← Broadway Breakdown
Broadway Breakdown
Matt Reviews: Oedipus, The Baker’s Wife, Prince F*ggot & Two Strangers Carry A Cake…
01:33:00
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:19]
A
Hello all you theater lovers both out and proud and on the DL. And welcome back to Broadway Breakdown, a podcast discussing the history 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 we've got a bonus episode for you guys today, a nice bonus review episode. It's a lot of stuff we gotta cover, so I will jump into it in just a second. But I wanna give you guys a quick update on some stuff. First of all, our first live musical episode, Broadway Breakdown at Cabaret now at Green Room 42, was a big success. We had a very good turnout both in person and on the live stream. And the response was such from both the audience and from Green Room 42 that we actually will be having more musical live episodes, AKA more cabarets, AKA more shows into the new year. I will give more information on that shortly, probably in. Sometime in mid or end of December. But for now, I can tell you that our. Our next show will be in March, followed by one in May and then in June. And they're gonna be a little more focused on specific themes than this first one, because this first one, we weren't sure what it was gonna be or how many times we were gonna get to do it, so we kind of just threw all of the spaghetti at the wall to see what stuck. So the next shows will be a little more focused on themes. So that's the first thing. More shows for Broadway Breakdown at Cabaret now in March and May and June. Today we will be covering oedipus at Studio 54. The baker's wife, Prince Phagot and two strangers carry a cake across New York. That is this episode. As a bonus episode Thursday will be a review of Wicked for good with a special guest. You guys will, you know, find out who that is shortly. And then after this, there will be another bonus episode, a review episode of Ragtime and Queen of Versailles. Queen of Versailles will be an interesting one because I am actually seeing it back to back. I am seeing it. I'm recording this on Sunday, November 23rd. I will be seeing it Monday, November 24th and Tuesday. So I can see Sheri Renee Scott as well. Do not say that I do not give you all of the things I also just want to say. So for Broadway Breakdown at Cabaret Now, I asked people to submit questions anonymously online that I could then pick out of Sally Bowle and read on stage. And I unfortunately did not get enough time to read all of them. But I did Get a chance to sort of look them all over after the fact. And there were some that I found that were pretty consistent, a lot of questions about ticket pricing. But I had one question in particular that wasn't a question. It was once again, one of when I do these anonymous submissions, whether it's for Sally Bull or for my Ask Me Anythings on Instagram, there's always a person, and I'm starting to think it's one person in particular because the writing has been very similar each time it happens where I am told that while they enjoy the podcast, mostly sometimes they find me condescending, or in this case, they use the words cringe and specifically about how they felt. I was constantly pushing for free tickets, which I suppose is when I talk about on the podcast, when I contact press teams to see shows. So I kind of want to clear the air on that because I don't know how many people also feel that way. But in case you do, I just sort of want to be specific about that going to address the cringe thing because that is that person's experience with me. That's not necessarily a fact. I do try very hard to, you know, be self aware and not be too obnoxious about stuff. But of course, I am a human being and I'm me. So I tend to be obnoxious from time to time, as we all do when it comes to tickets. When I talk about reaching out to press teams, I am not trying to. I'm. I am not trying to push for free stuff. I'm not here going, oh my God, please give me all the free things, Danny, I wanted. I'm an influencer. That's not my vibe. And I would hope that you all would know that that's not my vibe. Press seats are commonplace for all critics as well as industry folks and for influencers, which again, I am not. But critics do not pay to see shows. They get tickets from the press team, from the producers to then see the show. And while I personally do not think of myself as specifically only a critic, many of you do. And I do in fact do reviews on this podcast. And it has become very clear from the listenership, from the discord, which, if you haven't joined yet, join now. There is a great demand for me to cover as much of the season as possible as soon as possible. And the only way I can do that is to correspond with each show's press team to see if and when I can get in to see those shows. Because if I see the show as close to opening as possible, then I can review the show as soon after opening as possible. If that's not the case, then I have to figure out another way to see that show. Because one of the things that also was submitted a lot for the Cabaret for questions was a lot of people talking about ticket pricing and how absurd it all is. And yes, it's very absurd. And no, there is no show that's worth $499. So if you were thinking of paying that for Chess, which, like, five of you asked that question to me, is chess worth 499? No, it's not. Haven't even seen it yet. I can tell you it's not. But I'm not sitting here being tone deaf about the economy, about people's incomes. I'm aware of how expensive tickets are, which is why I am very particular about what I highly recommend to people, because I see these things, knowing that people are shelling out a lot of money for them, going, is this even worth it? And 80% of the time it's not. But already seeing everything in one season and paying for everything is already very expensive, but also just not feasible scheduling wise. And also because we take this podcast seriously, because this podcast has created a sizable footprint in the community, we now have relationships with every press team on Broadway. But because we are not the New York Times, and because podcasts are still a very alien worlds to a lot of Broadway producers, sizable as our listenership is, as our footprint is, we don't get into everything, but we still try. And some shows tell you right off the bat, some shows make you wait a while. Which is why when I say I'm waiting to see what such and such has to say, it's just a matter of logistics. So I'm not being. What's the word I'm looking for. I have no expectations with any show. I make the effort, I put the outreach. And then sometimes I get surprised with what I get a yes to and what I don't. But yeah, I'm not being greedy about it. I'm not being tone deaf. It's just, this is how this works. Every podcast you listen to that goes to see shows, they are also reaching out to press teams to see if they can get in friends of our podcast do it as well for their own podcasts. So that's just the way that this industry works. I am not vying for free stuff out of entitlement. I am doing what we all do. And I'm just being transparent about it, as I always am. I just, I Overshare, as we know. Uh, so that's what that is. So if anyone else finds that cringe, that is your reaction to a reality. Moving on. The first show we are going to cover in this episode is Oedipus. Actually, no. Before we even do that, I want to give a quick shout out to friend of the pod, Preston, Max Allen, whose play Caroline at MCC just finished their run at the end of October. I got a chance to see it in a pretty full house, which was exciting. The production was directed by David Cromer. Also, other thing, I had accidentally given some misinformation about Bug at Manhattan Theater Club, and I had said that Tracy Lutz was directing it. He is not. Cromer is directing it as he had done in Chicago. I think I had misread my press packet and just saw let's his name in bold and went, oh, he's directing it too. How fun. No, he's just. He's. He didn't. He's not directing this production. So I apologize everybody for putting that misinformation out there. David Cromer also has directed Caroline, and it was starring Chloe Grace Moretz and Amy Landecker and River Life Smith. The play follows Moretz as a single mother named Mattie who is raising a trans child, Caroline, recently trans, or say, recently identifying as trans. And the production mostly just follows Maddie as she takes Caroline away from an abusive boyfriend in their home to her childhood home, which she hasn't been to since before Caroline was born, where she reconnects with her mother, who she's estranged from. And Maddie was a bad kid and stole money and did a lot of drugs. And the play deals with not just the realities of trans health and the hurdles that trans people, especially trans children, face just to find their own journey of equilibrium and identity and independence. But also the play deals with redemption and second chances and what it is to be a parent and whether you know if you're doing the right thing for your child or if you're even truly raising the child that you have or the child that you want. And it's a very lovely play. I was very impressed by it. Reasonably funny while still being heartfelt and lived in the third act. Didn't really work so well for me. I will say there was a sort of major twist that happened between Matty and her mother, Rhea, that felt a little out of left field. And it's not that it got resolved, but it got dealt with very quickly towards the end. Felt a little rushed considering how much time was spent on the rest of the piece, especially Maddy's owning up to her past mistakes and dealing with her addiction and how she's been sort of going through the steps to be okay or to be as okay as she can be. It was a very, it was a very lovely grown up piece. And I have always known Preston for their musicals like We Are the Tigers and Carrie two. And so it was, it was, it was interesting to see this play which is so not those musicals. But I was very, very proud of Preston. So well done. Moving on to Oedipus. This production is at Studio 54 and it is adapted by Robert Ick from the Greek tragedy Oedipus Rex by Sophocles. It was originally commissioned in Amsterdam by Eva Van Hoffe, but was then eventually translated into English where it played at the Wyndham's Theatre in the West End and it won the Olivier for best revival. Ig I had only known for his modern adaptation of the Doctor that starred Juliet Stevenson and played here at the Park Avenue Armory. After having played in London, Stevenson unfortunately had gotten sick and then had a major family tragedy and had to leave the production. So I saw her understudy who was very good, but I was