Bloody and Cursed

Some people might find it hard to believe, but the vast majority of musicals New Line produces have the word fuck in them. You wouldn't think there'd be that many musicals that use that word, but there are. You wouldn't think that because most people hear the word musical and think old-fashioned musical. Which they probably hate. Ask an average person on the street to name a musical and I bet you get a Rodgers and Hammerstein title before you get something written in the last ten years. But almost all the really interesting new shows have very adult language.

Because that's how people talk.

Musicals we've done that use the word fuck include High Fidelity, Passing Strange, bare, Hair, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Hedwig and the Angry Inch, Grease, Assassins, Sunday in the Park with George, Rocky Horror, Best Little Whorehouse, A New Brain, and others. As far as I know, the New Line record is the fifty-two fucks in Johnny Appleweed.

But Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson might provide Appleweed with some competition. Certainly, BBAJ is one of the most vulgar shows we've done. (And true to form, we're doing the even more vulgar Bukowsical in June.) Jackson throws around fucks with complete abandon. When I first saw the show, I really didn't register that -- I hardly notice what we call "adult language" in shows anymore, because it's both common now and realistic. It never stands out in my ear. Imagine how silly the characters in Rent would sound if they never cursed. They'd seem phony to us. We expect our storytelling to reflect our world.

One review of our production of BBAJ said that the obscene language revealed lazy writing. I disagree. Now having worked on the show for a while, and having seen it with audiences, I've been thinking about the language even more. And I realize it's a very strong and -- surprisingly enough -- very subtle narrative device that accomplishes two important jobs.

First, as I've written about before, in BBAJ the character of Jackson matures as America matures -- and as the show itself "matures," from sketch comedy to adult drama. And the language is part of that. Jackson curses all the time because he fancies himself a rebel. He doesn't follow rules. His language is an act of aggression. He assaults people -- including the audience -- with his words. When he first enters at the beginning of the show, he interacts briefly with the audience and engages in what can only be called (fake) sexual harassment. It seems like a naughty "throw-away" moment, but it's actually an important establishment of the tone and agenda of the evening. Jackson uses his language to bludgeon and to flamboyantly reject the "polite society" he associates with New England and John Quincy Adams, and also to wage an assault on those "higher classes" and their more "refined sensibilities." (Forgive all the ironic quotes.) Jackson is a frontiersman and there are no rules on the frontier. A prime example of all this is his first campaign speech in the show, as music starts underneath:
Uh-huh. That's right. Underscore, motherfuckers. That means it's our time. Time for the real people of this nation -- you and me -- time for us to take this fucker back. We're gonna walk right up to President Momoe's house and we're going to show him that the name Ol' Hickory doesn't only pertain to the length and girth of my penis. No, it also pertains to the inflexible and unyielding brand of populism that we're gonna shove four-and-a-half inches up his ass!

Language as a weapon. Even the title of the music that accompanies this speech is obscene -- "Underscore, Motherfuckers."  The audience doesn't know that, but it tells the actors and musicians something. In this retelling of his life story, Jackson is Johnny Strabler, Jim Stark, Danny Zuko, Wade "Cry-Baby" Walker, the tough guy with the emotional boy inside, rejecting the world that's already rejected him. And all that gets expressed in Jackson's obscenities.

The other reason for the language is about time and place. David Milch, the creator of the brilliant HBO series Deadwood talks in one of the DVD commentaries about why he used such pervasive obscenity in his dialogue, and his answer is purely artistic. He wanted his audience to feel the lawlessness and wildness of that time and place. Most of us could never imagine a world like that, with no laws, no authority, no social compact, no rules beyond survival. So Milch decided to use extreme, "lawless" language to get at that danger and chaos. The joke among Deadwood lovers is that the complex, poetic dialogue often sounds like Shakespeare wrote it, and every other word is cocksucker or motherfucker. (And now that I think about it, if Shakespeare was writing today, he'd probably use those words too. He loved his dirty jokes and obscene insults.) Milch admits that many of the curse words he used in Deadwood weren't even invented until later, but they're not there for historical authenticity; the words are there for the sense of that world that we can feel viscerally no other way.

The same is true of Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson. The obscene language creates a world of verbal and moral anarchy -- which underlines and connects subliminally with Jackson's own lack of a moral code, his massacre of Native Americans and his other immoral -- amoral? -- acts. It gives us a sense of what the Washington establishment thought of this vulgar frontiersman invading their insular, tightly controlled little world. He horrified them, just as he (comically) horrifies us when he says he'll fill us with "popula-jism."

As Van Buren would say, Yuck.

There are shows that use obscenities gratuitously (Silence!, The Book of Mormon), but Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson isn't one of them.

But maybe we should take a step back here. I mean, why not use curse words? People use these words. I use these words. Why shouldn't characters in our storytelling use these words? One reason so many of the shows we produce contain the word fuck is that we do a lot of fairly new shows, and younger writers are no longer afraid to use that word in a musical, if it's organic to the character and situation.

So yes, I guess I'm saying that the obscene language is there in BBAJ for a reason and also that we need to relax about it. After all, they're just fucking words.

Our production of Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson is going incredibly well, we're getting great audiences, and so far we've had ten rave reviews! Come join us for this amazing, smart, fearless piece of modern musical theatre. Two weeks left!

Long Live the Musical!
Scott

Underscore, Motherfuckers

Sometimes there are things about a show I don't discover until we put it in front of an audience.

When we did Hair the first time, none of us truly understood it, me included, until the audience provided the final missing piece. Then it all made sense.

We opened Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson Friday night, and what a great opening it was! We had a big, rowdy, smart audience, and the cast and band were all at the peak of their powers, just absolutely on fucking fire. We also had live Tweeters for the first time, and that turned out really cool -- you can read their tweets here. Everybody seemed to love the show. It is a wild ride, that's for sure, and that was even more obvious to me, watching with audiences for the first time.

And seeing our production in its finished form, I saw something about the show I hadn't seen before, even when I saw it in New York.

I've written on this blog before about how the character of Andrew Jackson in this show (as distinct from the actual guy) goes from rowdy, vulgar, angsty teenager to darker, more self-aware adult. In that process he stands in for America as a country, crossing over from national childhood through adolescence. But now I can see that the show itself does the same thing.

The evening starts off with some off-color sex jokes (from a  2012 perspective, we might even say Jackson sexually harrasses the audience), followed by lots of angsty whining in the first song, then a silly and shallow version of Jackson's early biography. The show itself is juvenile here.

But the evening ends with the complexity of real world consequences short-circuiting Jackson's swagger and ambition, followed by an assessment of Jackson's atrocities against Native Americans, even going so far as to call him "an American Hitler." By this point, the show is about the weight and weariness of being an adult, about the consequences of a (collective?) life lived recklessly. In the last thirty minutes, the show becomes serious, adult storytelling. And then in the final moments of the show, as the last great irony in an evening chock full of ironies, the band strikes up a driving punk version of Jackson's real-life campaign song, "The Hunters of Kentucky," letting its shallow, folk storytelling bang up uncomfortably against the very sophisticated, nuanced story and the moral ambiguity we've just been left with. But where it's placed in the show, as a kind of epilogue, "The Hunters of Kentucky" also makes a final, subliminal point about the nature of storytelling itself, its construction, its bias, its agenda, its place in the culture, and by turning this folk song into a driving punk anthem, Friedman and Timbers marry the two storytelling forms and reinforce one last time the double time-frame of the show.

