← Broadway Breakdown
Broadway Breakdown
Matt Reviews: The Queen of Versailles (both of ‘em), Ragtime & A Conversation with Teale Dvornik
01:51:52
Loading summary
Transcript193 lines
- [00:01]
A
Hi, guys, it's Matt. I just wanted to do a quick note before this episode begins that for some reason, my microphone chose to really spritz out on me when recording this episode, both for the reviews and for my interview with Teal Dvornick. Couldn't tell you why it was. There's no way I could find out while recording. That's sort of one of the issues with using Riverside is when you record, you can't test the microphone. You can only put it at the setting you've done before and hope for the best. And for the last couple of weeks, it felt like we had kind of had it figured out, and then for some reason on this day, it all went for naught. So I apologize. The audio for the reviews is not terrible. It's not as crisp and as clear as we're used to now, but it's not. It's listenable. My audio for the Teal interview is a little trickier, but the good news is that Teal's audio for the interview is fantastic and perfectly crystal clear. And the interview's about her anyway, so it's more important that you understand her. So, yeah, just letting you know. And I'm sorry for that little hiccup, but hey, it's probably a breakdown, and as we know, sometimes technical do happen. So enjoy the rest of the episode. Bye.
- [01:27]
Hello, all you theater lovers, both out and proud and on the DL. And welcome back to Broadway Breakdown, a podcast discussing the history und 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 today is a very special episode. We are doing, technically speaking, three reviews. We are doing a review of Ragtime, as well as Queen of Versailles, both Queens of Versailles, because your boy here saw Kristin Chenoweth on a Monday night and then Sheri Renee Scott's first performance on a Tuesday night. Also, after this review, make sure to stick around because we have an interview with the Backstage Blonde herself, Teal Dvornick, who has a new book out called History Hiding Around Broadway Backstage Lore, Secrets and Surprises From New York's Famed Theater District. It is a lovely book. If you are on the YouTube page right now looking at the video, you can see me holding up the book right here. See? Pretty, pretty book. It's. It's a very fun read. Has a lot of wonderful historical information in it. It's very well spaced out, and it's also just a pretty attractive book. So it's a good addition to your bookshelf. So make sure to stick around for that interview with Teal. It's a really fun time. I'm going to dive in first. Head in first with Queen of Versai. I also should probably just say this now for anyone who didn't get a chance to watch the musical episode, the live musical episode, or Broadway Breakdown, a cabaret now at Green Room 42. We will be releasing some content from it coming up in the next couple of weeks, especially as we start promoting the March show. But we do want to set a goal for the podcast. We're currently at 352 ratings and reviews on Apple podcasts, which is great. I think we're over 150 on Spotify. I would love to have more on both. If we can get to 375 on Apple Podcasts by the end of the year, like by New Year's, that'll be when I release the first nugget from the cabaret. So let's try to get to 375 and if you are on the Discord channel, we'll take a vote and see which one gets to be released first. So that's, that's a challenge for you guys between now and the end of the year. Okay, enough of that bullshit. Queen of Versailles for those of you who have not been keeping up with the Internet or Broadway season, Queen of Versailles is a new musical that is based of the documentary of the same name following Jackie Seagull and her husband David Siegel. David Siegel is known as the Timeshare King, a self made American billionaire. She marries David and together they decide in Orlando, Florida that they are going to build the largest home in America. And it's modeled after the famed Versailles. The book is by Lindsay Ferrantino, who is known for such plays as Amy and the Orphans. Score is by Stephen Schwartz. We all know him from Wicked and Pippin. And this is Schwartz's first Broadway score since Wicked. It's directed by Michael Arden, starring Kristin Chenoweth as Jackie Siegel. F. Murray Abraham as David Siegel. Nina White as Jackie's oldest daughter Victoria from a previous marriage. Nina White we would all know from Kimberly Akimbo. Also Melody. Melody, I apologize, I'm butchering your last name, but it's Melody Batu as Sophia, their nanny maid. Melody was in Here Lies Love. Greg Hildreth is Gary, David Siegel's associate and we later learn his son from her previous marriage. There's been a lot of discourse about this show. I mean, at the point that we're recording this and when it gets released. It's already been announced that Queen of Versailles is closing the first week of January after 65 performances and a couple dozen previews. The critical reception was mostly negative. One star from the New York Post and Sarah Holdren and Vulture called it a car crash. And then there's were like one or two decently positive reviews. And then surprises, surprises. Laura Collins Hughes of the New York Times gave it a critics pick and called it a sparklingly fresh new musical. And of course, that critics pick did nothing for the show's success. It still is closing after a two month run. I would like, if I may, to talk a little bit about a specific musical that has a prestigious creative team, a cast stacked with talent, and it focused on very troubling characters that played a very damaging role to the tapestry of American humankind.
- [06:01]
Many folks think of the characters of this musical to be sources of toxicity in America. And the musical plays these characters for laughs and possibly worse, for sympathy, empathy even. And the response from audiences and critics was very swift and decisive. The response being to the creative team, how dare you write a musical about this? How dare you take characters like this and serve them up to us for entertainment, for us to relate and connect with them. How dare you do that? And the show died in that moment. I am, of course, talking about Assassins, for those of you who do not remember. Assassins premiered at Playwrights Horizons in the early 90s at the onset of the Gulf War. And the response from audiences and critics alike was to Stephen Sondheim and John Weidman, as well as director Jerry Zaks. How dare you. There are stories of audience talkbacks with Sondheim on stage crying as these audiences are telling him, like, what is wrong with you? How dare you? I am insulted that you would write this. And Assassins, of course, has now gone on to be a much more beloved piece of the musical theater. And part of that is there have been changes made to Assassins, nothing substantial. The biggest change is adding the song Something Just Broke, which went into the Dunmar Warehouse production, I believe in 92, 93. But mostly the show is 95% what it was at Playwrights Horizons, and there have been better directed productions than the one at Playwrights Horizons. But otherwise, Assassins is still the Assassins that opened. So what has changed? Well, part of it is that we are more used to the show now. We've had time to live with Assassins and we've had time to analyze it and really think about what the show is trying to do and meet it at that place. We also, by having the benefit of Other directed productions with different tones and points of view. And as time moves on and we get more distance from the event and we go through different periods of. Of. Of life ourselves, we start to appreciate elements of the show that maybe we didn't the first time around based on where we were at in society.
- [08:22]
Now, compare that to Queen of Versailles, which had all the same metrics that I just talked about with Assassins. It's pretty much a parallel. So we have this very strong creative team. We have very troubling characters. Jackie Siegel and David Siegel are not exactly characters that audiences are finding themselves in on a surface level. And the response from audiences and critics alike have been, how dare you? And this show is a disaster, and thus it is closing.
- [08:56]
I do think a lot of those questions are unfair and also kind of pointless. As I talk about Queen of Versailles, I think I should probably say up front, I did not hate Queen of Versailles. I do not think that the show works. It does. It does not work. And I will talk more about that in a moment. But I'm saying up front now, I did not hate this show. I did not hate it. When I saw with Kristen and with Sheri, I was able to see a lot more clearly what it was they were trying to go for. But the criticisms of why would you write a show like this? Why would you focus on these characters? They're so unlikable. No one can relate to them. In this moment in time, a musical about billionaires is not it. This is not the show we want to see right now.
- [09:41]
These are not actual criticisms because that's not actually about the material. That's about this moment in time. And it's not necessarily the job of a Broadway show to meet the moment, because the moment ultimately will pass, and we. And will be followed by another moment. How long it takes for that moment to pass. Who can say what's going to be the moment after that moment? Who could say? But if you were writing a show to meet society exactly where it is in that moment, the show itself will age like milk. You know, if you're lucky, you have something like Company, which was all about holding up a mirror to society in that exact moment in time. And because the material itself is still very intelligent and creatively crafted, despite the fact that it is no longer considered groundbreaking, the ultimate themes of Company resonate. There is still enough meat in Company that it can get done, and we can still find new things about it. It can. There are other ways to make it fresh, but Company does not pack the same punch today. As it did in 1970. Our views on marriage are different. Our views on. On age are different on gender roles. So again, it's not necessarily the job of a creative team to go, let's have this show meet the moment. Now. It's entirely possible to feel the temperature of the environment, of the culture, and go, will people. Are people in the right mindset to take us on good faith and absorb this show as we're trying to sell it? Clearly not. But people ask, this is tone deaf. Why are we writing about billionaires? They'll say, we need to cut the French royals. Because there's moments where Louis. The Louis xvi. Right, yeah. And Marie Antoinette are. Are sort of quote, unquote, woven in and out of the narrative, and people think that they should be cut. People think this is an ego inflation for the real Jackie Siegel. Oh, the show wants you to root for her. The score is bad and the songs are unmemorable. And it's overlong. The story is boring.
- [11:52]
As I said, I'm gonna make a lot of people angry. I do not think that this show is a car crash. This is not one of the worst musicals I've ever seen. This is not even one of the worst musicals I've ever seen in the St. James Theater. But ultimately, this musical does not work. I do not think it's terribly good. I think that the issues of it being called tone deaf and why are we writing musicals about terrible people? Again, that's not a real criticism. Look at shows like Evita, American Psycho, hell, my favorite show, Carousel. Look at TV shows like Mad Men or Breaking Bad or Killing Eve or Fleabag. These are not shows about kind people. These are not shows about people who have their shit together. These are not shows about people that you necessarily are rooting for, but these are people you want to watch, I would argue. Why does American Psycho have the fan base that it has when it is focused on a character who literally murders and assaults women day and night, makes terribly racist homophobic comments day and night, as well as his contemporaries, has a vapid fiance who you could argue is a misogynistic representation of women? Part of that is American Psycho has a very specific point of view. So you understand that the show is a commentary, not an earnest, realistic depiction of society. As the creator see it. Evita has a very large scale stake to it. It is the state of the country of Argentina, the government, the. The population. You know, Evita goes big and bigger because ultimately the story of Eva Peron goes big and bigger. Evita, I would also argue has a very misogynistic tone on Eva Peron herself. Not that Ava Perron is somebody who deserves all of our sympathy, but that the show has no interest in exploring that this was a woman who did what she had to do to get out of her hometown, to get a foot in the door in the entertainment world, to move her way up so she could have some sort of autonomy. And even then, even when she became the most powerful woman in her country, she still didn't have a lot of autonomy. A lot of what she did ultimately was for show and made a real impact on the people of Argentina. But her power was tied still to her husband, Evita, as a musical. Tim Rice and Angel Lloyd Webber have no desire to delve into any of that. And yet we don't really care. We still get wrapped up in Evita. There's a large fan base that gets wrapped up in American Psycho. I still get wrapped up in Carousel. Even though Billy Bigelow is a very troubling leading character, Julie Jordan is a frustrating leading female character. Fleabag is a very.