a little half and half about the production itself. I didn't realize that Robert Ick had done the stage adaptation of 1984 at the Hudson, which I remember was sort of met with a mixed reception. I didn't get to see it, so I can't comment on its actual qualite, just that was the reputation it had when it played. And I did not know much about this production, but considering it was Ick, and from the aesthetic that I had seen from the poster and from photos, it seemed like this was going to be another modern adaptation of a classic, which is something that Ick has done in the past. Orestria, I believe, is what he had done. And Mary Stewart. So this, that is exactly what this is. It is the Greek tragedy Oedipus Rex, which then launched the Oedipal complex as we come to know it. The man who killed his father and slept with his mother. And Ick has taken it and moved it to present day and fully rewritten the text. There are parts of it that I'm sure are verbatim from the original Greek tragedy. But from my ears it mostly sounded like a whole new text and it follows Oedipus. Oedipus in this production, as it's pronounced Oedipus, who is married to Jocasta, played by Leslie Manville. Oedipus is played by Mark Strong. And Oedipus is this hotshot politician who is on election night of his campaign to be the leader of his country. And all the meanwhile, his mother, played by Ann Reid, keeps telling him, I need to speak with you alone. Because Oedipus has talked about how there was discrepancies about his birth. So he said he announced that he was going to release his birth certificate. And on top of this, because he was married to Jocasta, who, as we learn, was the wife of the man who was originally in the political position that Oedipus is campaigning for, there supposedly is a lot of discourse in the population and among his political rivals about Jocasta's husband's death and whether any. Whether it has any connection to Oedipus. And so he said that when elected, he is going to look into Jocasta's first husband's death. And so that way he can inform the people that there is no connection, there's no foul play, all is fine. And so there's a lot of chaos in his. On his team, specifically Jocasta's brother, who is played by John Carroll lynch, playing Creole, who is the head of Oedipus's political campaign and is telling him, like, that was a really bad thing to do. Ann Reid, his mother, is like, I need to talk to you after you mentioning your birth certificate. And of course, everything kind of gets. Keeps getting pushed back and back and back. And a soothsayer finds his way into the office to tell Oedipus that he will not be leader. Creole will be the leader of the country, that Oedipus, before the day is out, will have killed his father and has slept with his mother. And this is troubling to Oedipus because his father, as he knows it, is in hospital right now with cancer. And he. And he is like, I had. I don't plan to kill him, but he's dying. So that's really awful thing for you to say. She's like, and I have no plan of sleeping with Anne Reid. And he tells us to Leslie Manville. And Leslie Manville is also sort of laughs it all off. And they have three kids. And so the whole show is following the next two hours of their lives from him making this announcement about his birth certificate, the soothsayer giving him the prophecy to when the election results come out. And there is a clock on stage in his office, in his campaign office that is counting down to when the polls are closed and they can get election results. And as that's happening, it immediately sets attention in the theater of. Oh God. Because the show itself is two hours, no intermission. So when the curtain comes up and you see that there's like an hour and 50 on the clock and we already spent like three minutes before this with a pre taped segment, you're like, okay, we've got like seven minutes of holy fuck balls. After that clock goes, when is the shoe gonna drop? When is all of the chaos gonna happen? And as an adaptation, Ick has done a really masterful job of stretching it out just enough that it never feels like a slog. But also you don't feel like you're rushing into things. It is exceptionally well paced. And the clock, as I said, adds this tension that even when nothing's really happening on stage, or nothing that you think is terribly important is happening on stage, you still look at the clock and you go, okay, but we've got 54, five minutes to go. Like, like a lot of very, you know, watchable, engaging things have happened, but like the drama hasn't happened yet. And you're like, okay, I feel like it's coming soon. And of course it does. And I don't want to give too much away about sort of how Ick has reconceptualized a lot of the plot points of Oedipus for this adaptation, because all of the same story beats of Oedipus are here. It's just how they are done is different. And again, without giving too much away, Lesley Manville has a very long monologue that explains what her situation was with her first husband who had died, how she came to be in his life, how she came to be his wife, and of course, explaining about a child that she had had and what had actually happened to the child. And a lot of this has to do with the age she was at the time and because of how long ago it was and where society was at in terms of medical practices and her relationship with this man and the first husband's political stature without, again, it's. I don't think this is giving too much away, but it was, we are told from the beginning that her first marriage was a May December romance. How May December it was is not fully explained until much later. And that's when it goes from a scandalous age gap to a crime. And this whole monologue is just this devastating journey that Manville takes you on. And as it's happening, the clock is ticking down by minutes and then eventually by seconds. And it is this masterful theatrical device that they use, I guess. I mean, I don't think this is spoiling much, but I loved this. This is absolutely my favorite thing I've seen so far of the season. Now, granted, I do still have to see Ragtime. I do have to see Queen of Versailles. I do have to see Art and Marjorie Prime. Not art. I've seen Marjorie prime and Mamma Mia. I apologize. I did famously see Art, as you guys remember, from that episode. But as of right now, this is my favorite thing of the Broadway season. It's actually my favorite thing I've seen all season long, including off Broadway. This includes bo. This includes Bat Boy. I just think it's so. It is the combination of all the things about live theater. We love the dynamic. Dynamicism. Is that the right word? Because dynamics. Dynamicism, Yeah, I think that's the right word. Right pronunciation of it. But it's, you know, the dynamics we love of live theater will also not overblowing it too quickly. It makes you wait and earn it. But the waiting doesn't feel like a slog. The waiting is entertaining in its own right. And there is wit and there is intelligence and there is craft, but there's also violence and danger and a little bit of sexiness. Mark Strong and Leslie Manville's characters, they're a married couple. They've been happily married for 25 years, and they are still so into each other, and they are so sexual with each other. There is a scene when they're alone sort of talking earlier in the play. This is before Manville's really, you know, big monologue. There's a scene where they're alone after, you know, having sent the kids away and his mother's away and all these things. And they're talking and they're sort of recommitting to each other and going over the past and whatnot. And it gets to a moment where Mark Strong. Sorry if this is trigging for anybody in terms of sexuality, but this is sort of how it all goes. Mark Strong goes down on Leslie Manville, and of course, they get interrupted and they. They go off stage to have sex. But I was telling. I was telling my friend Danny that I was watching this moment in the play Oedipus, and Mark Strong goes down on Leslie Manville. And I thought to myself, oh, they're performing the title song. I was very proud of that. I was very, very proud of that. What can I say? I am literally a child. But Manville and Strong and everyone in the production, nobody goes for Overly theatrical Greek trauma from the start. It is very much, it begins as sort of West Wing house of Cards, the diplomat kind of show with the political jargon and everyone sort of Aaron Sorkining dialogue all over the place and zip, zap, zapping and everything feels just organic. And that's already very impressive. It's always hard to be, it's always hard to be that kind of dropped in and organic when you are, you know, live on stage and what is still at its origins, a Greek tragedy. But when this piece builds to its epic conclusion, it's just the heat getting turned up every 15 minutes. So when we get to again, spoiler alerts. The devastating realization that Leslie Manville is Mark Strong's mother and that Leslie Manville's character takes her own life and then Mark Strong takes his blinds himself. It's which again, I mean again, it's spoilers. But this is a thousands year old tragedy and people tend to know these things about it. But when we get to that, it is so earned and it is so juicy is, is so basic of a word to use for it. But it is so satisfying to get to this heightened fever pitch of melodramatics because it has built so intricately and so methodically but so naturally to this moment. And it allows the actors to play every shade of acting you can. Again, super hyper Shakespearean Greek tragedy drama, naturalistic screen acting, it just goes all over the place without ever feeling wildly off the beaten path. And I cannot recommend it highly enough. I thought it was so fantastic. The only downside to seeing Oedipus is Oedipus. With a prestige play from London like this, you get a crowd of folks who, I will be honest, even before COVID but especially post Covid, have fully not understood how to be back in a theater again. And this is going to sound incredibly general and simplistic, but I keep seeing it for all of the shit that Gen Z and Gen Alpha get for their social media use for their phone usage. And it's true, like you can see them on their phones all the time. And it's, it's, it's, it's definitely bad. Boomer generation is just as bad, if not worse. Turning off their phones, couldn't be bothered dropping their phones constantly, all the time. There were so many dropped phones in Oedipus, it was really fucking upsetting. And at Studio 54, there's no carpet, it's all hardwood. So you hear all of it and I just wanted to scream. But just know that like you have to Kind of go in and take a deep breath and know that those are going to