The audience leaves feeling "up" from the rowdy rock music but also conflicted about all the darkness they've just seen play out. It also reminds us, perhaps subconsciously, that Jackson's greatest triumph was made by his younger, cockier self, long before he was President, long before he had to settle The Indian Question and argue with Congress about tariffs.

After all, it's easy to be a bully. It's hard to be President.

Even the length of the scenes increases as the show unfolds, progressively taking more and more time to go deeper, to explore contradiction, self-delusion, complexity. Bookwriter Alex Timbers and songwriter Michael Friedman drop hints all through the show about the central theme of maturing -- backstage at the political rally when Jackson asks why he can't live both the lives he wants, Rachel answers, "Because you're an adult." It's the first time we come up this explicitly against Jackson's tragic flaw. Emotional teenager Jackson is not equipped for the problems and complexity of the real world, and this moment foreshadows his unraveling later on in the Oval Office. (I can't help but see George W. Bush in this aspect of the character.)

The Bloody Bloody score also "grows up" in this same way. It starts with the wild, heavy, driving emo rock of "Populism, Yea, Yea!" a lyric consciously swimming in angsty shallowness, with a chorus that really contains only one word until the last line:
Populism, Yea, Yea!
Populism, Yea, Yea!
Populism, Yea, Yea!
Populism, Yea, Yea!
This is the age of Jackson.

This lyric tells us almost nothing, other than just nakedly announcing one of the show's themes. But it also tells us a lot. It tells us about the point of view of the show, its tone, its humor, its political satire. It presents us with an ironic swipe at the often mindless over-simplicity of American politics; and it sets up the double-time-period device, as it tells us this is the Jacksonian Era but set to driving rock and roll. In a (probably intentional) break from conventional musical theatre rules, this opening number doesn't do all the plot and character setup that most openings do, in shows like High Fidelity, Bat Boy, Company, Assassins, Jesus Christ Superstar, Songs for a New World...  Instead it defiantly refuses to do those things on the surface, while sort of doing some of them anyway subtextually and musically.

And really, one could argue that America is the main character of this story as much as Jackson is, so maybe this opening song does some important character work after all. And if you really want to dig down deep, 19th century America isn't the character we're talking about here -- this is a show about America in 2012. Which is why rock and roll is the musical language.

And the verse of "Populism, Yea, Yea!" returns later in the show as counterpoint, now standing in as a metaphor for Jackson's emotional state.

As the score progresses, it moves from rowdy to nuanced. "Rock Star," halfway through the show, is the last fully rock number. (One might argue that "The Saddest Song" is pretty driving rock and roll, but it's also essentially a waltz -- that's really interesting, melding the two periods musically, but it does make the song less than fully rock and roll.) The next two songs, "The Great Compromise" and "Public Life" start smaller and quieter,  and then are taken over by rock and roll by their ends, as the score goes through a musical transformation. After that, the last four songs in the show (not counting the epilogue) abandon the rock beat. And they also begin to have more ambiguous endings, leading the audience less certainly toward applause -- and since applause is often an emotional release, keeping the audience from applauding builds tension. Both "Crisis Averted #1" and "Crisis Averted #2" end very abruptly, without a musical "button" on the end, which cues applause. "The Saddest Song" doesn't end at all -- it stops mid-phrase and segues directly into the last big dialogue scene between Jackson and Black Fox. It's a brilliant move because it takes us directly from inside Jackson's chaotic emotions straight into the powerful dramatic tension of his final one-on-one negotiation. And likewise, "Second Nature" does not resolve itself harmonically at the end of the song, making it sound like it doesn't finish -- and maybe that's part of the message of its lyric. Our "taking" continues...

The turning point for the entire show is when Jackson's resident cheerleaders leave the Oval Office, saying, "This isn't fun anymore." Exactly. One cheerleader says, "Direct Democracy directly applied is like totes lame." (She doesn't know it but she's said something really smart there.) The Cheerleaders represent The People, who now turn on Jackson -- and they're all he really had. And that's followed by the second of the two versions of "Crisis Averted." The first is peppy and optimistic, but this second one is cynical and defeatist. The show has turned from Marx Brothers to Brecht. Likewise, the character of Black Fox turns from punchline to formidable opponent.

We have a rare luxury here at New Line Theatre. We've never, in twenty-two seasons, chosen a show for commercial appeal. We produce only the most exciting, most original, most well-crafted works the art form has to offer, and we've developed an audience over the years who want to see that. As I learned many years ago, audiences don't like only what they know; they like what's good. None of us working at New Line make very good money, but we get to do really amazing work.

Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson may not have done all that well financially on Broadway, but I believe it's one of the genuinely great works of this new Golden Age. Timbers and Friedman are at the top of their games, and I can't wait to see what they each do next. Our art form has never been more vigorous or more alive than it is right now. The nonprofit musical theatre wave of the 1990s and the creation of the internet have democratized the musical theatre. Just as Jackson wrested away power from the political elite, today we have wrested away power of the musical theatre from New York commercial producers. And all of us together across the country and around the world are moving the art form forward every day.

It's so exciting to be part of that.

Come see Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson -- details on our website. As Faulkner (and Judy Newmark) said, "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

Long Live the Musical!
Scott

P.S. Yes, there is actually an instrumental number in the show called "Underscore, Motherfuckers," over which Jackson says to the audience, "Uh-huh. That's right. Underscore, motherfuckers." You gotta love a musical like that.

My Pain Transformed Into Art

I'm at that place again.

We open in a week. And when we produce our weirder shows (which is a lot of them), this is always the part that's hardest on me -- although it's easier than it used to be. It's a bit nervous-making never being able to see our end product until a couple days before everybody sees our end product, but I have made peace with this process and I survive this period now better than I used to, maybe because almost every show we produce now gets a slew of rave reviews. I guess it's easier to be zen-like when your batting average is as good as ours. We know the process we've developed over the last twenty-one years really works, no matter what kind of show we do.

We don't have most of the pressures of commercial theatre, so our work is often pretty different from the work done in commercial theatres -- we call ourselves an alternative musical theatre company for a reason. We enjoy a pretty leisurely rehearsal schedule and we allow ourselves to discover the work as we make it. Which means we're never chained to any preconceptions before we start about how the show will turn out. This time, with Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, we've made the journey, done our best, the show opens Friday, and all we know for sure is, as Buckaroo Banzai says, "Wherever you go, there you are."

