Snapping up a ticket to The Addams Family

The Broadway musical The Addams Family received a particularly negative review from New York Times critic Ben Brantley, yet it's doing great at the box office, taking in nearly $1.4 million and playing to 97.4 percent capacity last week.

And from my purely unscientific survey, I don't think that attendance is going to drop off anytime soon.

There's a new feature at Ticketmaster that allows you to select your seat. I've been looking at tickets for late July and great swaths of the orchestra have already been sold. (The regular-priced orchestra, that is. There are still plenty of premium seats.)

Surprising? Not at all.

It's got name recognition from the TV series and movies and the two stars, Nathan Lane and Bebe Neuwith, help, too. It's a known quantity, which is comforting when you're shelling out $136.50 apiece for tickets.

But I think there's something even more important.

Every once in awhile I read the travel forums at Fodors.com. Lots of people who are coming to New York on vacation, and bringing their kids, want advice about a Broadway show. It has to appeal to mom and dad, teens and preteens, boys and girls.

Well, The Addams Family fits the bill, especially if they've already seen some of the other long-running musicals. Prominently displayed on its Facebook page is: "This show is family friendly and appropriate for children ages 10 and up."

So when it comes to musicals, family friendly can trump Ben Brantley.

It's Freedom to Marry Week

It's Freedom to Marry Week, a time to talk about love and equality and fairness.

If two unrelated adults who are in love, building a life together, in many cases raising children together, want the benefits and protections of marriage, they ought to get them. It shouldn't matter whether they're two men or two women or a man and a woman. It's a matter of equal protection under the law.

The campaign of fear, the scare tactics, that opponents of gay marriage use are deeply offensive to me. To imply that allowing gays and lesbians to marry threatens children or heterosexual marriage is bigotry, pure and simple. It's immoral and unAmerican.

My friends who are gay and lesbian pay taxes, are good citizens, decent people with the highest values. They shouldn't be treated like second-class citizens when it comes to marriage.

I look at their loving, committed relationships and I compare them to John Edwards and Eliot Spitzer and Mark Sanford, three heterosexual married men, with children, who did not take their vows seriously at all. I wonder: Who presents the real threat to the sanctity of "traditional marriage?"

I know how fortunate my friends feel to have found the love of their life. And I know how truly happy and fulfilling their lives are together. The longer I know them, the more strongly I feel that they should have the freedom to marry the person they love. They will certainly honor the sanctity of marriage better than Spitzer, Sanford and Edwards.

In Sunday's New York Times, Frank Rich wrote about the push to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which prevents gays and lesbians in the military from serving their country openly. He said, "Most Americans recognize that being gay is not a 'lifestyle' but an immutable identity."

Like a lot of straight people, there was a time when I didn't know many people who were openly gay or lesbian. But times change and so, too, should our concept of equality. This comment sums up how I feel:

"As more gay people have come out — a process that accelerated once the modern gay rights movement emerged from the Stonewall riots of 1969 — so more heterosexuals have learned that they have gay relatives, friends, neighbors, teachers and co-workers. It is hard to deny our own fundamental rights to those we know, admire and love."

In the week leading up to Valentine's Day, that's a statement worth taking to heart.

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.

In defense of applause

I've watched New York Times film critic A.O. "Tony" Scott on At the Movies and he seems like a pleasant fellow. But part of his essay comparing theatre and movies hit a nerve. (Thanks to Jonathan Mandell, who writes about New York theatre at The Faster Times, for the link.)

Here's what Scott had to say about the current Broadway revival of A Little Night Music and the Ingmar Bergman film on which it's based, Smiles of A Summer Night:

"You watch Bergman, whether at home or in a revival house, in a state of solitude, but you go see “A Little Night Music” in a crowd and partake of its rituals. Many of these strike me, after 10 years of moviegoing with little time for theater, as bizarre, from the apparently obligatory ovations — is there nothing New York audiences won’t stand for? — to the practice of applauding after every number."

He describes seeing A Little Music as "an encounter with celebrity" and the applause as "an act of communal congratulation for having done so."

Okay, maybe audiences are a little too quick to jump to their feet at the end of the show. In a perfect world, we'd only stand for the most incredible, memorable, take-your-breath-away performances and applaud for the most emotionally gripping songs.

But do the applause and the standing ovations really hurt anyone? Do they detract from anyone's theatergoing experience compared with, say, talking during the show or being seated late or unwrapping a piece of candy? I don't think so.

