PS

It seems everywhere I look I'm seeing advertisements for "Hairspray." I have no major compulsion to see this flick but I'm an old fuddy-duddy. Are there folks out there chomping at the bit to see this? Even with all the hype, I have a sneaking suspicion this film is going to underperform at the box office. But I'd be happy to be proved wrong. What do you think?

Sicko

No, I didn't see the Michael Moore documentary. I AM the sicko today -- home from work with a summer cold. And in case there was any doubt, let me assure you that summer colds suck. As if the heat doesn't leave you feeling weary enough, add in a head full of snot and your brain might as well be drenched in tequila for all the clarity available to you.

The only benefit of this is that it affords me the opportunity to ramble on blog-wise about life in general and Henry IV in particular. Before I succumbed to this viral villain, my lovely wife and I were able to sneak out last Friday and see the movie “You Kill Me,” which is a wonderful black comedy. If you are tired of explosions, animation or millions of dollars of CGI effects, check out this modest, sharply-acted, very funny movie.

At the movie, we ran into an old friend who used to write reviews and we lapsed into a little side-conversation about the perils of reviewing (not life-threatening usually, but soul-threatening). For instance, we shared the sentiment that, when you review some 150-200 movies a year like Daniel Neman, your ability to say anything new or interesting might indeed become severely limited. We also touched on something like the opposite problem: whereas Mr. Neman is pretty tiresome in his dismissal of 90% of movies as trash, it is also incredibly hard to find new ways to say “excellent” or to get the point across that a production is particularly noteworthy.

I wrote a pretty peppy little 300-word rave about Henry (which won’t appear in Style until 07/25 – sorry!) but, as I told our friend in the lobby of the Westhampton, what I really wanted to say was, “You know all of those other plays that I said were awesome? Forget all that, this one is REALLY awesome!”

Let’s start with the beginning (a very fine place to start, no?). Jack Parrish as Henry IV is riveting. Physically, emotionally, vocally, he is the most truly regal king I believe I have ever seen in a Shakespearean production. In writing my review, I kept searching for comparisons: “he’s as good as…” but frankly could not come up with anything that sufficed. His stature – tall, strong, commanding – married to that voice – gravelly but still dynamic – is unique and singularly appropriate for this Henry. I could totally see a son wanting to distance himself from such a father’s shadow, yet Jack also delivers the “come back to the fold” speech so earnestly, how could Hal not be inspired to better himself? The best thing I think Richmond Shakespeare could do is bring back Jack for Part 2. Promise me that and I’ll start working on my rave review right now to save time…

I really didn’t think things could get any better than that but then we meet Phil Brown as Hal. But I think I’ll have to ramble on about what amounts to my man-crush on Mr. Brown at a later date. I’m feeling the need for my third nap of the day creeping up on me.

But one last thing for today, I'm glad Ms. Haubenstock also found much to enjoy in Henry. My only disappointment would be the placement of the review in a not-so-prominent spot with a pretty low-impact headline. I guess that’s the way it goes there these days.

Hal

I had a giddy good time at the first preview of “Henry IV” at Agecroft last night. There’s enough swell stuff in this production for two reviews so, after I finish writing up my Style one, I’ll post my leftover thoughts here. But, if you want my quick first impression, here’s the lead sentence I’m mulling over right now:

“From the moment it begins, Richmond Shakespeare’s production of “Henry IV, Part 1” positively crackles with energy, wit, and hearty bravado.”

Does that mean I liked it? Oh my yes!

Screen to Stage

Man, I have been planning to write about Claire Danes being scheduled to appear in Pygmalion ever since it was announced on Monday but haven’t gotten around to it. Then today’s Weekend section in the T-D had an item on it so I’ve got to put in my two cents. There’s a certain type of B-list movie star that makes for an intriguing and exciting stage presence and I’ve been waiting for just the “must-see” opportunity to run up northward. One of the first Broadway shows I ever saw was Noel Coward’s “Design for Living” starring Frank Langella (who was hot at the time because of his sizzling portrayal in “Dracula”), Raul Julia, and Jill Clayburgh. It was an enchanting production, Langella and Julia in particular just lighting up the stage.

More recently, I was pretty disappointed with Natalie Portman in “Diary of Anne Frank.” It wasn’t a bad production but Natalie didn’t do anything particularly noteworthy and, frankly, my sweetheart Holly T. will always be the ultimate Anne in my eyes.

