Category: movies

As you know, it is a halachic tradition to see a movie on Christmas Day, followed by Chinese Food. We arranged the Chinese Food through our synagogue’s brotherhood, but it was up to us to pick the movies. Normally, we’re live theatre folks: If you follow my blog at all, you know that we see live theatre or other forms of live performance almost every week (on average). But movies, in a movie theater? That’s reserved for the week around Christmas. I also don’t feel the need for full writeups (as I do with stage shows) for movies, especially given the size of the production team compared to live theatre production teams. That’s why IMDB exists. So here are some thoughts about the movies we saw this holiday season.

Wicked: For Good

GIven that last year’s holiday movie was “Wicked: Part 1“,  it is probably no surprise that this year’s pair of holiday movies started out with “Wicked: For Good” on Erev Christmas. Before we get started on the movie itself, a small bitch about the titles: I get that the producers changed their mind on the title after the first movie was released, but the fact that there’s a Part 1 without a Part 2 just gnaws at my brain. If an autauer as great as George Lucas can retitle “Star Wars” to “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope” after its release, then you can fix the title mismatch. Rename one of the parts of make things consistent. Ideally, the solution would be something along the lines of: “Wicked (Act 1): Defying Gravity” and “Wicked (Act 2): For Good”. With that off my chest…

This is a movie. This means that much of the audience was unfamiliar with the original musical by Winnie Holzman and Stephen Schwartz, let alone the original books by Gregory Maguire. This also means that they went into the movie expecting a continuation of the lightness and humor of the first movie. They didn’t get it. I felt bad for the family sharing our row at the theatre who brought their smalls (under 10 years old) with them. They were scared by the darkness, and bored by the love story, and as a result, were crying and couldn’t sit still. Folks: Act 2 of “Wicked” is dark. It was extremely dark in the original book, and just a bit lighter in the stage production, but is dark none-the-less. Folks should expect this, even given the MGM film. The focus of the story, the “Wicked Witch”, dies in the end. This can’t be a light story where the two girlfriends go skipping down the path together.

Gregory Maguire wrote his original book (which was the first of four in the series) as a political allegory during the Clinton administration. According to Wikipedia, while living in London in the early 1990s, he noticed that while the problem of evil had been explored from many different perspectives, those perspectives were seldom synthesized together. He wondered whether calling a person evil might be enough to cause a self-fulfilling prophecy. He decided to use the milieu of Oz to explore the story: hence, “Wicked”. His politics got more pointed in the later books: In particular, his second book in the series “Son of a Witch”, explores the political torture of the second Bush administration. The musical changed the story quite a bit (especially the ending), but kept the political themes, and the Act 2 movie leaned into that even more.

I mention this all because this really shows the adaptability of Oz. L. Frank Baum wrote the original story (before he started the rest of the children book series) as a political allegory about the McKinley administration and the silver standard (hence the silver shoes). Maguire wrote his first story exploring what makes people evil, as well as the nature of the power of propaganda and attacks on class. Yet viewing the story today, it is a wonderful commentary on the Trump administration, the administration’s manipulation of “truth”, and of the harnessing of hatred of a particular subclass of citizens to gain and retain power. The Wizard’s song “Wonderful” exposes this well, and is perhaps the political heart of the story (the emotional heart, as always, is the relationship between Elphaba and Glinda). I’m sure that much of the audience was unaware of this political message going in: Hopefully, they will learn from it. We are still dealing with the Carney who is running a government based on carnival flim-flam alone (and no real skills, other than charm), who is making up and selling a story, and who is abusing contributing citizens to gain and retain power. Children’s stories are often used to teach adult lessons in disguise.

The performances in the movie were outstanding. Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande were great, and bought distinct personalities and exceptionally strong singing voices to the role. I always love Ethan Slater (who I’ll always think of a Spongebob from the Spongebob Musical), and Jonathan Bailey made a great Fiyero.

The movie made a number of changes to the original story (for example, Elphaba’s father was originally an itinerant preacher). The movie also expanded a number of parts of the story, and made many aspects of the connection to the 1939 movie a lot more explicit (certainly more explicit than in the musical). The transformations of the Tin Man and Scarecrow were particularly strong. I did like how the ending ties well to the original story and map of Oz (and that’s all I’ll say).