Of course, I do have some sense of what we've made. When we did Bat Boy, Urinetown, High Fidelity, Cry-Baby, Spelling Bee, Return to the Forbidden Planet, our productions were all more serious than the originals. They were still very funny shows, but we also found these serious, intense, sometimes beautiful moments in amongst the zaniness, that upped the emotional quotient and involved the audience more deeply. We didn't set out to do that; it just happened as we discovered these rich, complex shows and followed their stories where they led us. The same thing has happened with Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson. (Someone taught me years ago what's most interesting is to find what's funny in a sad moment or what's sad in a funny moment.) But when we come at a show from a different angle, that also means we don't have a model to follow. When someone produces a show exactly like its original production (as lots of regional theatres routinely do, especially when there's a video available), there's no mystery about the end product.

But where's the fun in re-doing someone else's work?

We New Liners go off on our own road. We take the words and music and we approach them as if no one has ever produced the show before. Okay, that's not 100% true -- sometimes, having seen the original productions is helpful for me in terms of understanding what the writers intended. But we don't use someone else's staging or design or character interpretation as a starting place. We use the words and music.

In terms of Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, our production is going to be less about the arch, "hipster Brechtian" style of the original and more about story. Part of the point of the show in New York was its disdain for Broadway rules about language, storytelling devices, etc. But since New Line shows regularly break most of the rules that BBAJ breaks, we can't rely on the show's original shock value. It takes a lot more than breaking the fourth wall and saying fuck to shock a New Line audience. And I'm not sure shock should be the central agenda of this incredibly intelligent piece of theatre anyway.

As a director I am less interested in devices and effects, and more interested in storytelling. I think Timbers wrote a brilliant script, but when he directed it, he chose to focus more on its anarchy and alienation, and we're focusing more on the powerful contradictions at its center and its insightful resonance for an audience swimming in the politics of 2012. In other words, we're focusing more on the storytelling because that's how we humans make sense of our world and our world could really use some sense-making these days...

I think our audience will feel more for Jackson than they did in the original. I loved Alex Timbers' direction in New York, but we all know there's never only one right answer. (I saw Rent in 1996 right after it moved to Broadway and again last fall off Broadway-- two completely different productions and they were both absolutely amazing.) As much as I love Brecht, Timbers' production was more of an assault on the audience than ours will be. Don't get me wrong, our audience will still be assaulted with the gleeful vulgarity and profanity of the show, but I think our production makes that vulgarity and profanity more intrinsic to the storytelling, more a part of the character and the times, instead of a part of the presentation style. The Broadway production's Jackson was vulgar and offensive more as a meta-theatrical Brechtian device (and believe me, I do love meta-theatrical Brechtian devices!), while our Jackson is vulgar and offensive because he's immature, desperate to entertain, desperate to seem cool and rebellious. Timbers was trying to make provocative theatre; we're trying to tell a provocative story.

The off Broadway and Broadway productions of BBAJ used a highly artificial performance style as a Brechtian alienation device, but musicals have their own built-in alienation device -- the music! There is no "reality" to get lost in when you're watching a musical because a band keeps playing and people keep bursting into song. So BBAJ in New York had a double-layer of alienation operating and it put off their audience. What the creative team didn't understand is that the same thing that gives musical theatre an inherent Brechtian tint is also what subverts Brecht's intent. Brecht wanted audiences to think instead of feel, but music is an abstract language and so it conveys emotion better than spoken words can. Music reminds us of the artificiality and it allows us to tap into deep, universal, human emotions. And most rock musicals double-down on that alienation effect by using most (sometimes, all) of their songs as commentary, stepping outside the reality of the story. Like Brecht and Sondheim, the neo rock musical frequently rejects the fourth wall entirely.

All of this to say that you don't need the intentionally phony acting disguised as hipster Brechtianism. Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson works perfectly without it.

And we're about to prove it.

One of the hardest things about a show like this is that most of the actors play multiple characters. It's also what's most fun about performing it. But on Broadway, the characters were much more types and devices than real people. I think that's a valid choice but I also think this writing is strong enough to support much more serious and authentic acting (as it was with the other shows I've mentioned), even inside this wacky, outrageous style. Our agenda never starts with getting laughs; we always start from character and story, and if we've chosen a good show (and we always do), the laughs will take care of themselves. And that approach is more interesting for the actors too. A good actor loves living inside a full character in a fully imagined world. Give him nothing more than a cardboard cutout and gags to play and he has less fun.

A lot of the actors in the show play a dozen or more characters. Some characters only have a line or two. Some have a monologue then disappear. And I've added to the burden by insisting that every character sound, look, and move differently (though those differences can be subtle ones). On top of that, the cultural and political context of the action is both the early 19th century and today. The actors have to blend all that together and come up with characters that make sense, that serve the scene and the show, and that feel honest and authentic to an audience. Plus, in most of the scenes, they also have to be funny.

That's a really hard job.

It's hard in any show, but with most characters in most shows, there's a lot of information (though sometimes hidden) in the script and score that you can use to understand this particular character and this particular world. But with wild ensemble shows like Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, there's often very little info. In this case, we can find lots of historical information, but these characters are often like their real world counterpoints only in essence, in spirit, not always in concrete detail. So historical research is helpful, but it can be a bit treacherous. Timbers' script is about emotional and moral authenticity, not always historical truth. But remember, Shakespeare changed lots of historical facts in his history plays.

Still, the more we learn about the real times and this version of those times, the more our actors are finding reality in even the smaller characters. Sometimes an obvious detail like an accent or a hat makes it easier. But more than anything, it's been work and experimentation.

As it is with many of our shows, I'm not exactly sure what the end product is going to be, because we've gone off on a road parallel to the original. But I do know the road we're on is a good road that will get us to our destination -- clear, entertaining, emotional storytelling. And I've finally learned not to worry about the destination. My job is to put us on the right road and keep us moving forward -- neither of which is an easy job. But when I do that, the end product is always really interesting and really entertaining and really thought-provoking. And besides, if I can imagine it all in my head ahead of time, it wouldn't be much of an adventure or much of a collaboration, would it? The actors and designers bring as much to this as I do.

This cast is great, they've all found this show's special style and tone -- very much an artistic tightrope -- and we've had the luxury of working with both piano and guitar for a couple weeks already, so we'll be adding only drums and bass this coming week as we approach opening night. We got a glimpse of Amy's incredibly cool costumes when we took our PR pictures, Scott's playground of a set is almost finished, and we'll get a look at Ken's lights this Saturday.

Most of my administrative/producer work is done now. I get to be just an artist this week.

Things are going really great. And my brain is really tired. But I still love my job.

Long Live the Musical!
Scott

Shoot the Storyteller in the Neck

For a while now, I've been thinking and writing about the New American Musical and its two dominant sub-genres, the Neo Musical Comedy and the Neo Rock Musical, both coming to prominence around the mid-1990s. This season at New Line we're working on two Neo Musical Comedies and one Neo Rock Musical. Although Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson is actually a prime example of both.