- [14:30]
You know, watchable and likable character who ultimately is a bad person and tries to change herself in the second season. But that first season, you're watching her be a bad person. So why is it that we are so gung ho against Jackie Siegel and David Siegel in this musical? Ultimately, it is because Queen of Versailles does not work. Whereas Evita works, Carousel works. I would argue that Queen of Versailles is not asking you to root for Jackie Siegel. It is not an ego inflation. And even with Kristin Chenoweth, it was clear to me that this was not the intention of the production team as to make Jackie Siegel this heroic figure. Jackie Siegel is a selfish woman. She's an out of touch woman, oblivious woman. She is.
- [15:18]
Incredibly entitled woman, but she is a woman. She is a person. She is not a cartoon character. She is not someone who just appeared one day to be this representation of all things ostentatious and shallow. She came from somewhere. This events in her life led her to be who she is today and get where she is. And she has had a lot of tragedy. Spoiler alert for anyone who hasn't heard much about Queen of Versailles or looked into Jackie Siegel's past. Jackie Siegel had a first marriage that became incredibly abusive. She, you know, married a man 30 years older than her who, while very kind to her when times were good, once times got rough with the recession in 2008, became emotionally and verbally abusive. She lost her eldest daughter Victoria to a Drug overdose. And then this is not in the show, but as the show. Between the show opening in Boston and Broadway, she, her husband, David Siegel, died, and a week later, her sister died. She has had hardships, she has had tragedy. And what Queen of Versailles, I think, is trying to do is focus a story around a woman and her building what is ultimately a shrine to American wealth and status. The irony being that that shrine is never finished.
- [16:46]
There's always more that she's trying to add on to it, that she's trying to enhance it, which, again, ties into the American mentality of having it all means having more. You can never be satisfied. There is always more to get, especially when you compare what you have to others.
- [17:04]
And so, yes, and the truth is that the real life Versailles has been in construction for 20 years, 22 years. It's still not done. And at the end of the musical, it's still not. It's obviously still not done. So after all of this money, all of this time, all of this effort, all of these ups and downs of building the house, losing most of their money, getting their money back, losing Victoria.
- [17:29]
After all of this, the house is still not done. And Jackie is more alone than she ever has been in her life by taking so long with the house. Most of her children are grown, they're moving out. She's aware that David is going to die one day, which, you know, spoiler alert, he does do in real life.
- [17:47]
Who's going to live with Jackie in this big house? This is the question she ultimately asks herself at the end of the musical. With Kristen in the lead role.
- [17:58]
The idea is that her performance is so eager to have us like this woman that it leaves a sour taste in our mouth about everything that the show does.
- [18:12]
And the show ultimately is aiming for satire. It is aiming to.
- [18:17]
Have a humane but honest look at a woman who is, yes, out of touch, does not have the class or refinement we used to come to expect from those with money. You, we think of like the Gilded Age, right, or Titanic. Those. Those stories of people who had money and used it to.
- [18:43]
Present sophistication. And now our society does not necessarily need that. It's. As long as you have enough money, nobody cares. The rules of society are out the window, of refined society are out the window. It's just about money, money, money, money. And it's actually become ridiculous to see people who try to present class when they have no idea how to. How to do it. And that's sort of the whole thing with Jackie. So the show wants us to have an honest, humane look at her and maybe naturally laugh at her from time to time, but ultimately sympathize with her. Not in a way that makes us go, oh, she is a good person, but go, oh, it's all sort of for nothing. In the same way that in Evita, Eva has her soliloquy before she dies of I could choose time, I could choose children. I ultimately chose power. I chose to shine as bright as I did. And when you are the brightest shining star, your shelf life is shorter than most people's. And the question is, was it worth it? What is the. What is the give and take there? And with Kristen as Jackie, as I said, she was so eager to be liked. And Kristen also, her singing voice, because it has a more classical sound to it.
- [20:06]
Does not give the.
- [20:10]
Does not give the sort of, like.
- [20:14]
Classless feel that ultimately Jackie Siegel, if you ever watch the documentary, kind of has. Jackie Siegel is a very plainly spoken woman who is very dropped in and very.
- [20:26]
Not. I'm not gonna say watchful. She doesn't have a bold personality, which is why when she says crazy things, it sort of feels like out of left field. She's not a personality like one of the Real Housewives. And Kristen Chenoweth tries to dial into that energy. But Kristen also is. So is such a positivity. Positivity slut, I would say. Like, she's so eager for love and acceptance from an audience. And that serves her well in most shows. It serves her well as Glinda in Wicked. It serves her well in the Apple Tree or in on the 20th century. But in something like this, where it is a far trickier, multifaceted satire, it's trying to accomplish.
- [21:11]
It does not give you the tension that you need to understand the tone.
- [21:18]
Now, to compare that to Sherri Renee Scott.
- [21:24]
Sherry plays the role. I describe it as if Kristen's playing the role of Jackie Siegel as you are rooting for this woman and begrudgingly laughing at her. Sherry plays it as you are laughing at this woman and begrudgingly rooting for her, which adds much more.
- [21:42]
Complicated feelings for an audience. Because ultimately, what a show like Queen of Versailles trying to attempt is testing the limits of our empathy. It's easy to watch a show about a person whose politics you agree with, who does everything kind and nice and all that that never makes you go, oof. That. That wasn't a great thing to say or do. It's so easy to watch a person like that and go, oh, yes, I'm. I'M able to sympathize with them when they have a loss. But when somebody who votes the way you don't vote is in an abusive marriage where she is getting violently attacked, do we not then feel some sort of sympathy for her because she voted for a Republican? Because she's married to an older billionaire and has all the money in the world and spends it incredibly stupidly, Are we not allowed to say, hey, you suffered a tragedy when your eldest daughter overdosed? Is that not possible?
- [22:42]
A lot of people I love, love the Housewives. These are women similar to Jackie Siegel, women with money, women who are tied to a lot of people with power, who probably did not vote for your candidate at any of the elections, who may say that they support diversity and queer lives.
- [23:03]
Women'S rights, and then ultimately vote against that. Sharon Renee Scott creates a character that ultimately lines into one of the Real Housewives that people seem to enjoy. And I understand the cult of personality behind that. It's the only reason I can understand differentiating between the Real Housewives and Jackie Siegel, because Jackie Siegel, the real woman, ultimately has no personality.
- [23:27]
Sharon A. Scott is able to understand that in order to do satire, in order to portray a character like Jackie, you have to be comfortable with an audience not liking you, that your character is going to say and do a lot of dumb, bad, horrible.
- [23:46]
And the audience doesn't have to like you. A care a leading character being likable, I think is a stupid mandate. They have to be watchable, they have to be compelling. And it's clear to me when watching Sheri Renee Scott, why the show doesn't work. Jackie's story is ultimately not a compelling one. She's had things in her life that are the stuff of drama, abuse of first marriage, sort of working her way through high school and getting her degree to be an engineer and working at IBM, ultimately rejecting that so she can, you know, get a head in the comfortable life. There is something to the. To the idea of a woman who has potential, a woman who has intelligence, a woman who has a strong work ethic, who is motivated and then ultimately kind of throws it all away to go for the things that a lot of Americans desire and aren't able to get.
- [24:48]
Jackie as a person is not a very complicated nor a very interesting character. She is not a little Edie in Grey Gardens. Little Edie is a riches to rag story and as in addition to that, a very kind, very kooky character with a bold style and a way of a way with words that is both quotable and different from anyone else we know. It makes us want to watch her. What she's gonna say, what's she gonna do? Jackie Siegel is not that kind of character. Even with Sherri Renee Scott playing her. Sherry is so compelling to watch, and Sherry understands comedy. But Sherry cannot make Jackie Siegel a bold enough leading role that we can understand the musical surrounding her. And her journey ultimately is stretched out as thin as it can go, because the story of the house is not a compelling one. It's not a dramatic one. They've been building it. They've been building it. They hit the recession. The recession harms the whole country. They bounce back from the recession. They have their tragedy with Victoria, and the show cuts out that David Siegel and Jackie Siegel published Victoria's diary after her death under the guise of wanting to bring voice to fentanyl victims and teenage victims of drug usage. But it's not true. It's. It's just for capital gain, and everyone knows it. And they cut that in the show, which is a mistake, because it is another example of testing our empathy, of having this woman, a mother, lose her child, which is terrible, and under any context. But to lose the child that she has known the longest, that's the closest to her heart, to lose that child and then to betray that child's privacy and exposing her thoughts to the world is such a disgusting thing to do. But in a moment of her darkest, deepest valley, in the same way that Mama Rose throws her daughter Louise onto a burlesque stage to take her clothes off in front of strangers in her darkest, deepest valley, these are. These are the things that make. That should be making compelling musical theater. And yet it doesn't all connect with Queen of Versailles. Part of it is, yes, there are tonal issues. I don't think that this score is bad. I think that this score has a lot of personality to it, a lot of flavor. There's a bunch of different genres being thrown in here between Jackie Siegel's own music, the music of the French royals who, you know, weave in and out, which I understand people's complaints about wanting to cut them. I think there is an idea to the parallel of the. Of Louis rise and fall with the revolution and mirroring that with America, and then ultimately giving a statement at the end of. Americans have learned how to avoid a revolution like ours because they have the myth of democracy that upholds the wealthy and has the poor think they could become wealthy one day. You don't have to be born into it. You could earn it one day. And that's why they will never revolutionize against the wealthy. But it doesn't tie in intricately enough. It's a bit of a forced message, so it doesn't land as well as it should. But there are. There is craft to some of these songs. There are songs I would cut. I would cut the Book of Random, I would cut the pain to a dead lizard. I would cut the Ballad of the Timeshare King, or whatever it's called. But those songs, for me, are not campy. I can't believe this made it in here songs. Because again, when you recognize that the show is trying to go for satire, songs like the Ballad of the Timeshare King, you realize is meant to be played for laughs. It's not meant to be serious. That doesn't mean that the song is good. That doesn't mean that it works. But this isn't a. Oh, my God, what were they thinking? It's like, I know what they were thinking. It ultimately doesn't land. And that is why we come forward with all of the things that we don't like about it. Again, I said this before. When a musical works for us, we are able to forgive or see past all of its flaws. When a musical doesn't work for us, all of those flaws are glaring and are unforgivable. And ultimately, because Queen of Versailles just doesn't work, all of the things that don't land land in such a way that make us go, what the fuck were they thinking?
- [29:25]
But I understand the idea of wanting to write a show about a woman with potential who throws it away for the vapid American dream of wealth and prosperity gets it, decides to build a shrine to it. That shrine is now littered with the ghosts of all the people she's lost, all of the opportunities she never had, of all the ways in which she has denied herself to be a full person now. And in this 11 o' clock number this time next year, because it's always in a year we will have. We will have what we want. Everything will be back. She's always working. She's always hustling to get that thing. She wants to get Versailles done. But ultimately she's alone on her finished staircase with no one around her, with a ring light in front of her. And she's this close. She's this close to having a genuine breakthrough. And Schwartz has this moment in the song that I. I really enjoy of it never gets better that or doesn't get better than this. And she's repeating it doesn't get better than this it doesn't get better than this. And then the music cuts out and she realizes it doesn't get better, it doesn't get better. And I think that is very clever writing. Ultimately, I think Schwartz is not the right pick for a show like this because his music.
