The Music Man : Critical Thinking/Official Reviews

[jo]

From the Theatremania Carlyle interview --

I've wanted to talk about "76 Trombones" since I saw the show, because the build of the number floored me — Hugh as Harold building a band before our eyes out of people miming the instruments.

That's really kind and I bloody love that. You got it. The whole point of the show is about faith. If he can get the townspeople to believe in this thing, he's got 'em, and if I can get an audience to believe that by the end of the number, mission complete. I worked really hard at it. It's like three years of work. There were so many layers to The Music Man. You often just get six weeks and it's a crazy, breathless spring to make something that's worthy. With Music Man, I did a workshop, and then I went away for three months, and then I did another workshop, and then I was with Hugh, and then I was with Sutton, and then they were together, and then I did another workshop. Each time you do that, you paint another layer into it.

What an eye-opener! That the creative emphasis for this revival is deep and elaborate and sophisticated.
Not sure if I would fully realize the intent the first time I see it!

That when Hill (through the Jackman portrayal) is able to make the kids believe that they are really playing the instruments and playing them well is the key to how he is able to make the town believe in him! No need for brash smooth-talking in the style of Robert Preston. Just charisma, talent, and showing by example.


I do remember someone saying how disappointed he was with the "76 Trombones" number in this revival. He was missing the oompha-appeal in the Preston movie and other stagings! He wanted a real band to materialize, with real gleaming instruments blaring out loud!

Goes to show that many had an elementary appreciation of what Meredith Willson was trying to sell - that it is the story of a man whose powers of persuasion goes beyond a loud mouth-- remember how Hill was described in those notes we saw ( but were banished on the internet) --

Spellbinder? Oh yes indeed. Look at Hal Hill as
he is in 1913. 35 years old, 5'11" - 160 lbs., hazel eyes -
warm and deep, brown hair, rangy, straight, well-postured,
good-looking, lean, normal

Pleasant, interested, generously cheerful to anyone and everyone.
Hal Hill, metropolite, carnivalian, lyceumist, tab artist,

vaudevillian - and recently out of his deeply-buried frustrations,
he has begun to add an almost hypnotic quality to the reactions
he is able to invoke from the spirit-hungry
small town middle-

. They don't know that
his magic depends largely on their own wonder,
under which spell he can make them accept almost any suggestion he
offers. And they also don't know that there wouldn't be any
magic at all if it wasn't for the red silk lining of his cost -

Harold Hill is a magician! Just as Hugh Jackman is a magician on stage! Look at the power of his charisma and joy of performing! Never mind that Jackman has the looks to go with it


Too bad the publicity machine ( from KHorton to JZaks to Jackman to Foster to Carlyle was not switched on ... while the social media managers failed to capitalize on this... during previews? Maybe some of the negative reviews would not have happened ( those not impressed by the supposedly too "inward" portrayal by Hugh? Unless they still wanted a full brass band playing Seventy Six Trombones


So, when is a revival of a classic allowed to give a fresh interpretation ?


Jo

[stargazer]

I am definitely a Hugh Jackman fan - have been fortunate to see all his Broadway shows! I also respect the memory of Robert Preston and was fortunate to have parents who saw Music Man with Robert Preston and Barbara Cook two weeks after it opened (tough tickets).
I saw Music Man on March 23 with tickets I bought 2 1/2 years ago. It was super, so entertaining and worth the wait! But I have one problem- why can’t you just appreciate Hugh’s performance without dissing Robert Preston’s performance? Both are brilliant in their own right - and I’m pretty sure you are comparing a stage performance to a movie performance which are two different beasts. Even Barbara Cook said Robert Preston was sexy and wonderful - and she also said if Hugh Jackman ever played it he would be perfect as well! She was a super fan of both - why not?

[jo]

No one is dissing Robert Preston's portrayal as Harold Hill -- that performance is considered a definitive one!

What is the subject of debate is whether that should be the only way to interpret the role -- that all revivals should look to his interpretation as the only credible one. Should portrayals which are not carbon copies be considered as inferior. While the book may have not changed, sometimes a considerable distance in time (such as 2022 vs 1957 when it was first staged or the 1912 period setting of the Willson tale) may call for different modes of persuasions. Are we saying that only the kind of brash smooth-talking style he effectively employed in the original musical should be kept sacrosanct. Today our culture has seen men of different persuasions and styles who are in effect con-men ( some in sheep's clothing, some of the tough-talking kind) - but they influence others in their own ways.

The reason why this was raised was because of how some critics gave Hugh Jackman inferior marks because he turned in an "inward performance" and "made the show fall flat". Check out NYTimes Jesse Green's review ( in one of the earlier posts on this thread.

www.nytimes.com/2022/02/10/theater/the-music-man-review.html

Interesting as well was how Warren Carlyle articulated the creative vision which influenced the unusual "76 Trombones"
production number ( which some bewailed because it was not as it was in the original & other stagings).



Btw, I did have a chance to see robert Preston perform live on stage! I saw him and Mary Martin in "I Do, I Do" a very long time ago! Not as memorable as his Harold Hill at all!