Lastly, as I noted in my original comment on Facebook, it is amazing how many people it takes to make a movie, especially when compared to a stage production. The production team for the stage consists of perhaps 20 to 30 people, with perhaps another 20 in the costume and scenery shops. The Wicked movies listed at least 200 people, I’d guess.

One article I read noted that this movie was key for Universal, which viewed the movie as a tentpole franchise. Unlike their action movie or animation franchises, this movie appeals to women and brings them into the theaters. Hence, the intense and almost overwhelming marketing blitz for the pair of movies, which continues unabated. I’ve already heard rumors that there will be more movies in this franchise, although it is unclear in what direction they will go. It is hard to imagine them continuing with Maguire’s remaining 3 books (“Son of a Witch”, “A Lion Among Men”, and “Out of Oz”), simply because of their darkness, political intrigue, and work required to musicalize them. More likely would be Oz-adjacent stories set in the Maguire/Holzman universe, with new music. I’m not sure those will succeed, but given the desire of the audience, they probably will. Get ready for “Wicked: The Sparkly and the Furious”.

An excellent movie, well worth seeing. I predict that this pair of movies will continue to be shown and reshown on your television screens for a long time, just like the ubiquitous “Back to the Future”.

Song Sung Blue

When I first heard about the movie “Song Sung Blue” and saw advertising for it, I was afraid it would be another Neil Diamond bio-pic. This didn’t interest me at all, as I had recently seen the excellent “A Beautiful Noise” at the Pantages. I also had no interest in seeing Jackman, whose musical star was tainted by the mess with Sutton Foster (who I think is a wonderful Broadway artist). But when my daughter was in town last week, she suggested that we go see “Song Sung Blue”, indicating that my concerns were misplaced. In particular, it was NOT a Neil Diamond bio-pic; rather, it was a story about two real Neil Diamond interpreters and was based on real life.

In parallel, I started reading some stories in the NY Times about Kate Hudson’s performance,  and how it was particularly strong.  As that article starts:

She’s a middle-aged, blue-collar amputee who sings backup in a kitschy Neil Diamond cover band. “I don’t want to be a hairdresser,” she says with a heavy Wisconsin accent. “I want to sing and dance.”

It’s not exactly a role that shouts Oscar. At first glance, it reads more like Razzie bait.

But the right actress in the right part: As played by Kate Hudson in the musical bio-dramedy “Song Sung Blue,” arriving in theaters on Christmas Day, the character, Claire, transcends her movie-of-the-week attributes — so much so that Hudson could land in the best actress race at the Academy Awards.

This sounded intriguing. I could overlook Hugh Jackman for that. So we booked tickets for this movie as our Christmas Day movie. I’m really glad we did.

This movie tells the story of Mike and Claire Sardina, who became famous as Lightning and Thunder, a group that interpreted Neil Diamond music at state fairs in the midwest, going so far as to open for Pearl Jam (yes, that’s true). Mike was a down-on-his-luck cover impersonation artist. He meets Claire, another such artist, and falls for her professionally and emotionally. The movie explores their ups and downs, and how music was the heart of their relationship. It is based mostly on real life, although there were a few changes from the real story of the Sardina’s. I found the story compelling, although the way the director presented the story there was almost too much foreshadowing. Some of the plot beats were predictable from the telegraphing alone (unlike real life). The movie would almost have been stronger without them (although it does make me curious to see the original 2008 documentary).

Hugh Jackman’s performance was good, and he makes a credible Neil Diamond impersonator. However (and this is especially true listening to the soundtrack of the movie in isolation), his Australian accent comes slightly through (e.g., at times I thought I was listening to Peter Allen singing Neil Diamond). If you don’t get that reference, Hugh Jackman burst onto the stage as a singer through the musical “A Boy from Oz“, which tells the story of Peter Allen). I don’t recall that accent coming through in “The Greatest Showman”, but now I’ll listen for it. His acting was very strong. For those that know him only from Wolverine, this might be a shock. For those that know him from stage or Showman, it is less of a surprise. He does bring quite a bit of depth to the role.