Scott has some good points - seeing a movie and going to the theatre are different experiences. But his allusion to theatre and its bizarre rituals strikes me as needlessly snooty and dismissive of an art form he admits he's barely made time for in the past decade.

Unlike movies, the people up on stage are right there in front of you. They're human beings, not larger-than-life images on celluloid. When they come out at the curtain call after having made you laugh or cry for the past 2 1/2 hours, it's natural to want to give them an ovation. It's kind of a catharsis.

Besides, I don't think people are applauding to congratulate themselves. They're doing it to acknowledge performances that they've enjoyed. (And since most of the tickets are bought by tourists for whom a Broadway show is a treat, I think part of it is the excitement of simply being in the audience.)

If people want to stand and applaud Catherine Zeta-Jones or Angela Lansbury as they take their bows at the conclusion of A Little Night Music, I don't think it's bizarre. Seeing an actor onstage whom you've loved from movies or TV is thrilling. (And is it so difficult to imagine that the audience may simply have enjoyed their performances?)

While I enjoy a good movie, it's too easy to do in solitude. Going to the theatre forces me to be part of a crowd. The fact that it's a communal experience is a good thing. Too much solitude is not a good thing.

Assigned versus unassigned reading

I've always believed in the joy of reading whatever I want, so I was very interested in this New York Times story yesterday about teaching literature. The question is: Should everyone in the class read the same book or should students choose their own books?

Times reporter Motoko Rich focuses on a middle school teacher in Jonesboro, Ga. Last fall instead of assigning To Kill a Mockingbird, Lorrie McNeill let her seventh- and eighth-grade students pick out their own books.

Some chose challenging titles but if they didn't, McNeill nudged them in that direction. A seventh-grader who started with R&B singer Chaka Khan's memoir moved on to Maya Angelou's autobiography I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and Betty Smith's A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. Which, actually, is a very cool transition.

(I remember when I was in high school we had to pick a science fiction novel to read, a genre I still don't like very much, and I picked Planet of the Apes.)

The article does a good job of exploring all sides of the issue and of course, it's not an either-or situation. You can assign some books and let students choose others. And there are good points to be made for all sides.

Obviously, the best way to encourage a love of reading is to let kids read what they love. The easiest way to turn them off is to force-feed them a book about which they have absolutely no interest. Reading becomes a chore instead of a pleasure.

(I still have nightmares about trudging through The Brothers Karamazov in high school. Or was it Crime and Punishment? I can't remember. But I think it permanently turned me off from all Russian literature.)

On the other hand, there is something to be said for everyone being on the same page. It fosters discussion and gets students thinking. I have to admit, even though I read a lot most of the classic works of literature I've read were assigned to me when I was in school.

But there was one quote that struck me as kind of sad. Before beginning the project O'Neill felt compelled to warn her very supportive principal: "I am not sure how it’s going to pan out on the standardized tests.”

Even though it's not exactly a revelation that schools today teach to test, statements like that still make me cringe.

Ruhl's next room will be the Lyceum

Congratulations to playwright Sarah Ruhl, who will finally be making her Broadway debut this fall. In the Next Room or the vibrator play, produced by the Lincoln Center Theater, will begin previews at the Lyceum Theatre Oct. 22 and open on Nov. 19.

The announcement attracted my attention because it comes on the heels of a recent study about the lack of opportunities for female playwrights. (For a great follow-up discussion with artistic directors, check out Kris Vire's blog post at Time Out Chicago.)

Ruhl is the recipient of a "genius grant" from the MacArthur Foundation, which referred to her as a young playwright who is "emerging as a powerful presence in the American theater." I'm not saying being on Broadway is the end all and be all if you're an American playwright but I bet it's pretty thrilling. And I'm glad she's getting this opportunity.

In the Next Room, set in the twilight of the Victorian era, had its premiere earlier this year at the Berkeley Rep. It "illuminates the lives of six lonely people seeking relief from a local doctor — but, despite his expertise with a strange new technology, all they really need is intimacy."

And the play garnered some acclaim during its West Coast run.

In his New York Times review, Charles Isherwood called In the Next Room "a spirited and stimulating new comedy from one of the country's brightest young playwrights." In the Los Angeles Times, Charles McNulty wrote about his dislike for the ending but felt that the play "still has the potential to be a modern masterpiece."

I became a fan of Ruhl's after seeing her very funny play The Clean House at Trinity Repertory Company a couple of seasons ago. And I'm looking forward to Dead Man's Cell Phone next season.