And we did meet Barbara Cook a few times - she was a # 1 fan of Hugh. During the closing show of The Boy From Oz, she gave some of us sitting in front of her row some confetti to shower the cast at the show's final curtain call. I also saw her go to Hugh's arena tour of The Boy from Oz in Sydney. She was an honorary Oz-a-lot because she did see the show a lot!

Btw, welcome to this forum

Jo

[jo]

Interesting comments from David Rooney of The Hollywood Reporter--

David Rooney
@davidcrooney1

Chief Film Critic
@thr
. Formerly Chief Theater Critic. Previous work published Variety, NY Times, LA Times. Member of
@nyfcc
,
@natsocfilmcrix
. Opinions my own


Btw, he was the one who gave the exclusive news on Hugh Jackman signing up for The Music Man. In the past, it was he who had access to exclusives from Scott Rudin.


JO

[stargazer]

Ah, reviews are just opinions, so while they are fun to read sometimes, they are completely subjective and should bear no influence on your own interpretation of what you see (see The Greatest Showman). I do think the negative reviews for Hugh were really off. He is a showman which is what the role requires. Everyone else was great too!
By the way Jo, I also saw “I Do! I Do!” with Mary Martin and Robert Preston. Totally different show but great as well (and also it wasn’t as flashy as Harold Hill, the portrayal of Michael also won another Tony Award for Robert Preston).
My family has stage door memories of Hugh (Steady Rain) and Robert (Sly Fox) All is good!

[jo]

Unfortunately, sometimes some reviews can kill shows ( eg.Frank Rich) -- and can affect show patronage and even the chances for recognition ( such as the Tony).

But some shows can become critic-proof!

Thankfully, not just The Greatest Showman ( did you have the chance to reply to that famous NYTimes survey on what made movie fans like TGS so much?) ...

and

The Music Man seems to be another one :

*Doing an average of USD 3.3 million in the past few weeks -- making it a runaway box office champ on Broadway.

*Having fans who do this thing, just to see the show.

Fom BWW --

dankuhlman
Send PM
Profile
Swing
joined:3/4/22
Music Man Rush Line.
#189
Posted: 4/8/22 at 3:59pm
I went this morning (4/8/22 - Friday) before work, not to wait in line, but just to ask the person first in line when they got there. He said 3:30am, and the person second in line got there at 4:30am.

[jo]

May 2, 2022 9:17:47 GMT -5 jo said:

ENTERTAINMENT
Commentary: Are Broadway megastars obsolete? Not as long as Hugh Jackman and Patti LuPone are around
Published 6 seconds ago on May 2, 2022By
LA TimesCommentary: Are Broadway megastars obsolete? Not as long as Hugh Jackman and Patti LuPone are around


Broadway stars can be seen as extinct creatures from a bygone era of entertainment. But reports of the eradication of this species have been greatly exaggerated.

Right now on Broadway, two nuclear-powered performers with enthusiastic theatrical followings shine brightly in classic American musicals. Even in the midst of a pandemic, one can cause an earthquake in ticket sales; the other can go viral by touring her basement, snatching a cell phone from an audience member, or simply being the subject of a hilarious broadcast.

Hugh Jackman stars in “The Music Man” at the Winter Garden Theater in a production built entirely around his overwhelming charisma and box office muscle. His opponent, two-time Tony winner Sutton Foster, is prominent on the tent. But when Jackman appears on Broadway, he is the sun around which all other celestial bodies revolve.

Patti LuPone is not the lead in the new “Company” revival at the Bernard B. Jacobs Theater. Katrina Lenk plays Bobbie in the gender-swapped version of this Stephen Sondheim-George Furth musical, directed by Marianne Elliott. But there is no confusion about who the public is there to see. Even when LuPone is simply playing with the ensemble, her appeal is as irrefutable as a law of nature.

Jackman, a film idol and showman who rose to international fame playing Curly in Trevor Nunn’s Royal National Theater production of “Oklahoma!”, and LuPone, a Juilliard-trained actor whose Broadway coronation dates back to her Tony-winning tour de force in “Evita,” have taken several paths to stardom. Jackman is a global brand; LuPone is more of an artisanal specialty. But when they make their stage entrances, the applause is equally thunderous.

The relationship an audience has with a Broadway star is all the more intense to be personal. Knowing a body in space, the parabolas of certain gestures, the side angles of expressions, the timbre of a joke, the mood of a certain style give an illusion of kinship. What is shared is not blood but theatrical time, a meaningful measure of life.

I’ve been lucky enough to see LuPone in some major musicals (“Gypsy,” “Sweeney Todd,” “Anything Goes”), and was eager to catch her in “Company.” The adventurous production was of course a big draw. But I was dying to see what she would do with Joanne, the role originated by Elaine Stritch, who long owned the character’s sour second act number, “The Ladies Who Lunch.”

Jackman may not have the Broadway longevity of LuPone, but he’s too much of an insider to be treated like a Hollywood tapestry. The Australian superstar, world famous for playing Wolverine in the “X-Men” franchise, won a Tony for playing Peter Allen in “The Boy From Oz”, received a special Tony for his contributions to the Broadway community and received an Emmy Award for hosting the Tonys, a service he has performed with confidence several times.

