling him I think he's attractive is meaningless, and probably what he hears from every girl who messages him. How does that make me stand out? If someone messages me and only says "Hi, how are you?" it really doesn't interest me if I go and see that he hasn't put in the effort to write a profile. I want to know we'll have something to talk about beside "You're hot." And, believe me, I get my share of guys who can't get past that. Think about it - if all I had was a picture, what would you know about me other than whether or not you find me attractive? How is that a good starting point? I want to know SOMETHING about the person I'm talking to.

Bottom line, like it or not, being on a dating site is about SELLING YOURSELF.  You have to view yourself as a product.  What is it about YOU that is going to make you desirable to the kind of person you want to attract?  What do you have to OFFER.  Now, review your profile.  Think about what makes you YOU, and figure out how to write about it in an interesting way.

Good luck to everyone in finding what you're looking for!

As You Wish

Symphony Space here in NYC runs a family film festival every summer.  Tonights offering was my all time favourite movie - The Princess Bride.  When I say this is my favourite movie, I mean I make a POINT to watch it every few weeks, I can recite just about the whole thing from memory, and my one and only experience with "Movie-oke" was a scene from the Princess Bride.

I was too young to see this movie in the theatres when it originally came out, so, having the opportunity (actually, this was my second opportunity) to see it on the big screen is just amazing to me.  

The majority of the audience was mid 20 to mid 30 somethings - quite a few with small children.  I have to say, this was the only drawback to this.  There was a little girl sitting right behind me who was about 5 or 6.  She didn't have the maturity to sit through a "grown up" film, and I kept hearing her loud, shrill voice asking things like "Is that the bad guy?"  "What are they doing?"  "Do they love each other, or are they brother and sister?" "Is it true love?  Is true love better?"  Yeah....folks, if your kid can't sit QUIETLY through a 2 hour film, please, let them watch it at home.

The Princess Bride, surprisingly, did not do well at the box office in it's original release.  The production team has said the studio didn't know how to market it - was it a comedy?  A romance? An adventure film?  Well, it is all of these things, but, more than that it is a GOOD film.  

After 23 years, it completely holds up from beginning to end.  You care about the characters.  It has some of the best STORYTELLING ever put on film.

I think it was made at exactly the right time in history as well.  The cast is BRILLIANT all around, and I cannot picture anyone else in any of the roles (well, perhaps myself as Buttercup, but, that's just my ultimate fantasy. ;^) )  What is so wonderful about the way this is filmed is that every effect is practical.  There is NO CGI.  If the film were made today, I have a feeling Fezzik and the ROUS's would both have been CGI creations.  Obviously, NO ONE but Andre the Giant could play Fezzik - William Goldman had him in mind when he created the character. (Arnold Schwarzenegger was in consideration for the role.  Can you imagine? *shudder*  No thank you!)  Part of the films charm is that the ROUS's are midgets in Henson costumes (pretty sure the the death cry is Frank Oz).  I really would hate to see a more "realistic" CGI version.

The sword fight between Inigo and the Man in Black is one of the best ever filmed - and each actor worked hard to be able to do it without the aid of stunt doubles.

What was amazing to me about the screening was the audience.  This movie is 23 years old.  The main fan base has seen it multiple times over the years.  It's an INCREDIBLY quotable film - and I don't just mean "Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya.  You killed my father.  Prepare to die."  I had an audition a few years back for a show that was written and I think, being directed by, Wallace Shawn.  I was in shock when I walked into my call back to see him sitting in the audience.  It was all I could do not to blurt out "Inconceivable!" 

When the lights dimmed and the first credits came up on the screen, there was applause.  In the brief black out between the first credit and opening scene, someone in the audience whistled the first few notes of "Take Me Out to the Ball Game."  You could feel the energy and excitement in the room.  People APPLAUDED when Peter Falk came on screen.  It felt more like a live performance than a film.  All through the movie, you could hear people in the audience saying lines a split second before the character on screen.  And, yes, the first time it was spoken on screen, EVERYONE in the audience said "Hello.  My name is Inigo Montoya.  You killed my father.  Prepare to die."  There was applause when Westley told Humperdink "Drop. Your. Sword."  During the credits, the audience applauded as each performer like a curtain call in a live performance.

There is just SOMETHING about this film that really speaks to people.  I wish they would do screenings of it more often.  The energy in the audience is like nothing I have ever felt at any other film.  I want to experience it every few months, not every few years.