I know it's tough for a new play on Broadway without any "stars" in the cast. But presumably, In the Next Room won't be under as much pressure since Lincoln Center has a base of subscribers, who'll see it as part of a package. Also, since it isn't transferring from off-Broadway, I'm hoping plenty of Ruhl's fans will be lining up to see the play, too.

Update: Laura Benanti, who blew me away with her Tony-winning performance as Louise in Gypsy, and Michael Cerveris have been cast in the play. So that makes me even more intrigued.

Frank Rich on Stonewall

I truly admire the way New York Times columnist Frank Rich continually reminds us that this country's work on civil rights is not yet complete.

Last month, he took the Obama administration to task over its failure to push for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act. Today, he has a column on the 40th anniversary of Stonewall and he's still holding the administration's feet to the fire.

(I love this line: "If the country needs any Defense of Marriage Act at this point, it would be to defend heterosexual marriage from the right-wing “family values” trinity of Sanford, Ensign and Vitter.")

Rich recalls how he was caught up in the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s but never heard about the demonstrations that followed a police raid on a gay bar in Greenwich Village on June 28, 1969. Even if he had, he wonders whether he would have cared. After all, he didn't know anyone at his Ivy League university who was openly gay.

"It was typical of my generation, like others before and after, that the issue of gay civil rights wasn’t on our radar screen. Not least because gay people, fearful of harassment, violence and arrest, were often forced into the shadows."

I'm younger than Rich, but I've always been interested in the history of the 1960s, particularly the civil rights and antiwar movements. I read widely on those subjects when I was in college in the late '70s and early '80s. And I never remember reading anything about Stonewall. Like Rich, when I was in college, I didn't know anyone who was openly gay.

Well, things are, thankfully, different today. Frank Rich cares, and so do I.

My audience may not be as large as the Times' but I intend to keep writing, too. How could I not? How could I tell my friends who happen to be gay or lesbian - people I love and admire - that there are some rights they don't deserve, that our laws shouldn't protect them as much as they protect me, that they shouldn't be allowed to marry the person with whom they want to spend the rest of their life?

On Monday, Rich notes that President Obama will mark the Stonewall anniversary at the White House. And he repeats his disappointment in the administration, which I share. Congressional Democrats, too. I'm not letting you off the hook. Judging from this Times story, there's plenty of foot-dragging in the legislative branch.

One line in Rich's May column gave me pause, when he said that "changes aren’t coming as fast as many gay Americans would like." I noted that there are plenty of "straight Americans" who want equal rights extended to everyone in this country. It's important for our elected officials to know that this isn't a "gay issue."

Apparently, he's been reading my blog because this time, he gets my point:

"It’s a press cliché that “gay supporters” are disappointed with Obama, but we should all be. Gay Americans aren’t just another political special interest group. They are Americans who are actively discriminated against by federal laws."

"If the president is to properly honor the memory of Stonewall, he should get up to speed on what happened there 40 years ago, when courageous kids who had nothing, not even a public acknowledgment of their existence, stood up to make history happen in the least likely of places."

Thank-you Frank

Frank Rich has a great column in the Sunday New York Times taking President Obama to task for his lack of courage in pushing for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act.

"Despite Barack Obama’s pledges as a candidate and president, there is no discernible movement on repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy or the Defense of Marriage Act. Both seem more cruelly discriminatory by the day."

He's absolutely correct. There's just one line in Rich's column that I'd quibble with: "And yet the changes aren’t coming as fast as many gay Americans would like, and as our Bill of Rights would demand."

It's not just "gay Americans" who want change to come faster - there are plenty of "straight Americans" who want equal rights extended to everyone in this country as soon as possible. Like, today.

Major league theatre

Frank Vlastnik and Ken Bloom, who wrote Broadway Musicals: The 101 Greatest Shows of All Time, are answering questions at the New York Times ArtsBeat blog. (A second installment, on what makes a great Broadway show, will appear tomorrow.)

The questions and answers cover familiar ground: How do we build the next generation of theatergoers? Why aren't more Broadway plays and musicals available on dvd? Why is there a trend of movies being made into musicals? One that I thought was especially informative: Why is everything so loud to the point of discomfort? The authors get into a discussion about how, before miking, performers had to use their muscles. "Today’s performers hardly have to push sound past their vocal chords and their performances suffer."

And I have to take issue with them on one answer. A reader who lives in the Midwest and sees touring productions for $25 a ticket but has never been to Broadway asks, "Why should I spend my savings to travel to New York and pay five times that to see a show?"

