There is something different about watching a movie–a real movie with film and sprockets and grainy lines–than watching that same movie on a TV screen. And there is something about watching a movie in the company of 600 people in a darkened theatre, rather than in your living room with your spouse and dog curled up on the couch. I got a chance to experience the difference this weekend as the Victoria Theatre Association presented The Music Man as part of the Michelob Ultra Cool Films Series.

Meredith Wilson’s The Music Man is undoubtedly a classic of the American Musical Theatre. My personal history with this show goes back to when I was a child and the movie’s soundtrack LP was a fixture in my family home–it was one of the few record albums we owned and I think it had to do with the fact that there was a barbershop quartet in the show and my father was a devoted member of the SPEBSQSA! Over the course of my theatre career, I have seen the show several times and stage managed it for a run at a community theatre. It’s a good show with some great songs and Professor Harold Hill is a great character.

The movie certainly didn’t disappoint. But the thrill for me was how much the audience was into it. It was a real collective experience that you only get when you are in a full theatre with the big screen, good sound, and the smell of popcorn wafting up from the lobby.

I think our film series is one of the best programs we have. It’s a real grass roots experience–whole families come, the organ concert by the inimitable Martin Beavis is too much fun, and the whole experience harkens back to a time when going to the movies was a big event. I know that I’m looking forward to seeing a lot of the flicks this summer–and even if it’s not your favorite movie up on the screen, the popcorn’s free and the air conditioning is ON!

-Ken

It’s an amazing feeling seeing the last curtain of the last show of the season come down. And, in this case it was a pretty big curtain—The Phantom of the Opera just closed Sunday night, June 27, after 24 performances in Dayton. That’s 24 standing ovations, 24 perilous falling chandeliers, and 24 disappearing Phantoms—surely we could have predicted a sequel. But, when Phantom first came out, it was a different time and place.

I first saw Phantom in the mid-to-late 1980s in Vancouver, Canada where I was living at the time. I can remember that the theatre community was given FREE tickets to attend opening night and we were seated in the top balcony of the Queen Elizabeth Theatre—a barnlike structure downtown. There was a lot of buzz around the performance because Phantom was being played by Jeff Hyslop, a local boy from Vancouver who would go on to play the role for three years in Toronto. And, it was the Phantom—and we had all heard about the technical wizardry and special effects. The show certainly lived up to the hype and even the assembled guests of the theatre community were impressed—not an easy thing to do!

Flash forward to my next view of Phantom, which was the Friday opening in Dayton. A couple of things struck me as I watched. First, I realized that I didn’t remember much about the plot. I mean I remember the gist of the situation, but vast parts of the show were like new. I would also say that I thought the staging of the show, while still effective, was quite “old fashioned.” There were “black outs” for transitions from scene to scene which made the show a little slow in sections, and the effects were not nearly as “effective” as I had remembered from the initial viewing. Having just gotten back from seeing a lot of shows on Broadway, I don’t think I saw one “black out” amongst them. Today, transitions are much faster and seamless with newer computer controlled technology helping to make this happen. And I think that audiences are looking for a more film like quality to the stage pictures they are looking at in the theatre.

I think it would be really interesting to restage Phantom using today’s technology and sensibilities. It would no doubt be a different show in some ways—different at least technically—but the amazing and timeless songs and story of unrequited love would certainly remain.

-Ken

Buyer beware!

We are moving into our second week of The Phantom of the Opera and we are starting to see ticketing problems with people buying on the “secondary” market. In other words, the scalpers are drawing in unsuspecting theatre goers to websites offering tickets to our productions.

What’s wrong with that?  Well, it’s expensive first of all. When you buy through the secondary market, you will probably pay a lot more for the ticket and certainly more in service charges than if you had bought the ticket through Ticket Center Stage – our box office operation located at the Schuster Center.  And I’m not talking about a dollar or two more – some $50 tickets are being sold on the Internet for $150 plus service charges! Other than paying too much money, you might also be buying a seat that doesn’t exist for a performance that isn’t scheduled. We recently looked at some secondary sites and they were selling seats for a performance on June 8 for Phantom – there was no June 8 performance scheduled, the run didn’t start until June 9.  And if you come to the box office with these tickets, you’ll be out of luck for any kind of refund and you’ll likely miss the performance.

How do you ensure that you are buying real seats for the real price?  Always buy through Ticket Center Stage. We are the only outlet authorized to sell tickets at our venues (other than in some extraordinary circumstances).  If you see our productions advertised in the newspaper or on television, phone the number shown or go to the web address shown – that will lead you to us. Be very leery of buying on any kind of alternate web site. If in doubt, call us or come down to the box office at the Schuster if possible. We’ll make sure you buy the real thing.