- [30:45]
Is a little too.
- [30:48]
Broadway is not the right word. But like there is an optimism and a twang to his musical theater sound that doesn't have a hardened edge that you would need for a satire like this. Like, Stephen Schwartz could not write a score for Urinetown. He could write lyrics for Urinetown. And I would actually argue some of his lyrics for Queen of Versailles have that satirical edge to them because I think Schwartz has always been good at the tongue in cheek tone. He does also repeat a rhyme from Baker's Wife with pallas and chalice, because in Meadowlark he has a took her to his palace, fed her fruit and nuts from an ivory chalice. And in Jackie's 11 o' clock number she talks about their golden palace and drinking Diet Coke from a golden chalice. So listen, when it's a good rhyme, it's a good rhyme. So. And it's like 50 years apart, so you're allowed to repeat yourself. But I think because Schwartz, while ultimately a talented songwriter still and has moments in the show that I think you see where the seed of the idea is, ultimately it's just not the right fit for it. I think that doesn't help the show's case for its tone. I think that Michael Arden tries very hard to create intimacy in a very large space by having the camera crew for the documentary of Queen of Versailles involved in the show by using projections of what's being captured on camera on stage. So even if you're in the mezzanine, you can feel like you're still involved with the whole thing. The design by Dane Laffrey is very strong. But again, that's a double edged sword of a house that is never finished. It's constantly under construction. Limits. What you can do with staging limits, sort of what point of views you can get in the design and is ultimately like a house under construction is not an attractive look. And while Arden tries to zero in at times when we do like flashbacks with curtains and screens, there are times where it still kind of looks a little.
- [32:41]
Cheap and second thought y and it's not. It's a clear decision that he's making and he's using the space as best he can, but it's just sort of a no win situation where your basic set for the majority of the show is an unfinished house. It keeps getting more and more finished as the evening continues, but you're on a construction site for 90% of the time. I do think that Lindsay Ferrantino tries to incorporate as much of the stuff from the documentary in there to show you that these are not good people. David Siegel in particular, says a lot of nasty shit that is actually verbatim from the documentary. It's pretty fucking crazy. And again, to show you that this is not a happy marriage. This is not a woman who should be pleased with her situation. And yet she ultimately sticks by it. She chooses to lean into the fantasy of this is going to work, this is going to be great. And part of that is because the real Jackie Siegel still does this. And the show ultimately does not go hard enough on her as a character. As we see from her, from them cutting the stuff about Victoria's Diary, I think Sheriney Scott is able to, as an actress, go a little harder on her in her portrayal, whereas Kristen tries to go for a humane approach that is just not palatable and also just not as interesting. You need a perspective. You. You don't want to judge the character you're playing, but you also need to give the audience a reason to watch. And since the real Jackie Siegel and the character that's written about her is not a bold enough color on her own, you need to add some flavor to it. And I do think that Sheri does that. It helps that the audience on Sheri's night was so excited to see Sheri Renee Scott leading a Broadway musical again that there already inherently was a likability quota that made everyone eager to watch her and also made people willing to watch the show in good faith of trying to see what it is that the show is trying to do in a way that I think a lot of audiences who come to Queen of Versailles right now honestly to, in their. In their minds, like see the train wreck or to push Kristin Chenoweth down the stairs a bit because of recent events are. Are watching a lot of the things that I think the show is trying to walk a tightrope on and accuse it of emboldening. And I don't think the show is trying to do that. I don't think it succeeds at walking the tightrope. But I do not think that the show is trying to be an emblem to wealth and power. It is ultimately asking, what is the point of all this? Is any of this worth it? Satire itself is a comical critique, but it's not an Overly obvious one. Parody is a lot easier to understand because it's usually a blown up, cartoonish, clownish version of pre existing material. And this is pre existing material in a way. It's pre existing story. But it does not want to go for parody. It wants to critique, but it also wants to understand. And I think that's admirable. It does not succeed at that, but it is admirable. It wants to be one part Grey Gardens, one part American Psycho and one part Gypsy. And because they do not gel, all the things that could possibly work about the show are sort of thrown by the wayside critically. Let's move on to just sort of wrapping things up of where this show could land come Tony time. That is what you all really want to know. Tony chances. I do think ultimately this will get nominated for best score. We don't have a lot of original scores this year. It's this Lost Boys and two strangers carry a cake across New York. That's about it. So unless Tony nominators really hate this thing and it's possible that they could or if there's ends up being no real cast recording for this show that will, you know.
- [36:42]
You know, put it in the ground. But there are plenty of scores that were deemed lesser than when they opened. And then due to time and separation from production, listening on their own, people go, oh, there's actually something to this. When Death becomes reopened. Last season, a lot of people said that the score wasn't very good. I wasn't super enamored with the score when I first heard it in the. The took the cast recording for me to go, oh, no, I like this. I like this a lot. Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown was a notorious flop ripped to shreds by critics and had its fans. But ultimately, and took the cast recording coming out that spring before the Tony nominations for a lot of us to go, oh, the show doesn't work, but this score is fantastic. So I think that we cannot really judge the score until we can hear it on its own and have a bit more time with it. I do think it'll get nominated for that though. And I think Kristen will get nominated. I think actress in a musical is a very light field. She is still well liked in the community. Again, we're not really talking about this much, but I'm just saying people will say one thing on social media and then feel another way in private. And I think a lot of people in the Broadway community, and many of them Tony nominators feel a certain kind of way about Kristen that they're not sharing on social media because the temperature of the room is such that no one's willing to hear that. So just prepare yourselves for that. I could see this also getting in in the design categories. I think that the set is very impressive. The lighting is, you know, really enhances the. The evening. And the costumes are, well, accurate to both, you know, 21st century Florida, as there's also a little 1980s flare in there for flashbacks and then the French aristocratic court. There's. And again, there's not enough musicals this season to push Queen of Versailles out in the design category. So I think we're looking at set, lighting, costumes, actress and score. I think that's where the nominations happen. Probably no wins in any of those categories, but that's where we're at. I'm gonna take a quick break for myself and then we will get into Ragtime. So quick 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.
- [38:59]
You're a Coolidge dollar. You're the nimble tread of the feet of Fred Astaire. And we're back. Hello, everybody. So I have no idea how long the Queen of Versailles review is actually going to be. I will definitely edit some stuff out where I'm rambling, but I do think I recorded for almost a full fucking hour, which is crazy. If you have any questions that I did not cover with Queen of Versailles, please join the Discord channel or the substack and ask me there. I can talk a little bit more about it in fuller detail if I didn't already. I feel like I talked about so much and yet nothing at all in my Queen of Versailles review. But now we have Ragtime. Currently playing at Lincoln Center Theater. Ragtime is the Tony winning musical with a book by Terrence McNally based on the novel by E.L. doctorow, scored by Lynn Ahrens and Stephen Flaherty. It is currently directed by Lear Debessonet with choreography by Eleanor Scott. And in the program you will see creative consultant Chris Catelli. Many people have wondered, what does that mean? Creative consultant. You know what that means? You know what it means that Tony winning choreographer and Tony nominated director Chris Catelli is listed in the program as a, quote, creative consultant. But so Ragtime has had a reputation for many years as sort of like one of the last great American musicals. The plot of Ragtime kind of centers around a few different characters. It's the. The musical and the novel are Sort of historical fiction. It takes place at the turn of the century in 1906. The novel goes from like 19 forward in 1916. Whereas the musical it's a little murky of how much time exactly passes, particularly in Act 2. But when it begins it's 1906 and it is a time where America is going through a great deal of changes. It is A lot of progress is happening, but not for everyone and not at the same pace. The central characters are Mother who has no name other than mother and her family. Mothers played by Casey Levy in this production. Her husband. Father played by Colin Donnell. Her younger brother, otherwise known as Mother's younger brother played by Ben Levi Ross. Grandfather played by Tom Nellis. She has a son they mother finds when her. When father goes off for an expedition for a year to the North Pole. Mother finds a newly born black child in her garden buried in the ground and. And she takes the child in. The police find the woman who buried the child, a woman named Sarah. And mother takes the child and Sarah in. And while she does this, the father of Sarah's child, Coalhouse Walker, who is a piano player with a orchestra primarily specializing in ragtime music. Coalhouse comes to court Sarah to win her back after having left her not knowing she was pregnant, now knowing she has a child and wanting to be with her. He is a affluent and and rising member of American society, which is incredibly impressive as a black man at this time. But they he and Sarah encounter a bunch of racist Irish firemen who desecrate his car and Coalhouse is unable to see just seek justice. And when Sarah tries to help him she ends up being murdered at a rally for a vice presidential candidate. And Coalhouse goes on a rampage and ultimately is thwarted in his rampage and does not get the justice that he seeks. But he does cause chaos for a time and is able to ratify members of Mother's family, primarily Mother and mother's younger brother. Father does not join them in their progressiveness, but he does doubt his old ways of thinking. In addition to all of this, their son, the little boy, he has a weird premonition regarding Harry Houdini and the Archduke Ferdinand. Mother's younger brother is obsessed with Evelyn Nesbit and is has an awakening with. With Emma Goldman. And on top of all this there is an immigrant named Tata who comes to America from. I think it's. Where does he come from? I think it's from Slovakia, something like that. Let me. I'm going to actually look that up for a moment. But.
- [43:15]
Tata comes to America with his daughter, just known as the little girl. Their mother is dead. That is what they tell people in the musical. Anyone who's read the novel or seen the movie. Knows that she's not actually dead. She's just dead to him. In the music. What happens is they come to America. And Tata tries to make a career out of making silhouette pictures for people. But this does not work. They have no money. They eventually are, you know, living on the street. Tatya then takes his daughter out of New York City and up to, I believe, Boston. And after a union strike that gets very violent. He.
- [43:53]
Is discovered by a train conductor with a flip picture book that he's made for his daughter. But the train conductor likes the book and wants it. Tata sells it. And this launches a career for him. Where he finds money selling these moving picture books. He then gets a job in the movies. He reinvents himself and names himself the Baron. And he becomes a prosperous movie director. And he and Mother connect. And when Father eventually dies, a few years later. Tatya proposes he marries Mother. And they all live together. Tata, Mother, the little boy, the little girl. And Cole House Walker junior Juniors. Yeah. And that's. That is the plot of Time. And it is a lot. It is a great deal of story. It is a great deal of characters. The novel, if you haven't read it, I highly recommend. The novel is fantastic. But the novel is also, by the way, very weird. And Latvia. That's where Tatsia's from. He's from Latvia. I knew it wasn't Slovakia. I knew that was wrong. The novel is very weird. It sprawls many years, many different characters. And the musical.