Kate Hudson is remarkable. I had no idea she was that strong of singer: she handles both the Neil Diamond and the Patsy Cline numbers with aplomb. Her performance, as the Times noted, was Oscar-worthy. She becomes Claire Sardina — and unlike a lot of actresses, is unafraid to do scenes sans makeup and showing her real age and vulnerability. She brings the character alive through performance alone. In some ways, this is unsurprising given her parents. But it also shows that she has been underestimated by the Hollywood machine. Hopefully, this will open more doors for her and a wider range of options.

Other performances were equally strong: I didn’t realize until the credits that Jim Belushi was involved. I was also particularly taken by Ella Anderson as Rachel (Claire’s daughter) and King Princess (as Angelina, Mike’s daughter) and their relationship to their parents. Hudson Hensley was also strong as Dana, Claire’s other child. Dana’s status is quietly male in the movie: In the articles I’ve seen about the real-life Dayna, I’ve seen all sorts of pronouns being used. Again, this is a movie that will play to middle-America, perhaps making a statement about acceptance they don’t realize they are getting.

Lastly, although it isn’t credited, I’m pretty sure that the last song that plays over the credits is performed by the real Lightning and Thunder. It just doesn’t have quite the same voices as the Neil Diamond performances or the Jackman/Hudson performances.

Again, this is a movie I strongly recommend.

And thus, our two movies for 2025 are achieved. We now return you to your regularly posted theatre reviews.

When one sees a movie on the musical stage, one has to ask “Why?”. Usually, there’s no good answer, and such properties fade deservedly into posterity. Fifteen years from now, will anyone still be doing The Bodyguard or Pretty Woman?

When one sees a stage musical on the screen, one has to ask: “Why?” Was it just to preserve the story and execution for posterity? That could be done by just a filming of the stage production. There needs to be something more: something added. There needs to be something that the additional focus and time the camera can provide will bring. Something that the cinematographer and special effects can bring, that one doesn’t get from the stage.

Last Saturday, I saw Wicked: The Musical on the stage at the Pantages. Today, I saw just Act I of the stage musical on the big screen as Wicked (Part 1), since retitled Wicked as someone had the bright idea to retitle Wicked (Part 2) to Wicked: For Good. Part 2 comes out next November. I do wonder if people will remember the details from Act I (uh, excuse me, Part 1) when they see Act 2.

So, in elongating Act 1 to become a full 2hr 40min movie, what was added or changed other than significantly more dancers and a significantly larger orchestra:

• Musical numbers were stretched and had more dialogue interspersed
• Dance numbers were much more elaborate
• There was more exposition, and slightly more backstory
• There was more scenic locations and more scenery.
• There was more closeups of the characters.

That last point is the interesting one. I don’t mean much more backstory on the characters. I mean literal close ups. You were much more up close and personal with both Glinda and Elphaba, and this simple cinematographic trick made you closer to the people. This simple change adjusted the focus, so to speak, of the story. Whereas the stage musical comes across (at least to me) much more about the story of the Animals and the discrimination against them, the movie comes across much more as the story of Elphaba: her relationship with Glinda, their growth as people, their growth as friends. All the foreshadowing of who would become what in The Wizard of Oz is minimal: you see the lion; you see Fiyero portrayed as brainless, you see Boq behaving heartlessly. There’s a reference to Toto being there, but I didn’t see him.

Even more than on stage, this was Elphaba’s story, and her growth from someone who was scared of who she was and tired of being different into someone who was confident in herself and who was proud of her differences. Mind you: This is with essentially the same story, and very little additional dialogue. It was how the camera served to change the focus.

I did love the little hidden things. The use of the 1900 Baum book as a history book. The references of Omaha and the carnival. The cameos during Wizamania, and the rivalry.  The expansive use of poppies (and it wasn’t until now that I made the opium connection, especially in the classroom scene).  When the Wizard plaster relief at Shiz broke, it revealed the Animal teaching origins (and they did a much better job with the Animals than the stage production ever could).

