13.
Well, it's like a rougher, earthier High School Musical. It's not bad. It's not aimed at me or most (if not all) people who post on this board. There is some talent on the stage. There is some talent that needs nurturing. It's got good energy, at least in the opening number, although the opening number had terrible sound problems and I lost lots of the lyrics, partially to sound issues and partially to screaming instead of singing. The sound was better as the evening went on. 13 year olds (even if you're a year or two past 13) should not be singing Wicked-type power ballads (again, it probably works if you're a teenager but for me it's like watching those child beauty paegants, it just makes me cringe). The music is definitely recognizable as Jason Robert Brown. I think he's written some wonderful stuff. I've never seen The Last Five Years but there are songs from that show which I really like. There isn't much in 13 that sticks with you.
I think the biggest question for me is why did they do this? Because they could populate an entire cast and 5 piece orchestra with teenagers? That's not reason enough to do a show. It doesn't break any new ground (aside from being a cast of teens). The plot is the same kind of Movie of the Week or Disney Channel film about a 13 year old plunked out of his comfort zone (New York City) and plopped down in Appleton, Indiana after his parents get divorced. He has to readjust to life in a small, Midwestern town. Every single character is a stereotype which could be OK but the characters never go beyond shallow stereotype. There is the cool guy, the mean girl, the hangers on, the dumb but good girl, the geek boy, the geek girl, etc. A plot point even turns (for a brief period) on, horror of horrors, a mistaken "gay" kiss in a dark movie theatre. I guess fagmo (faggot and homo?) is the new slur in middle school.
I'm just rambling here. I didn't dislike the show and if it's marketed correctly, it will have a life. But at $111 a ticket it will cost a family of 2 teens and a mom and dad $444 just to go to the theatre, that's not counting anything extra like coming in on the train or driving in and parking or having dinner. It's too bad that Off-Broadway has become financially unfeasable because the show would probably work better Off-Broadway and it would have a longer life. It's not even a show I can see and go "It's not aimed at me but I respect what they are doing and where they are trying to go." I felt that way about Rent and Spring Awakening but not about this. I don't go to Theatre Chat Boards (my tolerance for insipid rambling is limited to my own insipid rambling) so I don't know what "people on the street" are saying about this show and I haven't heard much from other more reliable sources but I don't think it has much life after opening. I doubt it will be trashed the way Glory Days was trashed but I can't imagine that even a silly old toad like Clive Barnes will like it. Who knows what Ben Brantley will think. I don't hold his reviews in the highest regard (even though many people dislike him, give me Frank Rich anytime).
It's 8:25 and I must get to work. I've spent almost 20 minutes trying to get this down and I cannot think of anything more to add.
I'm off to Greater New Orleans (the Community Foundation that is).
