1

Brianna Gallagher
AMS 214- Live on Broadway
Sullivan
An American in Paris Review
7-5-15
An American in Paris is a musical adapted from the 1951 film starring Gene Kelly
and is also inspired by the music of George Gershwin. The book was written by Craig
Lucas and the show was directed and choreographed by Christopher Wheeldon. The
show is currently at the Palace Theatre, where I actually attended my first Broadway
show way back in 1997. This brought back pleasant memories of being a child and really
reminded me of why I fell in love with theatre (I wish I had remembered the seven flights
of stairs though). The production stars Robert Fairchild as Jerry Mulligan, an American
World War II veteran who stays in Paris after the war to become a successful painter.
Fairchild is a decent enough actor and singer, but his real talent lies with his dancing and
impeccable timing with each step. He may not be Gene Kelly, but he is the closest thing
to him. While his acting abilities may not have been anything to write home about, his
dancing was able to convey every emotion and trial of Jerry Mulligan. The production
also stars Leanne Cope as Lise Bouvier the love interest of Jerry and his friends (albeit
unbeknownst to each other). Cope, like Fairchild, is an incredibly talented dancer and its
not very hard to see why both in real-life and within the narrative of the show she is the
lead. Overall the acting was decent, but no performance really stood out as being
spectacular. The worst thing I could say in terms of acting was that most of the French
accents were very unconvincing and at times were borderline caricature to the point I was
waiting for the baguettes and berets to come out. While the dancing and choreography are

very impressive, it really isnt enough to save the show for me. What really killed this
show for me was the book.
The book is an overcomplicated mess. It isnt the worst book of any show that I
have ever attended, but its faults are really hard to overlook. At points, the book is very
hard to follow and it took almost 15 minutes for me to figure out what exactly was
happening. The show opens with a blast of imagery and spectacle but gets so caught up in
the spectacle, that the story and plot construction gets left behind. The book suffers from
what I call New Coke phenomena, taking a well-established formula and trying to fix
what isnt broken. The beauty of the Gene Kelly version of An American in Paris is that
its a simple love story with some twists along the way. This book adds pointless
melodrama to what should be very lighthearted fare and the weakness of the book is the
biggest detriment to this production. The beautiful choreography suffers because it acts as
a crutch to support the weakness of the book. The over-extended dance numbers make
the show drag on longer than it has to. There was no reason for this show to have a
runtime longer than two hours; it takes the better aspects of the show and slowly grinds
them into the ground. The Holocaust and the entirety of World War II is an incredibly
sensitive subject. I will give Lucas credit in attempting to acknowledge the terror that the
Nazis brought upon French Jews and the citizens of France who resisted the Nazis.
However, the revelation that Lise is Jewish felt so cheap and last minute that it was
actually mildly offensive. If the creative team wanted to go that direction in exploring the
darker aftermath of World War II, fine, I can respect that. However, if you are going to
establish such an important plot point, dont wait to reveal it near the end of the show!
Drama for the sake of drama and last minute reveals are the laziest, biggest cop-outs a

writer can create. In my opinion, it is one of, if not the biggest writing sin and
whenever I see it, I am enraged to the point that I go to a dark place
of contempt and detestation.
I am also getting sick and tired of the Broadway minimalist set design style.
While people such as Julie Taymor have made this type of design choice work
phenomenally, it doesnt (and rarely does) work for every show. To make this type of
style work, you need to give your audience something tangible to make a connection to a
more in depth concept. Without this simple, recognizable imagery, you confuse your
audience and have them question their intelligence, especially those who are more leftbrain thinkers. Even as someone who tends to lean more towards the right side of the
brain, I was confused by many of the design choices and their relevance to the plot. The
set design at times is borderline high school art show and hipster cheap," in which you
present something as avant-garde thats so original and superior to everything else,
when in actuality its not. The overreliance on projections is becoming an ever-increasing
problem in live theatre. Unless you have a big show, such as the recent revival of Les
Misrables, where the projections are enhancements to large and impressive physical
sets, it just doesnt work with these smaller-scale productions. The irony of a show that is
supposedly catering to lovers of the arts, while using technology that actually eliminates
many traditional forms of art is very foretelling about the future of set-design and the
path is becoming alarmingly familiar to the rise of CGI in Hollywood over the last two
decades. Everything is becoming generic and feels like manufactured tourist fare. As a
theatregoer, I feel that the simplistic yet extraordinary spectacle of live theatre is in grave
danger.

