Monday, December 8, 2014

'Meh'verland: the actual problems behind NBC's Peter Pan Live.

Hi folks! This is not yet the official re-opening of my Music Blog, but a “coming soon” sneak preview of what's to come. Welcome, and enjoy.
In my career as a kid stage performer, there were only three shows (of any genre) that I got to perform in two separate productions of: Carmen, Peter Pan, and The Sound of Music! (Though in the case of The Sound of Music, the second 'production' was a concert version/recording that immediately followed the stage production, so it didn't feel like a separate process.) NBC has chosen two of them for their live shows; how great if a non-PBS TV network did a live, made-for-TV production of Carmen! But I digress...the point is that NBC has chosen two works that I am very familiar with, and it's safe to say that many of the decision-makers at NBC were far less familiar with the material at hand.
Before getting underway, here comes one of the most important statements from this entire review: it is fantastic that NBC is doing these productions! They are high-risk, high-cost endeavors, and the arts world is a far better place with these productions on the air. However, there is no reason for these productions to be done poorly, for a wide variety of reasons to be discussed further below. Onward!
Let's deal with the most obvious and problematic issue: most of the material in the musical Peter Pan, as written, is neither particularly strong nor particularly compelling. The music from the show can be divided into four groups: Throwaways ("Tender Shepherd"); 2-second songs, where it's only necessary to sing the title since everything that follows is unnecessary ("I've Gotta Crow," "I Won't Grow Up," "I'm Flying"); Camp/Cheese (All 3 of Hook's dances, "Wendy," "Ugg-a-Wugg"); and Money Numbers ("Never Never Land," "Distant Melody.") While the 'Money Numbers' will stand up relatively well despite mediocre performers or directors, all of the numbers in the first three categories rely on the strength of both performance and concept to be successful. Peter Pan is a show that only works when the actions, motives, and intentions of the characters are painted with bold, bright colors, and this was NBC's biggest failure. When the color of the sets and costumes out-dazzles the color of the characters, Peter Pan is doomed to fail.
The plot is also problematic, but for two very different reasons. First, when reduced to the essentials, the story is an unnecessary one: kids run off to a land of make-believe, have adventures, and return. For most of the show, if one were to ask "Why is this happening?" there would be no good answer. Secondly, however, the two 'money' numbers, along with the epilogue, point to a much more complicated problem: where do the metaphors and symbolism end, and reality begin? "Never Never Land" and "Distant Melody" were added to the musical after it was first premiered, and both songs add a significant, world-changing new dimension to the character of Peter Pan. Several important questions must be answered: is Peter Pan in on the whole joke, like a clever puppet-master in the guise of a naive boy? Is it the traditional Mary Martin model, where Peter Pan is indeed a naive boy, and is accidentally profound in the way kids can tend to be? (This traditional model happens to be the easiest way to solve the plot problems. Draw everyone into your world, rather than have them wonder why they are there in the first place.) Further metaphorical questions are posed by the epilogue, along with the fact that Hook and Mr. Darling are usually played by the same actor. Many spinoffs from the Peter Pan story have addressed these questions in clever and inventive ways, but to carelessly delve into this world is risky business. NBC's production of Peter Pan painted many of the characters in shades of gray. I'm likely giving too much credit thinking it was a purposeful choice due to the questions posed above, rather than a simple lack of creative vision/depth/understanding. Either way, it was a huge mistake, because whether the world of Neverland is fact or fiction, the *characters* are still real. Whether real or imagined, how boring is a far-away land if it's not much different than ordinary life? And where is the payoff, or big-picture moral, if those worlds are too close together? It's like the Wizard of Oz without Technicolor.