To really get my motor running, the level of star power – and acting prowess – has to be just right to make the trek worthwhile. Julia Roberts or Denzel Washington are too strong both onstage and at the box office. Why pay hundreds or thousands of dollars and battle unseemly crowds just to see Julia flash her pearly whites? Cynthia Nixon is about perfect and I’m not sure why I didn’t break the bank to run up and see her in “Rabbit Hole.” Someone like Anna Paquin, Ryan Gosling, Lili Taylor or Ed Norton would also get me pulling every last string to see them. I would have also said Christian Bale or Kirsten Dunst before they both hit it so big with their superhero franchises; if either of them were to chose to grace the Great White Way, I’d be afraid of being overrun by comics fan-boys and girls.

Claire Danes is definitely in the ballpark. She’s one of those sneaky actresses who are usually better than you think they are going to be (I’d put Paquin in that category as well). She was great in her small role in “The Hours” and I’ll always have a soft spot for her because of her work in “Romeo + Juliet” (now THAT’S filmmaking!) and the tragically overlooked big-screen, non-musical “Les Miserables” (yes, she was Cozette in a cast that included Liam Neeson, Gregory Rush and Uma Thurman!). The problem here is the vehicle. “Pygmalion"? Ho hum. How I wish she had picked something a little more scintillating for her Broadway debut.

So I don’t think I’ll be doing any calisthenics to make it up specifically to see Ms. Danes. In fact, if there’s any “name” star that I’d work up a sweat to go see now it’d be Kate Mulgrew in “Iphigenia 2.0” off-Broadway. Great actress (before, after, and during “Star Trek: Voyager”) and interesting vehicle. And luckily (?), "Voyager" never got popular enough to generate too many fan-boys...

Henley Street

A story about recent start up Henley Street Theatre Company is featured in this week's Style. It's always exciting when a new producer joins the fray. More options for theater lovers, more jobs for deserving actors, more intriguing productions for critics (i.e., me!) to analyze.

I must admit to a similar feeling as Mary Burruss when I first heard about this new company -- more fresh meat for the art-meets-business grinder. I hope Mr. Previtera has a clear head when it comes to the challenges he and his cohorts will face. "Edgy" theater sounds great to me, but I don't have to rely on it to pay my bills. I also feel a little trepidation when I hear someone talk about O'Neill and Miller as daring. "Daring" to me has been some of Yellow House's productions (e.g., set in two rooms in a Fan row house). Or how about some Ionesco or Beckett? When I went to the Humana Festival a few years ago and they had telephone booth theater -- that was cool. I've heard about taxi cab theater too. If that's not quite environmentally friendly anymore, how about rick-shaw theater? Maybe Henley should host a weekend of truly "out-there" experimental theater if they want to be daring.

Of course, some of the most daring -- and exciting -- productions I've ever seen have been one-person shows (Jails, Hospitals, and Hip-Hop; Syringa Tree; I Am My Own Wife, etc.). These also happen to be great for a new theater on a budget. There's no dearth of folks around here who can make a one-person show soar (Scotty & JB for starters...) Just a thought...

Armed and Erroneous

Finally got a chance last night to catch up on the other blogs out there, and found that I’ve been taken to task – very gently and respectfully, mind you – for mistakenly insinuating that the giant arm seen late in the second act of “Into the Woods” was NOT manufactured specifically for the production. I should have known better. I’ve never known Theatre IV to skimp on props, starting back in the day of the first “Quilters” (yes, I’m bringing that up AGAIN) which featured timbers borrowed from an authentic country fence, re-assembled into an striking series of on-stage risers…not to mention that huge and beautiful hand-stitched quilt.

So mea culpa, Mr. Miller et al. Maybe I’ll try some innovative investigative techniques – like posing a simple question to a TIV staffer – before making such accusations in the future…

Finally - a title!

So much to say and so little time...

You probably saw the item in the T-D about Living Word changing it's name. I'm a little disappointed about this since their old name is so evocative. But "living word" does have a Biblical ring to it. Too bad in a way because to me it's a great general designation for theater -- taking words and bringing them to life on stage.