An Evening of Phantom

In a need to refresh myself after all the Love Never Dies BS, I attended last night's performance of Phantom of the Opera on Broadway.  I haven't seen the show in about 2 years.  I think this made my 17th or 18th performance.

For those of you who don't know, Phantom is why I do what I do.  After hearing the title theme when I was 12, I was hooked and said "I want to do that!"  Walking into the Majestic Theatre on 44th is almost like walking into a church for me.  The Majestic is home, and, God willing, I will one day have my own dressing room there.

Looking through the program, they have made changes in the time period to suit Love Never Dies.  Act I has always taken place in 1881, and Act II six months later.  It now lists the time period of Act I as "Paris, Late 19th Century."  Act II is still 6 months later, and prologue still takes place in 1911...which is the only point in the evening where I tried to "logic" Love Never Dies with the original...assuming Raoul is between 20 and 25 in POTO, that puts him between 30 and 35 in LND...which would make him between 34 and 39 in 1911.  Now, I realize Raoul's hard drinking ways in LND might age him prematurely, but, to go from relatively healthy and virile 35 in LND to decrepit 4 years later just doesn't compute.  I've always thought Raoul was closer to 70 in the prologue than 40 (that number doesn't work with the show being in 1881, either, but...until the whole LND fiasco, I never thought much about the logistics). Honestly, this was the last thought I had of Love Never Dies for the rest of the evening.

Other curious program happenings...the main cast list in the program now lists FOUR Raouls!  Seriously.  They each do two shows a week.  There are also now two Mme Girys who do four shows a week, and a second M. Andre who does 2 shows a week.  I was baffled by this, of course as Christine has always been the only role to have an alternate.  The second M Andre at least made some sense since George Lee Andrews has been with the show since day one (over 20 years in the same show, people!) and may have just decided he wanted to take a break, but...the four Raouls?  What?  My first thought, of course, was a rather sarcastic "After all, Raoul is SUCH a demanding role.  Who could possibly manage 8 shows a week?"  Well, it turns out, it has something to do with contract overlap because of the US tour closing.  Really would like to know how that all actually works, though.

After over 20 years of being familiar with Phantom of the Opera, after seeing it nearly 20 times, and after several auditions for it, it still captivates me.  I still get that feeling of excitement in my stomach, the anticipation as the auctioneer begins "Lot 666, then, a chandelier in pieces...."  I felt myself lean forward in my seat, my body tensing, my lips moving through the words.  My neck and shoulder muscles today are actually tight from the tension in my body as I watched the show last night.  No other show has ever affected me this way.  In fact, I have a bad back and sitting in theatre seats is very uncomfortable for me.  I tend to shift a lot and worry I'm disturbing people around me.  Not so with Phantom.  I don't think I moved except to lean forward from the moment the lights dimmed for Act I until intermission, and then from the Entr'acte to the curtain call. 

I think this is the first time I've seen the show since the Majestic installed a new digital sound system.  It was actually a noticeably better sound quality.  I heard a few nuances in the orchestration I have only heard on cast recordings to this point.  It is also the first time I have VERY clearly heard the electric rock guitar riffs at the end of the title theme.  I have never heard that outside of the Steve Harley/Sarah Brightman music video.  I'm not sure if they've always been there and just not amped enough, or if they've been added back in (as a possible tie in with LND because of the rocked out Beauty Underneath?).

The cast last night...before getting into this, I have to say, my first Phantom cast was the sit down production in Los Angeles in the early 90's.  To this day, no one can compare to Leigh Munro (Carlotta), Barbara Lang (Mme. Giry), Calvin Remsberg (M. Firmin), Norman Large (M. Andre), or Davis Gaines (Phantom) for me.   To me, they are the definitive of who and what those characters should be, and every subsequent performer I see is held to those standards.  

Patricia Phillips was Carlotta.  I think I've seen here 2 or 3 times now.  She's OK.  She doesn't always sing the top notes in Prima Donna, but she was vocally "on" last night. 

Evan Harrington leaves me kind of cold as Piangi.  I've seen several excellent Piangis.  When they don't hold out the top G in Hannibal (Your army HAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaas), I feel let down.  Evan just kind of popped up to it and off it.  He did make a nice show of getting on the elephant.  He seemed very prop-like to me, though.

The Managers have been with the NY production since day 1.  I enjoy them.  

As Mme. Giry, I felt Mary Illes was too...soft, I guess is the best word.  I like a Mme. Giry who is somewhat  biting.  She seemed more motherly overall, and not the mysterious keeper of the Phantom's secrets I expect her to be.  She also seemed a little young for the role.