Let's get a bit more specific by examining the three 'tribes' on Neverland Isle: The Lost Boys, the Pirates, and the Indians. Using the two extremes above, they are either literal boys/pirates/indians, or they are ordinary people who (through their imagination) are sharing the world of Neverland, like a live-action online game. (Side-note: in the second case, it would make sense to have the full-grown men who played the Lost Boys in the NBC production!) In *either* case, they are going to play their role! How lame is it when a group of people are playing a game that involves roleplay (improv comedy, charades, theater shows, D&D, online games, more sultry endeavors like "playing doctor") and there's that ONE buzzkill that refuses to play along, but insists on playing anyways? That's how much of the cast seemed in NBC's Peter Pan, as if everyone was in on the secret that this was all one big metaphor, and thus should not fully commit to their role. The Lost Boys should be giddy in "Wendy," defiant and ornery in "I Won't Grow Up," and always wide-eyed and youthful. Otherwise, their choice to go to London- the metaphorical and literal decision to “Grow Up”- loses its impact. The Pirates need to be over-the-top campy; instead, they all fell in to the same, too-cool-for-school, completely in-on-the-joke style of Christopher Walken (more on him later.) The premise that your leader (Hook) needs a musical style to inspire his next dastardly plot is one of the funniest and most unique plot devices in Musical Theatre; to make that process mundane and uninteresting is a Theatre crime equal to forsaking Sondheim, Tommy Tune, and Ethel Merman. The Indians, admittedly, are a trickier quandary. For the record, NBC handled most of the basic changes quite well (and yes, it was necessary for the material to be changed, as “Ugg-a-Wugg” is the 1950's version of the famous “Ching Chong Ling Long Ting Tong” YouTube video from a few years ago.) But (as with anything in life) just because something needs changing doesn't mean that every change is a good one! Replacing the nonsense syllables with authentic language was brilliant; replacing other nonsense syllables with nursery rhymes was nonsense. The bigger mistake, however, is that the end product wasn't very good. “Ugg-A-Wugg” (now “Blood Brothers”) is the only true, old-school production number of the entire show; in their pursuit to be reverent and non-offensive, they ended up being boring instead. Not only is it OK for the Indians to be campy and cheesy, they need to be! Alas, most of the group numbers in the entire production were boring. The swordplay at the end was laughably lackadaisical, because (once again) they aim for a shade of gray. They should have either spent the time to do fantastic fight choreography, or instead make it campy slow motion (a la The Matrix.) That was an easy one to fix, as were many of the problems in the show.
Of course, much of what I discuss above simply comes down to poor acting, directing, and quality control. Allison Williams was a terrible choice for the role of Peter Pan. She had none of the star power or name recognition of Carrie Underwood, the demographic that watches her HBO show is completely different from the target audience of Peter Pan, and the brunt of her acting experience is getting faux-boned while topless on screen. Underwood was not a strong actor, but at least she understood how to carry a thought/idea between phrases in songs. Here I'll let slip a small trade secret: it's the silence between musical phrases that defines the acting, and this is the biggest mistake that non-singing actors make when they sing. You could *see* Williams's thought process on her face during every pause in her singing, and (alas for her) it was at its worst in her debut number. It went something like this: "I've gotta crow" ("OK, where's my next floor cue") "I'm just the cleverest fellow 'Twas ever my fortune to know" ("OK, this next line goes higher, I need to remember to place this where the coach showed me, and take a good breath, here goes...") etc. Given that much of Williams's acting experience involves simulated sex, perhaps the producers might have considered having Nana (the dog) hump her leg during that number? For the record, I think her singing was largely OK: she hit most of her spots, she was mostly in tune, and the sound was generally fine.
It did seem, at times, that Williams was aiming for something far more complex dramatically, but it fell far short. It also added several layers to the narrative, some unintended, that simply don't fit in a production of this musical. (This is a much longer ramble that I've decided to leave out of this review, but suffice it to say that NBC's track record of social engineering and integrity in decision-making is horrendous: The Olympics, Last Comic Standing, America's Got Talent, and more provide plenty of examples.) In the end, some NBC exec thought it would be cute to hire the daughter of their news anchor to star in the show. A similar thought process led to the casting of Tiger Lily, who simply couldn't sing the role. It's a lovely idea (and politically savvy) to hire a Native American for the part, but it does no one (especially her) any good to cast a person that can't handle the role.