- [44:59]
Tries to incorporate as much of the novel as it can. But because you only get about 2 hours and 45 minutes of the musical. Maybe 2 hours and 40. There's only so much it can include. And.
- [45:11]
Events of the novel are brought into the show. But the tone is different. I guess I'll say straight up that I've always had a bit of a weird spot with Ragtime. This has never been one of my musicals. This has been a musical from my generation. And of course, the generation before and after me. But specifically of my generation. This is sort of like one of the big ones for people of. It's a masterpiece. It's perfect. I've never agreed with that. I love the score of Ragtime. Every time I listen to Ragtime, I get very moved. I even cry a little bit anytime I've watched Dragtime. And I feel like I've spoken about this. When I reviewed the City center production last year, every time I've watched Dragtime, I am not moved to tears. It's music by Flaherty that grabs you and still grabs you in the theater, especially when it's treated as well as it is in this production. We have a full orchestra, a cast full of phenomenal singers. The music is done very proper in this production. And in the Beaumont, which is a relatively intimate theater for what is a thousand seat house, is not difficult for that music to rush over the floodlights and just grab you by the throat. And that is still very prevalent here. But there's something else about Ragtime that bothers me. Part of it is that the sprawling epicness of it all.
- [46:34]
Constantly makes me have to remind myself where we are in the story and who we're following and where they're all at. But also, there's a tone issue. Ragtime, when it arrives on Broadway in the 90s, arrived with the label of important epic theater. And that label has stuck with it for a lot of its fans. I question to the listeners of this podcast, what do you think exactly is important theater? When people say we need this now more than ever, what does that exactly mean? Who are Broadway audiences even? What are they thinking when they go into a show? And what is it that they learn when they walk out of a show?
- [47:12]
Is it a Broadway show's job to create anything than a well told story for an audience?
- [47:20]
Can a Broadway show reach across the footlights and change our mind or challenge us? Or is it just a safe haven? Is it just meant to entertain us? Does it have to be one of these things? Can it be all of these things? Can a musical actually be important? Can a Broadway musical actually change the world? Can it actually alter society's mind? I would argue no. I do not think that any Broadway musical has ever actually changed the world. Partly because it's so small scale. Broadway is a tiny speck in the entire world. And now with the Internet, obviously it can travel a lot further. But on its best success, a Broadway musical gets 1500 people eight times a week to see it. And with the price point of what Broadway shows are, there is no way that it's going to reach everybody and the demographic of New York theater goers. You are not changing minds with a show like Ragtime. It is very much a musical to me that has always felt like, congratulations white audiences. You understand all of the bad stuff in this show. You understand when the racism is happening. You understand when a character says something that is no good Good for you. You are moved by the power anthem in Act 2, and then the power anthem following that. And then the power anthem following that. Now, is that a bit cynical on my end? Sure. But this is where I come again with when it comes to tone. And this ties into Queen of Versailles. A character's action, a story, a point in a story is just what it is. It's a point in the story. But how it is presented, what the intention of the author is, how it is played, is where things change. Most of the events in Ragtime the Musical happen in Ragtime the novel. But in Ragtime the Novel, it is not aspirational, it is not motivational, it is not optimistic, it is not moving. It is done in a very distanced, almost cold kind of way where Doctorow is saying, the American Dream is real. It can happen. It's very fickle with who it happens for more often than not, it happens if you are white, and it happens if you can assimilate to prominent white culture. Tata comes to America, and when he is Tata, the American Dream does not work for him. But an opportunity knocks, he grabs it. And he eventually changes who he is, not totally, because his full name is the Baron Ashkenazi. So it's like. It's. Yeah, it's weird in the book, it's a punchline in the musical. I don't know how I feel about it. But once he assimilates as Baron, once he's able to show success and affluence, that is when society accepts him. And that is when he's able to live the American Dream. Kohlhouse Walker is a man who has all the potent, all of the potential to win the American Dream. He is smart, he is charming, he is talented, he's a hard worker. And because the people who he shares this country with do not respect him, will not allow him to succeed, he turns into the vilified version of himself. In the novel, that is, the rampage that Coalhouse goes on is a downward spiral of the character he once was. The musical paints Coalhouse as a tragic hero, which he is not. He's a tragic anti hero. In the first act, he is what we think might be a hero. But the musical continues that narrative for him all throughout Act 2, despite the actions he does. It's the same actions as in the novel, but the viewpoint of those actions changes. In Ragtime, the musical ends on a bold, uplifting reprise of Wheels of a Dream, which feels very shallow to me. It is going for tugging at the heartstrings. It is going for the mo. The moving elements of well, Coalhouse's child will be able to have that dream now. He is the future of. Of us and of this country. And if we're being honest here, Coalhouse's son has could go one of two ways. Either because of his skin color, he's not going to get the American dream, or if he does, it's simply because he is with an affluent family that is able to shield him from a lot of the racism of. Of the country.
- [52:04]
Drag Time does not have that nuance as a musical. It is too busy going big and going bold that it does not actually have that kind of honest reckoning with itself about the country moving forward. It has characters who are the bad racists. It has moments where it acknowledges that the system is corrupt. But then all is sort of swept under the rug in the last 20 minutes for the sake of uplifting motivational, send out the audience on a high note. And part of this is because of the era in which Ragtime was written. Ragtime was created as the brainchild of Garth Trabinsky, who wanted to create the next great American musical epic because he fancied himself a Flo Ziegfeld. He fancied himself a Hal Prince or a David Merrick. He wanted to foster new works that were not just good, but were bombastically good. And Ragtime, as I've come to understand it in its creation because the original production was directed by Frank Galati with musical staging by Graziella Danielle. As I come to understand it, when the show tried out in Toronto, it was a big hit or at least people really enjoyed it financially. Who's to say with Drabinski. And it goes to la where it is also critically successful and, you know, trimmed up a little bit of fat. But a few different cast members and it comes to New York, where those who saw it in Toronto, those who saw it in LA said something changed. Whether it's the fact that it was in a much larger space so you were further away from it. Not everyone in the cast was the same. So that might have had something to do with it. Certain changes that were small ultimately led to not death, but weakening by a thousand cuts of making the show start to feel a little more shallow than it had on the onset. And this is in 1998, developed throughout 1995, 6 and 7. Coming to Broadway in 98, as we are in this decade of economic prosperity, of feel good entertainment that is the height of importance. And Ragtime being the epic that Drabinski wants it to be leans into the taking 1900Americans out on a high of the promise of this country, the promise of the dream. And that is it meeting the moment. And as time has gone on and that moment has passed and other moments that are much more toxic and sinister have followed, many of us have come to understand that that dream is a fallacy. Or rather, it is a bait and switch. And it's hard to watch Ragtime now and hear this glorious music used in a way that ultimately, it's hard for me not to feel a little manipulated by it. This is why when I listen to it, I am all on board. When I watch it, I'm not completely on board. And I'm not sure if any production can fix that for me. But people who saw the original production on Broadway claim that that was when the show worked. It had a vision, it had style, it had flair. People who saw it in Toronto and then on Broadway or LA and then Broadway swear that when it was in LA or Toronto, it had style, it had flair, it had vision, it had grit. And something got lost on Broadway. People who then saw the 09 revival first and then see this production. Talk about the beauty of the simplicity of the design of the staging of 09 that gets lost in the manic staging of the turntable of this production. There's no version of Ragtime in the moment in front of you, I believe, that ever delivers on the promise of what Ragtime is. A musical. Writes a check for.
- [55:43]
This production. Sorry. Which is a long way to get to this production. I've been, like, doing all this whole thing about Ragtime as a musical. But this is to say, this production does not deliver for me the promise of Ragtime as a musical. This production has its own problems. It also has its merits. The truth is that Ragtime, for all of the things I just said, it also has, probably objectively, the greatest opening number in musical theater history. At the very least, the greatest in the last 50 years. It's just a perfect number that sets up the style, sets up the story, sets up all of the main characters and the supporting characters, and weaves them in and out in a really succinct, economical way that is very exciting, invigorating. And any production that has it, it's your job to not fuck it up. And unfortunately, in the original production, which. And you can watch the opening number on the Tony Awards, you can even watch the whole bootleg of the original production online.
- [56:40]
Graziella Danielle's staging of it is so iconic of eventually, all three groups, the white Americans, the immigrants and the black Americans, grouping together and circling each other as almost these sort of tectonic plates that are shifting and trying to find their spot while not colliding. Because ultimately, in order for America to be a melting pot, it has to melt. And yet these groups are not sure how to do it. So they remain separate ingredients. And that image has always kind of stuck with the. With the opening number. And people have tried their own versions of it, and this production does try to do its own version of it. And it's a very fluid staging of using the. It's not even a turntable. It's really a donut, because the center of the turntable doesn't move. That remains stationary, and the outer rim is what moves. But they use that to kind of. Rather than have three clumps, have three lines of immigrants, white Americans, black Americans sort of circling themselves and then briefly colliding and then separating. And it is.
- [57:48]
It works fine. It works fine. They do the opening number fine. I'm gonna get this part out of the way because there was talk about the set design and, oh, it's not as grand as the original production. And then people saying, I don't need a grand set design. I think it works. I don't need a grand set design from Ragtime. I don't need a grand set design for anything. What I need is a design in total that has a point of view, that has cohesion and does not ugly. This design is ugly. It is a very ugly set. It has a LED screen in the back with projections that constantly just make no sense to me. And it has these, like. I don't even know how to describe it. It's like veils. These. These curved veils that drop in from the flies over and over again that also kind of get projections on them, but also mask the LED screen to make it look less like an LED screen and at its edge best. When it's best used, it looks like fog in the distance when they're doing, you know, journey on. The proscenium is like a broken vaudeville brass proscenium. It's. It's. It is not an attractive design. It is helped by the lighting a great deal, which is good because the stage is ultimately flooded with black. It's meant to sort of almost be like a black box with stuff popping in and out of it, which is. Which is an idea for a design that I love. I love it in Phantom. I love that in Sound Inside. I love it for the original Pippin. But this is not that. This is not an effective version of that. I'm sorry. It's. There's times where it looks so fucking ugly. The mother and father's house, I think, is an ugly look. It's. It's piecemeal, but there's. It's not spaced properly, and it looks incomplete when Mother does. Back to before, the set becomes like a giant comforter that starts at the proscenium and travels all the way to the back of the Beaumont stage. And if you know the Beaumont, you know that it famously has a very deep stage. And so the idea is that it's sort of going on into infinity, but it just looks like the world's largest comforter that then gets lit up into various colors during Back to Before. And at one point, it gets flooded with red, and I'm like, oh, my God, we're singing Back to Before in the middle of a Tampax commercial. I'm sorry, it's just an. To me, it is a very ugly esthetic on this show and one that has no point of view. Why. Why does it look like this? Other than the fact that clearly we're trying to put money in the music and in the cast? And that means that there are budget cuts on the set because David Korins is a good set designer. But as a set designer, you are working with a whole team, and you're working with a unified vision. And if you don't have proper communication from your head of team, AKA your director, you're at a loss. You're just kind of working in the dark, figuring out what's the best way to go about it and when you don't know what the staging is going to be like and what the requirements are. You're trying to create as open a playing space for the cast as possible while also providing some context for what scenes are happening where. Hence the LED screen. And it just. It. It doesn't work. There are moments of staging that I enjoy. I like the staging for Crime of the Century. It's a similar vibe from how that number is always done. It's not overly busy. I think the opening number is not terribly overly busy. Things kind of fall apart for me, staging wise as it goes on. There's a lack of tension for me in the staging, especially with how they use the donut. When Coalhouse Walker and his. His posse have taken over the Morgan Library. The way that it is set up is that there is a wooden. A grand wooden door in the middle of the donut in the stationary part of the turntable. And in front of the door is Father and the head of police and reporters and spectators. And on the revolving donut is Coal House and his vigilante group.
