I have to admit that I have become a little bit skeptical of productions of shows that have become extremely popular. I feel there tends to be a sense of confidence that actors can have when they are in a popular and successful show that causes them to expect the show to take off on its own without having to put in the work. I felt it a little bit when I saw Jersey Boys in SF over the holidays, and both times I saw The Lion King (in London and LA). So needless to say, I didn't go into seeing Wicked with the highest of expectations.
The production I saw with the original cast in New York was so new, so innovative, so grand, that I thought it would be hard to surpass. And I think it still is. I have heard things about the touring company of the show that I wasn't very impressed with, and I was curious to see how the sit-down LA production would go. And what's more, I was seeing a Tuesday night performance, and I was concerned about the production having a case of "the Mondays."
Thankfully, I was pleasantly surprised. I really enjoyed almost every part of this production. When I saw it previously in NYC, I was sitting in the front row of the orchestra, and it was an amazing experience to be able to see the details in the costumes, sets, makeup, etc. But after seeing it from the front of the mezzanine, I feel as though I was able to see it in its full scale. I compare it to seeing a movie from the front row of the movie theater versus sitting halfway back and being able to see the whole screen clearly. More of the technical effects made sense to me, and while sitting up close allowed me to see where every dime of the $14 million budget was spent, this was the first time I noticed how effective it was. And it was also very apparent that Universal produced the show.
Because I saw it in NYC in March of 2003, I cannot remember specifics of that production, but I do know that when the show opened in London, they implemented some changes to improve the show, which they also brought over to LA. There were a few minor changes to the staging that I noticed, which for the most part I felt may have made the movement on stage seem a bit cleaner, but detracted from the effect of the production. Like at the beginning of the show, when the curtain goes up, instead of the giant witch's hat, the munchkins were just huddled in a group. Yeah, the hat may not be the cleanest thing to see at the opening of the show, but it immediately sets the stage as the muchkins (with the height difference, you see) celebrating the death of the witch. And there were a few Wizard of Oz jokes that were skipped over due to the staging (there were a few that were skipped over due to poor line delivery, too, but that's another story), like how Elphaba gets her cape from Glinda. The changed staging has Glinda walk in front of Elphaba, who is on her knees down center, and then she rises on a swell in the music. It was more effective in the original staging with both girls standing side by side.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e7d4b/e7d4bafba5c10fa555b64acdee65add994951a8f" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/83b17/83b173f031751dda89684d3a83eb38a79764923b" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3ab3a/3ab3ab9504492defb8d45be65672db0fcee619fa" alt=""
I was pleasantly surprised by Megan Hilty as Glinda. I knew that she played her character more shticky and 'out there' than Kristen Chenoweth, and I wasn't sure how I would like it. She definitely stole the stage during her scenes with Eden Espinosa, and she relied heavily on her Jessica Simpson calibre ditzy character and goofy movements to bring the laughs. I almost prefer Kristin's character choice to internalize the character choices because by making the humor more subtle and subdued, I found her character to actually be more genuinely humorous, rather than physically silly. But Megan had some great moments, ones that will stick out in my mind as hilariously effective (and who says its an easy feat following in Kristen's footsteps?).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/99cb4/99cb4b651818be6d97618460f80b0b0eaf1e3042" alt=""
I forgot to ask the people in the box office how popular the raffle has been, and where the seats are located. It would be so easy for me to pop over there after work and check out the show if I get the tickets. I definitely would not mind seeing the show again (in hopes of checking out Carole Kane, JLG, and an understudy for Fiyero). And I might as well check it out as much as I can, especially if it's with cheap raffle tickets. It'll be here for a few years, definitely.
Next up for Wicked? A production in Tokyo opening in June, in Germany opening in October, and in Australia in July, 2008. What a blockbuster!
2 comments:
"I felt it a little bit when I saw Jersey Boys in SF over the holidays"
Now, I didn't see the NY production, but I LOVED the SF production. Saw it 4 times, if you count Taylor's understudy rehearsal. So good.
Also, I saw "JLG" as Nessa, and she was totally awesome--nevermind that I was partially thinking "It's Libby from Sabrina the Teenage Witch!" most of the time...
Is that what they would say on the east coast?
No.
We use wicked as an adverb, not an adjective. So, wicked was wicked AWESOME, or wicked cool, or wicked intense, or wicked SOMETHING.
Wicked does not stand alone.
That is all.
Post a Comment