Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:13]
A
Thank you very much. That's all. But we have a great dramatic finish. I'm sure you do, but Mr. Graham, hit it. Broadway. Broadway. We've missed it. So we're leaving soon and taking June to start her in a show. Hello all you theater lovers, both out and proud and on the DL. And welcome back to Broadway Breakdown, a podcast discussing the history and legacy of American theater's most exclusive address, Broadway. I am your host, Matt Koplik, the least famous and most opinionated of all the Broadway podcast hosts. And wouldn't you know it, it's another review episode today. We got a couple more reviews coming up before we finally dive right back into all of our full Tony Awards coverage. Luckily, all of the shows have been open now, so we're in the final grind of getting it all together. We have a couple of bit of housekeeping we need to do. We have a new review for the podcast. Thank you very much. And I also want to talk a bit briefly about a couple of awards bodies that have released their nominations and what that means for Tonys and for your predictions and blah, blah, blah, blah. And then we'll get into our actual reviews. So first up, let's do the review for Zip podcast on Apple Podcasts. Cue the Light and the Piazza Overture. Five stars. The King of Versailles. This is the best theater podcast ever. No competition whatsoever. That kind of rhymes. Matt's theater knowledge is priceless, but he generously shares it among his people. His eloquence is unique and makes us all jealous. I've. I will say I've been dinged a bit about my eloquence. I've said words incorrectly on this podcast for sure and will continue to do so. Moving on, I am desperately waiting for every single new episode. Dear Matt, don't you dare take. And that's where it ends. I'm assuming the final sentence is supposed to be don't you dare take too long or your sweet time with stuff. I'm not taking my time with these episodes. I do have to take a breather. I also have stuff going down in the middle of rehearsals. We're in the final week before the next Broadway Breakdown live show at Green Room 42. Reviewing the 20252026 season once again. Get those tickets now or do the live stream if you can. And then we have more scheduling of episodes to do. I have a couple of projects I'm working on outside of the podcast, so it's just scheduling is always just really hard and getting time to record these and editing them and all that is always tricky. So I don't take my time. Don't ever think that I. I'm doing that. I do drag my feet a little bit because I am lazy. I'm very, very lazy. So after that, next up, we have some awards bodies that have released their nominations. We have the Drama League and we have the Outer Critics Circle Awards. Drama League and Outer Critics Circle do. Drama League does very basic awards. They have production of a musical play, revival of a musical, revival of a play, direction of a musical, direction of a play, and then distinguished. The thing that you need to know about the Drama Leagues, similar to the Outer Critics Circle, they combine Broadway and Off Broadway. Critics Circle does separate when it comes to performances, but for production, they are blended. And the other thing you should know about the Drama League is it is a pay to play voting body. Anyone in the theater industry can join the Drama League. You do have to pay an initiation fee, and I believe there are dues and that is ultimately what gets you on the voting committee. There's no criteria outside of that. Also, I believe that productions do have to pay to get Drama League members to see them. The voting body of the Drama League and the nominating body of the Drama League is very big, and some of them do overlap with the Tonys, so that helps. But I don't believe that productions make it a point to offer press seats to every single voting member of the Drama League. If they did, they would be out of business. So Drama League members don't always see every show. They also have a vested interest in certain shows. So in a lot of ways, many productions get nominated. If you look at the best musical lineup and the best play lineup, it is like at least a dozen each Distinguished performances, it's supposed to be a maximum of two performers per show. Sometimes there's a slip up, sometimes there's a blip, and sometimes there's just plain old corruption. Corruption is such a harsh word for something like this. The stakes are so low, but you know what I mean. It's not always with the most honest of intentions, which is why something like Ragtime actually has three Distinguished Performance nominations as opposed to the cap of what is supposed to be two also distinguished performance mixes. Not only Broadway and Off Broadway, but musical and play. So while it is a very, very long list, there are a lot of egregious, quote unquote snubs that you'll find in there. I believe Sam Tutty for Two Strangers was left off of the list for Drama League, which doesn't mean that he is now off the list for the Tony Awards. It's just that's how these things go. Otter Critics circle also is a very odd body. They always have been. You just have to look at some of the musicals and plays that have done very well with Outer Critics Circle awards with nominations to see how they are not a direct reflection of the Tony Awards. So long story short, how do the Outer Critics Circle nominations and the Drama League nominations affect the Tony Awards race? They don't nearly at all the best thing you can say about either. And this is true of the drama desks, which will be coming up soon as well. Drama desks are a little more indicative. Drama desk is a much smaller nominating body. I think it's like a tenth the size of the nominating committee for the Tony Awards and I don't. And there's no overlap whatsoever in terms of people. Drama desks also have a nominating body that serves much longer terms than the Tony Awards. Tony nominating members only get three years. They do not have to be three years in succession, but they total of three years. So no year with nominators is exactly the same. So it's hard to necessarily say what a nominating body's taste would be for the Tonys. It's easier to predict for something like the autocritic circle and the drama Desks because there are a lot of members who nominate every, every, every year. So once again, it doesn't really affect. The best thing you could say is it sometimes puts certain performances and shows on the radar that nominators might not have fully thought about pursuing before. But it's the same thing with reviews. Critical reviews for shows don't necessarily dictate how the nominations are going to go. What they might