Each time I get to work on one of these neo musical comedies (like Cry-Baby, Bat Boy, Spelling Bee, Reefer Madness, Urinetown), I get to study this new form even better. And here I am again, with one of the coolest, most aggressive of the bunch, every bit as funny and as intense as Bat Boy and Urinetown. It's got the politics, the wackiness, the darkness, the thick, thick irony. It's a weird cross between George M. Cohan on the one hand, and Tommy and Jesus Christ Superstar on the other.

The more I work on these shows, the more I have to re-examine my preconceptions about the history and evolution of our art form. I sort of unconsciously started that work when I wrote my history book, Strike Up the Band: A New History of Musical Theatre, and got even closer in my last book, Sex, Drugs, Rock & Roll, and Musicals. But after doing Cry-Baby last spring and now working on BBAJ, these ideas are really swimming around in my head a lot.

Most musical theatre historians date "serious" musical theatre (whatever that might mean) back to Show Boat in 1927, or some maybe only as far back as Oklahoma! in 1943. But I've been realizing lately that the Rodgers and Hammerstein era wasn't really when the art form found its footing. That goes back further than we usually pay attention. I think the show that really starts the story of the modern American musical is Little Johnny Jones in 1904, writer-composer-director-choreographer-star George M. Cohan's first big hit. There were a few other shows that had used the label musical comedy before Cohan, but Little Johnny Jones was the first show that really was what we now know as musical comedy.

And for me, there is great freedom in realizing that our art form didn't take original root in the ponderous morality of Rodgers and Hammerstein, but instead in Cohan's musical comedy, rowdy, high-energy, streetwise, slyly satiric, both smart and smartass, and strangely enough, both romantic and cynical – in other, words, very American. It's freedom that comes from the knowledge that the only fundamental rule of musical theatre is that there are no fundamental rules – look at Lysistrata Jones, Cry-Baby, Bat Boy, and Spelling Bee. Today's neo musical comedy takes Cohan's model largely intact, but with the accumulations of its evolution, the political self-awareness of the 1960s, the Sexual Revolution of the 1970s, the New Irony of the 1990s, and the Culture Wars of the 2000s.

For years, musical theatre artists have studied Oklhaoma! and Carousel. But maybe they should be studying George M. Cohan and Little Johnny Jones. That's where we find the roots of Cry-Baby, Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, High Fidelity, and many of the shows being written today. In a sense, Rodgers and Hammerstein's "American operettas" were a detour (though certainly one we learned a lot from), away from the artistically pure Americanism of Cohan. Rogers and Hammerstein musicals evolved (through Kern and Hammerstein's Show Boat) out of European operetta; but the musical comedy was a new American art form, one not based on European forms. Only since the mid-1990s have we returned decisively to this innately American form, but with the changes that allow it to speak to our new zeitgeist.

And really, Cohan's times were a lot like our own. As the last century began, America was a country in transition – exactly as it is now. In 1902, the United Mine Workers began a five-month strike that President Roosevelt ended by giving in to their demands, just as issues of collective bargaining are today being debated in Wisconsin, Ohio, Chicago, and elsewhere. That same year, Roosevelt instituted anti-trust proceedings against many giants of American industry, just as today President Obama and Congress have been trying to put some restraints on the financial industry that tanked our economy. And immigration to the United States reached record levels at the time, in parallel to the illegal immigrant issue in America today. In 1903, J.P. Morgan made $40 million in a single stock deal, mirroring the One Percenters today who literally make billions of dollars a year. That was just a year before Cohan's Little Johnny Jones debuted, elevating the Common Man to the leading role, rather than the counts and princes of operetta. Just as Andrew Jackson democratized our political process, Cohan democratized the musical theatre.

And just as America was ready in 1900 for the blossoming of the new populist art form of musical comedy – a genuinely, entirely American art form – so too today our cynical, crazy world demands the pointed irony of the neo musical comedy, to satirize and reveal the complicated, chaotic times in which we live.

Many have called Cohan the man who invented musical comedy and I would agree. Cohan wrote, composed, directed, choreographed, and starred in almost all his shows. The astonishing part is that he was pretty good at all those jobs. His first musical comedy, based on a shorter vaudeville sketch he had done with his performing family, was called The Governor’s Son, opening in 1901. The show didn’t do very well, but Cohan learned valuable lessons from this first attempt, and within a few short years, he would be the king of musical comedy, as well as its father.

Historian Cecil Smith described Cohan as “the apostle of breeziness, of up-to-dateness, of Broadway brashness and slang. Speed, directness, and ‘ginger’ were the chief ingredients of his musical plays.” You might say the same things about Keythe Farley, co-writer and original director of Bat Boy, or about Alex Timbers, writer and original director of BBAJ and director of Peter and the Starcatcher and the recent Pee Wee Herman On Broadway. One of Cohan's famous directions to his cast before the curtain of a Cohan musical was, “Speed! Speed! And lots of it! Above all, speed!” Sounds a lot like Bat Boy, Urinetown, Cry-Baby, and Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, doesn't it? Cohan gave the musical comedy its tempo, its attitude, its fierceness, its sheer, aggressive American-ness. Years later, playwright Alert Innaurato said of these shows, “Theatre must be a paradox to succeed, and this was ferocious fluff, deadly uproarious political theatre that was also tons of fun.”

You could describe Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson exactly the same way.

In every way, Cohan turned commercial theatre on its ear. But soon enough, his brand of muscular, brash, rough-and-tumble American musical caught on. Critic Brooks Atkinson has said that Cohan’s songs were “sublimations of the mood of their day. They said what millions of people would have said if they had Cohan’s talent.” Critic Alan Dale in The Telegraph described Cohan’s Little Nellie Kelly this way: “Everything and everybody jigged, and contorted, and twisted, and cavorted, and pirouetted, and tripped it, and trotted, and raced, and rushed, and rampaged, and rioted, and footed it, and embonpointed it, and made a general dancing rough-house.” Once again, sounds like BBAJ. Oscar Hammerstein II would later say, “Never was a plant more indigenous to a particular part of the earth than was George M. Cohan to the United States of his day. The whole nation was confident of its superiority, its moral virtue, its happy isolation from the intrigues of the old country, from which many of our fathers and grandfathers had migrated.” Musical theatre historian Gerald Bordman called Cohan “America’s first musical comedy genius.”

Cohan continued after his first show with Running for Office (1903), Little Johnny Jones (1904) – his first hit which debuted the songs, “Give My Regards to Broadway” and “Yankee Doodle Dandy” – Forty-Five Minutes from Broadway (1906), George Washington, Jr. (1906), The Honeymooners (1907, a re-working of Running for Office), Fifty Miles from Boston (1908), The American Idea (1908), and The Man Who Owns Broadway (1909). His song “You’re a Grand Old Flag,” in George Washington Jr., became the first song written for a musical to sell more than a million copies of sheet music.

(A quick side note: In Forty-Five Minutes from Broadway, Cohan made the unprecedented move of starting his show with a lone male voice singing offstage a cappella. Everybody thinks Rodgers and Hammerstein were the first to do that with Oklahoma! but Cohan actually did it first.)