I'm still getting used to this whole new design with the T-D -- and not really sure I like it. The Sunday "Flair -- Life -- Travel -- All the important stuff in life" section in particular seems like a place they just dump all the random bits into, only using fewer of them. But I guess it's indicative of the newspaper biz. Anyway, I was nicely surprised getting back to town on Sunday and seeing the piece on Janet Leong. Many of you may know her as the ex-wife of David Leong, the chair of VCU's Theatre Dept. But she's an amazing masseuse and a cool person besides.

I was also totally surprised to see that there's a musical version of "Xanadu" opening on Broadway. Have I been asleep at the switch or what? I guess I have a better understanding of where John Lahr from the New Yorker was coming from. I really hope this is so totally campy bad that it's good. Otherwise, what's the point?

Also, I found out yesterday that my review of "Odd Couple" probably won't run until July 25th. Though I've done it before, I'm coming to realize it's bad form to post my reviews here before they show up in Style. So here's a few key sentiments from my review:

-- The key line: "An entertaining reminder of both the humanity and the hilarity of “The Odd Couple” is now playing at the Barksdale Theatre at Hanover Tavern. "

-- Scott and David are of course amazing. But Jennifer Franks and Jen Meharg are also fantastic in their one big scene. The dynamics of the scene with the Pigeon sisters are just great, David in particular making the whole scenario a belly-laugher as he tries to juggle Felix's reticence and the girls' randiness.

-- I think Jeff Clevenger is one of the most natural actors on stage I've ever seen. In everything I can remember seeing him in, he just inhabits the role, never too showy, impeccable timing. He's got it all.

With the cast that he has, Joe Pabst could hardly go wrong. And he certainly hasn't. It's a great production. More complete thoughts on it will be available at newstands near you in...about two weeks...Oy.

Blogger weirdness?!?

For some reason, I can't give my posts a title these days. Not sure what that means. For now, in case you haven't seen it, here's a link to my full review of "Into the Woods." More to come -- as soon as blogger lets me...

Darkness Falls

A lot of unsettled weather last week caused several show cancellations. Outdoor event “The Tempest” faired the worst as might be expected but even “Austin’s Bridge” got hit. It’s mentioned in Ms. Haubenstock’s review at the T-D but you can also check out Robin Harris Jones’s blog for a more complete account of the night.

Ms. H’s thoughts on “Bridge” seem very similar to the ramblings of another local critic that I’ve read. Hmmm…a case of brilliant minds thinking alike?

I’ve updated my links to the left – though they are still obviously incomplete and have a couple broken spots. But it finally occurred to me to add “Company of Fools” to the expatriates. Duh! Denise Simone, John Glen and others are still going strong out there in Idaho – John was the first Richmond director I ever met and had the opportunity to work for, certainly lucky for me. And they still regularly borrow local fave Debra Wagonner for their summer shows.

The T-D also weighed in on “The Odd Couple.” It’ll be a couple of days before I can gather my thoughts about that one. Stay tuned!

Petrified by the unknown?

I came home Wednesday night to the latest New Yorker and found a pretty provactive piece on theater. Oh, the reviews aren't particularly controversial (very positive marks for "Eurydice" and "Rabbit"). But critic John Lahr starts out the article with this sweeping statement:

"Producers, who live or die on the accuracy of their reading of the public mood, have registered the current climate of fear and exploited our need for succor. The glut of movies-into-musicals and refurbished revivals is a kind of “Pimp My Mind” of theatre. Audiences are happy to pay top dollar to see what they already know; it’s the unknown that petrifies them."

As both a patron and a critic, I'm a little taken aback by this statement. Maybe I'm not up on the very latest that's playing on Broadway, but I'd say there continues to be a steady stream of challenging shows -- like oh, Tony winning "The Coast of Utopia" and "Spring Awakening" for instance -- getting produced. I don't feel petrified by the unknown -- I relish every foray into new territory that I hear about.

What do you all think?

Into the Woods

“Into the Woods” at the Barksdale has already received all sorts of rave reviews – and I really like how they’ve integrated critical comments and pictures on their web site. Check it out if you haven’t seen it – it’s pretty cool.

But due to the often complicated scheduling of things at Style, my review won’t come out until next week. As you’ll see when you read it, I’ve added my own smatterings of high praise. I love the show and thought it was a fine production. In particular, I loved the nuance and depth I saw in Robyn O’Neill’s performance as the witch. And I could have watched Rita Markova all night; she is just lovely and extremely talented. I guess I have a thing about beautiful brunettes with knock-out voices (are you reading, Mrs. T?) And so you won’t think I am just a leering sexist, I found the princes’ both exceptional. Mr. Resnick and Mr. Rowland doing “Agony” and its reprise were about my favorite parts of the show.

