Tannhauser

Lyric Opera of Chicago

It turns out I may have a new second favorite Wagner opera. I love Tannhauser! The music is beautiful.

We had one of those rare perfect moments of theater on Sunday afternoon. Everything came together.

We started with this wonderfully sexy ballet. It wasn't that it was sexy that made it good. The choreography was so interesting and beautiful to watch. I would definitely see a full ballet with this choreographer, Jasmin Vardimon. The opening scene was so long that perhaps this was a full ballet. Anyway, wonderful.

Then we have the leave taking of Venus by Tannhauser. Johan Botha, who I've seen a large number of times, probably more than a handful, brought everything he had. Always good, he was excellent in this year. The program reveals he is having a Wagner year. Well, let that continue, please. The program also said that he approached the role in a bel canto way and I say - nothing wrong with that. It was absolutely the right approach. Surprisingly he had a super long night of singing and he came out warmed up and completely ready to go. He didn't ease into the role, he barreled into it. Bravo!

Venus was strong. I'm assuming that she was the one with the special announcement about feeling under the weather. She didn't have anything to apologize for, except for a possible slight hit in lung power. But, if it was her, then you wouldn't have noticed anything amiss. Except for every single named character being just amazing - that would make me want the audience cut me any sort of slack even if I wasn't under the weather.

Then, we have Tannhauser meet the old singing club with rifles upon his return. Sometimes if you swap out "singing contest" in Wagner operas for American Idol in your mind in Wagner operas it works. The rifles and the prolonged civil war made it a bit of a stretch, but you get the picture. Okay, this is when the night took a real turn for the better. The armed singers, minor roles, were amazing. You just knew we were in business at this point. Wow!

So, we have an intermission and there is a new character singing at the beginning of Act II, Amber Wagner (that last name, I know!) as Elisabeth and you are thinking "this broad could ruin the whole evening right here." And, oh no - she actually takes something going remarkably well and elevates it! Her voice is stunning. Perfection. Perfect timbre, perfect sound, huge lungs, perfect for Wagner. Wow, wow, wow.

We have the singing contest which is, gasp, interesting dramatically. And, beautiful vocally. The rotating singers, there is no weak link. Tannhauser lets it slip that he's been hanging out in the brothel of brothels and has learned love and it's actually a little shocking. He goes off with the pilgrims and their beautiful song.

Act III, he doesn't come back with the forgiven pilgrims. Elisabeth walks off into the distant heaven, in a clever piece of stagecraft. There is a black screen which opens for her to walk into the distance against a black backdrop. It is simple and actually worked. Tannhauser gives up on all this and returns to Venusburg, because you know, that's easier than all this - he learns Elisabeth, that angel has gone to heaven and his soul is saved at the last minute.

A perfect production.

Looking over Wikipedia, I only have one major opera to see for the first time left: Tristan. But, now I just want Tannhauser, The Ring, Tannhauser, The Ring and maybe a Lohengrin for fun. Lucky are those perfect nights at the opera, where you fall in love all over again.

Jasmin Vardimon

Jasmin Vardimon

Jasmin Vardimon

Iolanta / Bluebeard's Castle

The Met

A double bill!

It's an odd pairing at first sight, for sure. But, the do make some sort of sense together. Iolanta is about a girl who can't see and does not really want to see or need to see and Bluebeard's Castle is about a woman who desperately wants to see and is doomed by what she sees in the castle.

Both were new to me. Iolanta I had never heard of and Bluebeard I was familiar with from rumor, but I had never heard either.

The draw here is not only the odd pairing, but Anna Netrebko as Iolanta and then a fancy production on both, to boot.

I thought most everything worked the first half of the night. Iolanta is actually quite lovely. Probably the only thing keeping it from more performances and a regular rotation in the opera canon is its length. The libretto is interesting, the action is quick, the music is beautiful.

I've heard Netrebko twice now, and recently, too. The first time, La Boheme, was breathtaking. The second, here - it was nice. She didn't settle until a bigger aria farther in. There weren't any great showstopper arias to showcase that immense talent. It was an odd fit, quite frankly. The orchestra was too loud the whole way through, which is the greatest sin an opera orchestra can make. The sets were gorgeous, but perhaps a little too minimal for the amount of action, the story, the time period of the story, etc. Overall, I am delighted I heard it, but mainly because it introduced me to something lovely, something I'd like to grab on CD or mp3 when the opportunity presents itself.