Bloom answers, "For the most part, today’s touring shows have fewer stars, cut-down sets and orchestras, and less rehearsal. Trust me, there’s absolutely no comparison between a touring production and the original Broadway production."

First part, I definitely agree with - on tour the sets won't be as lavish, the orchestra won't be as large, the performers may not be big stars yet. New York is a wonderful place to visit in general and if you're a theatre fan, you should try to get there. Broadway is such a unique, exciting experience and with discounts, it doesn't have to cost $100 a ticket.

I mean, that's a bit like saying why would I ever want to go to a Major League Baseball stadium when I can see my Triple A team right here at home? Sure, it'll cost more, but if you're a baseball fan, you want to attend a major league game at least once. Believe me, I've done both. Same thing with theatre.

But to say that there's "no comparison" is a trifle unfair. Not everyone can get to New York City, just like not everyone lives near a major league baseball team. (Ok, enough with the sports analogies!) Seeing a Broadway show on tour can be powerful and immensely entertaining. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

Marketing 9 to 5

I found an interesting tidbit buried in a New York Times story on viral marketing campaigns by Broadway musicals:

"Situation Interactive experimented with new technology in other campaigns as well. The firm worked with the producers of Billy Elliot to create videos that chronicled the rehearsals of the three boys who rotate as the lead character. For 9 to 5: The Musical, the firm is working on an online game in which players can upload pictures of their bosses for a shooting gallery."

Okay, my initial thoughts are:
1.) This sounds like it's in pretty poor taste.
2.) If you do participate, you probably don't want your boss to know.

Yes, Billy's gotta fly

When I saw Billy Elliot, one of my favorite scenes was the dream ballet between Billy and an older version of himself, played by ballet dancer Stephen Hanna. I especially loved the moment when the younger Billy takes flight.

Well, in this morning's New York Times, Charles Isherwood writes an entire article about how much he dislikes Billy's flying. (Although he loves the scene up until that point.) He calls it a "cynical manipulation" and a "glib crowd-seducing trick" designed to appeal to children brought up on a diet of video games and action movies.

I disagree. I don't think there's anything cynical about it at all. It's a beautiful way of showing us the strong, graceful, athletic man that this scrawny little boy will become. The whole musical, after all, celebrates the joy of movement.

Like I wrote in my review, my jaw literally dropped at the moment when Billy flies. To me, it's saying that ballet may be the closest thing we have to taking flight. Yes, it's a special effect designed to elicit "oohs" and "ahhhs." But I found it visually stunning and magical and I loved it. (And I don't own any video games or particularly like action movies.)

Plus, is it any less manipulative when Billy reads a letter from his deceased mother? That really got my tear ducts working. And if we weren't manipulated, what would be the point? After all, isn't that what art is supposed to do - to get a reaction out of us, to manipulate our emotions?

Proposition 8 is "mean-spirited''

I missed this editorial in Sunday's New York Times, but it's pretty terrific for the way it gets to the core of the argument in favor of marriage equality.

The Times is urging California residents to vote "No" in November on Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to prevent same-sex couples from marrying. The ballot measure would overturn May's state Supreme Court ruling that enabled gay and lesbian couples to marry.

(The Times also notes that similar discriminatory measures are on the ballot in Arizona and Florida, and says that they also should be rejected.)

Here's the key paragraph from the editorial:

"Opponents of giving gay couples the protections, dignity and respect that come with marriage are working furiously to try to overturn the court ruling through Proposition 8. It is our fervent hope that Californians will reject this mean-spirited attempt to embed second-class treatment of one group of citizens in the State Constitution."

In its news articles, the Times can sometimes be a little dense and wordy. But the editorial gets to the point succinctly: this is about protection, dignity and respect. And the ballot question is mean-spirited. While I don't live in California, as an American, I don't want to see anyone's civil rights taken away or any group of people treated as second-class citizens.

And this part made me smile because it's so matter of fact in the way it states what should be perfectly obvious but needs to be said anyway:

"The proponents of Proposition 8 make the familiar claim that legalizing same-sex marriage undercuts marriage between men and women. But thousands of gay and lesbian couples have been married in California since the May ruling and marriage remains intact."

Although the Times doesn't mention it, just for the record, I'm pretty sure the sky hasn't fallen in California either.

While there have been some high-profile weddings in California, I think what's most interesting, and crucial, is to read the stories of couples who aren't celebrities but just normal, everyday people - your neighbors or friends or coworkers or family members.

