This is not my blog.

I saw the National Tour of the Broadway musical "Wicked" in Cleveland yesterday with the wife, sister-in-law and niece. I'm a big fan of musical theater as well as traditional theater and most other types of live performance art. While the play was very enjoyable I had mixed emotions about seeing this particular show. First, it is hard for me not to compare other musical theater to the works of my favorite playwright, Stephen Sondheim, who is a master at writing both complex music and very clever lyrics. Second, I tend to be a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to things that are too widely embraced by popular culture (I'm not an "American Idol" fan for instance). And third, I have not been happy with the Disneyfication of Broadway in recent years in much the same way as another blogger has not been thrilled with the Oprahfication of classic literature. It has been my feeling that the more Disney spectacles that open the smaller the market becomes for traditional Broadway fare as I have felt that people will gravitate toward seeing staged versions of their favorite Disney movies.

All that aside, I was a prepared listener coming into the show yesterday. My wife and her sister had seen the Tour in Pittsburgh earlier in the year so I had borrowed her soundtrack and was familiar with the music. I also read the 1995 novel "Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West" by Ralph Maguire upon which the play was loosely based. This is one of those rare examples where the adaptation of a novel is better than the novel itself. Where Maguire's novel was a dark and ponderous tome, the play is fairly light with a healthy balance of darkness that is somewhat true to the book. While Maguire's book is fairly true to L. Frank Baum's 1900 children's novel "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz", the play works at synching concepts from Maguire's book to the popular 1939 film "The Wizard of Oz" which also deviates from the original Baum story. The end result is a play that is widely accessible but that certainly appears to contain some political overtones that could be applied to some contemporary political controversies.

"Wicked" debuted in 2003 with catchy music and lyrics by Stephen Schwartz and play book by Winnie Holzman. I must always give kudos to any playwright who tackles both music and lyrics as I believe that this lends much greater impact to the play. While there are times that I felt that I could hear elements of some of Schwartz's Disney musical pedigree, the music for "Wicked" is original and very easy to hum on the way out of the theater. The award-winning show has been so enormously popular that it is showing to sold out theaters on a National Tour at the same time that it is playing permanently in New York and Chicago and it will open in London's West End later this summer. Such an arrangement is already rare but there is talk of opening additional productions in Toronto, Los Angeles, Denver, Dallas, Fort Lauderdale and/or Boston.

At its heart, the novel and show are both about the nature of good and evil and carry the message that labeling is often a matter of selection by those in power who control the perception of those who are governed. Both the novel and the play focus upon the wicked witch (Elphaba) as a social misfit who takes up the political cause of protecting the animals of Oz who are being persecuted by the Wizard's increasingly harsher policies. The good witch (Galinda/Glinda) is portrayed as an empty headed socialite who befriends Elphaba while they are college roommates but who is ultimately unable to abandon her glamorous life for the unpopular political movement led by Elphaba - though she remains sympathetic. The play makes additional connections that deviate from both novels in establishing the origins of the Tin Man, Scarecrow and Cowardly Lion (Dorothy does not appear in the play ... well, only once in silhouette). While the novel is violently dark and is not for children, the play is not so dark as to deter family enjoyment. To my surprise there are some direct parallels made in the play to jingoism/xenophobia as well as the deliberate use of the phrase "regime change" at one point in the dialog. While the show is certainly thought provoking on a deeper level the political message need not get in the way of enjoyment of the play.

The set design, costuming and lighting are all excellent as well as are the choreography, staging and ensemble performances. Elphaba's role is a challenging one that really thrills when it is delivered and the actress who we saw could really belt out her songs. Galinda's role is fun and injects much comedy into the darker moments of the play and any actress playing the role will be challenged to measure up to the performance of Kristin Chenoweth who originated the role on Broadway and who performs on the original cast recording as well as in the 2004 Tony Awards show.

In conclusion, I think that this is an excellent play that has made me rethink some of my grumpiness about Broadway's Disneyfication. I've seen, first hand, the scales fall from the eyes of people who were drawn to this show due to its subject who never realized how powerful and enjoyable that musical theater could be. I would recommend this play as worth seeing. While some shows are better viewed as a prepared listener (i.e. familiarity with the music or story before attending) I don't know that it is necessary in this instance. The show is not as good as some of my favorite Sondheim shows ("Into the Woods", "Sunday in the Park with George", "Sweeney Todd" and "Assassins") but it is certainly far better than "Cats" and the more formulaic shows (I would even say it is better than "The Phantom of the Opera" because the music is better with more clever lyrics).