4
Despite my concerns and criticisms, the show itself isnt terrible. At worst, the

show is mediocre or to put it more lightly, incredibly average. Its not the best, not the
worst, its just average. If you enjoy dancing, I would highly recommend it. However, if
you are looking for something that has intellectual substance and have you leaving the
theatre feeling inspired, this probably isnt the show for you.

Brianna Gallagher
AMS 214- Live on Broadway
Sullivan
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time Review
7-17-15
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time is a play by Simon Stephens
adapted from the book of the same name by Mark Haddon. The show originally
premiered in 2012 at the Royal National Theatre in London and opened on Broadway in
2014 at the Ethel Barrymore Theatre. To be honest, I found it to be quite difficult to find
any relevant works to compare Curious Incident to because simply there hasnt been
anything quite like it before (or at the very least portrayed in a way that isnt borderline
caricature). The play is dramatic without being melodramatic or depressing to the point of
being a complete joyless chore. Curious Incident is a heartwarming, but grounded
depiction of the challenges we all face in our lives.
The Broadway production of Curious Incident stars Alex Sharp as Christopher
Boone, an incredibly intelligent fifteen-year-old boy who has differing abilities. After he
is accused of killing his neighbors dog, Christopher sets out to find the truth and in the
process embarks on a life-changing journey. To say that Alex Sharp is talented is an
understatement. Not to ignore the other talented performers, but without Alex, the show
would cease to be. How he keeps up the amount of energy for nearly 2 hours nonstop
is simply astounding. The amount of coordination and choreography in his performance
is incredible (how An American in Paris got the Tony for Best Choreography over this
beats me). Sharp plays Christopher, not as someone who is disabled, but rather one who
is extremely sheltered from the outside world. The rest of the cast does a phenomenal job,
especially Ian Barford as Ed Boone, Christophers father. Like Sharp, Barfords character

is essential to the story, as many of the events that occur in the story are direct results of
his poor decisions. I also appreciated the complicated reality of what is good and what is
evil. Often we see a simplistic depiction of good being, the guy who always makes the
right choices, while evil is a cartoony villain twirling his mustache. The play shows
both Christophers simplistic, straightforward view, while also showing the more
complicated reality of right and wrong not always being clear-cut. Not only does it show
the contrast between characters, but also gives rather insightful commentary on how we
view the world.
The original novel was originally written in the first-person perspective, which
makes adapting the work for the stage difficult. Stephens solved this by adapting the
material as a play within a play. Christophers life coach, Siobhan, narrates critical
events in the story while most events are performed in the traditional play format with
occasional 4th wall breaking. While this type of storytelling could end disastrously, it
works to the storys benefit in this situation. Since Christopher is a very detail-oriented
person, this further brings his personality to life on the stage. While this type of
storytelling works with the source material, the narrative construction does have some
minor faults. There are a couple of moments where it flips from whats going on in the
story to the present without much transition. This potentially could be confusing to
some people as the transitions sometimes occur without a clearly distinctive scene change
as per the norm. Although I do like this more unconventional approach to storytelling, the
fast, sometimes borderline rapid-fire pace can be confusing to those who are more
inclined to watching more traditional story construction.