The casting of Walken was a stroke of genius, and was the biggest wasted opportunity in the entire production. Stage direction has many parallels to my world of orchestral conducting; any mediocre conductor or director can help a mediocre orchestra/artist perform better, but a true test of a great conductor or director is improving people who are already world-class artists. Every viewer was expecting much more from Walken, but where does the fault lie? Sure, Walken should have been better, but there are several important points to put this in context. First, we've all seen Walken do better, so we know he is capable of it. Second, as I've mentioned above, the show was already rife with poor choices in acting, concept, and direction; Walken's low-key approach was congruous with the many shades of gray that engulfed this production. Third, what is the director there for? Going back to the conducting analogy, a conductor (among other things) helps to provide a unifying vision that brings all of the musicians together to work towards the same goal. While musicians are certainly expected to come prepared and to play at their best, the duty of quality control ultimately falls on the conductor. In the unique case that a musician is completely missing the mark, the responsibility falls on the conductor to (put simply) find a solution to make it work. I've been fortunate to see a bunch of orchestras from behind the scenes, and this type of scenario happens more often than you would think! While I might be wrong, I can't imagine that Walken was un-directable. In fact, I'm convinced (especially given what I've already typed above) that everyone on set thought he was HILARIOUS. It was Walken playing the role of Walken, which the NBC folks found funny in a drunk-at-midnight-watching-Saturday-Night-Live sort of way. The lack of sensible quality control in the rest of the show makes this scenario very likely (Occam's Razor), and I seriously doubt Walken was any different in the rehearsals prior to the live show. So, just like so many SNL skits that were clearly funnier to the writers than the audience, the Walken deadpan was a colossal failure, and no one on set saw it as a problem leading up to the performance. Ultimately, the director of Peter Pan was unable to utilize or improve the many tools that Walken brings to the table, and thus Walken's performance became the main topic of conversation for all the wrong reasons.
There were several bright spots in the show. First, Wendy was the only main character to fully commit to her role. She was wide-eyed with wonder at the youth (Pan) who was going to help her run away, and she fully believed in the real-ness of Neverland. She is the perfect example of the importance of the bold, bright character colors that I mentioned above; the weight of Minnie Driver's reality would have made no sense without it. There were two other shining lights: Kelli O'Hara as Mrs. Darling, and Christian Borle as Mr. Darling and Smee. They certainly brought weight, legitimacy, and high standards to the table. Unfortunately, they were not utilized enough (or on screen enough) to counterbalance the many problems with the show. A great comparison to make is with Audra McDonald, who had a significant impact upon the quality of The Sound of Music Live, despite minimal screen time. Importantly, she was also able to draw the best acting out of Carrie Underwood, during the song “Climb Every Mountain.” In contrast, Borle was unsuccessful in drawing Walken out enough in order to be his foil, and thus did not have the opportunity to portray a proper Smee. If Audra would have been cast as Smee (which would have been an amazing casting choice!) would she have done any better? Likely not, but the novelty of having Audra and Walken as Smee and Hook would have likely resulted in better and more focused direction.