happen. And unfortunately, I have a very sensitive ear to the phone drops and people unwrapping candies and shit like that. And eventually you just have to let it go. It's not totally possible for someone like me, but it. It. You can help yourself a little bit. So that's just something to think about with Oedipus of, like, that kind of crowd. But otherwise there's nothing about it that I wouldn't recommend in terms of Tony Ward chances. I still am not sure how this is going to go with Revival V Play, because it is ultimately an entirely new script. I'm going to say revival, and I mean either category. I think it's getting in, but Revival, I think it's especially getting in. I would be absolutely shocked if Mark Strong and Leslie Manville are not nominated for this. They're both just too phenomenal. I think Ick will get nominated for director. I think sound is very likely for them. The sound design in this production is fantastic. There's a lot of intricate work happening with all of the TV screens that are going on all throughout the offices. It's a very impressive set, you know, realistic, but again, very stylized. Featured actor and actress. I could see John Carroll lynch getting in as Creel. I had only known him from his film work, primarily from Fargo. He's Frances McDormand's husband in that. Featured actor and actress, I feel like, is going to be a little packed this year between Liberation and, unfortunately, Art. But also, you know, there's Danny Burstein for Marjorie prime, and there's also actors coming up for Proof and for Joe Turner's Come and Gone. So we'll see how that goes. But I could see John Carroll lynch getting in for featured actor. I would love to see Anne Reid get in for featured actress. She has a really wonderful speech towards the end, but I would imagine she's going to get forgotten. So I would. I would definitely put some money on a nomination for revival, actor, actress and director, and then possibly sound as well. So that's where we are for E. De Pouche. Next one we're gonna do is the Baker's Wife. Then we're gonna take a quick break. I will then be going off to see Slam Frank Downtown at the Asylum. And when I come back, I will finish recording this. Also, if you're watching this on YouTube or on Spotify, which is probably like 30 of you, you may be wondering, like, what is this setup? Why do I look like I'm in the bad boy cave. The room that I normally record in is going through some renovations, and so everything has been moved out, including the desk that I usually record on. So I'm in my room where there is no desk, just a little cavern. And I recorded this too late in the day because other things were happening in the morning, in the afternoon. So I just have my ring light. And so I just. I look like I am sitting in a pool of darkness with just a little spotlight on me. So that's what's going on if you're watching this. And that will continue for, I think, the next two episodes, if you watch any of the videos. But then after that, it'll be back to normal. So the Baker's Wife is at Classic Stage Company. This is the infamous musical that closed out of town after, like, six months on the road. Firing Carol Demis and then Bringing on Patti LuPone, having topple for most of the run, then firing him and bringing in Paul Sorvino, closing at the Kennedy center in D.C. a week before they were supposed to open on Broadway. Just like a major, major troubled show that ultimately, because of the score by Stephen Schwartz, primarily songs like Proud lady and Meadowlark and where is the Warmth, has endured and constantly brought attention to itself on a show that needed fixing and was given a production in London directed by Trevor Nunn. And that became sort of the go to version for the better part of two decades. But then Schwartz kind of came back to it and made more changes. I know that friend of the pod, Rob Schneider, did a production of it at J2 Spotlight and made some changes to it that Schwartz really liked. And Schwartz took those changes and brought them to the Manure Chocolate Factory where Gordon Greberg directed that production. And what we have here is ultimately a transfer of that production. I'm not sure how much was changed, if anything, but it looks very similar to that production. It is the same director. So for all intents and purposes, this feels like a transfer production. The plot, so to speak, centers around a small village in France in the 1930s, right before World War II is about to break out. And the town has lost its baker, and so there has been no bread. But then a new baker, a Mable, shows up, and he brings his young wife, Jean Viev. And everyone's like, yeah, we got the breads now we have all the baked goods, the tarts and the bread, and everyone's very, very happy. But then a young man in the town, Dominique, who is like a. Like, he's like A chauffeur for the town mayor, the corrupt mayor, played by Nathan Lee Graham. And Dominique is super into Genevieve. And after, like, a minute of resisting, Genevieve is like, I think I'm gonna go off with Dominique and bang my brains out. And she does. And the moble is very sad and does not make the bread. And the townspeople are like, but where is the bread? You know? Genevieve asks, where is the warmth? The townspeople are like, where is the bread? And they're like, where's the bread? Where's the warmth for our bread? You know what I mean? And ultimately they go and search for Genevieve, but it doesn't matter because Genevieve asks, where is the warmth? And comes back to a moble, and everyone gets their bread and all as well. It's a very slight plot. It is based off of the French film from the 1930s. That also was meant to be a slight plot, but the whole point of it was sort of vibes and charm. And indeed, this production is rather charming. I thought it was a solid, if not amazing, production of what is ultimately a very flawed musical. The first things first, it looks absolutely stunning. The set designed by Jason Sherwood, costumes by Katherine Zuber, and lighting by Bradley King Kang, as we know from Natasha Pierre, the. The whole look of it is beautiful. It's a little. It's a little Disney Worldy in some ways, like it. And I don't mean that in a negative way, but, you know, when you're on the queue for a ride at Disney World, this felt. This looked and felt like the queue for a ride at Disney World. Like, this would have been the queue for a ratatouille ride at Disney World. And I mean that with all the praise in my heart. So that's the first thing. It looks stunning and fills the intimate space very well without overwhelming it. The music is given a very strong treatment. The music direction is by Charlie Alterman, as well as the arrangements. And then it has orchestrations by David Cullen and a score that I have only ever heard in pieces with a very large orchestra. To hear it with a smaller band, it didn't sound tinny. It sounded very charmingly intimate and had a lot of personality to it. And I thought that that was very tricky. That was a very tricky line to walk. It is a strong cast overall. The high points in the cast are absolutely the people who play the townsfolk. We, of course, have my beloved Kirnsey, we, Sally Murphy, but beyond that, we have Robert Cuccioli, we have Will Roland, Kevin Delaguila, we have Nathan Lee, Graham Arne. Burton. We have Alma Cuervo and they all do wonderful work. The biggest complaint I would have, and this is extended to also our leads, Ariana DeBose, Scott Bakula and then semi lead Kevin William Paul as Dominique is. There is very inconsistent work happening here when it comes to accents. Yes. We are in France. Some people do an accent, like a hard accent. Kevin Del Aguila as the town drunk is going full blown drunken Lumiere. He's like, oh, what does that make us laugh? She has on off. Well, she is so young and he is so old, blah, blah, blah. We have Will Rowland who's not doing an accent at all. Alma Cuervo's not doing an accent. Arnie Burton's kind of doing a light British accent. From what I can recall. Nathan Lee Graham is doing his Nathan Lee Graham thing where it's like kind of transatlantic. I also love the Wild Party reunion for Nathan Lee Graham and Sally Murphy in this production. Hallelu. Sally's not doing an accent. Kunzie's not doing an accent. Robert Cuccioli I think is doing a light accent. Scott Bakula and Ariana DeBose are also kind of doing a light French accent which just sort of sounds like, especially from her, it's like if she were doing a seductive cat in a cartoon voice, that would be the voice she's doing. She's like, oh, a Mable for the bread is so warm. Yes. No, yes. It's, it's. If Kevin Delaguila is going all the way up and Will Rowland is not doing anything at all, DeBose is sort of somewhere in the middle where it's not that it is a realistic accent so much as that it sounds like an accent she's not willing to fully commit to. And the same is true of Bacula. So I don't want to like harp all of that critique on Debose. Other people do it specifically Bakula. What actors like Sally Murphy and Kunzy do is they do their normal speaking voice and then whenever it comes to a name or a town, then they do a French pronunciation and I think that is the correct way to go about this because I either like everyone needs to do an accent or no one should do an accent. And I think the best sort of middle ground is the no accent French pronunciation. But for some reason no one's on the same page with that and I don't know why my issues with the show. I was with friend of the Pod. Well, he actually hasn't been on the pod yet, but I've been on his show quite a few times. Patrick Pacheco. And first of all, Patrick asked me to tap his leg every time somebody went into their mix or head voice because I guess he, he had always heard of it but he was never able to clock it. And I stopped doing it after a while because I just kept hitting him over and over and over again. And then after like 10 minutes he's like, has it stopped? There are people belting now. I was like, oh no. I stopped doing it because I thought you wanted me to. I figured you were tired of me tapping you. And he was like, no, I still would like to know. So we were doing that. But we both kind of agreed that for a show that has such a passionate following and the lore of Baker's Wife is that it's this like a Mac and Mabel, it's the score that keeps it alive that people want to try to fix it. And neither one of us was super enamored with the score. I again, I had only really known Metal Meadowlark. Where is the Warmth and Proud Lady. I didn't really know the rest. I think I might have heard it once or twice in the past, but never really gave it a full listen. And Meadowlark is a full on banger. And whereas the Warmth is very nice, if not quite