I just thought it would be better

I saw "Pippin", earlier this week. A musical that I have always held dear, having something to do with performing a selection from it when I was a wee tyke at the University of Utah's Theatre School For Youth, program. We sang "Magic for You" for our final showing. And then, there is the quintessential Ben Vereen and William Kat (Yes, the Greatest American Hero") slightlly truncated version. Believing that I was destined to be a dancer on broadway--in "Cats", no less--I loved musicals that featured LOTS and LOTS of jazzy choreography. As I got older and no longer took dance classes with the hopes of Chita Rivera fame, I found musicals to be fun to listen to, too expensive to see, and most had a significant lack of any real dancing, beyond asking the chorus to move across the stage one way, in time to the music, before heading back the other direction. Much like the chorus does in historical greek theatre--didn't they sing one argument on one side and then dance over to the other side to sing the next argument? My interest in musical theatre has waned, somewhat, though not completely, in the ensuing years. Once, I even signed up for a season audition for a company that does mostly musicals. I cancelled it, as the time drew nearer. What was I thinking? Still, I'm fairly nostalgic and love those old Rogers and Hammerstein musicals, as well as just about anything Sondheim. Lately, there have even been some shows that I do want to hear, "Urinetown", "Avenue Q" among them. I think I'll pass on "Lestat", though. Even though I went through my phase of loving those books when I was 14. Gave those up by the third one. Ugh.

So, "Pippin". Produced locally, by a company that appears to have a lot of money to spend. Some shows are cast in town, with a few parts cast out of town. They also have a few shows that are brought here completely made up of out of towners. I'd never been to a show at this theatre, the ticket is just too much. But when I saw that they were doing "PIPPIN", I really wanted to go. A friend who also wanted to see the show, found a twofer deal, which made it a bit more palatable. Still expensive, though.

We go. The theatre itself was GORGEOUS! Art Deco Chinoise motif and compeltely restored. Best part of the show. Truth. Not that it was bad. No. There were some enjoyable elements. I just expected more. When the nosebleed seats still cost $60, I sort of imagined that the production would really knock my socks off. Lots of money obviously spent on costumes (which, though sparkly and pretty, looked like the various Las Vegas shows exploded and threw out one performer each, to make a new show.) The woman playing Festrada was eh. She wasn't particularly a great singer or dancer (though I bet she used to be a very good dancer...) and she lacked presence. Supposed to be so sexy and vivacious. Like I said, eh. Pippin was good. As was Catherine--an import from Broadway. She was the original Belle in "Beauty and the Beast". She really was in a league of her own in the singing department. The leading player, though not a dancer had great presence and singing ability. The dancers/chorus were fun, despite the schizophrenia of the costuming, and did an admirable job. Now, I know that many productions of this show do have the carnival like costume theme. I don't care for it. I prefered the one available on video. Flesh colored base costumes that are added to with various clown face paint and more subtle carnival type elements. Who am I, though? What do I know? My companion noted that she was thinking that her high school production was better than this, and then she thought, "Wait. It's more like I'm watching a high school production than a professional one."

A couple nights later, another friend asked how I'd liked the show. "Eh". "Yeah, he said. They have so much money, you'd think their shows would be outstanding."

Precisely.