Intermission, and then on to Bluebeard, which was just damn strange. After the elegance of the first part of the evening, the libretto was bad, like very bad. I think if you are reading the story it is one thing, but to try and push that into an opera without varying the words, which came down to something like "Give me the key, give me the key" and "Open the door, open the door." repeatedly - it was a killer. I know all the rage here is the specialness of the Bartok music - personally this is one I had always wanted to see, but after having seen it if never again, oh well!

We had the runner-up soprano, as the first string soprano was not on the calendar for our evening. Perhaps it would have made a difference. Perhaps not. Our soprano certainly did not redeem the opera.

As theater, I thought it was effective with these speaker haunted house noises, the beautiful sets, the screen between scenes with the dark, moving projection on it. I can understand how it would be irresistible to try.

It made for a strange evening. I'm still glad I went. Curiosity may have killed the cat on this one, but at least my curiosity was satisfied and at the very least I was introduced to the pretty and psychologically rather complex Iolanta.

Cabaret

Studio 54
Broadway

I actually flew in intentionally to see this before it was gone. I've never seen the show before. It was new to me, although I had some inkling of what it was about, but I wanted to see what it looked like when an actor owns a role for a generation, namely Alan Cumming as the emcee.

I still think this is an interesting thing: one actor in the same play, in three revivals, in the same part. What makes it a little more interesting is the female lead has changed over three times in just this one run (we saw it on Emma Stone's last day). So, you have a constant and a variable - it is like a good science experiment.

You never know how any play is actually going to be until you see it. You can read all the reviews, see the photos, etc., but until you are there - you don't know. I like that about theater. I like that it is a personal experience that can not be captured by others, either in words or image or even really in video, because of the live element. Most of what I see defies expectation in spite of my research.

I thought this lived up to its reputation. It was, you know, just raunchy enough to still be Cabaret. A certain level of smut is actually necessary to pull this thing off. It was anchored well by the older, somewhat wiser couple who come together and then part because of Nazism. And, then we have the younger couple, Sally Bowles and the American writer who come together and part because of Nazism, but even more because some people, in any bad situation, will want to either go down with the ship or escape. And, these are just two different sorts of people. And, then we have Alan Cumming who represents the last, final, extreme party before it all falls apart. As freedom is jeopardized people respond with an absolute attempt at exaggerated freedom before it is stamped out by extremism. This is interesting, right?

I feel dense, but I was not sure what the moral lesson of the play was, though. It's a bit heavy-handed. You can't say "Nazi" without having a lesson in there. What is the takeaway? What is the audience supposed to do with this information? It felt a bit mysterious, but this was written at a different time for a different time. But, the characters are not fighting extremism. They aren't even fighting for one another in light of what is coming. Extremism defeats love in two instances. So,...I am left with a question mark.

This is a dark musical. I suppose it is for people who don't like huge smiles with their song and dance. But, lots of musicals are dark. This is very dark. It exemplifies well its theme, though. It is playful and dark at the same time. Perhaps it is best to say that it is sinfully dark.

I am trying to think what will be my takeaway six months from now and I guess it is this. It was a special afternoon at the theater, a moment caught in time, which is what the show is about, this moment caught in time, before the theater goes dark.

Airline Highway

Photo Credit: Michael Brosilow 
Steppenwolf Theater

Look at that pretty set by Scott Pask first.

Going to Broadway, worked out in Chicago first.

In light of this going to Broadway, I think it's big enough, but it's a strange fit for the Broadway lights. I predict a shorter run. It's not that it isn't good (it is) it's just that it's odd. I think it is a great fit for where we saw it, top-notch regional theater. It would be great at The Alliance in Atlanta, for instance. I don't know if it can take the competition of 100 other performances an evening. Well, time will tell on that count.

Now, about the play. It is mostly about those fragile communities that exist at the edge, under hardship conditions. It is also about how a seemingly temporary community can become a permanent one (think refugee camps, housing projects, rent-by-the-week motels).