as like special as Meadowlark and Proud lady is, is, is fun enough. But I didn't really know Shazon. I did not know Bread or Luckiest man in the World songs like that. I think a lot of the score is kind of just sort of fine. It's not really super memorable for me or very special for me. And so that was kind of surprising on, on my end and Patrick's end as well. We both kind of felt that way. And the story is very slight. It. This is going to be a theme for the rest of the episode. So I apologize for anyone who thinks that I'm just an uncultured fuck who wants everything to be short. I don't care, technically speaking, how long any show is, but every story only gets so much time before you start to lose interest. And with the Baker's Wife for a slight show that's really just about the townsfolk and how they want their bread. This show, this two and a half hour two act show with an intermission cannot sustain that length for me because there's very little conflict. It takes a very long time to get to any kind of conflict. And the show also wants to have its cake and eat it too and be about the Townsfolk as well as about Jean Vievre and Dominique and be this sort of intricate web of sort of like a French Nashville where everyone's got stuff going on and you watch paths sort of always cross and the stakes are never totally high. But it's still engaging because we like the characters and the intricacies of their lives. And that is true. But again, I think that either we need to put more of a focus on Genevieve and Amable relationship and have everyone else truly be a side character with facets, or we need to really even out the playing field and spread out the imable Genevieve stuff throughout the French Village stuff. For me, because the Genevieve storyline is not given a lot of room to breathe. And when it is focused on, it's focused on so intensely that you feel like you get a little bit of whiplash when she goes away, we get a little bit of her and Amable's life together when they arrive. Merci Madame is a nice little charming song. Oh, I. I also knew Merci Madame and I will say I do like the recording with Sorvino and LuPone. I think it's incredibly sweet. Especially impressive considering how much Patti LuPone hated being the baker's wife and was like running on fumes by the time they closed and knew Sorvino for like all of five seconds because he came in for like the last two weeks of the run. But I digress. That number is a very sweet number between them. But then we don't get much development after that. And the next time we come back to them, we get Genevieve's song about her past life, you know, having been involved with married men and having had that passion before. And again, it's sort of each time we come back to the imable Genevieve storyline, we come back to it with such intensity that you think that we're going to get more of it, but we get about the same amount of it as we get of other plotlines. And for Genevieve, I feel as if the show does not really earn Meadowlark, nor does Meadowlark really fit in with the rest of the show on its own. Meadowlark is a phenomenal three act song to sing in a concert or a cabaret. It's beautiful, it has a build to it, the lyrics are fine. But also it is a song that is not even the Act 1 finale. It's the penultimate Act 1 finale and is supposed to be this major decision that this lady has to make that is ultimately a very selfish and cruel decision, but one of fight or flight. Right. And one that many of us can relate to a character doesn't always have to make a kind decision for us to still want to watch them. In fact, I would argue it's when they make mistakes that we want to like them more. And the musical doesn't, as it's in its current stage, does not build enough of a will they won't they? Undeniable heated chemistry between Dominique and Jean Vievre that builds up to the breaking point of him giving her the ultimatum of run away with me and her being genuinely conflicted. It also doesn't help that Ariana DeBose and Kevin William Paul have no chemistry. Greenberg and Paul have decided that this Dominique, and it's also in the writing, but also their interpretation of him, is that he's not a lothario. He's just a guy in love with love. And he just so happens to be really into Genevieve and like, is that such a crime? He means well. He's just, you know, they want to make him more of an Anthony and Sweeney Todd and less of an Anatol and Gray Comet. And I think he doesn't have to fully be a dick, but you need a bit more of that sexual energy, that heat from Anatol that throws Genevieve for a loop so we can understand where she's coming from of like, oh, I thought that I turned this part, this part of myself off, but oh, my God, these feelings that I'm having and let it bubble. We only get. We get one meet cute with them that lasts all of 90 seconds, and then it's like 10 minutes later till we see them together again and it's again, like a 20 second scene that's inside of a larger scene with the townsfolk. And then he makes his declaration like, 20 minutes later, and it just feels disjointed. And Meadowlark has to do a lot of heavy lifting to make us buy how conflicted Genevieve feels and then lead her to this decision. I also realized that Meadowlark, in a lot of ways, for those of you who are like, old school listeners of the podcast, you might remember John Miscavige and I had that game Jukebox, that musical, and I had done one with Whitney Houston songs set in a Shonda Rhimes world where, you know, like, it was like Philippa Soo and Taylor Louderman were, you know, student studying to be veterinarians, and BB north was like, one of the teachers. And I think even Ariana Dupose was in that fake musical. But I want to say it was. Louderman had, like, what I called The Shonda Rhimes monologue where a character is in a fight and then at the breaking point, that character says something that seems so out of left field and something like, you know, my aunt used to have a pet rabbit and goes on this three minute monologue about the rabbit and the aunt and growing up with the codependent relationship with this rabbit and then saying like. And in conclusion, you don't get to tell me what to do because I'm not your pet rabbit. And that's a, that's a Shonda Rhimes monologue. You see it on Grey's Anatomy all the time. Scandal, whatnot. And metal arc for me is kind of like a Shonda Rhimes monologue because it's like the Run Away with Me. Well, who does he think I am? When I was a girl, I had a favorite story and goes on a three minute song about the story of the Meadowlark and then comes back to. And now here I am, and I am just like the metal arc. And I will not die like the metal arc. It's a, it's a. It's a Shonda Rhimes monologue. It's a great song, but it is a Shonda Rhimes monologue, which I will say at my performance, DeBose sang fine. She acted it pretty well. I. I think Ariana DeBose is a better actress than she gets credit for. And I maintain that she was my pick for featured actress in a musical in Summer. But Jean Viev is just not as compelling a character for me as everyone else is. Meadowlark is the big song and she sang it fine. We're used to fuller voices, like a Patti LuPone or even purer voices with greater range, like a Liz Calloway or Judy Kuhn to. And DeBose does not have that. Her voice is too modern and too poppy. So the notes are coming out. She's negotiating it, but you can hear her negotiating it. And she's also rushing through it and trying to find the story beats in it to commit to the choice that Genevieve makes. And it just, it doesn't totally land. It's not a train wreck, but it doesn't fully land. I actually think she does a lot better with. Where is the warmth? Scott Bakula does a very nice job with the Mob. I think he's just simply too handsome and too virile to really make it work for himself. But you know what a terrible punishment it is to be still so hot as you get older. And I found out he played Dominique in a production in the past of Baker's Wife, I'm pretty sure, which makes a lot of sense because I was watching Kevin William Paul and I remember thinking to myself, damn, I'll bet Scott Bakula could have played this role in his heyday and like really fucking nailed it. Trying to think what else I can say about it. I know that there's a lot of talk about this maybe transferring if they do Godspeed. I don't think that it's one that would be successful as a transfer. They also would have to reconfigure the design for a proscenium space because Circle in the Square is not going to be empty anytime soon. I do believe there will be a cast recording, which I'm not mad about. As I said, it's a mostly well sung production. Kevin William Paul, unfortunately is clearly a high tenor, trying to sing a baritone role and trying to make Proud lady sound really powerful and thrilling. And it's just too low in his register. So he's actually pushing and sounds rather flat or even sharp on a lot of stuff, which is a shame because I bet if they raised the key by like a full step, it would really sit in his sweet spot. Everyone else is very charming or very engaging. Sally Murphy, once again playing a woman in a very troubling marriage and watching her both be free away from her husband and trying to placate her husband, but being afraid, but still trying to. But still being a person was really thrilling to have. She and Kunzy have one scene in the second act together. It's 90 seconds long and it's my favorite 90 seconds in the whole show. You know who's great in this show? Judy Kuhn. GD Kuhn Absolutely fucking walks away with this show. She sounds incredible. Who is the. Who the fuck is surprised by that? She is incredibly engaging and emotional, but she also bitch gets laughs in this show. For a woman who I never really found found funny in her youth, she has found a way to be funny in the 21st century and I am here for it. Judy Kuhn be funny and we are thrilled she is. She has an absolutely terrible marriage to Robert Cuccioli. The show obviously based off of a very, I would say, misogynistic. The show is based off a very misogynistic movie and the show wants to have it both ways. It wants to have a more modern sensibility. It's crazy to think that this was written in the 1970s. It feels like it was written in the 1940s. And I don't mean that in like a. Oh, my God, what a classic Golden Age musical. Like, it's charming, but it's very slight. And it feels kind of like one of the musicals that writers of the Golden Age were fighting to get produced. While Rodgers and Hammerstein were like, on the rise and breaking the barriers and creating more integrated musicals. They're like, can we get more shows like the Princess musicals again? And so it's just like. It just feels very kind of simplistic