Cohan wrote a total of twenty-one musicals and twenty plays during his career. His plots were sometimes slight but still coherent and dramatic. His life story (partly fictionalized) was told in the 1942 film Yankee Doodle Dandy, which recreated the climactic song and dance from Little Johnny Jones. A revue of Cohan’s songs that also told his life story was created in 1968 called George M, which gave many of his songs new life, and introduced him to a whole new generation.

Little Johnny Jones (1904), Cohan’s first hit and one of his best shows, was inspired by the real life Tod Sloane, an American jockey in London for the English Derby. But in Cohan’s show, the jockey Johnny Jones is framed on bogus charges of fixing the race, by an unscrupulous American gambler. Strangely enough, this story occupied the first two acts, while Act III returned to San Francisco’s Chinatown where Jones’ fiancée is kidnapped. Of course, the kidnapper is the same guy who framed poor Johnny in London. The show ran only fifty-two performances in its initial New York run, but Cohan kept fiddling with the show as he took it on tour, learning from his audiences, and when he brought it back to Broadway, it clocked in an impressive two hundred additional performances. The score contained “Give My Regards to Broadway” and “The Yankee Doodle Boy,” later known as “Yankee Doodle Dandy.” Of course, as coincidence would have it, both Johnny Jones and George M. Cohan were born on the Fourth of July. (For a long time, Cohan’s birth certificate dated July 3, 1878, appeared to expose a lie, but it’s generally agreed now that the certificate is in error.) And as if Cohan wasn’t all-American enough on his own, consider that his first monster hit song, “The Yankee Doodle Boy,” contained quotations from “The Star-Spangled Banner,” “Dixie,” “The Girl I Left Behind Me,” and of course, “Yankee Doodle.” You can't get more American than that.

Here's the most famous number from Little Johnny Jones, as recreated at the Goodspeed Opera House in 1980, based on what we know of the original staging and choreography.



Imagine the impact of a rowdy, smartass show like this after decades of operetta. Probably a lot like the impact of Bat Boy and Urinetown in the late 1990s, after decades of Rodgers and Hammerstein-style musicals.

The Milwaukee Press said of Cohan's show Forty-Five Minutes from Broadway, “All the forth, the humor, the fatalism, the philosophy, compounded of Epicureanism, cynicism, and opportunism, characteristic of the futile little rialto world are perfectly reflected by Mr. Cohan in his songs and slang dialogue.” One review of The Honeymooners said, “It goes so fast that it almost bewilders and gives the impression of a great machine shooting out characters, choruses, songs, dances with rapid-fire quickness and precision."

Once again, that quote could have just as easily been written about BBAJ.

An opposing view was expressed by James Metcalf in Life. He said Cohan was “a vulgar, cheap, blatant, ill-mannered, flashily-dressed, insolent, smart aleck, who for some reason unexplainable on any basis of common sense, good taste, or even ordinary decency, appeals to the imagination and apparent approval of large American audiences. As a living character in any American town or village, it is hardly to be conceived that he would not by driven out as a public nuisance and a pernicious example to the youth of the community. The round of applause which greets the efforts of this offensive personality must convey to the minds of ignorant boys a depraving ideal for their inspirations and imitation.” Now that sounds like they're talking about the character of Andrew Jackson in BBAJ.

How dare Cohan portray an ill-mannered character! And how dare Grease and Rocky Horror portray horny kids...

I've never felt more connected to my artistic roots. The more I let go of the weight and constraints of the Rodgers and Hammerstein model, the freer I feel to raise hell and break the rules as often as I follow them. Cohan is my artistic hero, along with his disciples, George Abbott, Hal Prince, Bob Fosse, and Tommy Tune. He did his best to get at the truth of America while also giving his audiences a hell of a good time. I can't imagine a more noble agenda.

And meanwhile, New Line's latest neo musical comedy, Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, is in such great shape – hilarious, heart-wrenching, emotionally powerful, freakishly insightful – and we've still got two weeks before we open.

The adventure continues...

Long Live the Musical!
Scott

The People's Voice

Last night I started watching this three-part PBS special, Broadway or Bust, about this national musical theatre competition in NYC for high school performers. I have mixed feelings about this show. I love it anytime musical theatre makes it into mainstream culture, but I hate the idea of competition in the arts. Also, these kids are massively talented and they all seem really great, but it seems none of them understands yet that an actor "gives" a performance. After all, nobody ever says, "Wow, she got a really great performance tonight!" No, you say she gave a great performance.

Making good theatre is not an act of ego; it's an act of sharing.

But nobody has taught these kids this yet. And admittedly, they're teenagers so we should cut them some slack. They're just finding their way. But so often I encounter young people who love musical theatre, and the only path they seem to see is one heading to Broadway – and if they don't make it to Broadway, they think they failed. They're each traveling through their own personal hero myth, and they think their magic amulet (i.e., light saber, ruby slippers) is a great singing voice, but it's really just honesty. Elaine Strich and Harvey Fierstein don't have great voices, but they've got honesty.

Besides, so few people ever work on Broadway that turning that into an end-all-be-all is pretty self-destructive. And let's be honest, a lot of the work on Broadway is shallow and bland. Only some of the greatest works of the art form ever find commercial success in the now very tourist-centric industry of commercial New York theatre. Broadway is no longer the pinnacle of the art form, as it was in the 1940s through the 1970s; now it's just the commercial arm of the art form. After all, doing great work is exhilarating no matter where you do it. The question is: do these kids want to do great work with other great artists or do they want to be Stars? The answer to that is everything.

After all, Snookie is a star. Is that really something to aspire to...?

When young people ask me about working in musical theatre, I try to convince them that the goal should be to do great work and connect powerfully with lots of audiences, not to "make it" in just one tiny sliver of the art form in one city. Broadway and off-Broadway productions are only the thinnest slice of musical theatre in America. There are amazing writing, amazing productions, and amazing performances going on all over our country, all the time. Before the mid-1990s, most of us didn't know about a lot of it, but in the Internet Age, it's easy to find out about almost everything that's going on out there. And there's a lot.

Like for instance, New Line's third show this season, the brilliant, adult musical comedy Bukowsical.

Sure, I have a bias on this topic, but I think it's a defensible bias. Miranda Lundskaer-Nielsen writes in her wonderful book Directors and the New Musical Drama, “After the pioneering efforts of theatres such as the Public Theater and Playwrights Horizons in New York, the idea of the serious nonprofit musical spread to theatres across America during the 1990s. While these shows met with varying levels of economic and critical success, the very existence of this alternative home for the art form began to redefine the musical, offering an alternative to both the traditional Broadway musical and the new West End shows. As the economics of the commercial theatre became increasingly forbidding, the nonprofit theatre became vital incubators for musical drama and nurtured a new generation of musical theatre writers.”

New Line was part of that New Wave in the early 90s. On our website, we say we do "daring, provocative, muscular theatre about politics, sexuality, race, religion, the media, and much more, offering an alternative to the commercial musical theatre of New York and Broadway tours since 1992." Offering to whom? Audiences. It's always about the audiences. The theatre companies that don't get that don't survive long.