But they also made some mistakes. They made the same mistake the 1939 movie made, but that the stage musical, the Baum book, the Maguire books and even The Wiz got right: the Emerald City being green was part of the humbug: There were mandatory green glasses required. Nary  a green glass anywhere in the EC.

The performances were very strong. At least based on the sample of the two movies I have seen this year, Timothée Chalamet deserves an Oscar for A Complete Unknown, and Cynthia Erivo deserves one for Wicked. The supporting cast was strong as well. Michelle Yeoh does evil so well, and was one of the best and most menacing Madame Morrible’s I’ve seen. Jonathan Bailey was a strong Fiyero, and Ethan Slater (who I’ll always think of as Spongebob Squarepants) brought the right childish quality to Boq.  I applaud the producers for casting Marissa Bode as Nessarose, as she is actually in a chair. How they are going to handle that in Act 2, excuse me, Part 2, excuse me, Wicked: For Good, I don’t know (for those unfamiliar with the musical (c’mon, you don’t need spoiler alerts), Elphaba at one point enchants Nessarose’s silver slippers so she can walk). I also applaud the producers and the Telsey office for the diverse casting of the dance ensemble.

That last point brings up something which, regrettably, must be mentioned.  As I noted in my writeup of the musical, “there are those on the right who are claiming that the movie is “woke” and propaganda. A petition from Million Moms states: ““Of course, the musical contains a tremendous amount of witchcraft and sorcery, and that content prompts most parents to avoid taking their children to see Wicked. But the film also shows not-so-discrete crossdressing and men crushing on men, which parents may not expect. Instead of an uplifting Broadway musical about friendship and family, talents and resources were used to create a dark movie that also pushes wokeness.” Kristen Chenowith, the original Glinda, has spoken out against this statement. But even more: Wicked has always been political. It has always been “woke”. It was never a musical primarily about friendship and family: it was a musical about the importance of speaking out for those with no voice. It is a musical that makes the point that those whom our leaders purport to be “wicked” may really just be those who are speaking out to power, who are speaking up for truth and justice. Wicked has always been this way, from the original book, to the original musical.”

So, was Wicked “woke”. If it was in the sense that the Hundred Moms speak of, it was subtle. Sure, there was magic in the movie—but there was magic in the original 1900 book, and magic in the 1939 movie, and the latter was definitely not a children’s movie (they didn’t have such movies in 1939). Was there cross dressing? This is a fantasy land: there is absolutely no reason that dressing conventions from the 2000s should show up in a movie in an undated fantasy land. Were there possibly some same sex relationships in the background? Probably, but they weren’t the main story. In short, Hundred Moms: Get a life. If you don’t like movies like this, don’t go to them. Go see Paddington in Peru.

Next: We have the people that have only seen the movie, and although they may have heard of the stage musical, they’ve never seen it. They write reviews about how this is a bloated movie. Duh. You have a 2hr 45min musical, with a 15 minute intermission, expanded so that Act 1 is now longer than the original whole two-act stage production. What did you expect? You want snappy, go see the Wicked Musical. It is on tour. Here are the dates for the North American Tour; it as at the Pantages until Feb 3.

Was this worth seeing? Yes, as it gives a different take and understanding on the stage show.

What’s next? Well, while you’re waiting for Part 2, excluse me, “For Good”, go and read the Greg Maguire books and learn the real political commentary in the story. Go read the original Baum books. Go see the musical on tour.

Will this be a classic, like the 1939 movie? Time will tell. There have been lots of productions of this story, and that’s because there’s a timeless meaning in a good fable. As long as that heart is there, the story of Oz will live forever.

What, you were expecting Wicked?

Nah, Bob Dylan has been a much more pervasive influence in my life, from my brother playing Peter, Paul, and Mary on his guitar, to my uncle playing folk music. In fact, if you look at my music collection, you’ll two primary genres: folk music, of all varieties, and cast albums.

True, we were deeply disappointed in the Bob Dylan musical, Girl From The North Country, but we shall not speak of that anymore. This was not Girl From The North Country.  That was a depressing mess. This was a wonderful motion picture.