do is a show that is considered on the more flippant side, like a Titanique or Schmigadoon. If they get solid reviews, nominators can feel a bit more like they are allowed to show them a lot of love, which is weird. You know, you want to feel like no one's going to be influenced by anything that should. They should just go with their own personal taste. But it's true. We're all influenced by it, influenced by everything that happens around us. So it doesn't necessarily mean that nominators go, oh well, Shmigadoon got a critics pick, but Titanique did not. Therefore, I shall give Schmigadoon 12 nominations and Titanique four. That's not it. It's just more that when people are sort of on the fence with how hard they're willing to gun for a show. Sometimes they can a critical reception can help give them that extra push of, for lack of a better word, bravery to really go to the mat for the shows that they believe in. But also it doesn't. That's a more an overall critical reception, not necessarily the New York Times there is a very semi true, I guess logic that if the Times likes a show, that means that show has the advantage for nominations and to win. Not always the case. We remember in 2024 the Outsiders and SUFFS were the only two Best Musical nominees that year that did not have critics picks and yet they probably walked away the best at the Tony Awards that year. Suff's winning score and book the Outsiders winning musical Hell's Kitchen came in with I think the most or at least they tied with the Outsiders for the most nominations and Hell's Kitchen just walked away with actress and featured actress. Water for Elephants also had a critics pick. It walked away empty handed. Illinois had a critics pick. It walked away with choreography last year, Gypsy v Sunset. Gypsy arguably had the better reviews overall. It definitely had the better New York Times review. It had the critics pick. Plus, as this Tony season was ramping up, Ben Brantley decided to put it upon himself to write an opinion piece on why Audra was giving the best performance of the season. Gypsy ended up blanking at the Tony Awards and Sunset won actress and revival. These things happen, you know. The year of Thoroughly Modern Millie that did not have a very good New York Times review. In fact, I would argue they got pretty much a straight up pan. And yet they did win musical and actress and featured actress. You could. And a slew of others you could argue the 9, 11 of it all as opposed to Millie versus urinetown. That absolutely plays a factor. But that is more in line with why Millie would win musical, not necessarily why it would win all the other awards that it won opposite its competition, the year of Jersey Boys. Jersey Boys got kind of a middling review from the New York Times and yet that won best musical. The New York Times is not the deciding factor ever. It can help. It can help with the narrative. It can help with momentum. It is not the deciding factor. In fact, while Ben Bradlee, I think did give Kinky Boots a critics pick, he absolutely was more in love with Matilda. And Matilda did not do nearly as well at the Tony Awards as Kinky Boots did or at the box office. So there you go. These are lures that don't always hold up enough of all of that Tony speak. We'll talk more about that in a few days as we do a kind of final big Swing nomination episode with all of you guys and a few friends at the pod. We won't do like an actual final predictions list so much as big swings that everybody's throwing out there to see if they catch on in the actual real realistic narrative. But let's move on. We've got two reviews due today. We have the Rocky Horror show at Roundabout Theater Company. And we have the fear of 13, currently playing at the James Earl Jones Theater, technically speaking, a British import from the Donmar Warehouse. Although this is a totally different production, different director in David Cromer, on a whole new design team, whole new cast, except for its lead, two time Oscar winner, Adrien Brody. We'll do fear of 13 last. So we'll open up with the Rocky Horror Show. Bam, bam, bam. The first Broadway revival since the 2000 production, which starred Tom Hewitt and Alice Ripley, Jared Emec, Raul Esparza, Daphne Rubin Vega, Joan Jett, Lea DeLaria, the list goes on. Dick Cavett, my God. Not to mention people who were phantoms in that show like Kevin Cahoon, Tony nominee Kevin Cahoon, Tony nominee Matthew Morrison, Deidre Goodwin. Love Deidre. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Rocky Horror show, it is the basis of the cult classic film the Rocky Horror Picture show, written by Richard o'. Brien. In fact, it is listed outside the theater and in most marketing as Richard o' Brien's the Rocky Horror Show. That's become a theme this season. Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman, August Wilson's Joe Turner's Come and Gone. It's just at this point it should be like Marla Mandel's Titanic. It's. We're putting the author's name over everything. And I'm not entirely sure if that's an estate situation or what, but it's. I've been noticing a lot more this season than in seasons. The Rocky Horror show is about 53 years old at this point, I want to say. And it is infamous for being an incredibly transgressive and boldly proud, queer, fluid musical in the vein of a campy B horror movie. And it was this giant phenomenon when it premiered in London. It was like an underground London musical that just kind of kept on getting bigger and bigger with its success running, I think for like six years or something like that. Coming to America, being very successful in Los Angeles, which, if you know, Los Angeles, being a successful theater production is almost impossible. Not totally, but Almost then infamously bombs on Broadway at the same time that the film comes out. And the film also bombs. But the film, as we now know, has become a late midnight showing classic, Having now run in movie theaters for over 50 years and becoming one of the highest grossing movie musicals of all time. Even when adjusted for inflation due to the constant repeat viewership of Rocky Horror fans. This has now given the show a major legacy and reputation. And it has always been a bit of a tug of war when Rocky Horror has come back to Broadway. Because there is a Broadway expectation of production caliber, there's an expectation of what Rocky Horror is as a property, and there's an expectation that people have of how. How the two should meet 2000 Revival, which has a great number of fans, myself included. I adore that cast recording. That production was dinged at the time by critics for actually being too Broadway, for being too heavy on spectacle and vocal flair and treating