But unlike Ms. Haubenstock and others, I didn’t feel this production deserved an unconditional rave. On opening night, I heard someone miss a note. Not unusual so I didn’t give a second thought. But then someone else missed another note. When it reached 3 or 4 instances, I couldn’t ignore it. I don’t have the best ear in the world but after all of those hours of “American Idol,” I know when something’s “pitchy.” This is also in contrast to “Austin’s Bridge” which I just saw last week – the songs may have been somewhat less complicated in that show but I didn’t hear a bad note all night at that opening. And that was with only piano accompaniment where I believe a vocal clunker would have stuck out more plainly.

There was also at least one song where the tempo seemed odd (OK, it’s Sondheim but even odder than you might expect) and another when the violin seemed to be playing off a different score entirely.

I also was unimpressed with the scenic design, though in fairness this is in comparison to the incredible work the Barksdale has put on before. And I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that giant’s arm before; perhaps in something Theatre IV has done in the past?

These are all minor indiscretions, particularly in the face of how good everything else is, and some of the musical mishaps may have been ironed out by this point in the run. Also, in fairness I should say that I still have tucked in my memory banks the Swift Creek Mill production from 15 years ago, which set the bar pretty high in terms of this show. I try to avoid straight comparisons between productions at all costs but I can’t deny that the fond recollection of that production influences how I have seen every production of “Woods” since.

My complete opinion will be available in Style next week but you don’t have to wait until then to weigh in. Am I off my gourd criticizing “Woods?” Let me have it!

Damn, it's hot

I sympathize for those folks who will be putting on "The Tempest" tommorrow night. That's going to be a hot, sweaty performance. Oh, and by the way, my review of "The Tempest" is in this week's Style. It's pretty much exactly the same as what I posted below but still, there's a picture on the Style site, so that's something.

I had lunch today at The Camel on Broad Street, which is on the same block as the Firehouse Theater and just a few block down from Fielden's. I heartily endorse it for any theater person, and anyone else besides. It's a funky space, right below the WRIR studios, the food is good and they make great smoothies. Yum!

Austin's Bridge

I saw Austin's Bridge last Thursday, my third show in two weeks. Reminiscent of when I used to see a show a week; those were the days...

I'll link to my full review as soon as it's posted but as you will find out when you read it, I wasn't totally enthralled with this show (it's posted -- you can read it here). My biggest problem was that I didn't ever care about the main character, Austin, as much as I did about several of the other characters, particularly Ronald, Ruth, and Diane. I didn't find the transition Austin went through in the first act very believable -- his dramatic transition from shallow opportunist to caring guardian just didn't work for me.

I was disappointed because the cast members all had excellent voices and, starting with Robin Harris Jones's first number, I was thinking the songs would carry the show nicely. (Small point, but the program didn't list the name of any of the songs which was a little annoying...) (Other quick aside: I've loved Robin Harris in just about everything I can remember seeing her in. I hope she lands another high profile lead sometime soon.) But somewhere around the end of the first act, they all started running together in my memory. Especially after seeing "Into the Woods" which has so many distinctive songs, I felt more variety in song structure was needed. But that's a hard one to judge after just one listen -- I wish I had a CD of the score to take home to give it another listen.

Just like with "The Tempest," I heard more opinions about this show than I usually do. A couple people absolutely loved it, but I was told second-hand that one person (a retired "critical" person who most local theater vets know...) thought it a bit of a mess. I tried considering the show for a while as a writer's problem: how would I change the structure so that it worked better for me? I guess I would change the focus more to Ronald and Ruth and make Austin a subsidiary character. But that would be hard given that the show is..um...kind of about him. So then I went back to writing my review...

Anyway, feel free to weigh in with your opinion of the show if you saw it. Or even if you didn't. Maybe you like the poster? All opinions accepted.

More and more!

Man, just as soon as I start mentioning blogs, I find out about more!

In addition to the Barksdale Buzz mentioned below, there is also a Theatre IV specific blog. Not as buzzy at this point, but it may grow!