- [61:49]
And they are constantly spinning as Father and. And the police and the reporters are in the middle of the donut. I do not know why this is. It would make far more sense for Coalhouse and his group to be in the middle of the donut, holding ranks inside the library, locked inside, while the circus happening outside of that door is pounding their way in. As the. As the donut is turning, so have Father and the head of police on the donut. Have the reporters on the donut have it constantly swirling to show the chaos and the building tension outside of that door, while Kohlhaas and his group are holding firm inside. During Success, which is one of my favorite numbers in the show, or even Gliding, but Gliding is actually my favorite number. Success is probably my second favorite number. But Success, where Tata is trying to build a life in America with his daughter, there is a lot of moving about the stage, but not with any kind of precision or motivation. I will actually also say another issue I have with just the staging is how often characters will run on stage to say their line with no reason and then run off. There's also a lot of wandering around the thrust of the Beaumont for no reason. There are times when everything comes into sharp focus, and the simplicity of a spotlight with a character standing stark still is very effective. There are other times when that's happening, and then the stage starts to get flooded with lights in the back. Like, I don't love how the stage starts to flood with light during your Daddy's Son, but I do enjoy how Joshua Henry, at the top of Act 2, is stationary for most of his opening breakdown. I think that is an effective use of lighting and staging. But as I was saying, in Success, Tata is creating these silhouettes, and he's watching the people in the tenements and in the city of New York in general, and finding inspiration from them for his art, to create art, to sell art, finding inspiration everywhere. And the stage is flooded with the cast in various, you know, pockets of the Beaumont when he's singing about the silhouettes, and it's a little cluttered and messy. This is another moment where I thought it would have been effective to have civilians of the tenement on the donut circling Tate as he sees inspiration from all of them, have him in the center as they're circling him. In the original production, you see the Civilians walking across the stage in front of and behind a curtain. So you actually see literal silhouettes as he's talking about that. And that's just. That's like the kind of stuff that you miss in this production, that kind of metaphorical staging and design. I also gotta say, I'm not entirely sure why, at the top of the show, the cast rises from the trapdoor a la the fiddler cast rising from the grave. In tradition. Not sure what that's all about. There are moments of the show where I think the staging is well executed and there's a. And there's a great deal of fluidity. There's also a lot of times where Leo Debessinet and her team try to incorporate microaggressions that the script itself does not reflect in order to show the audience that while the musical is constantly pushing towards a final goal of American optimism based on what we know now, it's a little harder to buy into that. And some of it works, some of it doesn't. I can't say that it makes me bend to Ragtime's will as much as I want it to, but it's nice to have them in there. Anyway.
- [65:36]
I'm looking for. There's. There's a lot of stuff to be said about viewpoints, which is a directing teaching by Anne Bogart and Tina Landau, which is ultimately the power of using the space you have to create not just a stage picture, but a story of tension, of relating messages. And there are so many times in this production of Ragtime where that feels lost, where there is, weirdly, a great deal of proscenium style staging for what is a thrust stage and with no dynamics to any of it. There's a lot of filing across the stage and storming the front of the stage. And I would argue you could take a shot every time the cast forms a line and then storms the front of the stage. And sometimes it's effective. It's effective in the opening, less effective in success for me. And I will also give credit of using the voms of the thrust of the Beaumont constantly, as well as the entrances and the wings of the proscenium part of the stage to constantly just keep the audience on its toes of where characters are coming from. I really appreciate that. I did not find they were all motivated. It sometimes felt like, well, this character is coming out of the vom now because the last character came from stage right. And granted, there is merit to that of, okay, like, let's not keep repeating the same places. Let's let's keep things moving from different directions. But every time Evelyn Nesbitt came on stage, usually from the Vombs, I was always just like, I'm not sure why she's coming from here and why she's just sort of running across the stage to say her line and going on stage. This is not a fault of the actress so much as I'm just like, the team is not helping the actress figure out what she needs to do. Let's move on to the cast. Overall, this is a very well cast production of Ragtime. Everybody is a very strong singing actor. Musically, this thing sounds pretty fantastic. If I had any qualms musically, it is ultimately that Casey Levy and Colin Donnell just sound a little too modern. I felt this way about both of them at Encores. I will say Casey Levy has created a far more classic sound this time around than she did at City Center. But ultimately her voice is just. It isn't. It is a modern sounding singing voice and that's not her fault. That is naturally how her voice sounds. I found Casey's performance as Mother, her acting in particular, to be really strong. I thought she really took the time in the last year and through rehearsals and previews and throughout the run to really find an arc for Mother that is both leaning into the comfortable stoicism of a woman of a certain class at this particular time and the reckoning of her character with the changes coming to her life fast and loose. Because Mother's arc, ultimately she comes to be an independent, progressively thinking woman pretty quickly and spends the majority of Act 2 rebuffing her husband's conservative thinking. And to Casey's credit, because she is a smart actress, she finds new ways to approach each rebuffing. It doesn't stop the script from being repetitive, but it allows her as an actress to find new ways to say the same thing over and over again. And I greatly appreciate that. Colin Donnell, again, similar modern, poppy sound on the singing, which is I don't want him to do a bum. An over the top put upon classical singing voice. You can hear the fakery of that from a mile away. But.
- [69:05]
Vocally it's just sort of not a match with the, with the style of the score. Not that he sounds bad, but you're just like, oh, you sound. Your voice sounds like it's seen an iPhone before. I think performance w he gets the job done. Father's a tough role. He basically exists for the audience to hate and to allow people like Mother and Mother's younger brother to say the lines that we, the audience, are already thinking. And as a pawn for all of that, Donald acquits himself nicely. I do not think that I enjoyed the performance of Ben Levi Ross much as Mother's younger brother. It's. He has the passion and the focus that you equate with that role. But he also like, whereas he sounds correct when he's singing the role, he has the style for the flair of this music. His acting style, though, how he says the lines. I'm like, you sound like you've seen an iPhone. He does the thing that I talked about in my brief review of Caroline with Chloe Grace Moretz, where, like, he goes up on a lot of lines. He goes, I want to see Kohlhaas Walker. We are friends, we've known each other. He does that a lot. And it bugs the shit out of me. Not just with him, like, anytime someone does that. His performance reminded me a lot of his performance in the Connector. And because they are different types of characters in very different eras, that attitude did not work for me on this when it's just ironic because his performance at City center for me was one of the highlights. And I think part of that is because I saw the potential of where his performance could go and I did not find that potential to be realized here. It's not a totally misguided performance. As I said, the passion is there. He understands the sort of heated, messy energy of Mother's younger brother. It's just the execution of the text that really bugs me. I would say that my weakest cast member would be Shana Taub as Emma golden, who I. Who, whereas Ben Levi Ross maybe does not attack the text with the authenticity of the era that I want, he at least has the gumption necessary for his role. I do not find the gumption in Shayna Taubbs Emma Goldman. It's a pretty mild mannered revolutionary and it's not a large role, so it has to be impactful when you're on stage. And I just did not get that from her. The two MVPs for me are Brandon Uranowitz as Tata and Joshua Henry as Coalhouse Walker. Joshua Henry, I actually found more of an engaging scene partner this time than he was at City Center. It's possible that with more rehearsal time, with more performances under his belt, and building a stronger connection with. With Nichelle Lewis, who has gotten a better harness on the role of Sarah. More on that in a second, they are able to share the stage together in a way that I felt that Henry wasn't sharing. The stage with her at City Center. Wheels of a Dream felt like a solo for Henry with Michelle Lewis doing background vocals. And here it feels like a genuine duet and which is also why it's one of the major highlights of the, of the evening. Also, can I just ask this for everybody? When Wheels of a Dream begins, when you hear the do, do, do, do, does it not give you like a little bit of Disney Renaissance vibes? Or not even Disney Renaissance, but just like animation of that era, An American tale. Am I, am I alone in thinking this? I just heard do.
- [72:24]
And I just, I hear 1995 animation right now. It's just my brain. I love it, it's beautiful. But it's just like every time I hear it, I just, I just think 1990s animation. So let me know if you if that, if you think that too. But Nichelle Lewis is Sarah. Sarah is such a, is such a tricky role. And someone wrote I think pretty recently or maybe no, or maybe this was a few years ago. I just remember it stuck with me that Sarah is a role that it takes a talent like Audra McDonald's to make work. Because Sarah does a truly horrendous thing of burying her child. And your daddy's Son is an investigation into her psyche to understand what got her to that moment in her, in her life and in her emotions to do this. And it is powerful. It's also relatively childlike. It's a childlike mentality. So there's something simple minded about Sarah, but she can't have total arrested development because then her romance with Coal House feels imbalanced and she doesn't have as much stage time as you think. She dies at the end of act one and she has one scene in act two. And while your daddy son is a powerful, powerful song, it's just one song of a show that has plenty, plenty of big old Belton ballads. And so how do you make an impact to Sarah? How do you make sense of her character? And I think that Nichelle Lewis has done a very good job of making the role.
- [73:59]
More realistically simple minded while not being totally childlike and also allowing her to be a grown woman and have a relationship with Cole House. She has a very good chemistry with Joshua Henry. Now, as I said, they really, truly share the stage together. And you watch her journey in your daddy's son.
- [74:19]
I wonder if again, as this poster had written at some point in time with the Audra McDonald of it all, if it's that the role itself, good as it is and as good as Nichelle is, is not actually as.
- [74:34]
Impactful without someone like Audra. We talk a lot about Audra's Tony performance in Gypsy and how I've said that the way that Audra can turn her insides out on a dime through song is pretty remarkable. And when it's used well, it is unforgettable in something like your daddy son, the way she is able to.