Broadway star power the size of Jackman or LuPone cannot be hidden under a bushel. But deploying something bigger than a star vehicle can be tricky when theater patrons clamor for a repair from their idol.

Jerry Zaks’ determinedly sunny production of Meredith Willson’s “The Music Man” is content to serve as an assignment between a megastar and his legion of fans. Orchestral seats, which retail for over $600, might as well be marketed as honeymoon suites for this Broadway return.

Jackman plays Harold Hill, the con man who fools the good citizens of River City, Iowa, into believing he can transform their untrained youths into a professional marching band. ‘Professor’ Hill leans in with a frenzied theory, claiming that practice is no longer necessary to master a musical instrument.

Before being exposed as a con man, he wants to sit on the train to his next destination with the costs for uniforms and lessons safely in his possession. Suspicious, morally upright and strikingly single Marian (an oddly muted Foster) sees through his charlatanism, but she is moved by the warmth of his act and the positive effect it has on her community.

In an era when a snake oil salesman could run for president, “The Music Man” seems ripe for deconstruction. But this production is too eager to please to bother with Donald Trump’s dark shadow.

The impetus seems to be to celebrate that we are back in the theater. Zaks, who scored a huge success with the 2017 mood-enhancing revival of “Hello, Dolly!” starring Bette Midler, indulges the sentimental heart of “The Music Man” by allowing Jackman to turn Harold Hill into a completely rambunctious, utterly lovable, versatilely entertaining crook.

Sparking like a Roman candle, Jackman turns the character into a romantic hero who needs only the love of a good woman to set him on the right path. It’s not a particularly sharp interpretation – there’s little chance that restless Harold will settle for good in River City – but it allows a born charmer to peruse his riotous repertoire.

The production is swooning over Jackman—and for good reason. The words “fighting trim” don’t do justice to his condition. The lines on his face may be a little more pronounced, but they appear (along with the rest) to have been sculpted by Michelangelo. Dressed as a drum major in gleaming white for the finale, Jackman was able to outdo a fairytale prince.

His nasal-sounding baritone may be the only lethal thing about him. But even if his voice starts to fray, he looks like he can tap dance all night. No one can say that he does not deserve his worship. After an exhausting performance, he spent a few thousand more calories raising money for Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS.

Still, I was one of the few who didn’t come expressly for “The Hugh Jackman Show.” “The Music Man” has never been one of my favorite American musicals, but I was curious what could be done with this old chestnut at a time when crooks threaten to take over the world.

Jackman is a generous performer and clearly has as much affection for his fellow ensemble members as he does for his audience. But if everyone in the production shone as brightly as he does, the lights in the theater would go out.

Marian is the opposite of a showboat, but Foster mutes her aura more than necessary. If she doesn’t seem ideally cast, it might be because the music tracks require a soprano with a higher range than she can accommodate.

“Till There Was You,” the song Marian sings after she (despite her better judgment) succumbed to Harold’s seductive spell, is still beautiful. But Foster’s psychology is obscure. The only revelation is that Jackman is irresistible.

Marian, honey, get in line.




Elliott’s production of “Company” is a much more rigorous rethink. The revival is not about LuPone, although for the simple reason of her virtuosity she becomes the hub.

Her LuPone-ness is no more erasable than Jackman’s Jackman-ness. At least she’s gotten more comfortable with her Broadway divinity. But her reverence for Sondheim enhances her talents. She makes herself bigger by submitting to a musical vision bigger than herself.

There has been some debate about the effectiveness of turning Bobby, the marriage-averse 35-year-old male lead, into Bobbie, a 35-year-old woman who is just as much of a commitment phobe. I’m not sure if casting alone can make such a significant shift without more extensive rewrites.

As heresy as it may be to say that “Company” could use an adjustment. Bobby/Bobbie remains a question mark and Lenk’s permanent sphinx-esque smile only makes the character more frustratingly blurry. Furth’s book is lumpy, and again I found myself in a revival of “Company” wishing we could fast-forward to the unerringly brilliant musical numbers.

This 1970s show belongs to the era in which it originated, but Elliott’s adaptation is in temporary limbo. Gay marriage is the law of the land and Bobbie is swiping through photos on her phone, but the NYC bachelorette party still seems to smell like smoky bachelorette bars and divorce carries the heavy stigma of yesteryear.

However, when the cast is in full musical swing, all these nagging issues fall by the wayside. Actors and audience come together comfortably in the theatrical present.

LuPone has two big numbers, both of which anatomize the ambivalence of married life: “The Little Things You Do Together” in the first act and “The Ladies Who Lunch” in the second. She also rides around with the chorus of Bobbie’s counseling friends, becoming one with the music and a generational bridge that leads straight to Sondheim.

For ‘The Ladies Who Lunch’, LuPone sits on a barstool in a white fur coat with a drink in her hand and vicious mischief in her eyes. Her defiant silence exerts a gravitational pull. Never has anyone delivered cynicism with such sedentary dazzle. But more than that, she clarifies the intent of the song. Joanne doesn’t want her unmarried boyfriend to sacrifice the lonely freedom of singleness for the double-edged sword of marriage.