and not always in a good way. Sometimes in a way where you go, I feel like there's a song here not because it's warranted, but because you're writing a musical. Have you ever seen. Have you ever gone to a musical or a reading of a musical and watched a number where you're like, there's no reason for this number to be here other than the fact that the writers are writing a musical. It's not needed in the story or in the character's development or anything like that. It's just here because you're like, we have a musical and we need a song now. We should have another song. And that's for me, a lot of the case with Baker's Wife, too many times where I'm like, there's a song here because you're writing a musical, not because it's needed. And I wish it could be an hour and 45. No intermission. Hour and 40, no intermission. And really just be the bon that it should be, as opposed to still kind of a little over bloated of a show, even in this more intimate theater with, I'm sure, shaving off a whole bunch of minutes from the original runtime in the 1970s. It is still a little too fatty and a little too airy. And I would really strongly advise Schwartz and team to go back and like, make some hard decisions on cutting because I think it would allow the show to fly even higher than it currently does because it's a very nice production of a very flawed musical. But it's not quite thrilling enough for me. Not quite special enough for me. But it is worth seeing. You know, I don't know when we're going to see it again in this city, especially at this level. But, yeah, I'm glad I saw it. So that's it on Baker's Wife. We're going to take a quick break and we're going to get into Prince Fagot. And then two strangers carry a cake across New York. So let's take that break. Billy. I beg to differ with You. How do you mean? You're the top. Yeah, you're an arrow collar. You're the top. You're a Coolidge dollar. You're the nimble tread of the feet of Fred. And we are back in the break. I went to go to the asylum and saw Slam Frank. No comment on that for the meanwhile. It's still in development, but when I came back, I looked at the beautiful image of me from the first part looking like I was Floyd Collins in the cave. And I was like, ah, I'll just turn the light on in the background and sort of blur it a little bit. And if any of you are watching it on Spotify or YouTube, you will just deal with seeing some of my messy ass room behind me. Think of it as insight into more of who I am as a person. And ain't that really underwhelming? So next up, up on our docket is Prince Faggot. Prince Faggot spelled F A G, G O T. From this point forward, I will be going back and forth between faggot and faggote. If that word is traumatizing or triggering to you, I apologize. But it is indeed the name of the play currently playing at Studio Seaview till I believe, mid to end of December, something like that, after a sold out run at Playwrights Horizons. The play is by Jordan Tannehill and the director, I have it in my notes. The director is Shyok Misha Chowdhury. Yes, those are the creatives. Currently starring John McCrae, Rachel Crowell, David Greenspan. I had one performer out when I saw it. Is it Mehir Kumar? He was out the afternoon that I saw, so I saw Keshav Mudliar. He was very good, I must say. The premise of the play, for those who do not know, is inspired by a paparazzi photo of Prince George sort of just in a candid photo, looking very objectively fae. And the play begins with all of the actors sitting on the stage observing the photo and looking at photos of themselves at that age and sort of seeing if they could tell whether it was obvious at that moment if they were queer or not. And there are some transgender actresses on stage as well. So when we see photos of them as children, they are male presenting in the photos and it's various degrees of obviousness with each performer of their queerness and talking about the premise of the play, which is flash forwarding 20 years, about maybe 15 years to Prince George, a little bit older and what the world would look like for him if he actually were gay. Because I guess from the photo and the online culture, as well as the premise of this play in general, there is an outcry from people of the queer community sexualizing a young child by talking about his sexuality. And the play's argument at the top, and it goes on for a very long spell at the top of the play. Their argument is, isn't the world already sexualizing children at a young age by just assuming that they're straight? And they go on the same arguments that we all have gone on before of, you know, it's weird to ask a six year old boy, oh, do you have a little girlfriend yet? And yes, people will claim, oh, we're joking. And it's teasing. It's like, yes, but you are norm, you are putting a sexual component on them. Even if you are not talking about the sex itself. Joking about a relationship is the same way as joking about whether he might be gay or not. It's part of who you are, it's part of your DNA. It doesn't necessarily mean that you are sexualizing the child. And that is the play's argument as it then goes into this alternate universe of what Prince George would look like as a queer young man. And, and the play then kind of takes certain terms of, I say, certain terms of kink and self expression and queer identity and status, wealth discrepancy. And the advertisements for it have definitely been leaning towards the. This play is so controversial, it's so provocative, it's so scandalously sexual. You won't believe the shit you see on stage. And there is some stuff that I was like, oh, I, we, we watched that. There is a fully shown sex scene between George and his boyfriend. The, the catalyst of the play within the play is George, devout 19 or 20, comes home from uni to introduce his parents to his boyfriend and he is out. His parents know that he's gay and their issue with the boyfriend is not the gayness, but rather once he's dating George, he has to be thoroughly background checked and his life doesn't become his own anymore. He becomes a public figure, he gets scrutinized, he has to behave a certain way in public and there is a burden on him, as the years continue with George, of the fact that it can't just be about how they feel about each other, but what their duty is to the country as a whole and what it even means to be a royal or to be in this class of people. And the play also does have fun with some double casting of actors. Again, it is a play within A play, and there is a sensuality to it and there's a passion to it, and there's an intelligence to. Felt a bit to me that this play was trying to cover a lot of ground. And when you're covering a lot of ground in a very short period of time, it's hard to really flesh out every topic that you're covering and flesh out every character that you have. And. Pardon me one second, I just need to grab my tea. And in sort of an alternate. An inverse, I would say, of Baker's Wife and of other shows that we've talked about on this podcast, I don't know if Prince for Goat really delved deeply into all of the subjects it was trying to cover. And if they gave themselves enough time to do that, it's possible they spent too much time on certain moments, on certain topics that felt a little repetitive or stretched out too thin while other subjects were barely scratched. I didn't find it terribly sexy or sensual or provocative. There is a turn for the kink that the show eventually dives very deeply into, especially with George, as he gets older and gets more into a hole of depression when his relationship breaks up and he spirals out from that and the weight of the. Of his obligations as a royal starts to come down on him. He spirals with no drugs and clubbing and other things. And there is a decent amount of male nudity, which was always welcome on the stage. Since we've had so much male gaze on the female form, why not have some male gaze on the male form? But this, this is all to say that it felt a little bit of pomp and circumstance for not a great deal of meat. That said, I also think that the play is kind of undervalued right now because I felt that when the show opened at Playwrights, it had a very natural, enthusiastic response, and then it kind of took on a life of its own. And as is the case with everything that gets a lot of buzz and becomes successful, there then becomes not a backlash, but a counter argument to it of, oh, it's not as good as people say. Oh, it's not as provoc as people say. And I do think it's not quite as provocative as people say. I think it is good and I think it's very intelligent and quite funny and a very well cast piece. Everyone in the show is very strong. I did think that John McCrae was giving a really phenomenally committed and delightful performance. My personal takeaway, I mean, this is a show that has K. Todd Freeman in It who mostly plays William, but I believe plays a few other small parts. But David Greenspan, for me, was like the absolute highlight of the company. He plays a servant in the Palace. He also plays the Royal family's PR woman. He plays a news reporter as well as himself. And every actor in the play gets a moment to sort of break the fourth wall and talk a little bit about their history with sexuality or their comments on the play itself. And it's them as themselves, not as one of the characters in the show. And so one performer, for example, which one is it? Rachel Crowell talks about the scene that we watch of George and his boyfriend having sex and then having a conversation in the nude and sort of the comfort they have with that. And Crowle sort of talks about her resentment of that scene. And then David Greenspan talks about his relationship to kink, as the play does cover it a bit, and talks about his realization while talking with a friend one day during brunch about sort of the origins of kink, or rather I should say the origins of kink in Gay Men for the Modern Age, and having a very, you know, personal story about it, if not necessarily his own experiences with it. And I thought a lot of that was really good. It didn't always all connect with me, and sometimes it felt a little bit like it felt just similarly connected to the main issue I have with the play of covering so much ground but not enough time to cover all of it and wanting to really express everything, almost for fear that someone in the audience might stand up and go, but what about this? And this play kind of wants to be able to beat that person to the punch, and there's no play that's gonna be able to cover everything. What the best you can do is focus on a very specific character or storyline or subject, flesh it out as much as you can, so that way the audience can be incentivized to talk about it