Billy Elliot has plenty of scenery to chew

Interesting article in The New York Times this morning about Broadway productions eschewing lavish sets to save money. But in my opinion, one of the examples that Patrick Healy uses is a little misleading.

Healy mentions the "spartan kitchen" in Billy Elliot, designed by Ian MacNeil. He says the Tony-winning musical "which recouped its $18 million capitalization in 14 months, takes place largely in a community center dance hall, and some of the most critically praised dance scenes involve no more than a chair or an empty stage."

Well it's true that at one point, Billy does use a chair as a prop. But that's hardly all that's happening on stage. For example, the rigging that allows him to "fly" with the aid of an adult male dancer must be pretty complex and expensive.

And the "spartan kitchen" that Healy mentions is built around a mechanical set that's raised and lowered from the Imperial Theatre stage. I believe it required blasting through the floor of the theatre to install, which could not have been cheap. (Unfortunately, I couldn't find a picture.)

Now I'm the first one to admit that I like scenery that gives me something on which to chew. James Schuette's rundown shop in Superior Donuts and John Lee Beatty's opulent Manhattan apartment for The Royal Family were terrific. I also liked David Gallo's basement nightclub in the musical Memphis.

But the scenery isn't always what leaves a lasting impression. Really, it depends on the show.

Healy mentions that the set design by Scott Pask for the current Broadway revival of Hair is somewhat sparse. Between listening to music that I love and watching the hippies run around the theatre interacting with the audience, I hardly thought about the set. Or lack thereof.

A 3-D rock 'n' roll Cleopatra

Ever since seeing her on Broadway in A Little Night Music I cannot get enough of the lovely Catherine Zeta-Jones. So I was catching up with her appearance on The View Friday and she mentioned three interesting things:

Someday she'd love to play Madame Armfeldt in A Little Night Music, the mother of her character, Desiree, portrayed in the current revival by Angela Lansbury.

She's acquired the rights to Geraldine Brooks' People of the Book and plans to produce and star in a television movie based on the novel.

Then she mentioned an upcoming project that sounded so bizarre I thought she must be joking. But a little Googling revealed that she was serious!

Stephen Soderbergh, who directed Zeta-Jones in Traffic, wants her to star in a 3-D live-action rock 'n' roll musical about Cleopatra. (Will I have to wear my 3-D glasses for the entire movie or just in certain scenes?)

According to this 2008 article in Variety, the music has been written by the 1990s indie rock band Guided by Voices, with a script by James Greer, an author and former bass player for the band.

The imdb page has a release date of 2011 for Cleo, and describes it as a "1920s-set, song-and-dance retelling of the story of Cleopatra, Antony and Caesar. The cast lists Zeta-Jones as Cleo and Ray Winstone as Julius Caesar. (At one point, Hugh Jackman was going to play Marc Antony, but he's dropped out.)

I'm really not that big on ancient Egypt but the 1920s setting makes this sound kind of interesting. Although I don't know why it would have a rock 'n' roll score in the 1920s, or require 3-D for that matter.

Of course Zeta-Jones' last movie musical, Chicago, was also set in that decade and won her an Oscar. (Maybe they could use the same poster!)

In a January 2009 interview with Esquire, Soderbergh explained his attraction to the project:

"I want it to be like an Elvis musical. Fun, not serious. I've always wanted to make a musical, and I've been frustrated by all the recent musicals. I miss the technical proficiency of the long takes of the camera, where you're not disguising the inability of the performers to sing and dance. I miss that. And if there were ever a genre to be ready-made for 3-D, it's the musical."

Don't film The Catcher in the Rye

With the death Thursday of J.D. Salinger, speculation is starting over whether there'll finally be a film version of his 1951 novel The Catcher in the Rye.

It's been a long time since I've read the book, so I don't have an opinion on whether it's possible to make a good movie. But I do have sympathy for Salinger's explanation as to why he never sold the film rights.

In a 1957 letter, Salinger wrote that "for me, the weight of the book is in the narrator's voice." He says that any attempt to translate Holden Caulfield's inner thoughts into dialogue would sound labored.

Odds are at some point a movie will be made, and I will find that sad. I'll be sad not solely because it goes against Salinger's wishes but because it takes away some of the imagination and discovery involved in reading the book.

My case in point is Harry Potter.

I started reading J.K. Rowling's books long before the first movie came out. I formed my sense of what the characters were like from their description on the printed page. No one has to do that now. We know what Harry, Hermoine and Ron look and sound like.

Yes, I've enjoyed the movies but not nearly as much as the books. They're just not as rich or absorbing. Perhaps the movies are enticing children to start reading the series, and that's a good thing but it won't be the same.

For 59 years Holden Caulfield, that symbol of teenage rebellion, has lived solely in the imagination of readers of The Catcher in the Rye. It would be nice if we could just leave him there.