Heather McFadden has been playing Meg Giry forever, it seems - she is now also the assistant dance captain.  I'm pretty sure she was 16 when she started - I remember reading in her bio a few years ago that she was attending a performing arts high school at the time.  It was kind of strange to read her bio last night and see that she is now married and has two children!  She is a lovely dancer.  Her singing has improved over the years.

Christine. *sigh*  As you can imagine, I am harshest on Christines.  Out of all the productions and casts I've seen, I have like ONE Christine.  This was my second or third time seeing Jennifer Hope-Wills in the role.  The first time was very early on in her Broadway run (funny story about the first time I saw her - she was having issues with her dress in the Graveyard Scene.  I saw her kind of kick the hem out of her way a couple times and stumble once or twice.  As Raoul was trying to take her away, she finally tripped and fell.  Tim Martin Gleason had his back to her and didn't notice at first and dragged her a few steps before realizing she had fallen and helping her up.  The timing on the scene got a bit awkward).  At the time, she was constantly just *slightly* under pitch.  She has improved, and was on pitch all night.  Unfortunately, I can't stand her voice - I was literally cringing in my seat several times through out the evening.  She has a very thin quality, odd phrasing, a pretty inconsistent (bad) British accent, and seems to be singing right in her nose a lot of the time.  The colour of her voice is a little too young for my taste, and more a sound I associate with Meg.  She hits the cadenza in Think of Me like a sledge hammer.  The first part of it sounds much too heavy, so that the high C, which she hits very differently, sounds out of place.  I will say, while I was unimpressed with most of her performance, she was one of the stronger Christines I've seen in the final lair scene.  Honestly, however, her voice bothers me so much that I will make a point of seeing the alternate Christine as long as she remains the main Christine.

Jeremy Stolle was last nights Raoul.  Handsome man, and one of the taller Raouls I've seen - I do like Raoul to be tall!  He started out well enough, more a baritone than I'm used to...unfortunately, he got a rather "Dudley Do Right" quality to his voice in higher sections ("How young and innocent we were") I almost laughed.  He seems to sing from the neck up.  He also had some odd ways of phrasing - but when he spoke, not so much when he sang.  He was very lovely with Christine during Twisted Every Way, which is one of my deciding factors for whether or not I like an actor in the role.  Raoul's delivery of the final line in that scene will make or break the character for me.  Jeremy's delivery kind left me feeling...meh...it wasn't weak, but, it wasn't terribly strong, either.  I didn't feel too much tension from him in the Final Lair.  He stood pretty relaxed there with the noose around his neck.  I never got the impression that HE felt he was in danger.  I guess, this also comes from my experiences with Michael Piontek's Raoul in LA.  He had devised a manner of standing on tip-toe so that he REALLY looked like he was in danger of strangulation.

I think this is the first time I've seen a Broadway Phantom who wasn't Howard McGillian.  John Cudia is also the first Phantom who isn't Davis Gaines whose voice I have REALLY liked.  He has a very smooth, beautiful, and powerful voice.  I did feel he was just "going through the motions" for some of it, and that he lacked a lot of nuance and dynamic in his voice - a lot of it seemed just like singing at top volume.  I felt his laughter when he's making Carlotta croak like a toad and his "GO!" when releasing the chandelier were very tossed off.  He is probably one of the more physically violent Phantoms I have seen during the final lair scene.  He really grabbed Christine and kind of contorted her to the ground - I had a brief moment of "Ohhh...I don't think my back would handle that l if I were his Christine!"

Even though I felt this cast was a bit weak, the show completely held together for me.  I know every note, every movement (seriously, except for the Hannibal ballet and Masquerade, I could go on for either Christine or Carlotta with one or two put-in rehearsals at this point.  I don't know that that's pathetic or a bragging point, but, it's true), and yet I am completely enthralled each time I see it.  I wouldn't think twice about seeing it again.

Leaving the theatre, I had a feeling of complete contentment.  Satisfied with the ending - yes, it IS an ending, NOT a cliffhanger that begs for a sequel.  My iPod is a constant fixture with me.  As long as I am not doing something that requires I be able to hear what's going on, the earphones are firmly in place and music is playing.  After walking out of the theatre, I couldn't bring myself to listen to other music.  I needed to just let everything settle.  When I got on the subway, I knew what I had to listen to was the Phantasia Suite.  It was perfect.  It's exactly the right length to get me from 44th to my front door, and the perfect way to decompress.