Also, I got a communique from one of Richmond's great expatriates, Rick St. Peter, who tells me that things are hopping out at the Actors Guild of Lexington (Ky). He blogs at length here -- and also regularly borrows Richmond great Scott Wichmann for his productions. I'm looking forward to seeing Scotty work his magic with Felix Unger this weekend out at Hanover Tavern.

Finally, one of Richmond's most talented actresses (yes, I'm spreading the compliments thickly today!) has recently started up a blog as well, that she mentioned in one of the comments below. But I'm waiting on confirmation from her to list it here on the main page. You can go searching or wait until I get the word...

It's clearly getting to the point where I could just do blogstuff 24/7 -- reading, surfing, commenting, etc.. With all this, who has time to see shows?

Link maintenance

Well, I've finally got some of the "Now Showing" links up, but I know this isn't a comprehensive list. I also haven't weighed in on everything that's playing so some links just go to the show's website.

I've also started the process of reviewing some of the other left-side links I've got. Oy, maintenance is a bitch. But I have found some interesting things as part of the web surfing. One is stumbling upon the Barksdale Blog, which also got a shout out in the T-D this past weekend. I wonder if the person monitoring the comments for them (Judi?) is going to be swamped as a result.

I also noticed that Eric Dobbs has a blog, as does ‘Rick Gray. Neither of these guys seems to update their posts that often, though (now I don't feel so bad...) ‘Rick describes himself as moving from conservative Democrat to moderate Republican to liberal Dem. Perhaps we can rope him into the white-hot political debates that rage over on Andrew Hamm’s blog???

Mr. Davis

I've been wanting to mention just as an FYI that Bill C. Davis is a great interview and a very nice guy. I've been doing interviews for years now and, just like Forrest's box of chocolates, you never really know what you're going to get when you actually make contact. One of my worst interviews ever was with the comedian Stephen Wright whose deadpan, affectless delivery works great in his comedy but is just deadly in an interview. I've interviewed a fair amount of writers and some directors who were a bit full of themselves -- leading to very one-sided conversations. Given that Mr. Davis is both a writer and director, I was pleasantly surprised. He was polite and earnest and good-natured and forthcoming and had many wonderful things to say about Richmond.

Somewhat defying the popular stereotype, most of the actors I've interviewed have been delightful -- only one true prima donna that I can think of off-hand (and no, I'm not going to say who that was). And among the most delightful interviews I've ever had have been with hyphenates -- writer/directors, actor/directors, actor/producers, etc. Again, this seems to run against what the preconception would be -- someone good at multiple things must think they're a hotshot, right? Instead, the ones I've talked to seem to be somewhat humbled by the process of moving from one specialty to the other. Where's all that ego that's supposed to fuel you theater types?

Articles

Here's a link to my interview of Bill C. Davis, the playwright and director of "Austin's Bridge" set to open at the Firehouse tomorrow.

And the production of "Witches of Eastwick" in DC -- starring former Richmonder Emily Skinner -- has been getting a fair amount of press in the Washington Post. Here's one article and here's another. Logging into the Post's site is now required, in case you haven't registered there.

That should give you enough reading material for a while!

Apologies

The review of "The Tempest" didn't make it into this week's Style. Not sure why -- e-mail fired off to Arts editor to try to ascertain the situation.

But until it does, here's what I wrote. Not sure how it will appear in print. Enjoy.

Shelters in the Storm
Music, blithe spirit buoy Richmond Shakespeare’s “The Tempest”
By David Timberline (357 words)

As befits its title, “The Tempest” is a whirlwind of emotion. Like none other of Shakespeare’s plays, this brilliant mash-up of comedy and tragedy churns with errant themes of love, betrayal, music and magic. It is comparatively thin plotwise, however, as if the immortal Bard decided to give himself over to the passions of the heart without undo concern for the intellect.

In Richmond Shakespeare Theatre’s merry and sometimes manic production of “The Tempest,” currently playing at Agecroft Hall, the calm at the center of this storm is provided by Stephen Lorne Williams as Prospero. Williams has an impressive history with “The Tempest:” thirty years ago, he played Prospero’s trusty fairy assistant, Ariel, in a Royal National Theatre production opposite John Gielgud. But while Williams has the pedigree for the role, I found his Prospero a bit staid. Ironically, it is this production’s Ariel, played by the remarkable Graham Birce, who infuses significant charm and vigor into the proceedings.