the piece with a lack of grunge. And this revival has now kind of had the opposite problem. Where people who either have a deep connection with the 2000s revival or have their own love of Rocky Horror, either whether it's it's the Picture show or it's their own productions they've done at Bucks County Playhouse or their own regional theaters, People having a specific expectation of sheen and polish and Broadway isms that this production, for some audience members, has not met. There's also the talk of the callbacks that are very typical in Rocky Horror. Callbacks being that in the movie. What helped make Rocky Horror Picture show become such a cult classic was the audience interaction. There would, first of all be actors who would perform sort of in pantomime in front of the screen. But also audiences would come in with props and they would have specific moments in the movie where they would call back at the screen. Famous Ones would be two of our main characters, Brad Majors and Janet Weiss. When they would hear the full name, Brad Majors, audiences would shout asshole. And when they would hear Janet Weiss, they would shout slut. Other things in addition to that. I see you shiver with Antissa. Say it. Patience that has helped add to the lore of Rocky Horror and this production. During previews, people were very frustrated because they felt like the call outs were not being honored and maybe still are not being honored. What did I think? Well, I'll start off by saying I mostly enjoyed this revival. I have my caveats and I'll get to those. But overall, I found this a very pleasant experience. Not quite Helen Shaw's critics pick Level of Love, but Considering I had a few friends who were also at my performance who were texting me afterwards about how they actually hated the production, which I don't. I'm not surprised by, but I'm sort of somewhere in the middle. I had things about it that I wish were improved. But also, there's a charm about this production that I don't think can be denied. And I also think a lot of the kinks that people had issues with at the beginning of previews, a lot of them have resolved during the preview process. So good on Sam Pinkleton and his whole company. Now we'll get a little bit more into the nitty gritty. So if you want to skip, you can skip. If you don't know the basic plot. It follows Brad Majors, Janet Weiss, asshole slut. They get engaged after a friend's wedding. And they decide to go visit their. Or a former college professor, Dr. Scott, whose class they met in to announce their engagement. Their car breaks down in the middle of a rainstorm. They go to a nearby castle, as one does, to borrow a phone so they can call for, you know, an auto repair shop to pick up their car and take them to the nearest gas station. But once they get there, they find themselves in what Brad would probably call. I think. I think he calls it like a hunting den for rich weirdos. Of course, to us, we see these transgressive aliens who are odd and sexual and. And celebratory and a little incestuous. And they meet the infamous Dr. Frank N. Furter, who brings Jad Jad, who brings Brad and Janet to his A laboratorium to introduce them to his creation, Rocky, a stunning male figure who is basically there to relieve all of Frank N. Furter's tension. Other shenanigans ensue. One of Frank N. Furter's old lovers bursts back out of a frozen captivity, only to be murdered. As it so happens, Eddie's uncle is the same Dr. Scott that Brad and Janet tried to visit. Dr. Scott shows up in search of Eddie and reveals that Frank N. Furter and his cohorts are all aliens. And Frank N. Furter's servants, semi servants, end up killing him and Rocky and heading back to their planet of Transylvania. And Brad and Janet and Dr. Scott escape and that's the end of the show. The whole thing is, as I said, framed like a pulpy B horror film. What I think this production gets right, that is going to be divisive for people is it leans back into the old aesthetic of Rocky Horror of the film and of Its original, you know, off West End origins. The whole theater, the set design is by Dots is very like Party City plus, intentionally so. It's not that it is. It's a very. It's not a sparse design, at least not around the theater. There's plenty of stuff decorating the theater, but none of it is particularly grand or expensive looking or streamlined. It all looks kind of slapdash thrown together at the very last second. It honestly feels like a community theater production of Rocky Horror, you know, with a budget of $20 and a whole bunch of ingenuity. And I think that there's a reason for that, which is ultimately, as I said, bringing the show back to its roots. There's a. A broadcast from the West End, I want to say like 2015, 2016 of Rocky Horror show that was, you know, like a two week run, limited two week run in the West End that was broadcast across the country for charity. And that production is a similar vibe of, you know, semi amateur level production value and staging and a very pedestrian level of. Of performance. Intentionally so. And it feels like Pinkleton kind of got his inspiration from that production more than from the 2000s production. And part of that is also evident in his staging. There are cute little tricks that Pinkleton does with puppets and with sort of garish costume design. The choreography is intentionally very manic and sloppy. And there are moments of, I guess you could say, like classic English pantomime of presentational simplistic and yet like sort of milking the joke for the audience as long as humanly possible. These things of the whole thing is for the audience, but also like on this sort of steam train that kind of has to keep going because the whole show has to kind of stay under two hours. Where I think that this production is trying to have its cake and eat it too and can't really do it, is, musically speaking, overall, it is not an unfortunate sound. Rocky Horror. This is where perhaps my prejudice with the 2000 revival comes into play. The 2000 revival, if you get a chance to listen to it and find footage from it, like, yes, it was a very much more grand looking production than this one. It also was done in Circle in the Square theater where audience interaction made a lot more sense. And it leaned into the callback vibe of the show. I believe in that production they provided props for the audience to use. They had a cheat sheet for callbacks that helps people who maybe were new to Rocky Horror Virgins, as we call them. And they sort of had a foot in both worlds by, you know, the communal element of the piece while also providing a bit of more of Broadway sheen and Broadway vocalization. This production kind of wants to stay