Ticket Center Stage:
(937) 228-3630 or (888) 228-3630
http://www.ticketcenterstage.com/
Located in the Wintergarden of the Benjamin & Marian Schuster Performing Arts Center.

-Ken

Is it about excellence or money – or both?

I watched the Tony Awards last night and was both pleased and frustrated at the same time. While the show was pretty much hijacked by a bad sound man, there was much to like. I thought the opening number was a bit strange. All the excerpts of the shows and then the mini concert by Green Day seemed a little disjointed. But if the strategy was to get people’s attention early, then that probably worked. Who knew that Sean Hayes played the piano – and so well? And, I thought he was fantastic as a host – the costumes throughout the evening were hilarious and he can deliver a joke. And the little bits with Kristin Chenoweth were pretty funny. The show moved well, included some good acceptance speeches – although Denzel Washington looked a little lost. And the ending was strange with cutting off the acceptance speech from the producers of Memphis and reprising the song from the show after they had won.

But my question about excellence or money – well, excellence is certainly in the eye of the beholder. Everyone had a favorite show, actor, sound designer ,etc. and the surprises – and there weren’t many of them – are what makes the show interesting. But it’s also about money. I will be very interested to see what Memphis ticket sales do in the next week, and how many shows close in the next week after expecting some kind of a bump if they had won in an important category.

And the biggest question of the night – is it FEY-LA or FEL-A?

-Ken

I was recently reminded what great acting looks like.

Late last month I was in New York for the Broadway League’s Spring Road Conference. (You can see pictures at http://bit.ly/SpringRoadConference2010.) As part of the conference agenda, you get to see four or five shows on Broadway. It’s kind of a lottery where you pick a whole bunch of shows and then based on availability you get tickets–if you’re lucky you get all your picks.

One of the shows I was interested in seeing was the new revival of La Cage Aux Folles. I had never seen the Broadway version of this musical with music and lyrics by Jerry Herman and book by Harvey Fierstein, and this transplant from a very small theatre in England sounded very interesting–and the reviews have been great. The story is pretty well known as it was adapted into the popular film The Birdcage featuring Robin Williams and Nathan Lane. Anyways, this production featured television star Kelsey Grammer in the role of Georges (the Robin Williams role in the movie), and British actor Douglas Hodge in the role of Albin (the Nathan Lane role.)

I truly can’t remember enjoying a show this much! I was very pleased in the whole conception of the production making it a little smaller, seedier and more focused than past productions I had heard about. It all seemed truer to what it should be. Mr. Grammer was very good and very funny. But the thing that really impressed me (and impressed is not the right word, as it was so much closer to astounded, or excited, or “blew me away”) was the incredible skill of Douglas Hodge. This is an actor so at the top of his creative game that every moment he was on stage was absolutely mesmerizing. And when he wasn’t on stage, I found myself waiting for him to come back. It was a performance that was so inventive, spontaneous, warm, funny, touching and completely captivating, that I found myself laughing hysterically at an inspired comic bit, then chuckling at a little move that was so subtle and perfect, or getting choked up over a beautifully communicated gesture. Mr. Hodge, it’s not surprising, is one of England’s most accomplished actors and a leading figure at the National Theatre and a major interpreter of the work of Harold Pinter. I can truly say it was one of the finest performances I have seen in the last 10 years–or maybe ever.

If you get a chance to go to NYC in the next four months or so (Mr. Hodge is only in the show for six months), check out this production. I wasn’t disappointed and I don’t think you will be either.

-Ken

What’s up with theatre etiquette?

For every performance we present, a report is issued by House Management that summarizes what happened at that performance. Topics include the number of tickets sold versus the actual number of people attending the performance, the weather outside, who did the curtain speech, and a lot of other items of interest to those of us running the organization. There is also an area for “incidents” and comments.  While the majority of patrons never end up in the House Management report, and most nights are pretty quiet, there’s always a few that stand out – and during WICKED, some of the incidents and comments were not to be believed.

What compels a patron who has paid over $100 for a ticket to a show to spend their time in the performance talking to their friend or texting their comments about the show to somebody who wasn’t able to get a ticket? Why would anyone come to the show and proceed to loudly “sing” the entire songbook from their seat? Why over-imbibe before the show and then decide to express your amorous intentions to your date during “Defying Gravity?”

I don’t get it.

Is it because people are so “clued out” about live theatre that they think the actors or other patrons can’t see or hear them – they think it’s like a big screen in their living room? Are people so wrapped up in themselves that they have no concept of anyone around them or the nature of “personal space?” Or is it something else?

Tell me what you think about theatre etiquette.

-Ken