And because it was a motion picture, I don’t have the burden of detailing everything about the story or the cast. I can just point you to IMDB, and give you my impressions.

First: The story. This is the period of Dylan with which I am most familiar. Not only from the Dylan-lore, but from the stories told by his contemporaries whom I still listen to and see: Noel Paul Stookey, Tom Paxton, and others. The movie captures the Greenwich Village folk scene, and most of the people I expected to see, and name drops most of them. I knew who Albert Grossman was before he even showed up. I knew the names and the music: Pete Seeger, Leadbelly, Odetta, and others. The movie had that authentic feel, and the characterizations seemed spot on. Of PP&M, they really only emphasized Peter Yarrow’s role (and, alas, Yarrow is on his last days right now, dealing with bladder cancer); you had two glimpses of Mary and I think only one of Noel Paul.

I knew some of Dylan’s story from that time, but not all of it. I know that the Suzie character is a composite, but I didn’t know about his relationship with Joan Baez. I was disappointed that some of the folks I expected to see weren’t mentioned (or at least name-dropped), but perhaps they were coming in as he was moving out of the folk world (I’m thinking in particular of folks like Tom Paxton or Mississippi John Hurt). Other folks we might have heard from were more on the traditional folk side or slightly before Dylan’s time (the Weavers and the Limeliters would be good examples there). I originally had Dave Von Ronk on the list, but it turns out the character was in the movie.  I didn’t recognize Norbert Leo Butz as Alan Lomax (and both Noel Paul and Mary’s performers were uncredited, and only Noel Paul’s made it to IMDB).

But the story held my attention and was interesting.

The performances were spot on. Timothée Chalamet was remarkable. I saw him on Colbert, and he mentioned he had been working on this role for five years, and all the music was live-sung. I’m super impressed with him, first with his great job on Wonka, and now this. He is an extremely talented young man, a very strong musician, and he captured Dylan’s voice and mannerisms well. Ed Norton was also extremely strong as Pete Seeger, and he captured the character as I knew him well. Nick Pupo looked like the young Peter Yarrow, but didn’t quite have the same voice. Monica Barbaro was a strong Joan Baez; again, she nailed the voice. Boyd Holbrook was a bit of a caricature of Johnny Cash: he had the voice, but not the depth. But that wasn’t critical to the movie.

Should you go see this: If you like folk music, yes. I was thinking about this in relationship to other early folk stories: 2003’s A Mighty Wind and 2013’s Inside Llewyn Davis. The latter two are fictionalized, but do a good job of presenting the folk scene. This comes closer to presenting it as it was. I think, of the three, this might be the best.

Christmas Day is special. No, not for the reason you think. It is the one day each year when we eschew live performance for filmed. This year’s selection: Mary Poppins Returns.

I was four when the original Mary Poppins movie was first released, and I’m sure I saw it in theaters sometime thereafter. I don’t have much memory for the movies I saw when young. But I know I was familiar with it from repeated viewings over the years, and it fit well with my musical loves. After all, what kid didn’t love the classic Sherman and Sherman tunes.

However, there was one person that didn’t like the original Disney version: the author, P. L. Travers. As captured in the movie Saving Mr Banks, she was very disappointed with how Walt Disney treated her character.  She didn’t like Dick Van Dyke (she had wanted Laurence Olivier); she thought Julie Andrews was too pretty, sweet, and saccharine. She hated the music. You can find more information about her here.

Although most children these days are unfamilar with her work, Travers wrote 8 books about Poppins, starting in 1934. They present someone much less saccharine than the Disney nanny. As one page noted: Travers tapped into a rosy revisit of her childhood—the aptly named Mr. Banks is a banker (though not a drunk), the mother is flighty (but not suicidal), and Mary Poppins, like Travers’s great-aunt, is the Banks children’s caring if unsentimental ballad, “tart and sharp.”