afterwards and. And have theories and conversations. You don't want to be a piece of provocation. I feel like I keep making up words that sound right but aren't totally right. It's like Edward Norton in Glass Onion. The abbreviate, things like that, but you don't. When you're. When you're trying to be a provocative piece, as this one definitely is, you are trying to rankle some chains and you are trying to make people ask some questions. And therefore, you cannot cover everything. And so you have to sort of let that go. But the. The intelligence and the heart of the piece and the Passion of the piece for me is enough to, if not win me over, make me recommend it as a piece of theater, both as a piece of queer theater and just also as, you know, a creative piece. I think it is not as strong as the reviews from playwrights would have you believe, but I also think it is better than its biggest detractors would have you believe. Again, it is very well cast. I really must speak again the high praises I have for David Greenspan. It is stylish. It is reasonably well paced. It does kind of just end the final performer who gets to speak their monologue at the end. Again, this sort of ties into what I was saying before of issues with some of the monologues. The final monologue does not, for me, connect to the rest of the play. It feels very out of left field. And it might be the playwright's intention, but it wasn't powerful to me because I wasn't quite sure what the point of it was and how it related to the rest of the show other than just the term princess. And it's no slight to the actress, who is very charming and captivating, but it just. It did not feel earned to me. And I was left pondering, what, why, why this? Not in a oh, why this? But, like, why this it? You know, like, questions like why what? How? Are all good questions to have when you leave a show. But the tone of which of which you say it is the difference. There's a difference between like, what was that? And like, what was that? It's just so you. You don't want a question to be asked dismissively. You want it to be asked engagingly. And for as many moments of Prince Vagote where I had questions that were engaging. It is unfortunate that the last 10 minutes for me were questions of. Of slight dismissiveness. But, I mean, that's really all I can say about it. I don't have a ton of bold opinions on it. I walked out pleased that I saw it. I also want to be thankful to the house staff. I had bought a rush standing room seat for it. And I went to my standing section and there appeared to be some unsold seats in the house. And five minutes before the show began, the house staff took. Took us in standing room and put us in house seats. Not house seats, like, no specialized seats, but seats in the house that were not occupied that evening or, sorry, that afternoon. What am I saying? And so I really appreciated that from them. I really enjoyed that policy. They also were doing the yonder pouches, which makes Sense, there is a great deal of nudity in the piece, and I'm sure there was a lot of stuff about it they don't want getting leaked from audience members. And they are. They are very strict about the entra pouches. They make you do it in front of them. You're not allowed to enter the theater until you do it. So if you're somebody who absolutely refuses to put their phone in a pouch for two hours, because, my God, my rights, you know, that's your prerogative. I don't understand someone who is so offended by the idea of putting their phone in a pouch for two hours while they watch a show. You shouldn't have your phone readily available during the show to begin with. So just put it in the yonder pouch. It's the. It's. You're. You're already putting it on airplane mode or powering it off. You know, it's already useless to you until you leave. They're not taking it away from you. They're just ensuring that you can't whip it out to take a photo or someone else cannot. And if that bothers you, I would say that that's an indicator of what kind of person you are. Are. I'm glad that John McCrae is here in the States, though, because I saw him and everybody's talking about Jamie in London, and he is a very, very talented man with not an ounce of body fat on him. It. If you're someone like me, it absolutely does give you a body complex for everyone else. I hope it doesn't do a damn thing of him and make them appreciate the talent that is McCrae and admire the body that I'm sure he works very hard to keep. I look at it and I go, well, I shan't be eating for the next two days other than a glass of water, because I am. What? Broken. Moving on from Prince Fagota. I really have nothing else to say, and I feel like I'm gonna be spinning myself in circles trying to pad the time talking more about it. So why don't we move on to Two Strangers Carry a Cake across New York. This is a transfer from the West End. This is a piece written by Jim Barn and Kit Buchan, starring Christiana Pitts and Sam Tutti, Directed by Tim Jackson. I had heard relatively strong things about this when it was in London. It definitely had a fan base. Sam Tutti has a fan base from being Evan Hansen in the West End and winning the Olivier Award for it. It was being performed at the Art as sort of like an out of town tryout. And I had asked someone involved with it how they felt about it and they said it was, you know, they like, it's a good show, but, you know, I think we could maybe shave some time off of it. And I don't think that's going to happen. And I said, okay, well, you know, no harm, no foul. I'm sure I'll enjoy it. And the word of mouth from previews was pretty strong. And so I went, went with friend of the pod, Robbie Roselle, who had seen it before, I think in London. Yes, he had seen it in London. And, and I was ready to be charmed. I was ready to just sort of get swept up in it. The premise of the show, it's on two people. It's a two person show. Christiana Pitts plays Robyn, a lifelong New Yorker, originally from Brooklyn, who now resides in Manhattan and works at a coffee shop. And she is doing all of these errands for her older sister who's about to get married in a May December romance. One of her jobs is to pick up at the airport the her soon to be brother in law's son, Dougal, who is arriving from London, that is Sam Tutti. And Dougal is coming because his father, who he's been sort of estranged from his whole life, has invited him to the wedding. And he, Dougal and Robin end up sort of spending the day together the day before the wedding together, partly because Dougal doesn't know anyone else in New York. He's on a budget and he is very much a golden retriever of a boy who loves everything, wants to enjoy everything, sees the bright side of stuff, is a big movie, obsessive. And he's, and it's his first time in New York, so he's very excited. And he likes to make jokes about Robin being his cool older aunt, even though she's like three years older than him. Again, Dougal's father is significantly older than Robin's sister and they one of the tasks that Robin then has to do is she has to pick up the wedding cake in Brooklyn and Dougal accompanies her and they take the cake to Manhattan to drop off at Robin's sister. Now, if you want to avoid any more major spoilers, skip ahead like about a minute and I'll get back to sort of talking about the show and I'll do my best as I critique the show slash talk about the show to avoid those spoilers too much. But we find out that Robin isn't going to the wedding because she hasn't been invited, her sister won't let her come. And we also find out that Dougal was not invited by his father. Robin's sister invited him because Dougal's father had not mentioned him to Robin's sister. And she found out about him and she didn't want any secrets and she didn't want it to be this, like, embarrassing blemish on their relationship to anybody. We find out from Dougal that his father left, I think, even before he was born, left from England to come to America and would send him birthday presents every now and then and Christmas cards that eventually would stop. But he has this idea in his head of his father being a great guy. Robin breaks the news to him eventually that his father did not invite him, Robin's sister invited him. And we find out that the reason why Robin's sister has not invited her to the wedding is because at some point, Robin had had an affair with Dougal's father when he was still with Robin's sister. She ends up getting invited. The top tier of the cake gets destroyed, but the rest of the cake is delivered. Dougal doesn't go to the wedding and he and Robin have a sort of connection that ends with Dougal going home. Now, again, someone like a Baker's Wife. This is a show that very much had been called charming and intimate and, you know, just a glorious bonbon of a show. For me. I wouldn't say charming, I would say cute. I found this cute. I also found it similar to Baker's Wife, rather slight. This is another show that is a little over two hours with an intermission. I do not think that it justifies that length. Not a great deal happens. It is a very episodic show. And in truth, a show like any. Listen, any show we talk about, right? We find the flaws when something doesn't work for us, and when something does work for us, we either don't mind the flaws or we look at the flaws differently than somebody else. And, I mean, we're talking to a guy right now whose favorite musical is Carousel, and I. I see where people have issues with it, but where they come to attack it, I view it very differently. And so I justify it as such a show like Two Strangers Carry A Cake Across New York, which from now on we will be calling Two Strangers. I think that it would be disingenuous for anyone to say that it doesn't have bumps. Most shows have bumps, but also because this show relies so heavily on trying to earnestly win you over. And make you fall in love with it and its characters. If you are not able to do so, all the things that it's trying to do just seem off. And where I think the show succeeds is first with its two leads. Christiana Pitts is very good as Robin. I had seen her in A Bronx Tale in King Kong. She mostly is the wet blanket to Sam Tutti's Dougal, who's much more, you know, ebullient. And I actually think that, for me, Robin is the more interesting character. She has a more colorful background. Her history, I think, is more interesting. Her backstory has a lot more depth to it. I appreciate her current situation with her sister and with the job and I. And she's a bit of a killjoy throughout the show. But that's also kind of the point is, for every time that Dougal is so up, she's kind of down. And then every now and then, she will have a surprising up. Dougal I find to be, on paper, an