Since music is normally my primary focus in any critique, it's surprising to me that it has taken this long to finally speak of the orchestra! As I've already mentioned, the musical material is not particularly strong, with lots of 'boom-chick' numbers and time fillers. Compounding this is the terrible trend in Pops/Musical Theatre to treat popular music like Guitar Hero: just push the buttons down at the right time. This was especially noticeable in The Sound of Music Live, where none of that fantastic score was treated like music- no phrasing, no subtlety, no use of color or texture...not much better than a MIDI recording. I'm pleased to say that Peter Pan Live is an improvement, which was immediately heard in “I've Gotta Crow”: the brass added fantastic shape to each 'answer' of Peter Pan's invocation of the song title. In fact, the brass was making great shapes, phrases, and colors in several places throughout the show! Alas, the strings and winds were largely in Guitar Hero mode, which leads me to believe the Brass innovations were a result of the brass section itself, and not from the music direction. Kudos also to the consultant who made adjustments to “Ugg-a-Wugg,” because it would have been silly to change the lyrics, but not change the musical components that were equally problematic. These changes gave “Blood Brothers” a new feel, and would have worked great had the choreography and performances been stronger. Last item: that terrible Synth sound they used for Tinkerbell's 'voice'. In the original show, her voice is supposed to be represented by a Celesta, which (simply put) is a piano that uses bells for keys. Of course, hauling around a Celesta is both expensive and difficult, so most shows use a Synthesizer Celesta sound instead. The sound used in Peter Pan Live was an anemic cross between a windchime and a toy piano; you can also file this choice in the already-stuffed “quality control” folder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, why is any of this important? Anytime an artistic event of this magnitude occurs, you get plenty of people (like me) who express their opinions in different ways, followed by a small (but vocal) group that sets their target on the expressers. The most common phrases from this group: “Who are you to judge?”; “Why don't you try to do it better?”; “These people put hard work into it, and you are disrespecting their work”; “We've all had bad days”; “You're going to discourage them from doing more shows”; “__________ show was far worse”; “What does it matter? _____________ is happening (fill in the blank with a true story of suffering.)” I will hear these (and other) comments occasionally, and I feel it's always important to address them directly. The basic answer is this: that's not the way the world works! When people invest in something, they will have an opinion on what they've invested in. When it comes to the arts, that investment is usually time, money, or resources. Three hours is a significant time investment, so people are going to express their opinions. Now, here comes the better answer: quality matters. In the worlds of symphonic music and opera, a major selling point is that the audience will get a more special experience in the concert hall than they would watching TV or listening to a recording; the quality of the experience is an oft-cited reason. Why, then, would quality not matter when it comes to art and music in the popular realm? Sadly, a significant number of individuals in the classical world believe that the quality of a popular performance is not important to its success, and (worse) that the general audience will not be able to tell the difference (and thus critical reviews only serve to hurt future audience numbers.) This is a much longer topic of conversation that will need to be addressed in a separate article, but nothing could be further from the truth. Today's general audience, for a variety of reasons, is more attuned to the quality of performances than ever before. It's not enough to throw a famous name on stage/screen- the viral negative social media reaction to Walken's performance is a great demonstration of this.
So, why would any organization spend so much money, time, and resources to put on a production, but not put in the effort to make sure that it is good? I'll have to save the detailed answers for a separate article, but it's often a combination of bad decision-making by the powers-that-be, a complete misunderstanding of the viewing/listening audience, and laziness. It never ceases to amaze me how many arts organizations (both intentionally and unintentionally) will completely gut the quality of their outreach, educational, popular, or even subscription programming, and then lament their poor sales numbers. How many TV shows have 'jumped the shark,' and then, years later, lamented the cancelling of their show on a “Where are they now” retrospective? In most cases, money is not the issue. All it takes in one person behind the scenes that understands the audience enough, cares about quality enough, and is willing to work hard enough to fight for the highest artistic standards. It's no accident that a small subset of decision-makers (directors, producers, conductors, etc.) are responsible for so many successes in the arts world. These are the people that can lead and motivate the legions desperate to settle for “good enough” to instead aim for something greater.
Most of the problems with Peter Pan Live were both easily noticeable, and easily fixable. While it seems crazy that not a single person involved with the production was aware of these problems, that is not an uncommon occurrence in this industry. With all of the millions of dollars that NBC spent on this production, it's a shame that they didn't spend a fraction more to bring in a hired gun, with credentials in the worlds of both Music and Theatre, who is known for their exacting standards. (P.S. NBC: I'm relatively inexpensive, and willing to make myself available for your next project!) In the end, it is such a shame that the reviews of the production were so poor, because that could lead to fewer viewers in the future. However, this is why detailed analysis of what went wrong is crucial, otherwise the blame will be deflected towards the common excuses (dwindling audiences, technology, too much competition, lack of the arts in schools, etc.) instead of the actual reasons: poor decisions, and poor quality control.
So, kudos to NBC for its courage and vision to bring live, designed-for-TV musicals back to the small screen. Now, let's be sure to get it right next time!