LuPone’s rendition of the song overshadows the finale that follows. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one wishing “Being Alive” was reassigned to Joanne so we could find out what LuPone would do with this Sondheim song about the painful need for human connection. But that would be against the mind of a Broadway star who is at heart an ensemble trouper dedicated to artistic growth.



With his miraculous gifts, Jackman deserves a production that will challenge him rather than spoil him. No one at “The Music Man” could have felt cheated by his dynamic performance. But Broadway stardom of its caliber is too precious to squander on a star turn.

Charles McNulty is the theater critic of the Los Angeles Times. He received his doctorate in dramaturgy and dramatic criticism from the Yale School of Drama.

[jo]

May 2, 2022 9:44:46 GMT -5 jo said:

Zaks, who scored a huge success with the 2017 mood-enhancing revival of “Hello, Dolly!” starring Bette Midler, indulges the sentimental heart of “The Music Man” by allowing Jackman to turn Harold Hill into a completely rambunctious, utterly lovable, versatilely entertaining crook.

*No comparison with how Preston interpreted the role, simply stating how Hugh gave his own portrayal focus

*Acknowledges that it was part of Zaks's creative vision.


Jo

[jo]

[jo]

[jo]

Insightful and astute reply to one ATCer's negative assessment of how Hugh has portrayed Hill ( a charmer without bite).

I beg to differ

Posted by: mamaleh 10:01 am EDT 05/26/22
In reply to: re: NYT: Hugh Jackman Is Having Fun Playing as ‘Arrogant as You Possibly Can’ - aleck 11:54 am EDT 05/25/22

Yes, Jackman presents the jovial glad-hander in all his scenes with the townspeople. That face is essential to his gaining their friendship and trust--and most importantly, their money. In his scenes with old partner-in-swindle, Marcellus, he shows a decidedly different face. Even late in Act II, with his hard look, he tells Marcellus he's "not resigning without my commission," meaning he's out to take advantage of Marian. I found those scenes believable and in marked contrast to the calculated, phony super-friendly "I'm one of you" game he's been successfully pulling -- until he realizes, dumbfounded, that he's been changed by Marian and the town. Some people may not like Zaks's take, but I found it very true to Willson's description of Hill as a "lovable rogue." It seems the SRO crowds agree with me.

[jo]

Nov 8, 2022 20:05:55 GMT -5 jo said:

The New York Times writes about the relevance and its effort to retrofit to modern times of THE MUSIC MAN.

www.nytimes.com/2022/11/08/opinion/music-man-race-broadway.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Opinion

OPINION
|
‘The Music Man,’ Race and Broadway
Give this article


John McWhorter
OPINION

‘The Music Man,’ Race and Broadway

Nov. 8, 2022, 4:01 p.m. ET

Credit...Delcan and Co.



John McWhorter
By John McWhorter

Opinion Writer

You're reading the John McWhorter newsletter, for Times subscribers only. A Columbia University linguist explores how race and language shape our politics and culture. Get it in your inbox.
I want to revisit the issue of modern theater and whiteness these days. Space didn’t allow me to specify in last week’s newsletter that my thoughts on it have been influenced by the shows I have taken in of late.

An example is the current revival of “The Music Man.” It’s a show that thoroughly deserves, on its face, a charge that it is just #SoWhite. It really is so very white. It’s about white people in a small, white town in Iowa in the white 1910s. It was created by a white man, the composer and conductor Meredith Willson, and the original cast in 1957 was very, very white.

There’s more to “The Music Man” than all of that, though, and I’ll get to it in a moment. But first, this current production says something about where Broadway is on race in that there are lots of Black people in the cast of the revival.

Not just as anonymous chorus members. Not just as one of the barbershop quartet guys, as has been common for a while. Now even one of the quartet of gossipy matrons — who serve as a kind of Greek chorus of townster opinion — is Black (and has an actual, full, flowery name in the script), as well as one of the leaders in the opening train number. I never knew until now that the line “He’s just a bang beat, bell-ringing, big haul, great go, neck or nothin’, rip roarin’, every time a bull’s-eye salesman!” could sound as Black as it does in this production, complete with a bit of trash-talking body language. And the mayor’s daughter is played by Emma Crow, who is also Black and is a fantastic dancer. A generation ago, this woman, too young to be a background chorus matron, wouldn’t have been cast in a “Music Man” production at all.




All of this contrasts with what could be seen as an initial crack in the plaster in productions of this show not too long ago. The last time “The Music Man” was on Broadway was in 2000, and in it, a Black actor was cast as one of the wandering barbershop quartet members. Corresponding to that, a Black actress was cast as the female protagonist Marian Paroo’s piano student Amaryllis, the idea being that Amaryllis was the Black quartet member’s daughter.

This was a nice start, and I’ve been told that it became a common casting tradition in regional productions of “The Music Man” after that, one of which I saw some years ago. But the tendency was to cast a Black man as the bass in the quartet, with mostly white audiences thrilled, as they seem to be, by Black men with deep singing voices. That is certainly the case in the current revival, where mostly white audiences are all atwitter whenever Phillip Boykin hits one of his low notes. (They also liked it when he did the same thing beauteously in the opening number of the recent-ish revival of “On the Town.”) And for whatever it’s worth, he does have some seriously swell resonance.