incredibly annoying character. And if it weren't for Sam Tootie. Tootie or Tutti, because I've watched videos in London where they were like Sam Tooty. So I don't know if it's meant to be Tooty or Tutti, and they just say Tutti like Tutti in the uk, but I'm going to keep saying Sam Tooty. But Sam Tutti is such a wonderfully talented, charming individual. Great stage presence, a great voice and a really innate sense of comedy. If it weren't for him, I think that this character in the show at large would not work half as well as it does. And I don't think it is incredibly successful as it is. And so without him, I would probably find the show unbearable. But because he is in it, I do find the show bearable. The thing about Robin is for all of the things about her that I find interesting, the way that it comes about throughout the show, they keep teasing in Act 1 Things that happened in her past and, oh, the only person left in her life besides her sister is her grandmother, who she and her sister used to live with when they were kids and they grew up with her. She basically was like a mom to her, but she. She left Brooklyn to follow her sister to Manhattan and she hasn't spoken to her grandmother in two years, and there's no real reason for that. I was asking on the Discord Channel if anyone had a, you know, could connect the dots as to why. And there's a song in Act 1 where Robin sings about being happy and like oh, yes. It would be so easy to be happy and just say that I'm happy and tell my grand, hey, Grandma, guess what, I'm back and I'm happy. And so they were saying, oh, she hasn't really been happy since she moved to New York and she can't really bring herself to admit that to herself and to her grandmother. And that's why she hasn't been back for two years. To which I said, that is a fair argument. I would counter argue that the show does not actually connect those dots clear enough. It's. It still reads as a plot point that is brought up and then kind of quickly abandoned because we learn from the Spoiler alert. Jump ahead 15 seconds. Affair that, that Robin had with Dougal's father, that, that was a major breaking point with her and her sister. But also it's kind of indicated that her sister has always been a selfish person and Robin has also always kind of coveted what her sister had. She idolized her, she loved her. And at some point it's possible that, that, that, that those emotions kind of took a wrong turn with Dougal's dad. But also there's, it's never really, I'm not even going to say explained. It's never really explored as to what happened in that scenario. It is teased that Robin had a situationship with a guy and she says he used. He could make you feel on top of the world or worthless the next second. But then there's no. Again, there's no exploration as to do with spoiler Dougal's dad, what got her to that moment, why that moment lasted as long as it did. What was it. Was it genuine for her? Was it genuine for him? What was the fallout of, of this? You know, we, we see the result of the fallout, but we don't explore the actual reasons for it because it's a major thing to do to not only have an affair with an. With an older man, but one who is engaged to your sister, who you claim to idolize. And then while you try to get back on the good side of your s. Does that mean with you and this man as you're picking up his son, what does that mean with the son? Because the life will continue when the show ends. So what goes on from there? They also kind of do this very, I won't say, like, like semi tragic goodbye between Dougal and Robin because he has to go back home now. Just watch it going like. I mean, Instagram's a thing, WhatsApp is a thing. They can still be in contact, even if they're not in each other's lives anymore. I also will say, for a show that's supposed to be a romance, I did not buy the romance. I bought a friendship. I bought a connection, but not a romantic one. This. I didn't see a spark between them so much as an ease. And granted, some wonderful relationships begin with an ease like that, but I do. I did not get any kind of chemistry leading to what could have been love between Pitts and Tutti and. Or between Dougal and Robin in general, because the actors have a rapport with each other that works very well, but the characters do not have that, like, will they, won't they? It doesn't even have an enemies to lovers kind of thing. It just goes from golden retriever and person who's annoyed who said golden retriever to the icicle human melting a little bit, the retriever calming down a little bit bit. And them having a fun, friendly adventure in the city. When it turn, it takes a turn for the romantic. I just sat there not buying it. And I don't know if that's my own cold heart. I don't know if that's the writing. I also didn't necessarily find the songs to be all that spectacular. They're not bad. This is not a bad score. Like, it's got enough catchiness to it. I think the lyrics are actually pretty intricately clever. But I also. They would also end and I would often feel like I had felt with half of the score of Baker's Wife. Like there were songs where I went. I don't think that was necessary. I think that's there because this is a musical and they feel they need another song now. And that's a shame, because when the songs do work, even if I wasn't like, oh, my God, I can't wait to go home and listen to that one again, I was like, that was a song that made sense. That was worthwhile. I'm glad that it happened. It was well, well done. I also think that the show is very well designed. It's pretty simple set. It's a turntable filled with suitcases of various sizes and different configurations. And of course, as the set spins, different suitcases will open to create a new location. And I thought that was very clever and well done. When they're sort of at a standstill, it looks a bit like an apocalyptic airport, but that's when it's at a standstill, which is. Is almost never. Usually it's turning or when it's standing still. Something's open to create a location. But when we're in sort of like a no man's land and the suitcases are just there, you're like, huh? It's like if the Cold war continued and nuclear war arrived at LaGuardia. That's sort of just my take on it. Yeah, I'm trying to think of other things to talk about with this show. The truth is that like again, not a lot lot happens, small things happen and, and in many ways it's sort of like the whole show is a Falling in Love montage that you see in a romcom, which I actually talk about in my own play. And I swear I'm not plugging my own play. But you know, in rom coms like Something's Got to Give or Pretty Woman or things like that, there's usually a 90 second 2 minute montage covering, you know, certain amount of time where the two characters do a bunch of small everyday things and they go for a walk, you know, on the sidewalk while they eat ice cream and they laugh and one like smushes some ice cream in the other one's face or they're reading in bed or they're cooking or they're hanging out with each other's friends. And it's the little things that make them eventually fall a little bit more in love with each other each time. Until by the end of the montage we're like, oh, they are fully in love. Two Strangers is kind of that montage for two hours with songs. Except that the little moments didn't make me believe that they were falling in love. It made me believe that two lonely people were getting closer. But not necessarily as an almost couple rather than, rather just two lost souls finding a connection. Someone in the world being like, I see you, I care about you, I think you're awesome. And as I part just know that like you're awesome and you deserve happiness. And I think that that actually would have been more nuanced and adult. It didn't have to be be a rom com because when it comes to stories about love, all audience members are going to be judging whether they buy the romance or not. And sometimes it can be judged based off of actors chemistry. It can be judged off of whether the material itself builds to a moment where you buy the Falling in Love or very, at the very least the idea that love could happen. And I, yeah, I just don't find in this show that that's the case and maybe that is ultimately the, the weakness of it, that sort of dissipates to all the other elements of the show that make me not love it so much. And granted, this is now a New York Times critics pick, but as we've said before, that means nothing. The overall response to the show was kind of muted, positive. It does have its fans and I'm sure it can do well. Tony chances. I think that given how light of a season it is for musicals, we have a best musical nomination in the bag. Because again, this is not a bad show. I don't think it's. I don't think you can look at the writing and go, oh, this is objectively terrible. It cannot work for you. It didn't totally work for me, but their biggest crime for me ultimately is that I think it's just overly padded. I don't think that it should be a two actor. I don't think it should be two hours. Because when act one ends, you're not really left with a lot of questions. There's a sort of spending Dougal's dad's credit card adventure throughout the city. There's like the hanging question of, oh, why can't Robin go to the wedding? But other than that, it's. There's not a lot of stakes, there's not a lot of tension. So it ends and you go, okay, sure, yeah. Like, act two is probably gonna be more of the same of this. And the truth is that it kind of is. You. You need to usually end a first act with something on the line. It doesn't have to be the most dramatic stakes on the line, but something's gotta be on the line and nothing's really on the line. At the end of Act 1 of Two Strangers, it's just sort of like pleasantry, which is sort of the double edged sword of this show of just like constantly pleasant, never really thrilling. And again, I wouldn't even say charming for me. Cute, but slightly Tony chances, though, again, musical I think is a lock. It's a light season. We're looking at four new musicals right now, which means three nominees and this one is definitely the better received show between this and Versailles, just objectively so, I think also then score and book are pretty much lockes. I think that Sam Tutti is. Tutti is a lock for actor. Christiana Pitts probably would be a strong contender in actress as well. Just as a nominee. Again, it's a smaller field, but given the amount of material she has and. And the mountains she has to move to make a character that ultimately is a killjoy, not be a killjoy or rather Be a killjoy that we want to watch is very well, well done. Direction, maybe. Small shows like this, this are always tricky to figure