3
At heart, the play focuses on being an individual with differing abilities and how

it affects the person and those around them. Although Christopher Boones exact
diagnosis is left ambiguous, he shares a number of similarities of an individual on the
Autism spectrum. Having known several individuals on the Autism spectrum and having
written several papers on the subject, this play hit particularly home for me. Author of the
original book, Mark Haddon stated that Christophers diagnosis is left ambiguous,
because Imagination always trumps research. Haddon and the creative team behind the
play agreed it was far more important to make Christopher a real person than being
constrained by research and unflattering stereotypes. Haddon noted in an interview I
thought that if I could make Christopher real to me then hed be real to readers. By
doing this, it actually paints a more realistic depiction of those who fall under the
spectrum. There is often an incorrect insinuation that those on the spectrum are either in
the same category as someone with genetic abnormalities that cause intellectual
developmental disorders (such as Down syndrome) or are super intelligent beings that
completely lack empathy and any social skills what so ever. Christopher highjacks these
traits by being both intelligent and also very emotional. Christopher is not mentally
disabled, but rather his brain functions atypically of what society deems normal. The
Autism spectrum is so broad and has so many levels of severity and symptoms that there
isnt a consistent diagnosis. I feel that the creative team really hit home the point that
rather than wasting time trying to label the exact condition, we should focus on the
individual and what they need to succeed.
The minimalist set design created a perfect backdrop for the state of the art
projections. It was a perfect blend of how projections can be legitimate set design

choices, rather than a means to cut down production costs. The design choice of making
the stage look like a piece of graphing paper further visualized who Christopher was as a
person. It was also a brilliant (and in my opinion quite necessary) choice for the lighting
and sound teams to recreate the type of sensory issues someone of Christophers nature
may suffer from. I cant really recall a work that displays the internal workings of what
someone senses and the pain of sensory overload. Sensory sensitivity is more than
someone flailing their arms. These people are in physically debilitating pain and when
they act out it isnt out of spite, but rather because they are in that much pain. The
lighting and projections exemplified what goes on in a persons mind and emotional state.
The flashes of words and numbers during Christophers episodes created a visual
disturbance that shows the audience how miserable and stressful these episodes are to
Christopher. The visuals are also enhanced by the incredible sound design by Ian
Dickinson.
Dickinsons design choices were well thought out and absolutely impeccable.
This is rather unfortunate, because the sound categories were eliminated from the Tony
Awards this awards season (a decision that I find very insulting both on technical and
artistic grounds). Its a shame, because the sound design is just as critical to the story as
Sharp and the lighting is to this production. The sound adds an element that lighting and
acting alone cant fully emphasize. Dickinson found certain sound frequencies that gave a
sense of distress, hope, excitement, etc. A particular detail that I appreciated was
Christopher acquiring a radio. The radio is significant, because it produced white noise, a
neutral sound frequency that is calming. I am not sure if everyone picked up on that
detail, but it was indicative to me that the creative team really did their homework on this.

The frequencies were appropriate in the scenes they were designated for, and there were
several moments that I was actually starting to get ill from the sound (I have a very acute
sensitivity to certain high pitched frequencies). If your sound affects your audience both
physically and emotionally, then you have done your job right, which is why this feels
like such a slap in the face by both the American Theatre Wing and The Broadway
League. The musical accompaniment by Adrian Sutton also enhanced the sound design
of the show. The music also enhances critical emotional moments in Christophers
journey. It adds to the moment without overshadowing the other elements of the
production.
The entire show was enhanced by the venue itself. The smaller-capacity Ethel
Barrymore Theatre along with the more intimate seating, which is a hallmark of the
theatres designed by the late Herbert J. Krapp. I think if it were in a bigger theatre with
potentially less attractive sightlines, the minimalist design would have failed miserably.
For such an intimate and personal story, the Barrymore was the perfect space for this
production.
Finally, I really couldnt end this review without mentioning the adorable puppy
at the end (whom I found was named Tony and this was his last performance as Sandy).
Other than the dog being adorable beyond words, it also represented Christophers story
coming full circle and left with the promise of a better future. I am a sucker when it
comes to animals on stage and it takes a dedicated trainer and animal to make it look as
natural as possible (although I think Tony getting rather close to the orchestra pit was not
in the script). The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time is a phenomenal show
that I would not hesitate to see again if given the chance.