But in this production, Boykin is one of many Black cast members, such that Blackness becomes more than any cartoonish notion of African-esque masculinity. We have moved on. In this production of “The Music Man,” Black people just are. To such an extent that while Amaryllis’s father is Black (as is suggested by some stage business), the actress playing Amaryllis, Emily Hoder, is white.

Watching the Black actors in this revival making their living, I recalled a party I attended in New York City in 1988 where I met some seasoned Black musical theater actors, among whom the joke was how all of them had lost count of how many times they had been in local productions of the Fats Waller jukebox revue “Ain’t Misbehavin’,” and how slim the pickings tended to be otherwise. On Broadway at the time, if you weren’t lucky enough to be in the small cast of August Wilson’s “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone” or the gospel concert as musical “The Gospel at Colonus,” “Black Broadway” pretty much meant — besides, yes, a Broadway revival of “Ain’t Misbehavin’” cast with the five original players — that there were two Black chorus members in a revival of “Anything Goes,” and that was processed as progressive. And the actors, a man and a woman, only danced with each other, though I heard at the time that when asked about it they said they liked it that way because they had danced together in other shows.

Their modern equivalents certainly have their complaints, but they wouldn’t be anything like those I heard at that party. This production of “The Music Man” is a demonstration. The same year of that party I saw a version of “The Music Man” at City Opera with, as far as I can remember (in addition to a grievously miscast Bob Gunton as Harold Hill), not a single Black person in it.




Yet from what I see and read in sources such as the We See You, White American Theater manifesto I mentioned last week, from the general idea that theater must submit to a certain kind of reckoning on race, and from some takes on modern Broadway from younger critics of late, I imagine that some might say a “Music Man” with lots of Black cast members denies the bigotry and even the violence against Black people that was typical in the milieu — again, Iowa in the 1910s — in which it is set.

And it is true that in those years (and before and for a while after), Black sections of towns in the Midwest and the South were being torched by white mobs as people like the ones in “The Music Man” stood by watching. Lynching was still ordinary. Black people were not living in burgherly harmony with whites as if race didn’t matter.

In this current “Music Man,” casting is seriously race-blind — all performers, regardless of race, are just playing people. Or perhaps white people? To some, this will look like a lie set to music. In real life, Black people in towns like the fictional River City, if there were any, occupied their own separate world. There were no interracial barbershop quartets and sewing circles, the mayor’s daughter was the same race as he was, and often all it took was a spark of misunderstanding for a race riot to ravage countless Black lives in an afternoon.

So, to reckon with that reality, perhaps truly progressive theater is that which focuses on Black people either suffering that violence or dealing with its later legacies now. That means that theater should be therapeutic rather than diverting — and that is hardly a dismissible proposition in itself. It isn’t too far from what Plato suggested in “The Republic.” But here’s the thing: Broadway — if I may be allowed the stretch of pretending it represents American theater in its entirety — currently offers a great deal of this reckoning and therapy on race.

As I write, in New York we can take in a revival of August Wilson’s “The Piano Lesson,” which won a Pulitzer in 1990. Suzan Lori-Parks’s “Topdog/Underdog” is back after 20 years. “Ain’t No Mo’” explores what would happen if Black people were sent back to Africa. “A Strange Loop” is a musical about a gay Black man’s pathway to writing a musical about a gay Black man writing a musical. And we can also take in Arthur Miller’s exploration of the American dream, “The Death of a Salesman,” rendered through the blackness of Wendell Pierce, Sharon D. Clarke and André De Shields.

So a case that Broadway doesn’t get Black pain is, lately, fragile. But I worry still, about an argument of a sort one hears from certain quarters, that a piece like “The Music Man” should be dismissed as obsolete, that it should not play alongside “The Piano Lesson” but should be consigned to the dustbin of history. That makes me think of my January clapback against the young critics who think the original “West Side Story” is a dismissible antique.

Shouldn’t our theater be about people of our time working through what the past did to them and moving on into a dynamic present? Well, yes — to an extent. But I assume we can do two things at once. We can acknowledge historical injustice, while also enjoying what was uplifting and exemplary, in a sense that artistically transcends specific injustices.




Now, one reasonably might ask just what the art is in “The Music Man.” And the answer is that there is quite a bit. The script and lyrics channel the nuances of human speech gorgeously, and I cannot help referring you to a recent episode of my language podcast “Lexicon Valley” where I explain how. Then I invite all but professional pianists to try playing the original dance music of “Shipoopi” from the piano-vocal score. It offers the same challenge in places as the late work of Scott Joplin — and remember, ragtime was invented by Black people. Or: If you were writing a musical about a flimflam man coming to a small town to snooker the rubes into buying band instruments, how would you begin it? I am quite sure I wouldn’t think of having a bunch of salesmen in a train car talking about the flimflam man, much less actually rapping it rather than singing — and especially in 1957! This is serious creativity. It’s art. It should not molder in archives. There’s a reason it’s still regularly performed over 60 years after its debut, and nothing about the latest reflexes of modernity justifies silencing it.