One of my favorite moments in the play that is based on a pre-funeral (an older member is dying but has not died yet) for a long-time member of the community has to do with the structure of the play. The group is hosting and planning the funeral and an ex-member of the group returns, a man who got out by marrying an older, wealthier woman and he brings with him his step-daughter who is a true outsider to the group. So, you have: group, former member and outsider as the structure. It is good work that it is not just two-fold, but three-fold. Anyway, the former member, Baitboy, relies on the community being there, being a place he can return to when he wants to. A member turns that around and asks, basically, if the community can show up at his fancy, new door for help when it needs it. Does relying on one another still go both ways? And, it doesn't. His foothold out is so precarious and his escape is based on shaking off the old, so it can't. He's made it out, but that means releasing those ties. He is, unfairly, still able to return to the community. It is true and interesting and uncomfortable.

The play opens after intermission with a grand, Broadway-quality scene in Act II as we begin the pre-funeral party. The first act has been mostly background, setting and party preparation. And, this is quite a party. It was entirely enjoyable that these are mostly entertainment professionals, people who serve a year-long party for vacationers. And, finally you get to see the servants of the entertainment industry at their own party, which they do very well. It is a loving and generous party. They don't have to be wild, they know what to do. This is a party's party.

Part of the play comes down to "How did all these people end up here?" Is it a series of bad luck? Bad decisions? Where they come from? Can they escape? Should they? What would escape look like? Are they actually where they want to be? Baitboy has escaped, but it is a precarious life and he is in some ways alone. Everyone has to come to their own conclusions here.

One bit that was left unexplained is how a working stripper could be so poor, without any money at all. She can't even afford her own room in this play, and it is cheap. Is she a bad stripper? Too much competition? Not a good club? Because I thought strippers made more money than that, but perhaps I am wrong. Wait, I just googled it. This part of the story, post-Google, makes absolutely no sense. We have a stripper who is supposedly good at her job who isn't visibly using drugs and she has absolutely no money? What?

Anyway, it was an enjoyable night at the theater. I'm curious about how the Broadway run will go. I guess it comes down to this. This is a $65-75 night, not a $125 night because the subject matter is too serious for Broadway, the show not quite grandiose enough, even with a "bigger" name taking over one of the main parts. So, we'll see. I'll be interested to watch its journey. We are glad we saw it, though.

Big Love

Signature Theater Company

What better for Valentine's Day than a play about sister brides running away from their grooms, being pushed to finally marry them and then kill them on their wedding night? Nothing.

Personally, I love Charles Mee. He has a bit of a gimmick going, but when you have a gimmick and it works and you can do it better than anyone else, why not? He takes very old Greek plays, makes them very new, starts with a clean stage and by the end of the evening has a very messy stage. But, oh what a joy it is to watch that stage devolve from beautiful, clean order into absolute chaos.

We read about half of the play Big Love was based on, The Suppliants by Aeschylus. If the question is whether the play is still relevant today, almost 2500 years after it was written, that answer is a very easy "yes." 

We have an oppressed group of people being forced to do something against their will fleeing their nation, landing anywhere hoping for a better, more free life. They ask the powerful person on the coast they've landed for help and protection. It's not offered. That person has their own safety to think of. They take matters into their own hands, out of a last resort. What does one do when one is oppressed, help can't be found and one is out of options? How do you balance justice and love? Is it justice before all other things?

The dramatic tension is held together by the first sister NOT murdering her husband because she has fallen in love and breaks her sisterly pact. 

It's a rather simple story, in some ways. But, Charles Mee pulls out all the stops to sort of sex it up and make it modern. We start with a nude actress. That certainly focuses attention in an audience pretty quickly. There is song and dance, a jukebox musical feel at times. There is a cacophony of action on the stage as the night wears on. There is video projection, rarely used effectively, but here very well done.

These plays are timeless. They hold up. And, the new version, it holds up, too. Any theater goer knows that an evening at Signature will deliver. And, last night it did not disappoint.

This Is Our Youth

Photo credit: Michael Brosilow
Steppenwolf Theater

Is this the hottest show in Chicago right now? Maybe. It's a summer treat and not here for long before it goes to Broadway. Maybe a little more on that in a bit.

