I saw Denzel Washington in 'Julius Caesar.' I think I'll wait for a review before buying a ticket to see him again.

And Valerie Harper will be in "Looped."

I'd love to see Christopher Plummer or Ian McKellan or Frank Langella in anything! One can always hope!

I goofed. Yesterday I got discount tickets on broadwaybox.com for Love, Loss and What I Wore. Got them for $59 instead of $75. Then today I checked Goldstar.com just to see what else is going on the NYC this coming weekend while I am there. Guess what, Goldstar.com has tickets to that show the same night, this Friday, for $37.50. Ouch. With goldstar.com you get seats assigned when you get there, but this venue is so small and intaimate, it doesn't really matter, I woudl have gladly taken the additional discount. Also several other Broadway and off-Bway discoutns on goldstar.com that are much better than the other theater discount sites I checked.

Check goldstar.com before you book on another site for a NYC show.

emd3 - thanks for the info. I know it's aggravating, but enjoy the show! I'd like to know which cast you see.

CPG, Michelle Lee and Diana Ross' daughter (can't think of her name right now), among others, are in it now...

I just got an email about the revival of The Miracle Worker opening on Broadway March 3. Abigail Breslin will play Helen Keller, Allison Pill will play Annie Sullivan, and Jennifer Morrison (Cameron on "House") will play Helen's mother.

I hope this is good. I really like Abigail Breslin and I wonder if she can translate to the stage. I am very tempted to get discounted tickets for the previews (start Feb 12) and Amtrak up to see it.

The 50th anniversary of the opening of the play on Broadway was this past Oct. It was such a powerful play, and then film. I read a good interview w/Patty Duke and Anne Bancroft done for that 50th anniversary:
http://www.officialpattyduke.com/MW.htm

HAs nayone been to Circle in the Square Theater? That is where Miracel Worker will play. I have decided to go in Feb during previews, but I have no idea how this stage works. It looks like a theater in the round, but is the stage static? Where to sit?

They change the seating at Circle in the Square depending on production. For Spelling Bee it was kind of three quarter round. I saw a show called Life X 3, which was in the round there, but the stage actually rotated for each of the three scenes 1/3 turn, which was unique. But my general experience has been that there are no bad seats there and you're always relatively close to the action.

I think the casting of Abigail Breslin is interesting. Generally people know her and love her because of her outgoing personality in Little Miss Sunshine. But there can't be even a trace of that kind of personality in Helen Keller, so it seems as if she does a "great job of acting", people might be disappointed as they won't see the actress they think they love.

emd3, I share your pain. I bought a ticket last week for $75 for the new John Lithgow play, Mr. and Mrs. Fitch, assuming there would be no discounts on this limited off Broadway run, and literally as the confirmation email arrived with my tickets I also got an email offering a discount code for that production at $49! Oh well, you lose some, you win some.

I'm glad to hear Patrick's comment (no bad seats!) since we just got tickets for March. It will be interesting to see how Abigail Breslin does in this role, but we're bringing my two nieces (15 and 13) and it should be a great show for them (along with us, hopefully).

is the Addams Family Musical to scary for a 5 year old?

I know little about the actual production of The Addams Family, but I wouldn't think of taking a 5-year-older to this show or most (if not all) other shows foir that matter. It's asking a lot to ask a child of that age to sit that long through any show!
As for The Addams Family specifically, I can't see a child of that age having the least bit of undestanding of what's going on.

I saw the Addams Family in Chicago and I wouldn't recommend it for a five year old. Not scary necessarily, but lots innuendo and inside jokes that wouldn't interest a child at all.

I don't know the show but I was VERY irritated by the mom that brought a 5yo to see Wicked. The kid was bored and wiggly and created constant distractions for those around her. :-(

Following is a portion of my trip report that is applicable to this thread:

I got lots of advice when I posted asking for suggestions of shows to see in NYC. The truth was that there weren’t any “must-sees” as far we were concerned. In past years, I’ve waited hours in line for the “Wicked” lottery, and woke at dawn to snag standing room for “The Lion King,” “Phantom,” and “The Producers” when they were new. There wasn't anything I felt that way about this time.