Hugh Jackman stops by Sesame Street

Hey, Hugh Jackman was on Sesame Street. How cute! Love that smile! He and Elmo make a great team. But sadly, Elmo gets the only close-up. Maybe Hugh needs a new agent?

A creative look at Memphis

I got an e-mail today from a marketing representative for the Broadway musical Memphis about videos made by the creative team and posted on YouTube.

I saw Memphis in December and really enjoyed it, so I'm happy to pass the message along.

The musical is set in Memphis during the late 1950s and early 1960s, at the dawn of rock 'n' roll. It features terrific performances from Chad Kimball as a white disc jockey and Montego Glover as a talented black singer who wins his heart. The story is a powerful reminder of a time when their romance was scorned and getting married in their home state would have been illegal.

So far, there are videos from: Joe DiPetro, who wrote the book and lyrics, and David Bryan, who wrote the music; director Christopher Ashley, costume designer Paul Tazewell, choreographer Sergio Trujillo, set designer David Gallo, and sound designer Ken Travis.

Here's the interview with Tazewell. He did such a great job telling the audience about Kimball's Huey and Glover's Felicia through their clothes, and I liked learning a little bit about the creative process from his end.



Memphis took a long and winding six-year journey to get to Broadway, as recounted in this New York Times article. In a month when so many Broadway shows are closing, it's nice to recognize a survivor.

How about a real theatre hall of fame?

The Theatre Hall of Fame is holding its annual induction ceremony tonight in the rotunda of Broadway's Gershwin Theatre. It's a fitting location since the Gershwin is home to Wicked and the show's composer, Stephen Schwartz, is among those being honored.

But my first thoughts when I saw that story were, "Where is the Theatre Hall of Fame and can I visit?" Then I vaguely remembered reading names of inductees on the wall at the Gershwin when I saw Wicked on Broadway last month.

So I guess that's it. But shouldn't there be something more to recognize the long and storied history of Broadway?

Personally, I think it would be great if there were more theatre-related things to do in Times Square besides see a show, climb the red steps to the top of the TKTS booth or browse in a few souvenir shops.

We already know the oft-quoted statistic that 63 percent of Broadway tickets are sold to tourists, a good percentage of whom will probably find themselves in and around Times Square with some time to spare.

Other than Wicked's Behind the Emerald Curtain, there isn't much that's theatre-related. You can't take a backstage tour or learn about the history of Broadway in a fun, interactive way. (Before you mention liability issues, I took an awesome tour of the Metropolitan Opera and we went everywhere in that building!)

The Museum of the City of New York does have a theatre collection. The exhibit I saw last year is nice but it's a little spare and outdated. Plus, the Upper East Side location isn't exactly on the tourist track. The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts, at Lincoln Center, also has theatre exhibits from time to time but they're confined to one room.

Now I realize that space is at a premium in Times Square and expensive. The economy being what it is, the odds of creating a splashy new Museum of American Theatre are nil. Still, it would be a fine addition to a city that already has some of the finest museums in the world.

Taking the kids to a show

I had a conversation with a friend the other day that warmed the cockles (whatever they are!) of my theatre-loving heart.

Her husband took their young daughter to see Wicked and they both enjoyed it immensely.

It made me happy not only because they loved a musical that I love but because she was the right age (she's 8 or 9) for the experience. Someday, when she's a veteran theatergoer with a blog of her own, she'll be able to recall that magical evening with her dad.

Coincidentally, the Hartford Courant's Frank Rizzo has a very informative article on what parents should consider before buying a theatre ticket for their child. There's a helpful list of tips and some great examples of "first shows" for the kids.

He makes an excellent point: while some shows have kid components, "that in itself is not enough to entertain the littlest theater-goers. (The first words that come out of the title character's mouth in Billy Elliot are expletives; The Secret Garden might be a bit dark for small children; there are Nazis in The Sound of Music.)"

And it was encouraging to read that two of the people behind some of the most popular musicals make the point that age recommendations are there for a good reason.

Rizzo interviews Thomas Schumacher, president of the Disney Theatrical Group, who remarks that it's not uncommon to see children as young as 6 at the musicals The Lion King and Mary Poppins, even though they both run about 2 1/2 hours.

"That's kind of pushing it," Schumacher says. "First of all, they can't see very well, even with booster seats. But it's not just that. These shows are not designed to keep their extraordinary minds interested."

I have to agree with Schumacher. The Lion King can be a great choice to introduce your child to the theatre. But when I saw it on Broadway there were definitely children younger than 6 and they definitely had a difficult time staying focused on the action on stage.

I've written about the wrong age to take kids to the theatre - like the two toddlers in front of me at Annie. (I can't really say they sat in front of me because I don't think they ever actually sat in their seats.) I'm thinking this happens a lot, too, where the children are so worn out by curtain time that the musical becomes a rather expensive nap.

I guess my view is in line with David Stone, a producer of Wicked, who advises that 8 and up is a good age to see the musical. He said, "I want [children] to go when they can really enjoy it, when the theater event can be really memorable."