1
Brianna Gallagher
AMS 214- Live on Broadway
Sullivan
The Flick Review
7-24-15
The Flick is a Pulitzer Prize-winning dramatic play by Annie Baker. The Flick
details the lives of three workers, who live complicated lives outside their repetitive jobs.
The show originally opened at Playwrights Horizons in 2013 and was revived in 2015 at
the Barrow Street Theatre. I always try to be fair and try to find the positive in
everything, but I am finding that to be incredibly difficult for this review. Without a doubt
in my mind, this was the worst theatrical experience in my entire life. As I am writing this
I still find it incredibly hard to not be a black hole of negativity. There are honestly so
many problems with this show; I dont know where to begin.
After a somewhat promising opening (well at least the first two minutes seemed
promising) things quickly went downhill. While I did think the use of the projector was
an innovative way to transition from scene to scene, it became really old, really fast. I am
not sure if the blinding lights were meant to shock the audience or prevent them from
falling asleep, and honestly I dont care. I became especially perturbed when the
transition music played. It wasnt that the music was bad; actually it was quite the
opposite. Music from classics such as Mary Poppins and more modern hits like Marvels
The Avengers played in sync with the light transitions (I also question whether Disney is
getting royalties or even gave the okay to use the music). What annoyed me was that the
music is from works that I would rather watch than The Flick, almost as if I am being
mocked. While I do think a movie theater is an interesting setting and get the idea of the
audience being the screen, the idea of a show within a show isnt very original. Also as

2
someone who is quite familiar with the roving bucket, the actors perfectly captured the
marriage between broom and bucket. The actors even capture the vacant stare and
repetitive nature of sweeping. The reality is, that wasnt acting it was someone sweeping,
the buckets didnt represent some deeper meaning, no, it was just a time killer. I
understand that Off-Broadway shows have nowhere near the budget of Broadway shows,
but compared to spectacular sets from shows of Off-Broadway origins such as Avenue Q
and Rent, this really falls short. However, on a positive note, the Barrow Street Theatre
was a little cramped, but I felt was appropriate for the tone of the production (or at least
what they were attempting). Like the Flick Theater, it was a bit rundown, and to mildly
paraphrase a line from the show, the theatre had potential.
This play went from mediocre to downright atrocious. This production breaks
every single traditional play performance convention, and while that was the idea, that
idea just fails so miserably. Annie Baker clearly has no idea how to write dialogue for the
millennial generation or even understands much about it. I have gotten more insightful
information and cultural understanding of my generation from a Buzzfeed article than
from this play and the article only took five minutes to read. To be honest I have held
pieces of paper that were more edgy than what this play claims to be. Just because it
drops harsh language, does not make it more adult, in my opinion it makes it look
childish. I dont suggest sanitizing language (I am guilty of the occasional swearing
myself), but the more you use it, the less impactful it becomes. At the end of the day, the
insults and language comes off nothing more than middle school gym banter. I
understand the nuances the production was going for, but the execution (which was
further impeded by some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard in my life) was poor and

3
did not come through at all. If critics continue to believe that she is the new voice of
theatre then I am very fearful for the future of theatre.
As I tried to comprehend why on earth so many people are in love with this show,
I began to wonder if maybe I just didnt get it. Then, it finally hit me. The Flick is Rent,
well Rent minus the heart and soul. I am not saying that The Flick is ripping off Rent, but
some of the resemblances are uncanny. A leading character, who is obsessed with film
trying to protect the arts in a changing world. That sounds an awful lot like Mark from
Rent. The female lead is a party girl with a complicated personality, who is almost
immediately attracted to the male lead. That seems to echo Mimi from Rent. A leading
character magically gets over a life threating illnessI really can go on all day with this.
The Flick, like Rent, also doesnt have so much of a plot in the traditional sense, but
rather a series of events that form a more surrealist experience on the stage. The reason
why Rent works is because you actually care about the characters and wonder what will
happen next in their lives. In The Flick, the polar opposite occurs. These characters are so
one-dimensional and clich that I dont think I would flinch an inch if an asteroid hit
them point blank. I actually feel kind of bad for the actors, because they literally have
nothing to work with. Unless you are a master of improv, I dont see how any actor could
have really done any better with the material given to them. I think out of all of the actors
Matthew Maher really, really tried to make this show work. I could somewhat empathize
with the character of Sam and his struggles throughout the show. I believe that really
makes a huge statement on the quality of Mahers acting abilities that he was able to get
anything from that script. I think critics are so desperate for the Rent or Hair for the