Our hotel was only a few minutes from the Times Square TKTS booth and we were shocked that first night to find almost no line (at around 5 PM)—and to see discounts for lots of shows that we’d thought would be sold out (such as “Mama Mia” and “Billy Elliott.” “Billy Elliott” was not high on my list, but I was so surprised to see it at 20% off @ TKTS that a few minutes later I’d bought tickets. FYI, the only time there was ever moere than a 5 or 10 minute wait was when the booth first opened. By 6 PM, you could just walk up and buy tickets.

Billy Elliott:
From all the awards and personal reviews I’ve heard I’m guessing no one else has every uttered these words … but neither of us liked it much. It was “okay”—but we were disappointed after all the hype. The “Billy” we saw (they rotate three different young actors; we saw Liam Redhead) was a good dancer and an okay actor—but he simply couldn’t sing on pitch—in fact, not even close. It was painful and every time he started another song, all I could think was, “Oh, no.”

I’m sure this is terribly politically incorrect, but I was distracted by the fact that the actor portraying Billy was either black or bi-racial—and his parents were not. I know that part of theater is about transcending the confines of reality--but I wouldn’t cast a white, Hispanic, or Asian person in “Raisin in the Sun” or “Porgy and Bess” and expect audiences not to notice. Maybe if the kid had been incredible, I wouldn’t have cared. But that wasn’t a big issue for me. I suspect that even with a great “Billy”—who could actually sing— I still wouldn’t have loved the show.

I loved every moment that the character “Michael” (Billy’s friend) was on stage. He was fantastic—a super singer and showman—and I couldn’t help wishing that “Billy” was at the same level. The pas de deux and a few other isolated numbers were terrific, but I thought the first ten or fifteen minutes were awful—and that most everything else was only “good” at best. I found the curtain calls among the most entertaining parts—and that’s not a good sign. IMHO, not even close to being in the same league as “Wicked.”

Next night: “Wishful Drinking,” Carrie Fisher’s one-woman show. I can’t rave enough. Brilliant; hilarious; touching; and exceptionally written, conceived, and performed. It was one of the most memorable and enjoyable Broadway shows I’ve ever seen. Sadly, it’ll be closing January 17th (after 4 months). Thank you, thank you, thank you to those who suggested it.

“West Side Story”: Very enjoyable, but here’s the problem we both had …
The Jets are dressed and coiffed circa 2010—yet their language and finger snapping is pure 1957. It was distracting—and even ridiculous—to see guys who looked as if they would fit perfectly into today’s world, saying “Daddy-O,” and some of the other pure ‘50s beatnik expressions. Frankly, we were both shocked that no one on the production team noticed this. The actor playing Tony had a voice that was absolutely glorious—although his acting was a little stiff—and he looked like he was probably about five years older than his character. “Anita” was phenomenal and “Maria” was quite good. LOVED the 2nd act—but can’t give it an unabashed thumbs up because nothing the Jets did quite worked for me. I think I expected a grittier, updated “WSS” but because of the lyrics and dialog I think it needs to be approached strictly as a period piece—set in 1957—or drastically rewritten (which I wouldn’t want). FYI, the highly touted Spanish dialog worked fine—but didn’t particularly add anything for me.

“Newsical: the Musical”: Fun sketches and musical numbers poking fun of everything newsworthy. It had some brilliant, hilarious moments, and consistently wonderful performances. The send ups of Joan Rivers, Liza Minelli, Susan Boyle, Sarah Palin, and the Balloon Boy were fantastic. But the material was mostly “good”—but not great. It’s a revue; like a cabaret performance—and it was an entertaining night out—but not a “must-see.”

Had a fantastic trip!