Make no mistake: “The Piano Lesson” is key theater. The current revival could stop to breathe a bit more here and there, but it is a solid and arresting rendition of the property. “The Music Man,” retrofitted somewhat to allow a representative array of talented people to do their work, is key as well to a healthy American theater culture. We need, to wit, both Meredith Willson and August Wilson.


John McWhorter (@johnhmcwhorter) is an associate professor of linguistics at Columbia University. He is the author of “Nine Nasty Words: English in the Gutter: Then, Now, and Forever” and, most recently, “Woke Racism.”

[jo]

Jerry Zaks
liked your Tweet

@jerryzaks
@realhughjackman
Great article at NYTimes on the cultural relevance of the current revival of The Music Man
nytimes.com/2022/11/08/opinion/music-man-race-broadway.html?unlocked_article_code=LhyZTTg8ByRkHoeJP1rwsgjDGGX5HPPs7ohIdXB3RcHhs2C4Lj0qw_CCpPan3bswJlYTB-Jtz_gipcX2YMuN1KKAphEa-Z9ZoBhSNAMQf4fIa8hP88Mak8jqt9XFCAbDfSbyplL-kOQRW9vKj4gJro8bbJjR-UtVrMDEWeCpcdXXGJ0PwuulddHlbOjHt_A-RzYuLg6g7OXyoHVgUyYSFNn2qxYeUSFhU2fyEtL1EEo21wozB8GnwsU5C_D19ucduMeFaLqJVBYDjyffU-IrEscGGKLDlWluPfxHEJdFLoqOvfQBrrDv666WFFSUOiW5Tosdw2d9AuSDe2Rr5RszCxY&smid=share-url

[jo]

Jerry Zaks
Retweeted your Tweet

@jerryzaks
@realhughjackman
Great article at NYTimes on the cultural relevance of the current revival of The Music Man

nytimes.com/2022/11/08/opinion/music-man-race-broadway.html?unlocked_article_code=LhyZTTg8ByRkHoeJP1rwsgjDGGX5HPPs7ohIdXB3RcHhs2C4Lj0qw_CCpPan3bswJlYTB-Jtz_gipcX2YMuN1KKAphEa-Z9ZoBhSNAMQf4fIa8hP88Mak8jqt9XFCAbDfSbyplL-kOQRW9vKj4gJro8bbJjR-UtVrMDEWeCpcdXXGJ0PwuulddHlbOjHt_A-RzYuLg6g7OXyoHVgUyYSFNn2qxYeUSFhU2fyEtL1EEo21wozB8GnwsU5C_D19ucduMeFaLqJVBYDjyffU-IrEscGGKLDlWluPfxHEJdFLoqOvfQBrrDv666WFFSUOiW5Tosdw2d9AuSDe2Rr5RszCxY&smid=share-url

[jo]

A late and generous review --

Man in Chair

BROADWAY
The Music Man review [Hugh Jackman, Broadway 2022]
BY SIMON PARRIS ON NOVEMBER 17, 2022 • ( LEAVE A COMMENT )
Cherished golden age treasure The Music Man roars back to life in this big budget, big star revival.



Well known via two movie adaptations and countless school and community productions, 1957 musical comedy The Music Man is full of big brassy numbers, which are now even bigger in this upsized production. The cast of 40 includes around 18 child actors, creating a rich sense of life in small town America 90 years ago.

Presented as a vehicle for megastar Hugh Jackman (aka Australia’s own Hugh Jackman), The Music Man provides one of the great leading male roles, which Jackman embraces with all his might. Super-fit, as ever, Jackman sings and dances up a storm, even tap dancing in the finale. While his hair and costumes make Jackman’s Professor Harold Hill look like a visitor from the future, this is a small quibble in such a warm hearted, generous and highly entertaining performance.


Veteran director Jerry Zaks is completely at home in a classic like this, and his experience shows in every moment. Comedy is delightfully old school without ever feeling corny. Despite the show’s familiarity, Zaks ensures that every plot point lands with clarity, pacing is kept brisk, and stakes are kept suitably high.

There is just one way in which the original show is not fully respected, and that is changes to lyrics. Meredith Willson famously performed the rare feat of writing the music, lyrics, and book for The Music Man. It is one thing for new lyrics (credited to Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman) to be added to “The Sadder But Wiser Girl” and “My White Knight,” but to rewrite fluffy patter song “Shipoopi” from the inside out seems unwarranted. The old lyrics may have had the potential to offend women, but it is not clear whether anyone actually ever took the slightest notice of these lyrics, let alone took offence to them. Given the respect shown to the rest of the material, these changes come across as somewhat jarring.

Working not just with a huge cast but with a huge performance space, choreographer Warren Carlyle delivers stunning full company numbers, with the dance breaks of every big number significantly expanded with new dance arrangements by David Chase. “Seventy-Six Trombones” fills the stage with a full dancing orchestra, with similar witty, eye-catching success seen in “Marian the Librarian” and “Shipoopi.”


With a glorious orchestra of 24 musicians, the musical performance of Willson’s score is another clear feature of the production. One small change to the song list is the excision of brief act two opener “It’s You”; thankfully, traditionalists can hear the Quartet sing this as a bonus track on the cast recording.