out and. And this does have a bit of a spectacle element to it with the turntable and, and the constantly shifting set. I would imagine that the design categories are going to kind of miss this one. Again, the set is, is, is, is well, well used. But I don't know if it. A kind of set like once where the specificity of it is very impressive. And then ultimately the flexibility of it is what's surprising. The flexibility of the set you expect to see. And while it does have a couple of surprises up its sleeve, it's not overall a set that makes you go, oh, my God, that was ingenious. There are moments where you go, oh, that was clever. But more often than not, you're sort of like, mm, it's there. So, yeah, I guess musical director, score book, actor and actress are all strong. If not total locks. And then, I mean, if we're gonna have any design, it would be probably set in lighting. But again, I don't. I don't think so. Maybe orchestrations. I don't know how many revivals this season have new orchestrations. I think Jellicoe Ball and Rocky Horror are about it. So we shall see. That's really it for two strangers Carry a cake across New York. I can't really think what else to talk about with this one. It's the. The reveals that they do in Act 2 are not quite powerful enough for me to feel like they justify waiting so long to get them. And there are other things that just aren't covered that are hinted at earlier on in the show. Similar to Wicked and Wicked for Good. When you're watching Wicked on stage, a lot happens in Act 1 and a lot happens in Act 2, but very quickly. And not every check that Act 1 writes gets cashed in Act 2 for Wicked. But you're only really given 15 minutes to wait for it. And because it's a lot and it happens very quickly in the moment, it's a little easier to forgive. Whereas with the movies, there's more time to sit in both stories and a full year to wait in between. So when some. When a great deal of those checks From Wicked Part 1 are not cashed in Wicked for Good, you can imagine some people getting frustrated. And for two strangers, less happens in both acts and at a much slower climb clip. So even though it's not a year you're waiting, it's just 15 minutes, you still get a Little annoyed. Or at least I did that. Plot points that are hinted at or character moments that are lived in in Act 1 do not really come back to roost in Part 2. Act 2, I should say. There's also a scene in a Chinese restaurant that I thought just went on too long and had a song that I absolutely would have cut. This show also suffers from the thing that a lot of shows suffer. And without saying anything that I feel about Sl Slam Frank, I will say that one thing that it suffers from is multiple endings. The last 20 minutes for both shows start to feel a little endless because you're not sure when the ending is coming because you already thought that the ending was going to happen 10 minutes ago. Something feels like it's building towards the conclusion, and then there's more. Then you're like, okay, maybe this is the one now. But then there's more. And then you stop expecting the ending to happen and you just sort of sit there going, well, I guess I'm here for another 40 minutes. Because there were two times we could have gotten off the road and we didn't. And that's always frustrating. And I talked about that with maybe Happy Ending as well. That. That being a musical where you're like, oh, it feels like we're about to end and we didn't. Oh, it feels like we're about to end and we didn't. But it's a little less egregious in maybe Happy Ending. The fake out endings are not as. Epic is the wrong word. Cause there's nothing truly epic about two strangers. But there are moments in it where it's like, and here is the ba da da da bom. Here's the. The really impactful moment that you want to go out on a high on. And they have like four of those pretty close in a row before they ultimately end on a much quieter note. And the same thing is true of maybe Happy Ending and also with Slam Frank. And I just wish that there was a way to kind of pause everything, go in there with a creative team and figure out how to not make it feel like false conclusions and let it build to the moment where everything comes to an end. And I think we're past that point now. But that's sort of my biggest issue with it. But that's also just a big issue with most modern musicals these days. I do recommend the performances. I think that they're both really strong. And again, Sam Tutty, if it weren't for him, I think Ducal would be. Would become a new entry in the Most Obnoxious Characters in Musical Theater. Because he's sort of the male British version of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl, he is always like there to assist the other person and like, help them better their lives and believe in themselves and say things that are like, off the cuff but charming while also being a little bit annoying. And he. While the show gives him a history and an inner life, so it's not like he just comes out of nowhere in order to serve the main character whenever he's on stage, it is always to serve Robin. And there are so many times where he should just go. But because he can't read social cues or because he, you know, has no one else to talk to, he just sticks it out and keeps on letting everything be water off at Duck's back. And when they give him a more emotional number in Act 2, which, similar to the Dear Bill number in Operation Mincemeat, it's a very nice number that also goes on far, far too long where he's having a phone call with his mom back in, in England. And it's in a. It's a number that Tutty's able to really live in and, and get emotional without going overly Evan Hansen about it. And it's nice, but also, again, it doesn't feel totally earned because the Dougal in that moment is not the Dougal we have known now. It could be a mask off situation where he is able to let go of the Manic Pixie Dream Boy that he has been playing for so long. But we don't see any indication before this number that it could be a mask. And so. And then once that number's over, he goes back to having that mask on him again. So I think it's meant to be. This is who he is and he's having a crisis of faith and then he's able to pull through and go back to being the Labrador he always was meant to be. And I think because Toddy is such a has. Has lived with this role for so long, he did it in the West End as well. He's able to wear all of the character's idiosyncrasies on his skin pretty naturally. But again, that's not, for me, a quality of the writing. That's a quality of the actor and especially of the actor having had so much time to experience the material. Cause maybe, you know, if we were seeing an actor doing this for the first time, even if they were as good as Teddy is or talented as he is, because they haven't had a chance to live with it for so long. We would see all the flaws exposed in that role. But. And that's me sounding a lot more critical of the show than, I mean to be. I, I, while I wasn't won over by it, I don't think it's a bad show. I think that it's a show with fat to it. And I would be interested to see how it works in a different production with different actors, just to see how people would feel about it. But I also don't think that this show is. Is incredible. I don't find the show to be overwhelmingly disarming. It's entirely possible also, that I've become very cynical in my years of theater going, so it's making me cringe. But I ultimately want every show I see to be good. I want it to be the one that lifts me out of my doldrums. And Oedipus was that for me, that made me go, oh, fuck, Right? This is what can happen when a show is smart, when it is creative, when it is brilliantly acted and knows exactly how much time it has for its story. And shows like Baker's Wife and Two Strangers and Prince Vagote All, I felt, had issues of knowing when to leave, knowing if they could go any longer of tone, and also sort of like relying on the vibes that they want an audience to feel to make up for any shortcomings they might have. People forgive a lot with the right vibe. And I would say that two strangers want to give the charm warm embrace, you know, blanket of a musical vibe. And it doesn't quite do that for me. It's more sort of Elfie's sex cardigan, minus the sex. Like, it covers you, but it's thin and it can easily fall off. And that's, I guess, where I'm gonna leave it for. For Two Strangers. I got nothing else to say about it beyond that. Yeah. Stay tuned for Thursday's episode where we do our review of Wicked for good with a very special guest. After that will be another review episode of Of Ragtime and Queen of Versailles. And then after that will be the part two of Grey Comet with Natalie Walker. I know it's been a crazy time. We're doing the best we can. We're figuring things out. This bonus episode is actually an indication of changes that we're making. You know, looking back on past seasons for inspiration of, like, where to kind of go forward with, so. So, yeah, there'll probably be more bonus episodes in the future. And hopefully episodes that cover specific shows to review and not just doing catch up reviews in one big clump. Because we want to be able to give you guys reviews that you can search and give these reviews enough time soon after I see the show that I can really dive as deep as I can with them and make you feel like you got the full picture on everything. Because I always feel like with the these group reviews I never give the full picture to listeners. But maybe that's a good thing. Maybe it's about giving you guys just enough information to decide for yourselves if you are going to see it or if you can recommend it to someone else. Yeah, you let me know if you like the podcast, make sure to give us a nice 5 star rating or review on either Apple or Spotify. It all helps with the algorithm. Make sure to join the Discord channel or the substack if you haven't already. I don't need to pimp out my show for you guys because it's done, it happened. But there will be some pimping of it in the new year again. It'll be March, May and June. I will give specific dates soon enough. I think for our diva this week I would like to close us out with it has been a minute and because she is so good and Baker's Wife we are going to close out with Kunzy. In fact I'm going to close out with a totally legal recording of her metal arc when she did Baker's Wife in Boston. I think think like 15, 16 years ago, maybe even 20 years ago. I can't recall. But it's a gorgeous metal arc. Surprise surprise and I think you all will really enjoy it. So that's it for now. Take it away Kyunze. Bye. Be my and I buy you a graceless jewel and repeat and I love you all if you will sing for me.