Songdoc, of all your comments, I'm most confused by the one about West Side Story. I have no idea how old you are, but do you have any idea what haircuts were like in the mid to late 1950's? I've seen enough pictures of the current production to say they look just like we all did when in high school, except some of the guys have a bit longer hair than most of us did -- making them the kind of rebels that appear in West Side Story. Some also have what we called "butch cuts" or even flat tops. Elvis Presley in 1957 was considered a "rebel" because he had such long hair for that perios, yet a few cast members have haircuts very much like his.

Then you say you expected a grittier updated version but you think it needs to be set in 1957. I think you're confused, because I have yet to hear anyone else suggest that it isn't set in 1957. Am I missing something here?

I'm not following either, Neo.

I don't know what production photos you saw -- or when they were taken -- but while there was one flat-top haircut, most of the Jets sported hair that looked more like West Hollywood or Chelsea circa 2010 than anything from the fifties. There was nothing remotely resembling the haircuts from the Elvis era, "Grease," or "Happy Days." DP had the exact same comment -- and we were both around in the fifties--and on the East Coast.

I am NOT suggesting it wasn't set in 1957. Of course it was--as I believe it needs to be. I'm saying that the problem was that the Jets' appearance seemed like 2010 -- and that wasn't consistent with the beatnik dialog.

Their scenes and especially the rumbles seemed very stylized--and I was EXPECTING a grittier, more realistic version from what I had read about the production in Arthur Laurents' wonderful book.

Responding to songrdoc:
I guess it's different strokes for different folks.
We found Billy Elliot utterly brilliant. True, we saw a different Billy, but I would hardly categorize the first 10-15 minutes as "awful." In fact, we were smtten from the start.
As for West Side Story, perhaps we were sitting further back in the theater than you and weren't ddistracting by the hair styles. Or perhaps it was simply because Robbins' choreogreaphy is so electrifying, we really weren't looking that carefully or frequently at their hair! And as far as it not being gritty enough, well, I can't see how the attack on Anita could be any grittier! And sytlized? Of course, West Side Story is stylized! It's supposed to be.
Well, at least, we agree on Wishful Drinking.

Well, here's one for starters, since you mention the chorus. But realize that I'm also saying 1957 WAS NOT all long hair like Elvis, definitely not. There was no single hairstyle for guys in the mid 50s.

http://www.lectrosonics.com/PressRel...ide_Story1.jpg

here's another:

http://www.artsjournal.com/aboutlastnight/West1span.jpg

Sorry, I just don't get the hair comment. I think you have a very different idea of how every teenager wore his hair in 1957 than I do.

Now if you had said the chorus boys look far too old to be averaging 16 or 17 -- well, that's quite another story!

I remember my junior high which had two factions: the greasers and the soches (sp?). I, of course, was a soch, on the honor roll, choir, band, student council. I watched with fascination the greasers indoctrinating their girlfriends into the gang by all the guys punching them in the arm. Well, it was junior high... Looking back now, they seemed more like 20 years old than 14 or 15. (Maybe they were -haha). Kids today just seem younger than we were, or maybe it's just because I am so much older!

When they were casting this current incarnation of WSS I remember reading they were looking for "he-man, macho types" for the guys. My friend who is in theater said, "Good luck finding he-man, macho types who can do Jerome Robbins choreography", lol.

Maggi, you bring up another point -- indirectly. West Side Story IS about two factions. The Jets haircuts seem to be a little more diverse (particularly more short ones) and less "Grease" like, while the Sharks -- the Puerto Rican gang -- have more guys with longer, wavy, greased hair. Makes sense to me.

In any case, I'm still trying to figure out how something so trivial as "exact representation of appropriate hairstyles" could have that big a part in the the enjoyment or disappointment of a stage play. We all know theatre is a lot of accepted conventions. Would someone focus on saying, "the scene under the bridge didn't really look like a real bridge to me" and that spoiled it for me?

Right. Hairstyles, costuming and stage design aside, the theme of WSS is timeless. I never get tired of seeing it. The recent staging of it in Stratford, Canada was brilliant. They actually did a fairly traditional version, which (for Stratford) is unusual. I have seen many shows there where they really push the envelope in terms of unconventional costuming and stage design. It really keeps you on your toes.