- [75:02]
Hold firm and hold tight and then quietly but quickly unravel in a way that doesn't feel performative. It just feels honest and feels almost operatic. You remember that. You remember the bleeding heart that she lays bare on that stage in that song. And it's. It's just. It's a really tough task to ask anybody to do. And it's hard to know when you're going too big. It's hard to know when you're reigning it in. And it's hard to ask an actor to get there eight times a week if that's not naturally in their toolkit. And Nichelle goes to a lot of great places, but not for me, to those heights that Audra can get to. And that's an unfair comparison. Audra is a once in a generation talent, but it does expose the limitations of a role like Sarah. And I think the expectations we put on that role are unfair because for a lot of us, our introduction to it was Audra McDonald. And there is a blurred line of our love and our admiration of Audra and our expectations for what the role of Sarah can be. And I think that Nichelle handles the role very well and flies high frequently. If she doesn't make the same impact that Audra does, it's because of the uniqueness of Audra as a talent and not any kind of slight towards Nichelle, who is very talented and proving to be a very promising addition to the Broadway community. So props to her. Very much so. I think that's everyone in the cast I can talk about. I'm not gonna talk about the kids in this show. As we all know, I am not a f of children on stage. That's another issue I have with Ragtime. It has an over reliance on the young boy. And if you do not have a kid who can sell it, it really fucks up a lot of the show. A show that I already am not totally sold on. I am less sold on if the child actor is not great. It's. It's just. I think it is really, really tough. It is a tough nut to crack to ask ask a child actor to convey so much with so Little. And with a role that ultimately, I think is not terribly well adapted for the stage. I suppose that's really it with Ragtime. I. The other things I guess I'll say is, you know, it was a very responsive audience. It was very well behaved audience. Everyone was really eager to be there. This is a show that I think a lot of people feel the need to watch. The question is, what is that need and why? I. I would challenge you to ask yourself. What is it about Ragtime that you think makes it important? Does it challenge your way of thinking? Does it embolden your way of thinking? I would argue it probably emboldens what you already know. And in a way that makes you feel good. And there's no crime in that. I think that theater can do a lot for you in various ways. It doesn't have to do everything. And it doesn't have to do one thing every time.
- [77:55]
But I would argue that for me and I. And for a few people I know. Actually there are ways in which Ragtime feels more important now than ever to some people. And feels more like a lie and performative to people than ever. I do not think it's performative. I think it's very earnest. And I would not take this score away for anything in the world. And there is a chemical response you get from moments in this score. But that doesn't mean that I get emotional from the story. That from the way that the story is being told. If that makes sense. And this production doesn't hurt the show for me. I don't think that this show mishandles the text in any way. I think that there's just a lot of stuff that is sloppily done in this production physically. That because the score is so good. And the show has such a beloved reputation. It glosses over issues that I would have with this production. And I do not want to take away what people love about it. Because the people next to me had never seen Ragtime before. Had never been to the Beaumont before. And they were enthralled with this, with the space. They were, like, super obsessed with the thrust of it all. But they also were going. Oh, wow, this musical is so incredible. One of the best things I've ever seen. I'm like, yeah, it's. It makes an impact. But there is. There is something that I just can't shake about it. That rings a little hollow. In addition to the fact that there's timeline issues with Act 2. Of Just like things that happen over the course of three years in the Novel feel like they happen within a week or two of each other in Act 2. Like Tatya's rise to prominence in the movies and the fact that Kohlhaas and Sarah's baby never ages, passes past two months. That child remains two months. Even though he is found sometime in father's year long expedition, Kohlhaas is courting Sarah for five months at the very least. By the time Sarah dies, that baby is at least seven or eight months old, is able to be propped up a little bit. And then by the time that Coalhouse has taken the Morgan Library, by the time back to before happens, that child is at least a year old, possibly a year and a half, maybe even two if we're going by the musical's timeline. And yet it just remains a loaf of bread in size the entire show. And of course part of that is like you just logistically need to have that baby like that all the time because you're not bringing a baby on stage. I'm just saying it's one of those things. That's it with Ragtime, everybody. In terms of Tony's. I mean, it's such a thin year for musicals and this is such a big show with a lot of love from the community. Just like in terms of its legacy, Ragtime tends to do well nomination wise. No matter what. I think revival is obviously a clear nomination. Actor for Josh Henry, possibly for Brandon Uranowitz. I think Casey Levy is getting in there for actress in a musical. I would imagine Ben Levi Ross for featured actor in a musical. Mother's Younger Brother tends to have a lot of fuel behind it in terms of nominations. We'll see what happens. When it comes to Cats, the Jellicle Ball. And if Schminga Doone ends up being a potpourri of featured performing nominations, I would say costumes and lighting for sure are nominations. I think the lighting does do a lot of the heavy, heavy lifting in this production. The sound design actually was kind of off for me. I was sitting in the front row of the loge and sometimes the. The orchestra sounded like it was muffled under a couple of pillows. Other times it sounded super overwhelmingly gorgeous. And I think that's just a problem with the Beaumont is depending on where you're sitting, the sound can really suck. But for Floyd Collins, I thought thought it was pretty pristine. So what are you gonna do? I'm sure direction and choreography will be nominations that it gets. I would not nominate Lear for this. I would nominate Eleanor for the choreography. I think she does a perfectly fine job, but I would argue that Eleanor Scott's choreography is at its best when it is taking a page from Graziella Danielle's originals. There are moments in her choreography that feel, again, too modern. Some of it is in the Getting Ready rag. I. We don't love her staging, her movement for success, but also when it comes to this, we don't know how much influence Catelli had, how much influence the other Tony winning director had. So I'll just say from what I watched of the choreography, of the direction, of the tone of the work with the actors.
- [82:19]
I found that the ensemble worked together really well. It's a well balanced, well woven ensemble of actors. Props to all of them for making that work. I think that for every scene or number that does make good use of the stage and of the voms and of the wingspace, there are other scenes that do not. And there are times when the choreography works for me, like in Crime of the Century and mostly the opening, and then times when it doesn't. I think this is a perfectly fine revival. I do not find it magnificent in the way that others do. The big question mark for me is how does Cast the Jellicle Ball fit in the Broadhurst? Because if it fits well, if cast, the Jellicle Ball can pull it off.
- [83:01]
B
Off.
- [83:01]
A
I'm gonna tell you now, I think that that's like a genuine revelatory revival that takes weaker material and fucking shoots it to the moon. And I'm really excited to see how they go about it in the new year. So that's it for this. We're gonna get into my interview with Teal Dvornick, author of History Hiding Around Broadway, as well as her known social media footprint as the Backstage Blonde. So, yeah, let's take a quick break, and then we will care. From Teal.
- [83:33]
You're the top. Yeah. You're an arrow collar. You're the top.
- [83:39]
You're a Coolidge dollar. You're the nimble tread of the feet of Fred Astaire. Tealvornick. Welcome to Broadway Breakdown.
- [83:48]
B
Thanks for having me.
- [83:49]
A
You have just written the book History Hiding around Broadway. Backstage lore, Secrets and surprises from New York's famed theater district. Not since A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum has there been such a mouthful of a title, and I'm very much into it.
- [84:03]
B
Wait, I love that. That's so true.
- [84:05]
A
It's very true. I love it. So let's then get to know you a little bit. Most people would know you online as the Backstage Blonde, but there's a woman behind the backstage. A woman behind the blonde. And how did that woman. How did Broadway enter that woman's chat? What got you hooked on that bug?
- [84:22]
B
It kind of happened accidentally. I. I was majoring in fashion at the University of Alabama, and then I transferred to Stanford University, and the closest thing they had to fashion was costume design. So I worked on Richard III my first semester as a theater major, and I absolutely fell in love with the entire process from making the costumes to being a dresser. Backstage, it felt like a team sport, everyone coming together to create this amazing piece of art. So from the age of 19, I was like, I'm gonna work on Broadway.
- [84:52]
A
And. And now you do? Very much. So what was your first job working on Broadway?
- [84:58]
B
Wicked.
- [84:59]
A
Wicked.
- [85:00]
B
So I jumped right into the deep end, and it was an incredible experience. By working at Wicked, I felt like I could conquer anything. Because it's such a gigantic beast of a show.
- [85:11]
A
Absolutely. I mean, the whole show. Yeah. But those costumes are huge and intricate and angular and. What would. What would you say is the most common upkeep you have to do with costumes on Wicked?
- [85:24]
B
Oh, that's such a good question. Hold on, I need to think that through. Okay. The costume at Wicked that takes the most upkeep would be Glinda's bubble dress, because sequins are constantly falling off. They're all hand sewn onto that amazing, amazing costume. And the dresser has to constantly re. Add them.
- [85:42]
A
Oh, my God. When you say that.
- [85:45]
B
Oh, definitely. But the costumes for that show as a whole are so well made. They really don't take an insane amount.
- [85:52]
A
Of upkeep that well. That's good to know. Are there any details in the costumes that maybe an audience member wouldn't notice from the Gershwin audience? Because it's so such a massive, massive house.
- [86:04]
B
One of my favorite little details about the Wicked costumes is specifically the mob costume plot. So when they're like an angry mob at the beginning and the end of the show, and during Witch Hunters, they're wearing these like gigantic coats and, you know, super angular, like, strange looking hats and all over the hats. And sometimes on the costume and sometimes on the costumes themselves, they have like little gears and pieces of hardware kind of in a steampunk way. But the costume designer did that to match the set design. Another fun little fact about the Shiz University costumes and the mob costumes is that the costume designer used a lot of leather and faux animal fur and skin, because think about how twisted that is at that time. It's just university. And in the Oz world, these, you know, Animals are being suppressed. So it's so crazy that people are wearing animal skin.
- [86:59]
A
Absolutely. Yeah. That is, it's quite psychotic in a very pointed way. Like it's making a statement. Yeah, yeah.
- [87:07]
B
The costumes make a statement for sure, 1,000%.
- [87:10]
A
Let's talk a bit more about this book. What, what inspired you to write History Hiding Around Broadway? I also, I do love the title because it's, it's the wording of History Hiding. Like it's in plain sight. It's there and you don't even know it. And I love that.
- [87:24]
B
It's so true. You. You get so wrapped up and like getting into the theater and then seeing the show, you forget to like, kind of slow down and like look at the molding and the pictures that are lining these hallways of like Irvin Berlin or Richard Rogers and really appreciating like the magic that just happened in these spaces.
- [87:41]
A
1,000%.
- [87:42]
B
I guess my inspo for the book, it's kind of evolved over the years. I was standing backstage, you know, some of my first years on Broadway, listening to these amazing, insane stories that the stagehands had to share and collecting, you know, all of this knowledge about the history of these theaters, the history of what's come before. And I decided to become a licensed tour guide through the government. I had to take a 200 question test. It was really intense and hard. And then through taking that test and studying for it, all these questions I didn't even know that I had about Broadway and the way things are set up were being answered. Like in 1811, a grid system was established in Manhattan. So a hundred years later, when the theater district was being built by the Schubert daddy. The Schubert daddies, I call them all like the rich daddies of the 1910s and 20s. It's true.
- [88:32]
A
Yeah.
- [88:33]
B
When they were establishing the theater district, these theaters had to play like Tetris with each other to figure out, you know, how can we fit these gigantic theaters into a pre established grid.
- [88:43]
A
Yeah. There was a name for theaters like the Imperial. The lobby is thin, that leads to the larger theater. What was the name for those theaters again?