4
millennial generation that they are willing to applaud the first thing that remotely has a
similar premise.
With the unnecessarily long runtime (so much so that my mother called to see if I
was alright), adolescent dialogue, and cardboard cutout characters, The Flick tries to be a
blockbuster, when in reality its a movie made by a preschooler on his mothers iPhone.
While I have not watched any other of Bakers plays, if they are anything similar to The
Flick, then I think I will save my money.

Brianna Gallagher
AMS 214- Live on Broadway
Sullivan
The King and I Review
8-7-15
The King and I is a classical American musical by Richard Rodgers and Oscar
Hammerstein II, more commonly known as Rogers and Hammerstein. The King and I
is adapted from the 1944 semi-biographical novel Anna and the King of Siam. The
original Broadway production of The King and I premiered at the St. James Theatre in
March 1951 and closed in 1954 after 1,246 performances. The original Broadway cast
starred Gertrude Lawrence as Anna Leonowens and Yul Brynner as the King of Siam, a
role he would perform 4,625 times in his career. Since its initial Broadway run, The King
and I has had productions throughout the world and has been revived on Broadway. The
latest incarnation premiered earlier this year at the Vivian Beaumont Theater in Lincoln
Center. Before I go more in depth on what I thought about the show, I think it is
important to understand the real-life inspiration and origins of the show.
While The King and I is by no means an accurate portrayal of 19th century Taiwan
(formerly Siam), most of the characters in the show are loosely based on real people and
events. Anna Leonowens was a woman in her early 30s who was hired to teach the wives
and children of King Mongkut of Siam. In a somewhat ironic twist, Anna is believed by
many historians to have been of Eurasian decent and lied about being from Wales to
protect herself and her children. In real life, King Mongkut was also more socially
progressive than how he is portrayed in the show. While his devotion to Buddhism is
shown to an extent in the show, Mongkut was a Buddhist monk for 27 years prior to
ascending the throne. It was through his travels as a monk that he became fascinated with

science and the West. The real Chulalongkorn did become a progressive leader during his
reign as king as alluded to in the finale of the show. It is important to note that while
many of these characters did exist in real life, the story is for the most part, fiction and
should be treated as such. The King and I does not belong in the same company such as
biographical musicals like Beautiful or Fun Home. The show is meant to be a story about
unconventional relationships not a serious biographical adaptation.
The performances were amazing to say the least. I cant really say anyone was
bad or miscast. Kelli O'Hara, I mean what can I say that hasnt already been said. At this
point in her career, her name is merely a synonym for flawlessness. She brings magic to
everything she sings. She could do a cover of Black Laces Agadoo and I would
probably like it. Its really not hard to see why she won a Tony Award this year. While
she doesnt really bring anything new to the role of Anna, she plays it so well that you
cant help but to be mesmerized. In addition, I really appreciated that the production
team cast kids who were a little bit older. Although there are some really young kids who
can carry a tune, most of the time their voice isnt quite developed yet. Its not the kids
fault, but if I want to see a cute kid trying to sing, I would rather not do it on my dime.
This is especially problematic for boys past age 10. Thankfully they cast performers who
were, at the very least, more vocally mature. This was very critical when it came to Jon
Viktor Corpuz as Prince Chulalongkorn. Corpuz has a very mature voice, but can still
easily pass for a 15 or 16 year old (he is 18). He sounded mature, but not too mature,
which fit the part of a prince learning to become a leader perfectly. I was also rather
impressed by Jose Llana as the King of Siam. I thought he gave a powerful, yet somehow
reserved performance and found it thoroughly enjoyable.