Design by Santo Loquasto has a wonderful vintage feel. Viewers of 2021 AppleTV hit Schmigadoon will feel instantly at home with the lovely painted backdrops and detailed period costumes. One more word about the costumes: despite the story taking place over a few short days, the lead players change outfit basically every single time they step off the stage. That’s the big budget of a Broadway blockbuster in action.


At this performance, Lauren Blackman played iconic heroine Marian Paroo. With more of a true soprano voice than usual portrayer Sutton Foster, Blackman sings the score delightfully, and gives Jackman as good as he gives her in the romance department.

Supporting roles are characterfully cast. Shuler Hensley brings a rough and ready backwater bravado to Harold’s one-time fellow crony Marcellus.

Living legend Jayne Houdyshell commands the Pick-a-Little Ladies as Eulalie Mackecknie Shinn. Mark LInn-Baker, a relative newcomer to the cast, voices Mayor Shinn a little too intelligently for his malapropisms to really make sense.

Marie Mullen brings warmth and frisky enthusiasm to Marian’s mother Mrs Paroo. Benjamin Pajak takes little Winthrop Paroo on a fully realised journey of burgeoning self-confidence.

Gino Cosculluela displays extraordinary dance skills as wrong ‘un Tommy Djilas.

Musical comedy on the sort of grand scale seen only on Broadway, The Music Man is a welcome treasure for old school devotees as well as being a terrific introduction to a classic for newcomers of younger generations.


Footnote: Broadway shows are currently fundraising for Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS. After the curtain call of this performance, Jackman auctioned off the signed boater hat he had worn in that show. When two bidders continued to battle it out, Jackman offered a second hat and the bidders paid $US15,000 each to walk away winners. What an incredible result!

The Music Man plays at Winter Garden Theatre, New York until 15 January 2023.

[jo]

From THE WASHINGTON POST

Opinion How ‘The Music Man’ might salve some of our country’s anxieties


By Catherine Rampell
Columnist
|
Follow
December 26, 2022 at 7:00 a.m. EST

Hugh Jackman, Sutton Foster and the cast of "The Music Man" perform “Shipoopi.” (Joan Marcus)


Some people have emotional support puppies. Some turn to chicken soup, a fancy meditation app or homeopathic tinctures.



This year, my therapy has been the Broadway revival of “The Music Man.”

Examined in the right light, this show might salve, if not entirely solve, some of our country’s anxieties, too.

For those unfamiliar, the musical centers on a charismatic con man who fleeces a bunch of rubes. Harold Hill (played by Hugh Jackman, somehow spryer and slicker than you’ve ever seen him) travels from town to town whipping up moral panics and cashing in on them. When he reaches River City, Iowa, Harold snookers the town into fearing the corrupting influence of a newly installed pool table:

YA GOT TROUBLE, FOLKS!
RIGHT HERE IN RIVER CITY
TROUBLE WITH A CAPITAL “T”
AND THAT RHYMES WITH “P”
AND THAT STANDS FOR POOL!

The cure for this menace, the charming scammer declares, is a wholesome boys marching band — which he’s conveniently poised to create, since he’s a “music professor” who sells instruments and band uniforms. None of this makes much sense, but whatever. Harold is irresistible, and the townspeople gladly buy the fantasy he’s peddling. They hand over their savings and await their deliveries from the Wells Fargo wagon.


As Marian Paroo (played by Sutton Foster) looks on, Harold Hill (Hugh Jackman), kneeling, talks with Winthrop Paroo (Benjamin Pajak) in a scene from "The Music Man." (Julieta Cervantes)
Harold plans to hop the last train out of town before anyone realizes he’s musically illiterate. The scam is foiled, however, when the flimflammer falls for a local gal. This time he decides to stick around — because a real man, ahem, faces the music.



I’ve seen this latest production five times so far this year — usually by myself, often in moments of stress or uncertainty. I bought a last-minute ticket on Election Day, for example, to tear myself away from my computer screen and the urge to perpetually refresh the fear needle. Truly, there’s nothing like a tapdancing Wolverine to calm one’s political anxieties. That said, Broadway tickets are not exactly the cheapest analgesic (and definitely not covered by my health insurance).


Why, then, am I aching for a sixth viewing, before the production closes next month?


Some charms of “The Music Man” are obvious. Witness writer Meredith Willson’s devious wordplay and the verbal contortions he crams into his high-speed patter songs:

HE’S JUST A BANG BEAT, BELL-RINGIN’,
BIG HAUL, GREAT GO, NECK-OR-NOTHIN’,
RIP-ROARIN’, EVER’-TIME-A-BULL’S-EYE SALESMAN,
THAT’S PROFESSOR HAROLD HILL, HAROLD HILL.


There’s the joyful swagger of “Seventy-Six Trombones.” In this production, the anthem is masterfully choreographed by Warren Carlyle, who alchemizes his dancers’ limbs into layers and layers of imagined brass instruments.

And there’s so much delightful mischief in “Marian the Librarian,” in which Harold enlists the town’s children into his flirtation with the town’s standoffish librarian, Marian Paroo (a winning, if somewhat miscast, Sutton Foster). Marian’s quiet library erupts into chaos, with books flying, legs pinwheeling and lots of futile shushing.