in the amateur world for the most part, and that is a problem sometimes musically. I'll get more in sort of detail about that in a second when I sort of go down the list with. With the cast. But certain songs that I know can really just annihilate musically. Songs like the Floor show don't fully land because they. It's. This whole production is again, going back to basics. Same thing with, I would say not. Yeah, Eddie's Teddy. And with Touch A touch a touch Me. Science Fiction Picture show Double feature. Yeah, sorry. Science Fiction Double feature. I always. I always get that title fucked up. But there are other things that are totally okay. I mean, we have actual good voices in this show. We have Andrew Durand as Brad, who does a really wonderful job with once in a while. Stephanie Hsu is a strong singer. She's not Alice Ripley in her prime, which is high bar to clear, but she is a strong singer. Luke Evans is a very good singer. We always knew this from Beauty and the Beast in his days in the West End. Now, as he's gotten a bit older and I don't think he's done stage work in a long time, there's a bit more of a raspiness to his voice, which doesn't make it unpleasant. He still hits all of his notes and really kind of relishes in it. But it does add a bit more grit, which I appreciate. In terms of the call outs, I can't speak for every performance. I can only speak for mine and my performance. It felt like the call outs were figured out most of the time. The way that this production now tries to kind of handle it is Rachel Dratch, as the narrator, deals with the brunt of it. And it's up to her to decide when she's acknowledging it, when she's gonna pause for it or not. But she does pause, and she allows for callouts. And she does, with her SNL magnificence, find ways to respond to the ones that she finds more interesting. The way that she kind of keeps it from going off the rails is with call outs again. So there's. There's the classic ones like Slut, Asshole. Say it patient. And yet, because Rocky Horror Picture show has been around for decades now, and so many cities and countries have their own versions of the call outs, you. You can't ever do the show and have every. Have everyone do the calls they want. To do. Sometimes it's the whole audience is in on it. Sometimes it's like one random person says something really crazy. And when those unique ones happen, what Dratch tends to do is she finds a way to kind of acknowledge it with a bit of condescension. Not in a way of like, you're an idiot, what's wrong with you, you asshole? But more sort of like, that was a weird one, or like, never heard that one before. And it kind of keeps people. At least in my performance, it kept people in line where it wasn't about their own personal experience with Rocky Horror anymore. It was about finding the common ground with enough people so that when there was a call out, it was a special one. Of course, there are still ones where someone would do something random and Dratch would acknowledge it. But it wasn't a huge problem, at least not at my performance. There are other things that the cast absolutely relishes in. Luke Evans does lean into the sweet transvestite call outs. But then there are other times where he makes it a point to kind of silence them, not because he doesn't like them or the cast is trying to ignore them so much as again, you can't have every call out be acknowledged. You have to kind of keep going with it. And it makes the ones that are acknowledged all the more special. The Brad and Janet asshole sluts are always acknowledged, and they're always acknowledged in different ways. The way that Stephanie Hsu and Andrew Durand kind of portray it is like, if you've ever watched Archer, the character is Cheryl, who's voiced by Judy Greer. There's an episode where they're all on a plane to get to a submarine. Long story, but there's a whole subplot happening with Cheryl and her brother and her and his and her brother's girlfriend. Whenever she. Whenever there's sort of like suspense music playing, Cheryl's sort of looking around and you're going, what the fuck's happening with Cheryl? And then you realize Cheryl can hear the music. And she even says to herself, it's okay, it's non diegetic. And it's a crazy joke. And it pays off even fuller later where the music plays again and she's like, God damn it, enough with the music. And everyone's like, the fuck is she talking about? Cause no one can hear the music. You know, that's how it is in TV and film, right? Like, the whole idea is if you're watching like an action sequence and you hear a 300 piece orchestra playing intense music like Batman can't hear that music. We hear that music. And yet in Archerland, Cheryl can hear the music. And in Rocky Horror, Brad and Janet can always hear the slut's assholes. But they're not sure where it's coming from. And as I understand it, there are now performances where Luke Evans will sort of play upon this and he'll say things like, oh, it's the plumbing, which is hilarious. But yeah, it's always sort of like they're in this haunted castle and at any given moment they'll just hear like in the echoes somewhere, asshole or slut. And they're like, wait, what? And it's. It's a lot of fun to watch. As I said, not every call out is. Is done. Not every call out is acknowledged. But when it is, I think it's really worthwhile. And I can't speak for every performance, but at mine it did feel like they sort of found the balance there. I will now get into performances and then sort of final thoughts on Rocky Horror. In terms of cast, we are sort of in a mixed bag here. We have some people who absolutely nail the assignment. Some people who I think are strong but maybe in the wrong role. And then two people who I do find to be just not right, not only for their roles, but for the show. At the top of my list here of my cred for their roles nail the assignment are Luke Evans as Frank N. Furter, Stephanie Hsu as Janet, and Rachel Dratch as the narrator. I understand Dratch had gotten sort of an unwary territory. Sorry, had gotten into wary territory in the beginning of previews. But I do think she's absolutely found her groove and really sticks out in a fantastic way. And I just find her so funny in this in a way that I thought she was funny in potus, but sort of underused in a. In a. What I found to be not terribly funny play or terribly funny funnily directed. In this, I think she is in her element and holds the whole thing together and deals with the call outs really well and, and just has a really strong ominous vibe, but in a comical way that continues the B horror film aesthetic that I don't think everyone else in the company is able to do or isn't even allowed to