- [88:51]
B
I've named them the Sliver Theaters.
- [88:53]
A
The Sliver Theaters, yes. And I believe you said that the Imperial is the only one left. Or there were like two, three of those left, perhaps.
- [89:01]
B
The Imperial, the Todheims, the New Amsterdam.
- [89:06]
The l'.
- [89:06]
A
Enfantin. Did you have a nickname for that one as well? Or theaters like that one as well? I feel like I recall a nickname for that one. 1. Am I making that up?
- [89:13]
B
You might be making that up. It's a former sliver theater, as was the Palace.
- [89:17]
A
Okay. That's what I'm thinking of.
- [89:19]
B
Okay.
- [89:19]
A
Because I was like, it's a part of this in some way. It used to be a sliver theater. So the entrance used to be different for the l', Enfantana is what you're saying?
- [89:26]
B
Yes. And now we have an American eagle where that used to sit. But the entrance sat on Broadway.
- [89:31]
A
But it's no more capitalism. I hate it. There was something else about the ceiling that you have in the book about the l', Enfantin, or it used to be like a. Sorry, you say it. It's your book.
- [89:42]
B
It used to be retractable. When this theater was built, they named it the Globe, after Shakespeare's Globe. So they added in a retractable ceiling to, like, really mimic what was going on in London. And there's no historic evidence that the ceiling was ever opened. But I finagled my way into the Marriott marquee across the street so I could get up high enough to look down and see if I. I could see that, like, rectangle shape, and it's there.
- [90:07]
A
That's incredible. How did you go about researching a book like this?
- [90:11]
B
All sorts of different ways. I've read hundreds of different history books about New York, a lot of different Broadway autobiographies, biographies. Just any Broadway history book I could get my hands on, even if it was out of print. And then a lot of it is lore that I heard backstage and just picked up from different people, like fun little nuggets. And then, you know, trying to, like, cross reference that with the different books. And it's. I really dove deeply into books and into the local libraries because I. I wanted to find things that weren't online, that weren't readily available.
- [90:43]
A
Absolutely. I think that's the best way to go about it. What would you say is your favorite Broadway theater and why?
- [90:50]
B
Oh, I love the New Amsterdam Theater. I consider it to be the birthplace of Broadway. It's just. Just so gorgeous on the inside. It's like. It's lush and opulent, and the first show to ever premiere there, like, in 1903, was a midsummer's Night's Dream. So if you've never been in that theater, just kind of, like, picture that show and you'll get a sense for the vibe.
- [91:10]
A
Absolutely. I mean, the ceiling alone gives you earthy but godlike aesthetic. It is a beautiful theater, beautifully restored. What was a fact when you were researching this book that really surprised you? That that not only that you didn't know, but you're like, oh, that is awesome. And I cannot wait for listeners to read about that.
- [91:28]
B
This is like a little random nugget. One day I was walking down 41st street, and I saw this large man with a big beard smoking a cigar outside the Nederlander. And I was like, oh, he's got to work here. He's definitely a stagehand or something. It turns out he's an engineer for the Nederlander organization, and he told me that whenever he's working inside of the walls in any one of those theaters, he will take a playbill from the current product, put it in a Ziploc bag, and hide it within the wall as like, a little time capsule for someone to find at some point.
- [92:00]
A
That's incredible. I mean, that's. I mean, that's literally history hiding around Broadway.
- [92:06]
B
Truly.
- [92:07]
A
Yeah, I love that you also, you highlight a lot of the landmarks and a lot of the events, not just the shows or the performers, but the backstage people or the people who write the shows, who design the shows, who, you know, work on the shows. Because I feel like a lot of theater fans, passionate as they are, really only are passionate about what they see in front of them on the stage in that moment, and then go home and just think about that, and they don't think about all the things that. All the pieces that have to go in place to make it happen. So I really appreciate you spotlighting many of those people.
- [92:40]
B
Oh, thanks so much. Yeah, that was really important to me. And I don't blame audience members. They are already consuming so much and such a spectacle that why would you think about how it all kind of happens backstage? But truly, these theaters are like. Like an ant hill. There are people in and out of them all day long. People showing up, you know, hours and hours before the show even starts to start prepping and getting everything ready. And, you know, they're rehearsing just as much as the actors are.
- [93:06]
A
No, absolutely. And I. I mean, as a theater nerd, longtime theater nerd, I've always hungered for more information, and not just appreciating the shows that I see, but appreciating the people who go and work on them. I think that that's, as you said, it's just as important part. And I'm glad that this book is able to do that for people.
- [93:29]
I'm sure you do the same thing, especially now that you've written this book. But, like, when you go see a show, do you sometimes sit in the theater and think about what else has been in that theater and what it might have felt looking at that show in that theater.
- [93:42]
B
Absolutely. Yeah. And a thing that I've experienced as an audience member, but then also working backstage stage, is how the spectacle of it all has changed and morphed over the years. And there's not so much space backstage anymore because of all the, you know, animatronics and the lifts and just all the. Oh, I don't even know how to. How to say this and how to, like, super describe it all, but the hydraulics of.
- [94:10]
A
Of scenery and. And of productions has gotten so elaborate and requires so much machinery now, because you look at photos of spectacles at Broadway shows in the 40s and 50s. Right. And they look so intense, but they're ultimately like very detailed backdrops with, like, one or two pieces on. And that is how theaters were ultimately built. They're like, we don't need all this wing space. That's. We. We've got these flies. And now, I guess, like, a great example would be the majestic. Right. Of a theater that people associate with spectral because it's such a large theater, but famously, on Broadway, we all know, has a very shallow wingspace and had to go through massive construction in order to house Phantom of the Opera. And luckily, shows after Phantom now can benefit from all of that. But, like, at the time.
- [94:59]
That theater was not built for the modernity of a show like Phantom's design. So that's sort of an interesting thing of how theaters have had to adapt to that over the years, I suppose.
- [95:09]
B
Exactly. That's such a good example. The same thing happened with the Minskoff Theater, even though that was built in, like, 1972, I think, blew out the basement so there'd be more space for a larger and crazier Pride Rock. Right?
- [95:21]
A
Yes, I remember you writing that in the book. Yeah.
- [95:24]
B
And then thinking about some of these old theaters that are over a hundred years old and the sound systems that we now have available to us, it's like you can kind of hear it through the walls a little bit. It wasn't originally like this. And then also thinking about all the theaters that used to be way downtown before the Times Square theater district was established. And they were lit with, literally, fire. Like, there were so many theater fires because they. They had those little gas lights at the front of the stage. So, yeah, the light bulb really changed things.
- [95:52]
A
It. It really did. And the. You. You mentioned the sort of crowning of the Nick came the Great White Way, and. And all. All of These things that we not necessarily take for granted, but just assume have always been the case. You. You give little nuggets of that as well, which I really appreciate. You also talk about. About not just, like, you know, this theater was built and here's, like, why it's pretty, and then the shows that went in there, but also the origins of some of these theaters, because many of these theaters were built to be theaters, but not every theater was. And so you talk about theaters like the Winter Garden Theater, which I think you said it's, like, one of only two standing theaters. Maybe it's the only one that's standing now that wasn't originally built to be a Broadway theater.
- [96:33]
B
Yes, one of two. I love how much you, like, absorb from the book. This makes me so happy.
- [96:37]
A
I do my job. Shannon, you wrote a good book. What do you want from me?
- [96:42]
B
Thanks. Yeah. So the Nederlander and then the Winter Garden has the most fun story. It, you know, started its life as the American Horse Exchange, as, you know.
- [96:50]
A
Yes. And that's. But that's why I love that theater. I actually. No, I take it back. The Winter Garden is my favorite theater because, a. It's super beautiful, and it's so interestingly spaced because it is a big theater, but it's a wide theater with a low ceiling. So every seat I've ever sat in that theater, I've never felt super far away.
- [97:09]
It has, like, an intimacy that I really enjoy. And that's also a theater that's had some massively legendary shows. So every time I'm there, usually if I'm not super enjoying the show I'm watching, I'll start imagining, like, what Follies looked like on the stage or what Mame looked like or west side Story. You know, I'll kind of forget that I'm watching George Clooney. What? Who said that? I didn't say that.
- [97:32]
B
Oh, my gosh. I love that. But what you just said about the Winter Garden, the feeling of having to be more intimate, that's why I love the Imperial Theater. It feels kind of the same way. Like, when you're up in the balcony, you do feel like you're gonna fall over because it's so steep, but you.
- [97:46]
A
Feel close to the action 1000% you. I feel like mezzanines come sometimes get a bad rep. People really want orchestra. I'm like, I don't know, kid. Like, I think that the center front, like, mezzanine is such a great view for most shows, especially at a place like the Winter Garden. Or the Imperial. You get the whole landscape of the evening. It's great.
- [98:05]
B
I totally agree. Being able to like, yeah. See all the choreography that's happening. Not just like the actor's sweat when you're sitting right in front. I like to be able to see it all. And you know what, Can I say something not very nice about one of the theaters? Of course, the Broadway theater, I don't like it at all because they built it, you know, to kind of double as a movie theater. So as you know, it's so deep, you feel so far away from the action. It's like the cheap seats kind of aren't even worth it. It.
- [98:35]
A
Yeah, the Broadway theater is one of those theaters where the right massive show needs to be in there to work. Like Les Mis originally or Miss Saigon originally work in that theater because those are giant, giant shows. But.
- [98:52]
I saw, you know, Cinderella in there, which was a perfectly lovely time. But I was like, oh, if I were in the mezzanine for this, I would, I would be angry. Like, I'd feel so far away. When I saw Fiddler in the. There I was in the mezzanine and I just felt like I was in another state. And it's, it's frustrating. But like, that's sort of the. That's again, how, like, times have changed. Now that we have dynamic pricing on Broadway, you don't necessarily need a 2,000 seat theater to run a slightly larger show. You can, you can make the financials work in a 1400 seat theater. It doesn't have to be 1900 seats. So I do wonder at some point that the Shuberts are going to maybe do with the Broadway what ATG did with the Lyric and like, maybe move the back wall forward like three or four rows so the last couple of rows don't feel like it's a mile away. But I don't know. I'm not telling the Shubertz how to do their job. Just Teal and I have opinions.
- [99:43]
B
I wonder. Yeah, that's such a good, like, musing. And you know what? I love theater fans. I love them. But sometimes I think because people get so caught up in the musicals that they love, they don't think about the business of it all. I think some people, you know, some people think that, like, Broadway is this, like, the gang's all here, we're doing it together. And I'm like, no, Broadway is a shopping mall. These are individual stores, individual brands competing against each other. Also. You can't just show up to Broadway with a show and Be like, hello, I'm here. Let me in. Like, the theater has to be available, and they have to choose you back. I describe it, it's like sorority rush. Like, you can put in your bid for what you want, but they have to want you to do.
