McNeal (2024) (Broadway)

In Robert Downey Jr.'s Broadway debut, he plays a writer using AI to write his new book. There's a confusing meta plot where he may be writing the play that we're watching unfold before our eyes. It's fine but the gimmick about AI isn't really saying anything new or meaningful about AI. And I bet AI technology improves so much over the next couple years that this will quickly feel outdated. And it's just kind of boring. I did fall asleep a bit in the scene at the agent's office. It's really unfortunate because I like Andrea Martin a lot. She's so funny but I missed half her scene and don't know if she landed any jokes.

There is a plot in here that is very similar to The Wife. McNeal wins the Nobel Prize in literature but he might have sold his wife's writing as his own. Or he might've adapted her story into his own, and does that make it his? There's some gender politics thrown in there. And much to everyone's surprise, he says multiple times that he admires Harvey Weinstein. Just wasn't on my bingo card this year. The character though is very much Iron Man. Robert Down Jr basically plays the same character, and I bet that's why he was cast. He's a macho man who is successful and brazen, fast-talking, generally dismissive of other people--not exactly likeable but on some level respectable? That plays out in real time to as his profiler from the newspaper starts our repulsed but is slowly converted to write a piece about him that's just about as good as it was going to get based on the garbage he's spewing at her.

The set was pretty cool. The sets at Lincoln Center Theater are always handsomely made. It makes use of screens to display the AI. There are some deepfakes that don't really add anything to the story.

Camelot (2023) (Broadway)

Camelot has some issues with the book, in that there's too much book and not enough songs. All the songs are nice and pretty but there aren't that many of them and they don't really advance the plot. They sing about the weather (Camelot) and months (The Lusty Month of May) and seasons (If Ever I Should Leave You), which is weather and months combined. Also they cut Follow Me, and the whole character of Nimue. It could use more ensemble numbers. The end of Act I and the beginning of Act II need songs. Philippa Soo is excellent as Guenevere (totally robbed by the Tonys committee). Her voice is so crisp and pure. Just too much talking scenes. Jordan Donica is good too but not as extraordinary as he was in My Fair Lady though he rightfully is Tony nominated. I think If Ever I Should Leave You isn't as perfect for his voice as On the Street Where You Live. We unfortunately didn't see Andrew Burnap as Arthur, but his understudy was pretty good. I know it's mostly straight acting but Arthur has a couple songs and the understudy probably had more musicality anyways considering Burnap has never done a musical. The set and costumes are wonderful. It feels like you're really transported to Camelot. They make use of projections on the back wall and on the cathedral-shaped eaves.  

Plot wise I could see why Aaron Sorkin wanted to do this. It's about a benevolent leader trying to create his idealized world where people are good. And everyone wants him to fail. Everyone doubts him, and they ultimately bring about his downfall because they can't accept the goodness of people. That's how Arthur loses his war against human nature. Is it foolhardy? Or righteous? Act 2 is much darker as Camelot crumbles from the inside. Act 2 introduces critical new characters that I did not care for: Mordred and Morgan Le Fay (a scientist and Mordred's scorned mother in this production who tells Arthur it can't last). The changes are not all sensible as they're often arguing about nothing.

I think you also can't talk about Camelot without mentioning Jackie Kennedy. She may have made it all up. I, for one, kind of find it hard to believe that JFK liked to listen to the soundtrack. It's a nice story. For one brief shining moment, there was this ideal society. Reality of course is that JFK never achieved that. And if anyone really believed he would they were kidding themselves--maybe I'm the cynical knights. Maybe she was trying to say something about adulterers being burned at the stake.

Intimate Apparel (2022) (Off-Broadway)

I've never been to the theater downstairs at Lincoln Center Theater. It's very small, 75% in the round; with a turntable for a stage, every seat in full view and we were in the second row. This co-production with the Metropolitan Opera of Intimate Apparel is an operatic adaptation of Lynn Nottage's play. The score is sparse, just two pianos, elevated on both sides of the stage. The music is not particularly memorable. It was a bit too contemporary for me, lacking in melody and harmony. George maybe gets a bit of melody but not much. The music meanders, going nowhere, as opera often does. The plot recalls Cyrano de Bergerac, in which love letters are ghostwritten by someone else. The plot sort of skips over how George comes to know Esther. In 1905, you don't exactly have catfishing through the psot, but that's kind of the idea. It's a sumptuous production nonetheless for such a small theater. The period costumes are really great.

My Fair Lady (Broadway) (2018)

What a luscious revival of My Fair Lady. We got incredibly close seats in the far right second row. It was in fact, a little too close. The Vivian Beaumont theater is in the 75% round, so in theory all seats should be in full view, but sometimes the furniture or other characters block the action of the scene from view. The set is gorgeous. There is a rotating set piece that rotates so much faster than you expect. There is a cute vignette with the maid and constable that you'd only see from our side of the theater because it rotates counter-clockwise. Just a happy coincidence.

There is quite a bit of filler in My Fair Lady. Mr. Doolittle serves little purpose. Colonel Pickering is sort of just there. I'm still trying to figure out Freddy too. I think his purpose is to show how far Eliza has come, that she passes off as posh while he does not. The music is beautiful. I think Jordan Donica, as Freddy, has a wonderful voice. The cast is fabulous all around. I was pleasantly surprised how genuinely funny the show was.

The show generally gets criticism for blatant misogyny. And it is certainly there. The new ending supposedly redeems some of the misogyny by giving Eliza some agency. Some of the misogyny is masked in classism, which I suppose is more acceptable. I could imagine a transposition of the show to an American setting, trying to drop a Bronx accent, or a southern drawl. I think that could be quite funny too, albeit a little controversial.

The King and I (Broadway) (2015)

This is a phenomenal revival of Rodger and Hammerstein's beloved play. Let me start with the costumes. They are gorgeous--both the colorful Siamese garb and Anna's enormous dresses. The costumes along with the set transport the audience to another world. The stage goes very deep back and the center portion of the stage moves out above the pit for full view of the audience. The large green curtain is very regal in between murals of the Siamese statues. The play opens with Anna arriving to Siam via a large ship. It is gigantic and the angles are diagonal to give the ship perspective as it moves out of profile into the audience. It is an epic start to a play of epic proportions. This includes a grand Buddha statue, large shear curtains, and tall moving columns. And of course, the immense cast.

The company does not have too many singing roles, just two numbers. But they present a choreographic challenge in giving everyone something to do on stage. Much of their time is spent kowtowing to the king to simplify this. The size of the company provides lots of roles for Asian actors, which is very welcome in musical theater. This is an important show for providing visibility to Asian actors--I noticed a lot of Filipino, Japanese and Korean names in the Playbill.  However, that is not to overlook the low-key racism present in the play's depiction of the Siamese. The accents are quite exaggerated (Ken Watanabe is a little difficult to understand, but I chalked it off to character and he is always very excitable but he's a stressed out king). And the depiction of their worship of Buddha may or may not be accurate for 1800s Siam, but it seemed a little extreme. But the cast breathes new life into this somewhat outdated play.

The young children are adorable and hilarious. The company puts on a dazzling play within a play, a mesmerizing balletic version of "Uncle Tom's Cabin." And Ruthie Ann Miles as Lady Thiang has a lovely pure voice. The individual performers were really allowed to shine as most of the songs are relatively simple solos, and a couple of duets. Only two numbers involved the whole company. This especially let Kelli O'Hara bask in the spotlight. She is incredible. She has the most brilliant voice and in the non-singing scenes she is also a first-rate actress. I adore her renditions of "Hello, Young Lovers" and "Shall We Dance".