It is Ariel who Prospero sends off to implement the many components of his plan. Having been stranded on a lonely island for twelve years, Prospero has become an adept magician and raises a storm that shipwrecks his enemies. Years before, they had stripped him of his title as Duke of Milan, then set him adrift with his infant daughter, Miranda (played with delightful fervor by Liz Blake), who has since has grown into a comely maid. The storm will also bring her a suitor, Prince Ferdinand (Matt Polson). Using his sprightly magic, Ariel brings Miranda and Ferdinand together; undermines Prospero’s treacherous brother, Antonio (Andy Nagraj); and befuddles a trio of would-be assassins, led by the evil witch-spawn, Caliban (David White).

Amidst all of this, Birce moves about spryly in black Converse sneakers, plays violin beautifully, sings enchanting songs, and even walks on stilts. He is assisted by Andrew Hamm and his Foolhardy Band; their playful array of songs and incidental melodies serve as a perfect compliment to the action. There are other exceptional performances in this production: White’s Caliban, for instance, is memorably earthy and bitter. But ultimately it’s Graham Birce that stands out in the storm.

“The Tempest” plays Thursday – Sunday at Agecroft Hall until July 8th. Tickets are $13-$24. Call 232-4000 for details.

A Stormy Conversation

I brought a friend, his wife and their daughter to the first preview of “The Tempest” last Thursday. The audience was made up mostly of senior citizens, whose unfiltered comments throughout the play sometimes amounted to a performance in themselves. My favorite was the guy who grew tired of the “Not too late” chorus of Andrew’s opening song and began intoning it sarcastically halfway through each verse. The most annoying was the guy who loudly explained Prospero’s final speech to his wife as it was going on (“He’s saying that he won’t leave until we clap…”)

Though you will see that my review was positive, I heard a fair amount of negative feedback about that first preview. An old friend I met at “Into the Woods” the next night said she left at intermission because she couldn’t hear what anyone was saying. And below is a back-and-forth between me and my friend about the merits of the production. So, in case you are thinking that the criticisms that get published are the toughest, you can see that there are audience-members who are much tougher than I’ll ever be.

PS: I'll update the "Now Showing" section to the left someday soon....

From my friend:

Thoughts:
· I wasn't as impressed with Ariel as you were. He had his moments, but I thought him not quite otherwordly enough
· I thought the production was somewhat marred by the sound considerations. The band drowned out the actors not infrequently but this may have been a hazard of our seating only. I should have beeen surprised if anyone heard the content of either the first scene or Ariel's storm.
· The camp wears a little thin in this production at times. The "wedding" scene is a good example of this.

My response:

While the volume was often a bit intense, I did appreciate the quality of the band -- many productions of "The Tempest" try to get by with a few fairies playing triangles and tambourines. My appreciation of Ariel was largely because he was so earthbound -- big-ticket productions usually have him (or generally her) flying and harboring a secret love for Prospero. I thought the way they played him made him more of a counterpart to Caliban.

I agree about the camp -- a sentiment I tried to capture in the word "manic" in my description -- a lot to encapsulate in one word but that is my frustration with having to write so short. I'm often in this mid-ground of wanting to express something but then realizing to really express it would take up half the review.

No excuses

So I’ve been gone for a while. I expected I might let a week or two slip but I’m shocked that it’s been 5 months. I can’t really come up with a coherent excuse. Life has been busy but it’s always that way, isn’t it? I’ve been on a bit of an emotional roller coaster – my daughter has been applying to high schools and my best friend is leaving town for Atlanta in two weeks, both thing in process since the beginning of the year.

But maybe the most relevant thing to say is that I took a class in Film at U of R this past semester and I have just been more in tune with film for these past several months. As a result, I haven’t seen that many shows, written many pieces for Style, and, worst of all, not kept in touch that well with anyone in the theater world. I’m sorry, folks. Life is like that sometimes; I appreciate your indulgence.

On the flip side, the past couple of weeks have been all about theater for me. I interviewed Bill C. Davis, the playwright of “Austin’s Bridge,” and the director of the production opening at the Firehouse this week. I saw “The Tempest” and “Into the Woods” last week and will be catching “Bridge” this week. I’ll be commenting on all of these separately since I have much to blather on about them all.

But before that, did you happen to catch the Tony Awards recap on the Entertainment Weekly site? I enjoyed it and thought you might too. I really wish I had seen “Spring Awakening” last December though…