do. So she's just really wonderful glue in this show, but also glue that sticks out in a. In a great way. Stephanie as Janet I think is such a wonderful piece of casting and when she was announced, I was really excited to see what she was going to bring to it because I think she is such a phenomenal actress. You just watch her in everything, everywhere, all at once to see the depth of her talent. And I always felt that she was terribly underused in Be More Chill. I liked her a lot in spongebob. And then to see her in Be More Chill, a show where I think the female roles are written terribly and used terribly, it kind of hurt my heart to see her play such a doormat of a role that had no follow through. And in this she plays again an intentionally one dimensional role. But she has so much fun with the melodrama of it all. It's hard for an audience to know how good the Janet is up front because when Bran and Janet enter, they are supposed to be kind of silly wet blankets, literally they're out in the rain. But as the show continues and Brad and Janet, you know, sort of devolve into more just sort of. What's the word I'm looking for? Salacious activities. You really see how SHU can be just so game. Duran too. But I'll get to that in a second. Particularly the scene where Frank N. Furter seduces Janet and Brad separately. When he. When he seduces Shu, you watch her character be devastated, but also still incredibly horny and into it. And the way that Shu goes about that is fantastic. She's slip and sliding all over the bed. She does Legography that I can't really describe, but just you know it when you see it and letting her freak flag fly all throughout. I think the best ways to cast Rocky Horror is you ultimately want weirdos to play even the more straight laced parts. But I don't. I. I have nothing else to say. I just. I just think she really nails it. And it's. Janet's such a hard role. She. Again, she doesn't necessarily have the vocal prowess of Alice Ripley circa 2000. Few do. But she does still sing it really well and some vocalizations that I was really impressed by. Luke Evans as Frank N. Furter. Again, you know, Frank N. Furter is the role you really don't have to do much to sell it. You just have to be confident and sly with a little bit of a wink. And Evans doesn't really do a winking. Frank N. Furter. His Frank N. Furter is a bit more of a diva and a bit more of a lumbering presence in a fun way. You know, he doesn't have the Tim Curry, Tom Hewitt slash Terrence Mann vibe of a grand dame in Pumps in a corset in Fact, when he does Sweet Transvestite, I was like, oh, I'm kind of getting the vibe that you're like a bratty teenager, which is also totally legitimate because in a lot of ways, Frank N. Furter is a horny, bratty teenager. Everything that Frank N. Furter does is for the sole purpose of their sexual release or just their. Or their, the things that they like. They're not doing anything for any greater purpose and their own other than their own enjoyment. And so there is a brattiness to Evans's Frank N. Furter that I really appreciated. Would I have liked maybe a bit more of a winking tone to him? Sure. But I don't think that that's really the tone of this production. There's tone is. The tone of this production is more leaning into the melodrama rather than the fun of the silliness. Well, everyone is having fun, but you know, you know what I mean? Like, there's, there's a difference between having fun on stage by being bold and dramatic and then there's having fun on stage by being fun. All you have to do is sort of watch David Bedella's performance as Frank N. Furter on YouTube. Just know what I'm talking about. Like, Bedella is doing more of a Tim Curry meets like, I don't know, John Marco that the stand up. I don't know how to say his last name, but you know what I'm talking about. The, the not gay, straight, musical theater boy standup comedian who has never found a stool that he can't sit on. That is sort of where Videla is at. And Evans is a bit more in the like Hedda Gobbler in a horror movie vibe. And it's fun. He's living his best life and it absolutely works. In our more like middle plus ground, we have Andrew Durant as Brad and we have Amber Gray as Riff Raff, one of the cohorts for Frank N. Furter. Both do really good jobs. They are appropriately cast, they sound good, they're having fun. Durand is very, very game Again, in the Frank N. Furter seducing Brad scene, Duran is doing some great physical comedy. And skip ahead 30 seconds if you don't want this. Spoiler. When it is revealed to Janet that Brad is with Frank N. Furter in bed scene that they show, is Frank N. Furter fully eating Brad's ass, like full on White Lotus season one. Just tossing that salad. And it's quite a wonderful, wonderful visual. And we adore Andrew Duran for going for it on stage because the truth is not every actor would be willing to do that. The thing is, when I talk about people being freaks and needing to still be able to play Brad and Janet, that is true of Durand. But I also watched the show and I felt like there were. While Durant is a. Is a really solid Brad, he could be used better elsewhere and that would require. And that's also partly because some people are not right for their roles and so some switching would need to be done to make it work better. Same thing goes for Amber Gray. Sounds good. Is in the pocket. Really leaning into the campiness of the piece. Again, I think she can be used better elsewhere. Get to that in a second. Harvey guian as Eddie Dr. Scott. Whole bunch of fun, solid singer and really, you know, has a. Has a good ear for comedic beats, which sounds like such a low hanging fruit compliment. But you don't really know how much of a gift that is until you see people who do sort of by the numbers comedy jobs and shows and then someone like Harvey in this show having a lot of fun with turning phrases on their heads to get a new laugh out of it after that. We have Josh Rivera as Rocky. He's fine. He looks very good half naked. Although I still think that they have this Rocky a little too covered up. We're used to the golden shorts and nothing else. Rivera is in a bit more of like a harnessy situation and a. Not a great wig, I'll say. And then at the bottom of our list, unfortunately is Juliet Lewis as Magenta and Michaela J. Rodriguez as Columbia. Juliette Lewis, God bless her, is just not a very good singer. She has a voice, she's on pitch, but it's not a strong voice and not a strong musicality. She also has sort of a lugubrious energy as Magenta and as the Usherette that opens and closes the show. And that's a huge ding against this production because it opens and closes with Lewis singing and she is by far the