And as I think about all this now, I realize my job as director is almost entirely about the audience. Can they see what's going on? Will they hear and understand what the actors say? Will the story be clear to the audience? Will they understand the show's central statement – in the case of Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, the idea that good and bad are always tangled together, or as I put it more bluntly in another blog post, that sometimes our heroes are assholes. It's all about the audience. As theatre people like to say, without an audience, it's just a rehearsal.

When we stage the curtain call for each show, I always tell the cast the same thing: This isn't the time to be a show-off; this is when we humble ourselves by bowing to the audience, thanking them for their indulgence, for the opportunity to share this story with them, hoping they will like the gift we've given them. It's not about Clap for me!

I know actors often crave attention, and that's often offered as a shallow explanation of why they love to perform. But the truth is, some of the best actors I know are serious introverts. They don't want attention. They want connection. They want that magical alchemy that happens only among live actors, live musicians, and a live audience. When theatre artists say making theatre is a religious experience for them, I think most people hear that as an exaggeration and/or metaphor, but it's neither. It is religious. It is deeply spiritual, communal in the truest sense of the word, as in to commune with. It traffics in Great Truths and higher consciousness, and when the alchemy is right, genuine ecstasy. One of my favorite lyrics from Hair gets at this experience:
My soul is in orbit
With God, face to face.
. . .
On a rocket to the fourth dimension,
Total self-awareness the intention.

No, I'm not talking about scary-magic-daddy-figure-in-the-sky God; I'm talking about what the hippies called the Cosmic Consciousness. Even those of us who don't believe in human religion know there's lots out there we don't yet comprehend. Theatre gets at that stuff. Especially musical theatre, because of the abstract language of music. When you combine the magic of storytelling with the magic of music, you get a pretty potent cocktail – if you can respect it, if you can put yourself at its service. Actor Ben Kingsley says to actors, "The tribe has elected you to tell its story. You are the shaman/healer, that's what the storyteller is, and I think it's important for actors to appreciate that. Too often actors think it's all about them, when in reality it's all about the audience being able to recognize themselves in you."

Sure, we're doing Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson because it's crazy amounts of fun for us, but even more because there is important stuff in this show that we want to share with our audience. We New Liners believe live theatre is one of the most powerful tools humans ever created for understanding and self-awareness, and therefore, for social and political change. And we also believe those of us who have been given the gift of talent have an obligation to use this powerful tool to make the world a better place, even if only in small ways, to explore the issues of our times with the people of our region. Acting guru Stella Adler once said, "Unless you give the audience something that makes them bigger – better – do not act."

Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson is really funny, but it's also a fascinating socio-political mirror, and we would do well to look at it closely. As Mark Twain once said, "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme." In these politically treacherous times, we all need this mirror more than ever. Politics is important; it's how we decide how to live together. But our politics in 2012 is poisoned. Maybe a knowing glimpse into 19th century politics will give us some insights into our own. We may have lots to learn about ourselves from Jackson and his times.

It's been amazing working on this show during this campaign season, seeing all the resonances between Then and Now. Sometimes, it's almost impossible to tell the difference.

You'll see what I mean when you see the show.

It's completely blocked now, we move into the theatre tonight, and we do nothing now but run the whole show at every rehearsal. This is when the really cool work starts happening. Stay tuned...

Long Live the Musical!
Scott

Editor's Note, 2014: Here's a companion post, specifically about the Tony Awards.

The Saddest Song

When I saw Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson on Broadway, I thought it was essentially a very clever period biography that pointed up interesting parallels to our own times. But now working on the show, I think it's something slightly different from that. Something bigger and more ambitious. I think it's a story about politics in America, not just then, but now. Always.

It's a show about us.

It's about the election of 1828, but it's also about the election of 2008. And 1932. And 1980 and 1992 and 2012. It's not just about Andrew Jackson; it's about you and me. The show actually plays fast and loose with Jackson's biographical details -- for instance, his father died in an accident before Jackson was born. And so far, I have not found one reference anywhere to Jackson and Rachel being cutters. I see now that this show is a companion piece to Stephen Sondheim and John Weidman's Assassins, not just in its political content but in its agenda. This is not a show about historical authenticity; it's about emotional authenticity, about our collective emotional state.

Jackson says to Chief Black Fox late in the show, "I'm the will of the people." He doesn't say he represents or understands the will of the people; he is the will of the people. He sees himself as the literal embodiment of America. Midway through the show, Jackson says to us, "And you can say, whatever, that I've killed a lot of people, that I'm a cowboy or a murderer or even that I represent the national character of this country. Because I kind of do." Bookwriter Alex Timbers is giving us a sly little meta-moment there, as Jackson reveals a world-class ego but also admits directly to the audience that he functions as a metaphor in this show. Like all great art, but more explicitly than most, this show is a cultural mirror, and we may be surprised at what we see there.

As a nation, we can be selfish, greedy, paranoid, stubborn, impatient, violent, jingoistic, self-righteous, and only sometimes self-aware. Democracy is messy. Democracy means that stupid people get the same vote as smart people. A crazy person's vote counts the same as a normal person's vote. Democracy is a collective act -- that is its miracle and its greatest weakness. A country truly run by the people who live there was a radical idea that even the Founders didn't totally believe in -- they didn't want women, people of color, or men who didn't own land to have a say in our democracy, only those elite white men who were morally and intellectually superior, in their own estimation of course. Jacksonian Democracy terrified John Quincy Adams and his circle of elites. The reason we see so many parallels between the elections of 1828 and 2008 (and 1992, 1980, etc.) is that the central character is the same -- the American people, the worst of us right alongside the best of us. Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson is about that complex mix of good and bad in each of us and in our collective national character.

And even beyond the parallels to modern-day politics, BBAJ also implies the politics of just a few decades later, when secession and Civil War became a reality. In the final Oval Office scene between Jackson and Black Fox, Jackson says, "And what I also promise you? Is you sign this treaty here tonight and in thirty years, you and I are gonna look like fucking heroes. For uniting this country." The moment is thick with irony as the audience realizes that thirty years from that moment, America will not be anything close to "united," but will instead be shattered by Civil War. We know what's to come but Jackson does not. He thinks he put to rest the question of secession when he stonewalls Calhoun, but we in the audience knows he has not. Like Cabaret, BBAJ implies as much as it shows.

My writing teacher in college, Victor Burg, taught me a valuable trick for understanding other people's writing and for writing clearly myself. Look at the beginning and end of any well-written piece of storytelling and that will tell you the writer's central agenda. In Sondheim's Company, the first and last songs totally encapsulate Bobby's long arc from an inward world view to an outward one; the first song is entirely about Bobby, but the last song is about "someone" else. Similarly, in High Fidelity, the first and last songs shows us Rob's arc from emotional selfishness to emotional self-less-ness.