Michael Cera is the most famous of the cast. He was certainly great, but it was Kieran Culkin who really brought his A game and a little more to this performance. At the intermission I turned to my husband and said, "Holy cow, his toes were even acting" and my husband said, "I saw that, too, and thought - whoa."

The play ended and the discussion started and I thought, with a title like "This Is Our Youth" you would expect a coming of age story and perhaps the title was a misnomer to some extent. And, then the more I thought about it, I thought maybe this was a coming of age story, but one a little bit hidden.

I was also initially confused about the setting, the early 80's. Because I went in expecting "Our Youth" to refer to today's youth. But, after leaving I thought - this is "our youth" - like "our," the theater-going audience. Most of the audience was alive in the early 80s - and, well, everyone was younger and some were youth.

I think this was a coming of age story in the sense that bad things happen to most people some time in their early years and to grow up you have to move past it and put it away. The main character (Cera) lost his sister to murder nine years prior to the action. He says at the beginning of the play that he keeps photos of her around his bedroom because it helps him move forward. He shows up at his friend's house with a suitcase of childhood treasures/collectibles that have monetary value, but he doesn't really want to sell unless he has to. He is holding on to his childhood, which is also a time when his sister was alive. By the end of the play his best friend (Culkin) has sold his childhood memories for less than their value and he is able to let go of them. In letting go he is able to conceive a future of living with his father and going back home. He is also ready to start renegotiating some of his established childhood relationships.

He barely comes of age, but in a sense he becomes unstuck, which is truly important - especially in light of a disrupted childhood and growing up in a house of both privilege and grief.

Oh, and there is a girl. I think she is in there to give some philosophic framing to the story.

This is headed for Broadway. I think it is a stretch. With a few tweaks and alterations, I think this year's production of the amazing Russian Transport, especially some set tweaks, could have done well. Without the name power, I think this would be a great match for Playwright Horizons or Second Stage, both places Culkin has performed before, actually. I've been to the Cort and I think it's a little big for the intimacy needed for this play. I could be wrong, but I think it's also a bit of a stretch for them to sell seats night after night in a Broadway house for any length of time.

Still, as the hottest show in town, I didn't leave disappointed. The play itself wasn't life altering. It had a different vibe to it, different from almost anything I've seen, and for that it is notable.

On my Broadway must-see list this fall, though - I'd put it in the bottom of my top 10, probably. But, then again, I've already seen it. For Culkin, though, I might just go twice to see which micro expressions I missed the first time round and if his toes are doing anything different in week five from week two.

Tribes

Photo credit: Michael Brosilow
Steppenwolf Theater

One word: yawn.

We left the theater and there was nothing to talk about. Ironic, really, since this play was all about communication.

Billy, deaf, has been raised by a family that wanted to have him live in the world as a hearing person. Exception at reading lips, he catches most of what is said - however, he definitely lives as something of an outsider in his family. He was discouraged from learning sign language and the family made no move toward learning it themselves through the years.

This is a coming of age story.

Enter the girlfriend who is losing her hearing, but has deaf parents and a deaf sister and has been a part of the deaf world for quite some time. She introduces Billy to this insular world and he feels like he finally belongs in a way he never has with his family.

At the same time, the girlfriend is growing slightly disillusioned or going through a time of pulling away from the deaf community, as she is losing her hearing, grieving that loss - she draws somewhat close to his hearing family.

At the same time, the brother has regained a stutter as he becomes unhinged.

At the same time, the sister comes to the self-realization that she will never be a great operatic performer, a singer of other languages.

At the same time, the father is learning Chinese, and still won't learn sign language.

At the same time, the mother has written a book.

Yawn again. It's knit too tight. There are no loose edges. Any regular theater goer is left with nothing to think about. In the first 10 minutes you know where this is going. Any surprise is less than worthwhile.

Leaving your family for a secondary "tribe" is just a stage of development, no matter what the circumstances. Eventually, you come back after you've found that it takes a few tribes to make you whole.

I will say, though, I may stand alone on my take on this one. Even though I found it to be a blah night at the theater, more people stayed for the discussion than usual and I thought they were actively engaged in it.

The set design was rather nice. The main point of it being that there was a room suspended in space, separate, far away from family life. Rather clever. One thing I really liked is that it looked like a completely different set when we moved for the discussion, which I thought also worked well with some of the themes.