I’m also familiar with the subsequent theatrical version, with added music by George Stiles and Anthony Drewe. In 1993, theatrical producer Cameron Mackintosh met P.L. Travers and acquired the rights to develop a stage play adaptation of her Mary Poppins books. She only agreed to a stage production as long as the creators were all English, and included no one who had worked on the film. She died in 1996. In 2001, Mackintosh and the head of Disney Theatrical Thomas Schumacher opened talks on a possible collaboration, so that the stage play would be able to use the songs from the Disney film. With both sides committed, a preliminary outline of the show was written in 2002. The theatrical version drew on some themes from the movie, some stories from the books not included in the movie, and changed the timeframe somewhat.

This is all a long-winded way of saying that Mary Poppins, like the women herself, is a complicated property. The new film, Mary Poppins Returns, has to be viewed in relationship to the original books, to the original beloved Disney film, and as a standalone property for those without prior context.

I think, on all three measures, it falls short. That’s not to say the music isn’t good, that there aren’t some wonderful performances, or that it isn’t enjoyable. Rather, it is to say that it doesn’t fully capture the magic of the original — in short, it tries to hard. It doesn’t capture the Mary of the books, for this Mary is too much the center. And as a standalone, it drags at times and has various continuity errors. But there is many the flawed property that takes on a life of its own, and in spite of its flaws, becomes timeless. Look at the musical Wicked, which didn’t garner great reviews at its opening. Newsday wrote of the original: “Whew! Hard to swallow and, after an hour or so, hard to sit through. There is nothing wrong with good, clean fantasy, if there is some sort of explanation to make it more than just a succession of camera tricks.”  What will be the long term verdict here? Hard to say.

I think the biggest problem with the story was that it suffered from sequel-itis — a common stage problem where you attempt to repeat what worked in the original, to lesser effect. Let’s jump into an animated thing. Let’s have a big dance number with a British worker class. Let’s have a mystery old woman. Let’s have a crotchety old banker. Let’s have a sequence with a crazy relative. When sequels work and surpass the original is when they find a new story with the known characters, not when they repeat the old story This had too much repetition of the old (or seeming repetition).

With respect to the story, it is a sequel to the original, and drew on elements of the stories found in the books Mary Poppins Comes Back (for her entry on the kite, the balloon lady, the entry into the Royal Daulton dish, and the subsequent repair with Topsy Turvey). But other elements were new: moving up a generation to when Jane and Michael were adults; the foreclosure subplot; and some of the more fantastic elements that seemed to be showing off the new animation techniques. I think the story, for the most part, worked satisfactorily. At times it dragged, and at times it seemed to suffer from what Newsday noted: “a collection of camera tricks” — in other words, the events moved from vignette to vignette, where each vignette seemed more designed to thump a lesson into little heads than to advance character or plot.

Further, there were times in the story where the characters turned and focused on the specialness of Mary Poppins: let’s get her on the stage, let’s get her to sing, let’s get her to do the magic. I’m not sure Travers would have been happy with that notion; it grated at me as a problem for a nanny that didn’t want to draw attention to herself. Yet she was also a very vain woman, so would that have appealed to her vanity?

Music-wise, the tunes were no Sherman/Sherman collaboration. Sherman and Sherman had a distinct feel to them; we saw a new Sherman/Sherman show at the end of 2017 in the LATC production of Levi! (CD is available). S/S songs were hummable; they were earworks that stuck with you. Stiles/Drewe of the theatrical version also created tunes in that style; it would have been nice to see if they could have done the movie. Homage, as it were. I tend to like Shaiman and Wittman‘s music — they did Hairspray, and Cry Baby – The Musical, and Smash, and Catch Me If You Can, among others (and are working on a Some Like It Hot musical). They did a reasonable job here — some songs were good, and I’m looking forward to getting the album. They didn’t hit it out of the park like the original, alas. I did appreciate the use of the Sherman/Sherman songs as underscoring.

The performances were very strong. Emily Blunt‘s characterization of Poppins was different from Julie Andrews, but worked. She captured the additional vanity and brought a bit more of an adult womanly tinge to the character — a little  less sweet, as it were. Lin-Manuel Miranda was strong as Jack, proving his versatility as a performer as well as a musical theatre star. But who I really liked was Emily Mortimer‘s Jane. She brought a magic to that character that shone whenever she was on screen.   She also had a strong chemistry with Ben Whishaw‘s Michael Banks.

