A group of us braved the bitter cold last Saturday night to see Redmoon’s current production of Hunchback, their ultra-creative interpretation of Victor Hugo’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame. If you’ve seen any of Redmoon’s past productions, you know to expect the unexpected, and if you’ve never experienced this boundry-pushing theater troupe, I highly recommend you make Hunchback your introduction to their special brand of Chicago theater.

Hunchback is an energetic production, with actors leaping, jumping and climbing all over (and above) the stage. Large wooden crates serve as doorways, hiding places, platforms and a prison cell. A pair of metal scaffolds on wheels incorporate ladders that see-saw back and forth from which actors can climb, swing, hang and manipulate, effectively conjuring up settings from Notre Dame’s bell towers to a stockade and gallows. Sound effects and music complete the effect.

It wouldn’t be Redmoon without puppets and this production interweaves marionettes, shadow puppets, bunraku, and large-scale puppets to amazing effect. Masked actors portray Quasimodo, Esmeralda, her lover Phoebus, and the evil priest Claude Frollo; they alternate their roles with puppet counterparts, adding an interesting layer of self-reflection to the story. Occasionally, Victor Hugo hilariously butts in to provide context and critique the production. The acting is strong and the action brisk so the 80 minute play flies by.

The venue adds to the experience. Hunchback is staged in Redmoon HQ, a former ink factory on West Hubbard. Before and after the play, visitors are free to wander among set pieces and props from former Redmoon productions and afterward the company invites the audience to step on stage to walk among the ladders, see the puppets, and speak with the actors.

The show has been extended through Feb 3rd and tickets are still available so go, go, go!

In 2004, a production of Shakespeare’s Pericles directed by Mary Zimmerman (she of Lookingglass Theatre and the Tony Award) opened in Washington D.C. to rave reviews. I’m guessing critics in the nation’s capital had never seen a Zimmerman production. By her standards, this Pericles production, now playing at The Goodman Theatre in Chicago, is tame, and dare I even say it, ordinary.

I have vivid memories of the first Lookingglass/Zimmerman production I ever saw, Arabian Nights, back in 1992. I was blown away. Metamorphosis, the production that moved from Chicago to New York and earned Zimmerman the Tony in 2002, was also truly memorable theater. Both productions were packed with creative staging and eye-popping visuals that brought the texts vividly to life and wowed audiences.

Pericles, which I saw this past Saturday night, while never boring, was not the sort of ground-breaking visual feast I’ve come to expect from Mary Zimmerman. The set itself was curious and a tad bit dull. Action takes place in what best resembles a Shaker meeting room. Three walls, a large window and a metal balcony hanging above. It’s a large space that doesn’t get used to much effect.

Other than sumptuous costumes, some strong performances, and a clear presentation of the material (from what I gather is one of Shakespeare’s lesser-produced and lesser-thought of plays) the staging itself I found run-of-the-mill. While the cast did some interesting business with material, in particular blue silk simulating storm-tossed seas, it wasn’t anything original.

The story begins with Pericles vying for the hand of a princess. He must answer the king’s riddle or face death. The riddle is a trick though, and to answer it correctly also means death, so Pericles flees and so begins his journey that is the bulk of the play.

Perhaps it’s the material, but I’m convinced that with the right mix of creativity and innovation, Zimmerman could have made another memorable production. Which, depending on your frame of reference, she has. In my case, Pericles just suffers by comparison.

Last weekend I saw the musical Wicked. Here are my impressions:

• Louder is better. And boy, was it loud. I’d forgotten how amplified Broadway musicals are nowadays. I’m used to the opera, where despite the fact that the Lyric Opera House is at least twice the size of the Oriental Theatre, there’s no amplification. When the music started and the Wicked chorus rushed on stage singing in full voice, it took me a good five minutes to adjust to the decibel level…and the electric guitar in the orchestra.
• Louder is also better when it comes to singing style. Every single solo was sung in the style of an American Idol finalist: start loud, sing louder, and finish really big, preferably with at least one hand dramatically raised in the air. All that was lacking was a handheld mic to emote over and a judges score.
• The music was nothing special. There was no catchy song that I was humming on my way out of the theater. Very pop, very predictable.
• Ana Gasteyer, of Saturday Night Live fame, stars as Elphaba, a.k.a. the Wicked Witch, and she’s the sole reason to see the show. Gasteyer is extremely good in the role, she has a great singing voice, and a lot of charisma on stage.
• Years ago, I read the book that the musical is based on and while it was mildly entertaining to imagine a back story the characters of Oz, I didn’t think it was anything special or particularly well written. I’m not surprised they turned it into a musical, nor am I surprised they gave the story a happy ending on stage.
• In thinking back on the show and talking about it with other people, it might seem like I really didn’t like it, which isn’t exactly true. I didn’t love it, I didn’t hate it. It was just kind of…there. I did enjoy it as a fun night out with friends and I’m glad that I saw it, if nothing more than to see what’s really popular in the world of mainstream musical theater today. The audience sure loved it.