- [100:25]
A
Yeah, I thank you for saying that. I say that a lot on this podcast about how it's. If people are going to be angry about whatever thing happens on Broadway, they have to understand what goes into decisions being made. Like I always say, whenever shows close and people go on social media and complain about it, I always say, you know, there's no Mr. Broadway, right? There's no, like, Michael Douglas in Wall street sitting in his office being like, close that show. Move that show in. Like, it's. There's no artistic director of Broadway, much as I would love that just job. But, like, when a show closes, you like, thanks again, Broadway, for closing this one. I'm like, there's no committee that did that. Like, it's. Yeah, I think that it's. It's. It's a business, and things happen, and. And shows compete against each other, and one show will succeed and one doesn't. And sometimes there's rhyme and reason as to why that happens, and sometimes there isn't. And when people go, oh, why? As you said, like, why would they go into that theater? It's like, it was the one they could get, and it was either have the show be seen at all or wait another year, maybe two, maybe seven, till the right theater came along, and who knows if that would ever happen? So, yeah, that's. There's so many decisions that people don't think about.
- [101:32]
B
And you know what? That's why in the book, I really try to nail home the point of everything that's happened in the past, like how Broadway was established, because this has always been a commercial business. This has literally always been about making money. If you want to die for your art, you got to go downtown, you know, like. Like, since the Shuberts, they. They weren't musical theater fans. They were fans of making money and being successful businessmen. So I think when people look at it through that lens, it just makes everything make more sense. As far as Mr. Broadway. The fans need to understand that the time of year a show comes in is crucial. It's a really big deal. It's very important. People aren't coming to the city to see these shows in, like, August, September, year. We're just now gearing up into major tourist season, and then everybody leaves in January, February, and then we get spring breakers in March.
- [102:24]
A
Yeah.
- [102:24]
B
So hopefully your. Your show has enough money to make it through these periods of drought. And when a show closes, they're still spending money. I feel like it's something crazy, like $700,000 just to close a Broadway show. Because you're still paying people to do that.
- [102:40]
A
Yeah. To break down the set, to move it all out. It's all of that stuff. Yeah. It's. It's this thing of you want to do what's best for your production and you can do everything right and it doesn't work out, or you could do everything wrong and somehow it works out, and all you can do is, you know, go off of what you know, what you've learned and instinct. And it's, as you said, like. Yeah, there's. If there's one thing to learn from this interview, everybody, first of all, is to buy Thiel's book. Second of all is that there is no mystery Broadway. There is no Michael Douglas in an office making all these decisions. So you have to look at the whole picture if you want to learn, like, why your favorite show closed.
- [103:20]
B
Yeah. Broadway is highbrow, gambling, super hardcore.
- [103:24]
A
Yeah.
- [103:25]
B
It's kind of like owning a horse at the Kentucky Derby. It's exactly what you just said. You can do everything right, but sometimes it's instinct, and sometimes the horse that's projected to win doesn't. It's just. You just don't know.
- [103:38]
A
You really don't. And sometimes it's like you. You set everything correctly and then all of a sudden a hurricane blows in and tears up the stadium and it's like, well, who could have predicted that?
- [103:49]
B
Exactly.
- [103:49]
A
Yeah, it's. It's cray. All right, before we wrap things up, Teal, let's have the listeners learn a little bit more about you. What is your favorite Broadway musical and what is your favorite Broadway play? Let's never forget that plays existing.
- [104:04]
B
Never forget. My most favorite Broadway play that I've seen recently was Stereophonic. It rocked my world. I wanted it to be longer, and it was already a three hour show. I just loved it. The cast was phenomenal. And as far as musicals, okay. I love a gateway drug musical. I really respect the deep cuts, but I loved Miss Saigon. I guess Great Comet is kind of of like a deep cut. Like, that was kind of one that your average person wouldn't know.
- [104:33]
A
Yeah, no, absolutely. That's become. I got. I'm not sure what. How people view Great Comet now, but at the time it felt like a deep cut. I felt I definitely Felt edgy and cool for liking it, but maybe that's just because I'm not edgy and cool. I don't know.
- [104:47]
B
I think I always say, I'm like, if you are dating someone who, like, isn't super into Broadway, take them to see the Book of Mormon. Take them to see Wicked, one of these, like, big shows that'll show them, like, how incredible this is. Is.
- [104:59]
A
Oh, yeah, because they're. They run and they work for a reason. I. I always say Book of Mormon is the one you want to take. Like, the bro friend who.
- [105:07]
B
Yep.
- [105:08]
A
Yeah. Like, that's. That's the musical that would get them into it. Because I think Wicked might be a little too earnest for them to start. Just to start. Like, you start them off with Book of Mormon and warm them up, and then you take them to Wicked.
- [105:20]
B
Yeah. No one's going to raw dog head a Gobbler.
- [105:25]
It's just true.
- [105:27]
A
Well, that's the clip. That's. That's what's going on Instagram.
- [105:32]
Oh, God. With that, you absolutely captured my heart. No one's gonna lawn dog head of Gobbler, and that's why she shoots herself in the end. Teal. That's. That is all. That is the subtext of that piece.
- [105:48]
Oh, God. Now we're just watching.
- [105:49]
B
Want.
- [105:49]
A
I, like, want Charles Bush or Lipsa to do Hedge, and I want them to play that energy the entire time, which is like, Nava dog me.
- [106:01]
B
Oh, my gosh. Can you imagine? I'd go see it.
- [106:05]
A
I would go every evening. I still miss Diana the musical every day. I'm devastated. I can't spend every Saturday night seeing that show.
- [106:14]
B
I saw Diana twice, and I thought it was delightful.
- [106:18]
A
I have so many playbills from that production. I just, like, I clutched them to my chest and I go, never forget.
- [106:25]
B
Rip.
- [106:26]
A
Rip. Okay, Trying to think of any other things. Is there anything about the book in particular you want to make sure people know before they look into Buying. Buying the damn thing.
- [106:38]
B
Well, it's inspired by my walking tours. I start the book at the southernmost theater, and I worked my way all the way up to the northernmost, the Vivian Beaumont. And the entire, you know, like, the first, like, chapter bit of it is all the backstory. Like, it explains New York City until we get to the 1900s and Broadway starts being established. I'm really proud of that chapter. I call it the History of Almost Everything. But, yeah, it walks you through every single theater and shares little tidbits, and you don't have to be, like, a deep Cut. Like hardcore theater lover, to enjoy this book, I made sure to insert, you know, where Jake Gyllenhaal and Julia Roberts performed. It highlights some big celebrities, not just the lesser known ones.
- [107:22]
A
Yeah, you definitely cover the gambit, which I appreciated. The theater curious and the theater passionate. I think both get what they want out of this book, which is lovely and it's also got some lovely illustrations. It's very well spaced out. It's a very good read and a very attractive addition to your bookshelf, if I must say so myself.
- [107:43]
B
Thank you.
- [107:45]
A
To where can people order history Hiding around. I want to read the whole thing. Where can people order history Hiding around Broadway? Backstage lore, secrets and surprises from New York's famed theater district.
- [107:57]
B
What a title.
- [107:58]
A
What a title.
- [107:59]
B
People can find it@bookshop.org it is an amazing website that supports independent booksellers. Obviously it's on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Target, Walmart. You can find it pretty much everywhere. If you're in the city, you can stop by McNally Jackson or the Strand, two of my favorite independent booksellers. I've been running around the city like signing all the copies I can find, which is so fun. But yeah, I hope, I hope you place an order, check it out.
- [108:24]
A
Yeah, definitely. It's, it's, it's. It's a. It's a real fun read, you guys, until. Where can people find you if they want. If you want them to find you?
- [108:32]
B
I am the Backstage Blonde on Tick Tock and Instagram.
- [108:36]
A
There we go. If you want to find me, guys, I'm at Matt Koplik. Usual spelling only Instagram. If you like the podcast, a nice five star rating or review really helps us out with the algorithm. You guys have been doing a really good job. Teal. We close out every episode with a big Broadway diva. Who would you like to close out your episode?
- [108:54]
B
Laura Bell Bundy. I adore her. She is so nice and real person and fabulous in her career. And I love Legally Blonde. Wait, can I say one more thing that has nothing to do with any of this? I loved American Psycho.
- [109:08]
A
Oh, wait, okay. Wait, what? That's just something you heard.
- [109:13]
B
That's just something I wanted you to know. I just wanted to say that I just. It's kind of my Diana.
- [109:20]
A
Sure. You saw it on Broadway?
- [109:22]
B
Yes. Yeah. Gosh, it was like the summer of like 2016. So long ago.
- [109:28]
A
It might be the most fuckable cast of all time. Like everyone in that show was just like, like so hot.
- [109:35]
B
So true. I don't think we've had A cast like that until Chess.
- [109:38]
A
Right now I still need to see Chess, but I've been told that Chess is like, the most attractive cast on Broadway.
- [109:44]
B
Yeah, no, they're just the hottest. Okay, we can get back to Laura Bell Bundy and wrapping this whole thing up. I just could talk to you for hours.
- [109:51]
A
What's. What's your favorite song from. From American Psycho?
- [109:55]
B
I couldn't tell you. I don't know. I.
- [109:58]
A
It's a no Skip album. What are you talking about?
- [110:00]
B
About? Just. I mean, Helena York is comedy gold. I'm so happy to see her career just blow up.
- [110:06]
A
Oh, my God, she's fantastic. I love the other two. I could watch till I'm dead. Oh, actually, this has nothing to do with anything. This is my ADHD moment. Have you watched the new sitcom Adults?
- [110:18]
B
No.
- [110:19]
A
Have you heard of it?
- [110:20]
B
No.
- [110:21]
A
Okay, well, this is my mitzvah to you. This is a new show that's on fx. It came out, I think, over the summer, and it's on Hulu now, which we can have again now that Jimmy Kimmel's back on the air. But it's. They kind of were trying to pitch it as like a Gen Z Friends, but it's really more like friends meets 30 Rock or like a little bit of Broad City. It's very odd humor, but in a very funny way. And if there's one good deed I can do today, it's to tell you to watch the first episode of Adults. It is so funny.
- [110:51]
B
Thank you so much for your service. Nervous?
- [110:53]
A
I'm an ally to. To every. To all person kind.
- [110:58]
B
Okay.
- [110:59]
A
So, Lord. Well, Bundy, Luke, Glue Blonde. I'm assuming we're just gonna do so much better, right? That's. That's what we want to.
- [111:05]
B
Obviously, yes.
- [111:06]
A
Then that's what we're gonna close out with, baby. All right, so guys, check us back next week. We will speak in Great Comet. We're going to close out with our part two of our deep dive on Great Comet with Natalie Walker. And then I think after that is going to be my. My season wrap up of Broadway so far and my rankings of the shows that I've seen so far this Broadway season. And that'll be it. Thank you so much, Teal. Thank you for listening, everybody. And take it away, Laura Bell. Bye.
- [111:45]
And I am so much better.
- [111:49]
B
So much better.