In terms of the children: Pixie Davies (Anabel), Nathanael Saleh (John), and Joel Dawson (Georgie). Most were, well, children, but I was really taken with Davies’s Anabel. She brought a knowingness and sly smile to the character that reminded me a bit of Audrey Tatou’s Amelie. Great performance.

Moving to some of the baddies and specialty characters (and smaller roles). Colin Firth‘s evil banker was a bit too cartoonish and over the top. Julie Walters‘s Ellen was a bit better, and a nice homage to the befuddled original. Meryl Streep can have fun with any roles, and she enjoys the comic ones — so she nailed her Cousin Topsy. And as for Dick Van Dyke and Angela Lansbury — well, they steal the show with their talent.

As I noted, there were a number of continuity problems (like what happened to the briefcase when they went to visit Topsy). But I’m mentioning continuity now because of the required PC casting. Not surprisingly, there was color blind casting — one would have to in this day and age. Would a British bank in the 1930s have hired like that? Unclear. Would there have been mixed couples in the UK then? Again, unclear. However, the casting did jar one out of the timeframe — and that was a bit more of a problem. Finding the right balance in a period piece is hard. Speaking of jarring — I agree with one critic I read that the BMX bike stunts were unnecessary and seemed out of place for the period. They could have been cut with no loss of value.

Technically, the animated sequences were top notch, and I appreciated the use of hand-drawn vs. computer animation. I also liked the costumes in the china sequence, which had me wondering if they were painted on or real costumes.

Summing things up: Is this worth seeing? I think so. It will likely become a classic; it has strong performances and good music. It isn’t to the level of the original, but that doesn’t make it bad on its own.

And with that, our theatrical (live and film) year of 2018 comes to a close. May your 2019 be filled with spectacular and memorable performances.

***

Ob. Disclaimer: I am not a trained theatre (or music) critic; I am, however, a regular theatre and music audience member. I’ve been attending live theatre and concerts in Los Angeles since 1972; I’ve been writing up my thoughts on theatre (and the shows I see) since 2004. I do not have theatre training (I’m a computer security specialist), but have learned a lot about theatre over my many years of attending theatre and talking to talented professionals. I pay for all my tickets unless otherwise noted (or I’ll make a donation to the theatre, in lieu of payment). I am not compensated by anyone for doing these writeups in any way, shape, or form. I currently subscribe at 5 Star Theatricals (FB), the Hollywood Pantages (FB), Actors Co-op (FB), and the Ahmanson Theatre (FB). Through my theatre attendance I have made friends with cast, crew, and producers, but I do strive to not let those relationships color my writing (with one exception: when writing up children’s production, I focus on the positive — one gains nothing except bad karma by raking a child over the coals). I believe in telling you about the shows I see to help you form your opinion; it is up to you to determine the weight you give my writeups.

Upcoming Shows:

January is much more open, especially after the postponement of Bat Out of Hell at the Ahmanson Theatre (FB). Right now, all there is is a Nefesh Mountain concert at Temple Judea and a hold for the Colburn Orchestra at the Saroya [nee the Valley Performing Arts Center (VPAC)] (FB) but the rest of the month is currently open (as few shows run in January due to complicated rehearsals over the holidays). We’ll keep our eyes open. February starts with the Cantor’s Concert at Temple Ahavat Shalom (FB), Hello Dolly at the Hollywood Pantages (FB), and Anna Karenena at Actors Co-op (FB).  There’s also a HOLD for 1776 at the Saroya [nee the Valley Performing Arts Center (VPAC)] (FB), and Lizzie at the Chance Theatre, but much of February is also open.

As always, I’m keeping my eyes open for interesting productions mentioned on sites such as Better-Lemons, Musicals in LA, @ This Stage, Footlights, as well as productions I see on Goldstar, LA Stage Tix, Plays411 or that are sent to me by publicists or the venues themselves. Note: Lastly, want to know how to attend lots of live stuff affordably? Take a look at my post on How to attend Live Theatre on a Budget.