weakest singer in the show. She's not as comfortable on stage as everybody else. So whatever good energy you had from this production, it kind of gets lost at the end, or not fully, but you lose a bit of it at the end because of the book ending numbers with Lewis. And Mikaela is actually a good singer, but they do something weird with Columbia here and have Mikayla singing in a falsetto and doing a weird kind of voice that just A, makes you lose the lyrics and B, does not make her sound as rock starry as she can be, because everyone needs to be able to rock out on this. And Columbia, you know, has Time Warp and also has the floor show and you need them to sell it. And because of the keys that they put Mikayla in because of the placement of her voice, it just doesn't do that. And that's a shame. Ultimately, there are people in this show who are either miscast or solid, but maybe not the best fit. I think, in my personal, humble opinion, I would put Josh Rivera in as Brad, put Andrew Durant in as Riff Raff, and then Amber Gray as Magenta. That is ultimately how I think it should go because Rivera as Rocky is not terribly funny. He's very committed, but he doesn't really know how to sell Rocky's dumbness and naivete. There are more opportunities for him to do so as Brad because Brad is not as over the top in pain as Rocky is. Brad is just oblivious. And I think Rivera can do that earnestness better as Brad. I also be interested to see him get his ass eaten. Although it's wonderful to see Duran do that. And then Duran is just. No, he's luxury casting as Brad. And because we need him more as Riff Raff, because we need Amber Gray as Magenta, that is sort of how I would put everything there. In terms of Tony nominations, I do think this is a lock for revival. I think it's the third final slot. As I said before, Roundabout really needed to shit the bed to get this production not nominated. And I don't think that they do it, is they? I wish that there was a bit more of a sheen to it. I understand the vibe they're going for, and I'm totally on board with it. But you want it to kind of kick up to a Broadway caliber by like 15%. You want, like, just a little bit better singing from some people. You want the staging to be you. You're. We're okay with chaotic staging, but you want it to be a little more mindful and have a little more of an eye for build and. And stage pictures. And you want. You just want a little bit more ingenuity in book scenes as well, as opposed to just stage numbers. Because something like over at the Frankenstein place, I think is actually staged incredibly well. I think Damage Janet is staged really well. I also think once in a while it's staged well. But then there are things like the floor show, which is kind of sloppy. Time Warp is kind of sloppy. It's fun, it's energetic. They bring audience members on stage, but it's. It's sloppy. But I do think Revival is locked. I do think Luke Evans is a lock. I think Stephanie Hsu has a really, really good shot at featured actress. We've yet to determine whether she's gonna be in lead or featured. I think everyone but Evans is gonna be in featured, and I think she's got a really strong shot at getting in there, which would be great. I would love to see Rachel Dratch get in there as well, but I'm not as positive about that. I think Durand could get in. He's well liked, he does a good job. It's not quite enough of a role to stand out, especially when featured actor is both crowded and open at the same time. So who's to say Pinkleton could get in? It would not be my number one choice, but crazier things have. And I think that the fun vibe he puts out is enough for some people. And there is a vision here, as opposed to other shows, that maybe are a little smoother sailing but a little more mellow and bland in terms of their vision. So we give him props for swings and having some of it land. But I do think Revival and Evans are Lockes. I could see a world in where costumes and set get in, and that's kind of it. I don't see it happening for choreography. Lighting, perhaps, but the lighting is more sort of like always a shade of green, always a shade of red, always a shade of purple. That's sort of where we see Rocky Horror happening. Any more questions? You can ask me in the Discord or on substack. Last but not least, we have the Fear of Thirteen by Lindsay Ferrantino, based off of the documentary of the same name, the fear of 13. So up front, in case you don't want any spoilers, I had seen this about two weeks ago, and I really didn't care for it. And I. Before I made my review, somebody involved in the production asked me where I was sitting, and I said, oh, I was. I was in the front of the balcony. And they're like, mm, we're gonna get you a ticket closer to the stage. We want you to feel the intimacy of the show a bit more before you review it. Like, review it however you want, but will you do us this favor and see it again at a closer seat and then tell us what you think? And I said, sure. So I went back. And so I will say up front, being being close to the stage did help, but my feelings on the show still are kind of the same, which is ultimately that I did not care for it. There are things to admire in it and it's absolutely done with the most well meaning of intentions. But ultimately I do not think that this show works. Lindsey Ferratino kind of 0 for 2 this season, both with pieces based off of documentaries. Those of you who don't know the play and the documentary focus on inmate Nick Yaris, who was arrested, I believe in the early 80s for a trigger warning rape and a murder of a young woman. He was found guilty due to circumstantial evidence, but no actual forensic evidence because forensic evidence was in its infancy and he was in jail for 20 years and eventually was released because DNA evidence was analyzed and revealed that Giannis was not the culprit. None of his DNA was on any of the evidence. Someone else's DNA was. So after being in captivity for over 20 years, he is eventually released. The documentary is done sort of in the style of a one man show. And the thing about Yaris that really made him a compelling figure was his desire for knowledge and his desire to fight for himself. When it became clear that the system wasn't going to help him, that people who were assigned to his case were not going to help him, Yarra started reading in prison, he, he would read like a book a day, novels, law books, whatever he could get his hands on and wanted to expand his vocabulary and better himself. And in the play he also develops a relationship with a reporter named Jackie Miles, here played by Tessa Thompson. The rest of the company plays a very variety of roles. Eddie Cooper's in the