3
The venue helped enhance the atmosphere of the show. The Vivian Beaumont

Theater is just one of the many entertainment venues in Lincoln Center. The theatre is
one of the few theatres that employs a thrust stage in New York City. This is important in
enhancing the shows conflict of East V.S. West. The thrust stage is similar to the
hanamichi, which is a walkway used in Kabuki
theatre. It adds that special element to make the
experience feel that much more realistic. I also
enjoyed the implementation of traditional Thai
theatre and dance in the show. Theatrical

Historical illustration showing the hanmichi within

grasp of audience.

performances such as Khon, a type of masked

dance theatre performed traditional in the royal court, is used in the Uncle Toms Cabin
portion of the show. While there was plenty of eastern influences in the production,
there were just as many western influences. The
Vivian Beaumont Theater itself is a hybrid of
several different types of traditional European
theatre architecture. The mix of the common
Proscenium style theatre mixed with the Thrust
A modern performance of Khon theatre.

stage, further breaks the 4th wall (the

audience) and truly create an immersive spectacle.

The set design further capitalizes on the shows elements and the venue itself. The
show was able to incorporate traditional design elements of Asian countries such as India,
Taiwan, and Nepal. The production team is able to do this in a way that is beautiful, but
not over-the-top to the point of parody. Many figures of Buddhism and Hinduism are

incorporated throughout the show in ways that are obvious and at times subtle. One
example being on the more obvious side is the very blatant mentions and statues of
Buddha. On one hand, I have to point out some inaccuracies in the portrayal of Buddhism
in the show. Buddha in the show is basically substituted for the Christian interpretation of
God. Buddhism is a nontheistic religion (meaning there is not a creator god or deity). The
monotheistic interpretation we are used to simply doesnt exist in Buddhism. I understand
this was likely done to make the show more relatable to the general American population
circa 1950, but it is an inaccuracy that needs to be mentioned. Regardless, the design is
very influenced by East-Asian culture and treats it with dignity.
The mechanics of the stage also added an interesting element to the production.
The use of the moving thrust stage helped to bridge the gap between the stage and the
audience, thus creating a more immersive experience. I particularly liked the ship prop
that was moved into the center of the theatre. It helped give a sense of scale to the show
that might not have otherwise been felt. All of the moving parts made the show feel more
fluid and alive.
The music is really what is the heart and soul of the show. The music from this
show has been ingrained in American culture. Most people recognize Getting to Know
You almost instantaneously, some probably having never seen the show or the film
version of the show. The songs are iconic and have stood the test of time along with
many other Rogers and Hammerstein favorites. While there have been many trends that
have come and gone in the world of theatre, Rogers and Hammerstein have really stood
the test of time. While there may always be something new and edgy like The Book of
Mormon or Kinky Boots, odds are they will be popular for a while, but like The

Producers, they will run their course. The beauty of Rogers and Hammerstein is that they
dont need a gimmick to be good. The music and lyrics alone have kept them in the
minds of generations of theatergoers. While some elements may be dated, the stories
themselves are timeless. I am willing to bet my life savings that The King and I will be
performed around the world decades from now. In my opinion, it better to be beloved
than to be the next big thing, because there will always be the next big thing. In our
disposable digital age we consume media faster and more ravenously than ever. Unless it
is a true phenomenon, you could be forgotten in mere minutes. To be beloved is to
achieve immortality of sorts. When your music and stories have become beloved, then
you have achieved the pinnacle of your craft. To be able to write music and lyrics is
great, but being remembered is the true mark of talent.
While this production of The King and I doesnt necessarily bring anything new,
it makes you appreciate what you already love. If youre looking for a cutting edge
experience, youre probably not going to find it here. But, if youre looking to relive the
music and enchantment of an American classic, you need not look any further. This show
is suitable for all ages and unless you truly hate musicals (then why are you reading a
musical review) you will like this show. The King and I may not be the next big thing,
but it has a big place in my heart.