So, just in case you're a California voter and you happen to stumble across my blog, please read about these couples who've tied the knot in Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been legal since 2004. (And where heterosexual marriage remains intact!) While you won't recognize their names, I'm sure their stories will resonate.

And at The Wicked Stage, Rob Weinert-Kendt has posted a sweet two-minute anti-anti-gay-marriage proposition video by Dave Barton from Rude Guerrilla Theater Company in Santa Ana, Calif., that also gets to the heart of the matter. (I'll definitely be adding Rude Guerrilla to my list of clever theatre names.)

More Tony talk, Part II

Ok, I know it's been a week already and we need to move on, but I didn't want to let this article in Saturday's New York Times pass by without comment.

Theatre critic Charles Isherwood decries the state of this year's Tony Awards, which he calls "an infomercial for the generic Broadway brand." He particularly hates the idea of using the show as a platform for Broadway producers such as Disney to - horrors - sell tickets!

Apparently, Isherwood didn't much enjoy a performance by the cast of The Lion King. "The decision to kick off the telecast with the by now familiar opening number from The Lion King sent the viewing audience a message that the best Broadway had to offer this year was a decade-old Disney musical."

(Well, as someone who saw that "decade-old Disney musical" for the first time last month, let me tell you, the opening number is pretty thrilling, and I loved being able to see it again on tv.)

He writes that the pleasure of the Tonys is a chance to see the theatre actors that he admires rewarded for their work. He wants to "see them acting joyous, excited, flustered, grateful, maybe a little foolish — in short, human, divorced from the stage personality." And he ponders whether it would be such a bad thing if they moved from CBS to PBS.

Ok, I guess he wants fewer performances by 10-year-old musicals and more acceptance speeches. I can understand that - they're examples of real human emotion, unrehearsed except perhaps in front of a mirror. It's a chance for viewers to see their favorite performers out of character for once.

But personally, I'd like to see the show stay on a commercial broadcast network. That's the best way to make sure the Tonys are available to as wide a swath of viewers as possible. And theatre needs more exposure, not less.

I understand the point that the pro-PBS group makes: the only people who watch the show are people who already love Broadway, so what's the point of waging a ratings battle that you're never going to win? It's always going to be a niche audience, so why not just give up trying to be commercial and go to a place where it doesn't matter how many viewers you have. That way, you wouldn't have to try and attract viewers who aren't already interested.

I'm not sure how this works exactly, and I could be wrong, but I think PBS stations have a certain amount of latitude about when, or even if, they air a show. So if they were to move to PBS, there's no guarantee that the Tonys would be available to everyone on the same night. Some stations might opt to not show them at all.

Broadway producer and blogger Ken Davenport writes that it can cost a musical $200,000 to $300,000 to put on a performance at the Tonys, when you count up salaries, sets, transportation, stagehands, recording sessions. According to Davenport, cast members get a week's salary! Davenport also makes the point that while the ratings are small, CBS can charge a bundle for advertisers to reach the desirable demographic group that watches the Tony awards each year.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I just don't know whether Broadway producers would pony up that kind of money for an awards show that airs on PBS. And even if they did, would the content change all that much? Wouldn't it still be pretty much an infomercial for Broadway? And is there anything wrong with that?

From Broadway to Baghdad

It's pretty common for reporters to change beats after they've been covering the same topic for awhile, but this has to be the mother of all beat changes - Campbell Robertson, who covers Broadway for The New York Times, has a new assignment, in Baghdad.

Robertson, 31, a 1998 graduate of Georgetown University, started at the Times as a clerk, and later wrote the Names column in the paper's metro section. He just covered the Tony awards for the Times. Iraq isn't what comes to mind when I think of the next logical step in his career.

“Look, he’s an untraditional war correspondent the way a lot of us are,” Jim Glanz, the Times' Iraq bureau chief, told the New York Observer newspaper. “He’s coming from a different background and point of view from everyone else there. And right now, we can use some fresh ideas and perspectives.”

Susan Chira, the Times' foreign editor, says the paper is taking a "really strategic approach" to covering Iraq. “Sure, in 2004 the place was blowing up, and things are calmer now, but there are different stories. We’re completely committed, and we don’t think it’s going away.” She praised Robertson, calling him “a terrific writer and dogged reporter."

Going to Iraq is not a decision you make lightly. It's an important story and I admire Robertson for wanting to take it on. So good luck Campbell, and stay safe.