show, he plays a variety of roles. Avram Sykes plays a variety of roles, Ben Thompson. And the show mostly follows Jackie Miles interactions with Yarris, her interactions with other inmates, the progression of her relationship with Yarris, how they sort of fall for each other and do sort of a faux wedding. And then she continues to fight for his case, even though it becomes more and more disparaging over the years as it gets thrown out or it gets delayed or he gets denied. And then eventually Yarris, when he's on the brink of collapse, is told that his case has finally been looked through and the DNA has been looked at and he has been acquitted and he goes back out into the real world. This show also plays around with timelines. So there's Thompson and Brody's actual like in real time relationship, and then Brody talking about his upbringing and his own trauma and the story of how he got into prison because he was arrested at first for a different crime, and then while he was in prison He. Sorry. While he was in jail, he was made aware of a different crime, the rape and murder of this young woman. And he figured that he could pin it on someone he knew who was a gang member, but was also conveniently dead. So he was going to tell the police, in exchange for his freedom and considered innocent of his current charges, he would give them information on this other crime he does. They then find that the person that Brody thought was dead actually isn't dead. He's alive, has an alibi, which means that Brody is now a suspect in this other crime. And so while he is found innocent of his original charges, he's then found guilty of these new charges, which is what puts him in prison. And the play goes around all over with that and with other inmates and sort of the injustice of the prison complex and how flawed the justice system is. And the play does have a bit of humor in it. Part of the fun is how Yarris always goes against your expectations of him. He reads, he has insights, he has a sense of humor. There's also a bit of musicality. There are songs that are sung a cappella in the show, which adds a nice little bit of gravitas towards it. There is a style to it, this production. The set design by Arnolfo Maldonado is basically. It looks like a unit set of a prison. Floors of cells and dark brick all over. But then there are surprises. Things pop out of the set that reveal a room or a store or an apartment. And there's a fluidity to David Cromer's staging. And the lighting by Heather Gilbert is very shadowy, but then also will provide some blues and purples during flashback sequences. Sarah Lux, who's friend of the POD from backstage past, does the costumes. They're all very appropriate to the story. Being closer definitely gave me a better sense of Thompson and Brody's performances, which is to say that Tessa Thompson and Adrien Brody are magnificent film actors. They have great instincts. They're very dropped in. They have a good insight into the characters that they play. They an open, honest and natural way of tapping into their darker emotions. But similar to other film and TV actors. They haven't really figured out how to project that onto a larger space on a stage in an 1100 seat theater. How to take what they're doing and magnify it. In the balcony, I could not feel it at all. It was. It died somewhere in the orchestra. Being much closer, being, I think, like the fourth row at this point, I definitely could see the seeds of where the performances Were they still didn't affect me, partly because they were performances that when put on stage just did not land. I could see the nuances of them due to how small they are as performers, you know, being film actors. But still there was something that just wasn't translating on stage for them. And it does give me a little bit more leeway with them, but it still doesn't make their performances totally successful. Brody in particular is kind of going for typical inner city gang member with a heart of gold, which is really not the Yaris 5. If you even watch a couple of clips of the documentary or the documentary's trailer, there's more to him than that. And in fact, he's. He's really not that kind of stereotype at all. And his story is powerful all on its own. But it's even more interesting when you sort of take into account how much he just like up front, does not present how many people would unjustly think of an inmate. The title of the piece always confused me and I wasn't quite sure why. And then luckily, I think Helen Shaw in the Times said why the title was the title. And it's because in the documentary, Yaris talks about, you know, learning all these new words and trying to expand his vocabulary. And he learned the word triskadekaphobia, which is the fear of the number 13, hence the title of the documentary. But they cut that reference in the play. They talk about Yaris learning new words and he and Brody says a few of the new words, but he never says triska decophobia. So you wonder why cut that and keep the title, because now the title doesn't really mean anything. Unclear. I guess my issue with the piece and with Brody and with Thompson is fear of 13. While it has well meaning intentions, it ultimately can't help but be what I call trauma tourism, which is when a piece is about a oppressed either group of people or person, someone who is dealing with an unjust system, someone who has heaps of trauma or what have you happen upon them. And an audience watches and feels empathy, but ultimately walks out of the theater feeling like a better person for having spent two hours with someone who was in a worse situation than they were, even if the piece itself doesn't go any farther than that. That's always been one of my issues with, you know, musicals about racism or homophobia or sexism that don't really delve into the minutiae of it and doesn't really try to challenge audiences to hold their own selves accountable. But rather Just wants audiences to pat themselves on the back and say, you know, I did the work by being here today. Which is just not true. It's ultimately the least you could do. And fear of 13 definitely wants you to live within this prison, literally and figuratively, while also having enough of a distance that you are, as an audience, never culpable in any of it and never invested in it other than your emotions, other than your empathy. Again, it's traumatourism. You're simply passing through, taking a few pictures, patting yourself on the back and moving on to the next better destination. In fairness to fear of 13, that's pretty much true of any Broadway show that tries to do something like this. And it is ultimately on the piece and the production team to overcome that. And some