Much to the dismay of librarian Marian Paroo (Sutton Foster), Harold Hill (Hugh Jackman) and other patrons take over the library with a musical number in a scene from "The Music Man." (Julieta Cervantes)
Even “Shipoopi,” perhaps the most fatuous song in Broadway history, earns its place in this production. That’s because it gives Foster — a fabulous dancer trapped in a mostly stationary role — a chance finally to stretch her legs at the start of Act II.


The show also features some quietly subversive sexual politics, perhaps unexpected given its G-rated reputation. Harold, for instance, sings a rat-a-tat rebuke of men’s typical fetishization of feminine “purity”: Our salesman prefers a “sadder but wiser girl,” as cynical Marian is presumed to be. (“I CHEER, I RAVE FOR THE VIRTUE I’M TOO LATE TO SAVE … I HOPE, I PRAY FOR HESTER TO WIN JUST ONE MORE A.”)


But I think the real reason I’ve so often sought comfort in “The Music Man” is that this show, like Harold Hill himself, is selling a fantasy. Specifically, a fantasy about how Americans can actually get along.


As Harold Hill (Hugh Jackman), center, joins in, Phillip Boykin, Nicholas Ward, Daniel Torres and Eddie Korbich perform as the barbershop quartet in “The Music Man.” (Julieta Cervantes)


“The Music Man” is about the healing nature of the arts. Harold teaches discordant neighbors to live in harmony — quite literally — by transforming the town’s bickering school board into a barbershop quartet. Even bad art, our River City residents learn, can be restorative. The interpretive dances led by the mayor’s wife are wondrously awful. At the show’s end, when the boys’ band bleats an out-of-sync “Minuet in G,” parents nonetheless gush over their children’s sour oom-pah-pahs.

And all’s forgiven.


It’s this forgiveness, lubricated by love and music, that makes “The Music Man” so seductive. A community has been hoodwinked by an admitted fraud. Townspeople could have emerged humiliated, suspicious, divided. Instead, somehow, they emerge from their collective trauma stronger and more tightly knit than before. Harold’s manipulations have opened them up, rather than closed them off.

They were lied to, yes; but ultimately they realize they wanted to be lied to. Even better, the con man isn’t so much a psychopathic shyster as a misguided cheerleader with an overactive imagination. No wonder everyone can just move on!

If only we could all live in River City.

That the message of a town somewhere in midwest America gets back its sense of community ... that story was not told the first time in this revival. It was first told in 1957, when Meredith Willson's original musical premiered on Broadway, with Harold Preston playing the original Harold Hill. What was America in those postwar years -- it was probably a country that was quite united and feeling optimistic of the future.

This revival happened during a pandemic that sapped not just America's energy & optimism but also the entire world due to a health devastation problem that has wreaked havoc on lives and the worldwide economy. It also came to America at a time of strong political divisiveness.

So the message by the Washington Post writer that this revival served to get America in a positive mood -- is this true? Or is it because the timing of the musical was perfect as America faced two major national concerns:

*the long-running impact of the pandemic
*the political divide
*not sure, but is there also a generational divide - where the current generation views social and political issues in the same light?

Is there a major difference between the original show and this revival?

Maybe this revival brought a stronger sense of joy and a feeling of upift because the main character, Prof Harold Hill, was portrayed by Hugh Jackman in a slightly different & more beguiling light. Instead of the brash tone in Robert Preston approach in putting the town in his influence, Jackman chose to be more a like a Pied Piper - all charisma and goodwill tone - making the citizens of River City feel important and making a contribution to the town's well-being. Marian was also portrayed as a clear-eyed woman who saw through the fake music professor ... but eventually fell for his innate nature (and maybe physical charms) when she saw his true kindness in dealing with Winthrop. Sutton was the more credible & clear-eyed Marian. The many town characters seemed more natural portrayals of different types of folks and kids in a town that had not found its real tone of happiness! The revival hailed all those character types and gave a more well-rounded picture of a town trying to get back its sense of goodwill.

Adding to the sense of joy was the way dance was used extensively and joyously to show the feeling of how togetherness can be achieved. The more I think of it,"76 Trombones" was rightfully used to mime how each instrument and how each boy & girl will mesh to become a triumphant & happy musical grouping ...and is one of the revival's major contribution! "Shipoopi" adds to the sense of a triumphant celebration of a town finding its musicality & bonding among its young ( who seem to lead their elders in learning the lessons in life)

And maybe the beautiful coming together of Harold & Marian, romantically-speaking, added to the natural charm of this revival. It felt so much like a dramatic punctuation to two very different individuals finding their common romantic ground. It felt so natural!


But I am glad the Washington Post article was written -- if only to awaken those who are so negatively-attuned towards this revival and its lead performer! Happily, we don't need this article to appreciate that the lessons of people getting back their sense of joy, their sense of community in appreciating this musical theatre masterpiece... audiences have already gone one step ahead when they give the show its sincere standing ovations!

Jo

[jo]

[jo]

You're going to love this podcast review from a Mom and Son Broadway lovers!! They saw it on the last week of its run. They love the show! They completely disagree with Jesse Green's NYTimes review of the show.