The Washington Post described Boy George’s new Rosie O’Donnell-backed musical Taboo as “a production with such an acute case of meaning-deprivation that you almost forget what’s happening as it’s happening.”

To read more slings and arrows, go here.

Had an interesting experience last week when I saw the new Stephen Sondheim musical during its out-of-town-out-of-town run at the Goodman Theatre. In my opinion it’s still very much a work in progress and could do with some tightening up, tweaking, a bit of re-writing of the book and the recasting of a particularly hi-profile role. But it’s definitely Sondheim, with his trademark sound and clever lyrics. There’s a great lead performance and some really clever staging that’s worth, hmmm, half the price of admission.

This is actually the second “world premiere” of this musical, music and lyrics by Sondheim, book by John Weidman, an earlier version having been staged with different leads and director about a year ago. This incarnation is directed by Harold Prince, who’s had a lot of success staging Sondheim musicals, most notably Follies, Pacific Overtures and two of my all-time faves, Company and Sweeney Todd. Following the month-and-a-half-long run here in Chicago, the show heads to Washington D.C. before moving on to Broadway. Or not.

The musical is based on the lives of the Mizner brothers, two real men who made and lost their fortunes numerous times over, from the Gold Rush of 1896 to the real estate boom of Florida in the 1930s. The show is a testament to the resiliency of those in search of the American Dream of getting rich quick. A thread of subplot involving the rivalry between the brothers and their mother’s divided affections runs throughout.

Richard Kind plays Addison Mizner, the more sympathetic of the two brothers, the dependable one with a talent for design. His success as an architect propels the Mizner’s into their final boom as developers of Boca Raton. Howard McGillen has the tougher role as con-man Wilson Mizner, described in the program as a scalawag. Unfortunately he’s not that bad, which might be part of the problem. If he were a more heartless character, and not just someone who continually blows a good thing by foolishly speculating away his fortune and duping other, there could have been more tension between the brothers.

What I liked about the show:

• Richard Kind–He steals the show and holds it together. Most people will recognize Kind from his roles on TV’s Spin City and Mad About You. He’s great in this role, with a range of high and low moments that develop his character and hold the attention of the audience the minute he utters his first line. He gets most of the laughs and knows how to deliver them, as well as the looks and gestures associated with them.
• The staging–The clever use of drop curtains are often activated by cast members on stage with the flick of a rope that perfectly punctuates the change of a scene. In one impressive scene change, Addison gets his first creative brainstorm, and begins manipulating items in the air as he designs his first building. As he moves things around, cast members behind him follow his gestures to place different odd pieces around the stage, and suddenly a set flies in from above, creating the walls of the house, with all the randomly placed objects perfectly placed in the room. In another, the draped alter of a church is transformed into the lavish bed in a mansion, taking Wilson from wedding to honeymoon in an impressive set change that drew laughter and applause from the audience.

What I wasn’t crazy about:

• The story–I just couldn’t really get too invested in the story of two brothers who aren’t content when they have a good thing, and in stretching to make MORE money, lose it all and have to start again. I just didn’t care. It wasn’t until the second act, when Addison begins to come into his own as a success on his own terms when no-good brother Wilson reappears did the story get briefly interesting. A hurdle to the storytelling is the flashback approach, which takes any suspense out of the equation.
• The music–While it was Sondheim, and any Sondheim is good in my book, it just wasn’t catchy enough. There was no hook, no tunes that really stuck with you five minutes after the curtain went down. A couple of the numbers in the second act, the tighter and more enjoyable act of the two, seemed to gel well and the song “You” stood out as memorable above the rest, but much of it started to sound the same.
• Jane Powell–The veteran of stage and screen (Seven Brides for Seven Brothers) is the only other big name in the show, starring as mama Mizner. Unfortunately, while she delivered her lines with spunk, her singing was thin and strained, and was quite painful to listen to. Her singing was one of the many hindrances working against the show in the first half.

So, was I glad I saw it? Absolutely. I’ll always take the opportunity to see Sondheim professionally staged. Richard Kind was a surprise and I’d definitely keep an eye out for future performances by him. It was also fun to see recent Tony-winner Michele Pawk in the female lead. And it was interesting to see this work in progress. Should it succeed, I’d be interested to see the finished project, just to see how much it will have bounced back from the version I saw.

(Aw common, you knew I couldn’t get away without at least once bouncy pun. Doh, I did it again!)