And here in Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, the first and last songs define Jackson's (our?) journey from the superficiality of mindless American populism inward to its dark underbelly and unintended consequences, from the shallow "Populism, Yea, Yea!" to the sobering "Second Nature." Instead of going from one place or time to another, as most narratives do, this show goes from the outer shell inward. The audience accepts the show's dual time period (always both then and now at the same time) because this journey is the same in every period. As the show plays out, we spin deeper and deeper into the complexity of America, of politics, of race, of Jackson himself, and of us as a people. It's a classic hero myth, but it's us on that journey, the American people as protagonist -- and it's a journey we're still on in 2012.

Timbers' writing here is deceptively complex. Like Hair, this is a show that feels unpolished, chaotic, spontaneous, out of control. But also like Hair, it is very skillfully and artfully constructed. Though the character of Jackson often seems ridiculous and childish, though he may seem like a cartoon sometimes, he's actually a very real, complicated man. There's a wonderful moment late in the show when Jackson crashes into reality, as he first starts to comprehend how different the world actually is from how he has always perceived it.

It's the second-to-last number in the show, "The Saddest Song." In yet another meltdown, Jackson screaming and cursing at some tourists in the Oval Office, he yells after them, "The people aren't going to stop Andrew Jackson from doing what it is that Andrew Jackson knows that the people want!" Once, he saw himself representing the People; now he sees them as an obstacle. We can see here that he takes too seriously his own symbolism in this complicated, new populist world. All through the story, he has bullied and battled to get what he wants, playing by his own rules, rarely suffering any consequences. But once he's elected, everything changes -- and he rages against this new world:
When it stops being fun
And your patience is done
And you see being president's hard,
With this country before you
That cannot be governed
You find yourself powerless, bloody, and scarred.

Whoever said running the country would be fun? It's like Jackson is stomping his feet and yelling, "It's not fair!" Where's the swaggering hero of the Battle of Horseshoe Bend? Jackson is the President of the United States and yet he feels powerless. He feels alone, he feels both handcuffed and responsible -- probably like every President in American history. He's no longer the cocky but charming bully-hero. He has lost his mojo. He rages on:
And what is it for, the love of the people?
Who is it for, this nation we made?
That guy who did everything his way,
Where has he gone?

So tonight I'll sing the saddest songs
To everyone that I've done wrong,
And if you don't know how to sing along
Well I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry,
But the band plays on.

This is a song about self-pity. It reminds me of a line from Chicago -- "And now, Miss Roxie Hart and Miss Velma Kelly sing a song of unrelenting determination and unmitigated ego."

Jackson proceeds to position himself as the Biblical prophet Jeremiah, and the comparison is a fascinating one. According to Wikipedia, "God’s personal message to Jeremiah, 'Attack you they will, overcome you they can’t,' was fulfilled many times in the Biblical narrative. Jeremiah was attacked by his own brothers, beaten and put into the stocks by a priest and false prophet, imprisoned by the king, threatened with death, thrown into a cistern by Judah’s officials, and opposed by a false prophet." The comparison reveals Jackson's lifelong persecution complex. He sings:
Jeremiah looked down
On the people of Judah
And told them their future was bloody and cursed.
When I think of the conflict
And the change that awaits us,
It's gonna be hard
But this country comes first.

On the other hand, Jackson's right, isn't he? We know that America's future will be bloody and cursed, from the Civil War and lynchings in the South during Reconstruction (and up through the 1960s), World Wars I and II, the bloody Civil Rights movement in the 50s and 60s, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq...

Jackson's warnings echo President Obama's reminders during the 2008 election that change never comes quickly or easily, that those who oppose change (in the show, JQ Adams, Calhoun, Clay) will fight hard to preserve the status quo. Jackson is gearing up for battle...
Revolutions will come to you,
Swift if you let them.
The nation united cannot be undone.
Adams, Jefferson, Washington,
Monroe, and Madison
Started a war but it's hardly begun.

We didn't just fight for independence from the King of England, the lyric suggests; we fought for our freedom from a powerful few dictating to the rest -- something Jackson and his followers saw happening again in the first years of our nation. (Jackson refers to "King George Washington" in once scene.) The country had been born decades earlier, but Jackson had begun a new battle, one to wrest power from the rich and privileged and put it truly into the hands of the people. This is a song  -- a soliloquy -- about creative destruction. The stage direction says, "The song has become a raging anthem of aggression and venom," as Jackson continues:
So we'll ruin the bank
And we'll cripple the courts
And we'll take on the world for
America's sake.
We'll take all the land,
And we'll take back the country,
We'll take and we'll take,
And we'll take and we'll take ...

It's a scorched earth campaign he proposes here, to ruin, to cripple, to take. He's at war with the Second Bank of the United States, with the Supreme Court, with the Indian nations, with Congress, and with the South, now threatening to secede. His promise to "take back the country" certainly conjures today's Tea Party. But Jackson is not done fighting yet (is he ever?), even if the polls are turning against him. But notice that it's no longer "the people" making this country, now it's Jackson alone that will save us.
And this country I'm making
Cannot be divided.
The will of the people
Won't stand in my way.
How can I tell you
How deeply I'll make them all bleed?

And so I'll sing the saddest songs,
Of enemies who did me wrong,
And the war will go on
And on and on
And on and on
And on as long as we need...

Even on into 2012...

Long Live the Musical!
Scott

Some Serious, Serious Shit

Within the first few lines of Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, Jackson says, "I'm wearing some tight, tight jeans and tonight we're delving into some serious, serious shit." It sounds like a joke when he says it, but this line tells us more than we realize about the show we're about to see. And as we rehearse, we're starting to understand just how serious it really is.

We finished blocking last night. The next part of the process is my favorite. The playing and the tinkering.

Every once in a while (I try not to do it too often), I cast a show by invitation, no public auditions. Usually it's the more unusual shows -- Bat Boy, Assassins, High Fidelity, BBAJ. We have such an amazing pool of truly brilliant character actors (several with improv backgrounds), some who work with us all the time, some who work with us only occasionally, when they just can't resist a role. But sometimes I just know who will be perfect. These particular New Liners bring so much to a show. John Sparger (in the title role this time) has become the Ann Reinking to my Bob Fosse. Not sure what he'll think about that...

My rehearsal process has evolved over time, borrowing from lots of famous directors over the years. I learned a lot from a wonderful book called The Show Makers, and all of Anne Bogart's books, and lots of others. When we work on a New Line show, I first build the skeleton -- basic staging, basic mood, style, etc. -- and we work pretty quickly. Then we spend a lot of time just running the show (first in pieces, then altogether) and experimenting. Playing. I don't like committing to too many small choices too early. I'm constantly telling the actors, "We've got time!" Over several weeks, we shape the show, slowly tuning in to each other, blending the performances together, finding little truthful moments, sharpening the style, trying to bring as much clarity as we possibly can to the story we're telling. A show like BBAJ is tough because it's very wacky and it's also very serious, so it requires actors who are funny and imaginative and fearless, but also very skillful.