have. We'll talk about that a bit more with August Wilson in the next episode, but I would argue the majority of them do not. It's a little easier to get away with it in a film. It's more realistic. It's up close and personal, especially with the documentary. But. But with a play it is. And especially with a Broadway play, it's such a high ticket price. Seeing the show, seeing the movie star is ultimately the selling factor and not necessarily the. The subject matter itself or what one can do about said subject matter. It's not activism, it's tourism. And I don't have a solution, not for this or for shows like it, other than you kind of know when it works, when you. When you witness it. And that doesn't help anyone involved with this production, unfortunately. So I don't want anyone to hear this and be like, matthew, that's not helpful. I know it's not helpful. I'm simply talking about it. But that is something to think about. When you are doing a piece like fear of 13, the first thing you have to say to yourself is, how do we keep this from being trauma tourism? And everything needs to be in aid of that. And while I don't think that this production succeeds, many others don't as well. So it's not, pardon the phrase, but it's not necessarily a crime that it. That it doesn't succeed at this, but succeed at it, it still does not. In terms of Tony nominations, I do think that play is out of the cards for this show. I think Tessa Thompson is out of the cards. Brody could still get in because leading actor is a weird race. If you are on the discord. There's definitely a debate right now of who's a lock. Leading actor in a play at the Moment. I maintain that the three absolute locks are Nathan Lane and Salesman John. Let's go for Giant and Mark Strong for Oedipus. I would then argue Daniel Radcliffe for Every Brilliant Thing is next. With a fifth open slot could be Will Harrison for Punch. There are a few members who think it's going to be John Bernthal for Dog Day Afternoon. It's certainly possible. Adrien Brody for fear of 13 is also possible. We'll see what happens with Alden with Becky Shaw. I maintain he is absolutely the lead of that show, but I am also a realist and understand that he will probably put and featured. But that means that there's a shot for Brody here. I could see this getting in on the design front for set and lighting in particular. It is a very effective design and scenic design for a play is a little sparse right now. Similar to actor. It's like we got two or three locks and then the final two are sort of like, let's see how people feel. I do think Kromer is out of the running. There are simply too many candidates for that category. For Director of a Play again, I think our locks right now are Robert Ick for Oedipus, Joe Mantello for Death of a Salesman and Whitney White for Liberation. After that, there's Trip Coleman for Becky Shaw. There's Anne Kaufman for Marjorie Prime, Debbie Allen for Joe Turner's Come and Gone. God, who else would there be? Scott Ellis for Fallen Angels, I guess, but I don't really. I don't really buy that. Kenny Leon for the Ballisters. I think those are all legitimate nominees. Cromer, much as I enjoy him, I think he was going to get nominated for anything this season, it would be Bug. Not this. But I don't even think he's getting in for Bug. So yeah, I think for fear of 13, we can expect not expect. We should be prepared for up to three, maybe four nominations. None of them for play or Director. But I think it's possible it also could blank. That is also possible, but I don't ultimately think that it will. It's not so bad that it deserves nothing. Like there is craft there. It's ultimately just. It can't overcome the tourism of it all. But yeah, so that's fear of 13 for you guys. If you have any other questions, please ask me on Substack, ask me on Discord, you can ask me on Instagram. AC Hoplik Usual spelling. If you are liking the podcast, please give us a nice five star rating or review either on Apple podcast. Five stars on Spotify. We're currently at, I think, 378 ratings on Apple podcasts. Let me double check if that's. Yeah, it's still 378. We're at 170 on Spotify. I would love to get that up to 200, but you know, we can't force it and that's a very large number to get and not a lot of time. You can also check out the video of this on YouTube. As I said, the numbers keep climbing for that. We're not at Mickey Joe numbers. We literally just started doing this a few months ago, but the numbers are climbing. So thank you guys for your help and support. And the more traffic that we get on the YouTube, the more effort we're going to put into making better videos on there. So we'll invest more money in cameras and lighting and maybe some editing to make this more of like a super fun video to watch. Unless you want to just sort of play it on YouTube while you do the dishes or vacuum, in which case highly recommend. And besides, don't you want to see this beautiful comfy sweatshirt I'm wearing given to me by friend of the pod Brian Nash, who did our Hamilton episode back in the day. Fun fact, that Hamilton episode remains the hardest episode I ever had to record because where I was emotionally that day was awful. Isn't that a fun little behind the scenes note for you guys? Remember that I'm a real person with real feelings. Remember that when people write terrible things to you on YouTube or Spotify or in your Instagram comments or on Apple podcast ratings. It happens. It happens sometimes. So we have two more review episodes coming up. We have the Ballisters and Joe Turner's Come and Gone next and after that will be the Lost Boys. And then we're gonna do one final Tony Awards prediction sort of episode. And then we will have our reaction to the legitimate Tony nominations. Maybe we'll do a bonus episode on the final eligibility rulings when that comes out later this week, probably Thursday, tbd. And then. Yeah, if you haven't. If you plan on coming to our next live show, May 3rd, Sunday, May 3rd at 7:00 clock at Green Room 40. Please do. So if you can't make it to that, we have one on June 1st. I'll be promoting that one as well. That one is legitimately a Tony Ward's live show that is going to be on June 1, which is a Monday at 7 at Green Room 42. It's going to be hilariously fun and that's it. Who should we close out with today? Let's close out with. You know what? Fuck it. We'll close out with Ms. Shu with Ms. Stephanie Shue from Rocky Horror Show. I'll find something to close this out with for her. And, yeah, we'll see you guys for the next one. Take it away, Stephanie. Bye. That you'd kind of be into. From a guy that I'd never be into. Into a guy that I'd kind of be into. Is he worth it, Jerem?