Case in point. Nick Kelly has been working with New Line since 2002. He plays mostly funny characters for us (notably, William Barfée in Spelling Bee), and he never seems to run out of funny ideas, but he's also a strong serious actor (he also played Valentin in Kiss of the Spider Woman for us). Nick's Barfée was a master class in restraint, less sketch comedy than the original, more heartfelt -- and it really paid off for the audience. This time Nick is playing quite a few characters, but most importantly Henry Clay and Chief Black Fox. Near the end of BBAJ, there's a conversation between Jackson and the (fictional) Native American chief. And it's intense. And it's complicated. Check out this monologue that President Jackson delvers to Black Fox about Indian relocation --
Because I'm the will of the People and I know what's right! (horrible silence) And that's what populism is, bro. And I'm sorry about that. But we both know in our hearts that we can't have Indian ghettos scattered throughout the East Coast! And I wish you'd built symphonies in cities, man, and put on plays and showed yourselves to be a little more essential. You know, to the culture? And yeah, you totally were here first, absolutely, but we don't give a shit, and we never will. Because the day we arrived, we saw it, we wanted it, and frankly it was easier to believe it was ours. And so we're stuck. And what I promise you is that this is the least bad solution... And what I also promise you? Is you sign this treaty here tonight and, in thirty years, you and I are gonna look like fucking heroes. For uniting this country.

That is some fierce fucking writing! There's so much going on there for a really intelligent actor like Sparger to mine -- betrayal, the end of a friendship, racism, power, manifest destiny.

And Black Fox spends the whole monologue just listening, processing the pompous bullshit and the barely hidden threat being thrown at him, realizing what his "friend" is telling him -- if the Indians had acted more White they wouldn't have been slaughtered. Jackson hints at the subject of the song that follows (which I've blogged about), "Second Nature," about the questionable morality at the heart of Manifest Destiny and American expansionism.

But Black Fox also carries the weight of knowing he has betrayed -- and also murdered -- his own people. In this same scene, Nick has a line that is heartbreaking. Black Fox says, "Andrew, I have handed you the lands of at least eleven tribes. I did this with you, together as friends, behind their backs, because you promised -- I have killed my own people for you!" Black Fox has made this deal with the devil, choosing to betray his people and his land, to live in the White world. But he only had a place there as long as he was needed. Now he's become a problem, so he's being discarded.

This is some serious, serious shit.

And Nick and Sparger are already nailing it. They are both so on the right road.

It's only now as we put all the pieces together that we see just how serious this show is. When you see it as an audience member, you tend to remember the laughs, because there are a lot of them, and the songs, which are both amazing and freakishly catchy. But this is a show about a very complicated man, in the world's most complicated job, in really complicated times. This is a story about life and death, power and corruption, compromise and betrayal, and lots of moral ambiguity. The brilliant Alex Timbers has written a script that employs the Spoonful of Sugar trick -- he makes you laugh all night and then leaves your brain full of very difficult questions to grapple with on the way home.

Like Brecht, Timbers and Friedman do everything in their power to remind you of the artificiality of theatre, to distance you emotionally, to engage you only intellectually. But like Brecht, they essentially "fail" because they do connect to their audience very powerfully on an emotional level. Our audiences are going to feel conflicted about Jackson. That's the point. He's both hero and villain. And I guess so is Black Fox.

Last night, even though it was the first time they've ever done it, Nick and Sparger were thrilling in that final scene between Black Fox and Jackson. Sure, they'll find even more there over time, but the writing is so incredible and their instincts are so solid, that the scene already works. It's really powerful.

We know, watching this show in 2012, that America wouldn't be here today if we hadn't taken all this land from the Native Americans, slaughtering many of them in the process. Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson makes us face that.

Like I said, this is some serious, serious shit. And I love it.

Long Live the Musical!
Scott

It's Second Nature to Us

My favorite kind of theatre makes me laugh like an idiot and also makes important, serious, insightful commentary about our world and our lives -- shows like Bat Boy, Urinetown, High Fidelity, Cry-Baby, Spelling Bee, and of course, Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson.

This show is wacky, it's rude and vulgar, it's irreverent, and it's also a serious piece of theatre about American politics and American culture, about our collective shallowness and childishness. I saw a poll today that says a majority of Republicans want to cut spending and lower the deficit and they also don't want any changes to social security and medicare. Yeah. Real life doesn't work that way, folks. But that's the mindset BBAJ is satirizing, and it's not just Republicans. Jackson gets his share of satirical punches in this show, but so do the American people.

When I see wacky-serious shows like this, I often notice a point in the evening when the show "earns" our respect and rises above mere laughs or outrageousness, when the show leads us down a path of comedy to a suddenly powerful, sobering moment. Both Bat Boy and Urinetown "earn it" at the end. High Fidelity earns it in Rob and Liz's fight late in Act II right before the funeral scene. Spelling Bee earns it with "The I Love You Song."

And Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson earns it at the end with Michael Friedman's powerful, poetic, emo ballad "Second Nature." None of the characters have this kind of self-knowledge or this outside-of-time perspective on our history, so this moment belongs to the band soloist, someone who stands outside the story all night, a kind of rock and roll Greek chorus.

"Second Nature" addresses head-on one of the central themes of the story -- a child-like blindness to consequences. The band soloist sings:
The grass grows,
A prairie,
A wilderness,
Across a continent.
And we take it,
We clear it out,
And make it in our image.
The backyards,
The driveways,
The covered wagons rushing through the high plains,
And motels on the canyon...
They make a second nature.

We re-make nature "in our image," bend it to our will, clear it out, pour concrete and blacktop, destroy and create, and we make it into something other than it was. We make it a "second" nature, one that looks like the real thing but is controlled and restricted in a way that real nature never is. We make it a "human nature," to re-coin a phrase, and it can never again be truly natural.

The nature that the Native Americans loved, cared for, lived off of, and prayed to, had to be destroyed to create a new "unnatural" nature. This idea is a more subtle, more political version of the same point in the song "The Colors of the Wind" in Disney's Pocahontas.

"Second Nature" goes on...
What was it for,
This country?
The farms and the blood across the prairie?
The nation we become
As we build a second nature.
No no no,
No no no...

Jackson "tamed" the frontier and tripled the size of our country, but "What was it for?" That's a powerful question. Did our conquering civilization improve the virgin wilderness of our continent or did we make it worse? Was the slaughter of tens of thousands of people (Indians, Spaniards, and others) a necessary component of our national evolution or just the White Man's clumsy greed? And what exactly is the nature of "the nation we become as build a second nature"? How does our destruction and re-creation change who we are as a people? When Jackson secured Florida for us by slaughtering innocent thousands, did that change the American identity?

As we worry today about genetically engineered foods, hormone-injected animal meat, oil spills, carbon emissions and climate change -- this second nature we have created -- BBAJ forces us to recognize that even though some Americans need to believe that America is the unquestionably good (even divinely blessed) Greatest Nation on Earth, the real world is full of gray area. And so is our story. There is much complexity in America's history, just as there is in Jackson's personal biography, and BBAJ chronicles one of our messiest, most morally ambiguous periods. The more I work on this show, the more I realize that America is the central character every bit as much as -- more than? -- Andrew Jackson.

I said in my last post that the central theme of BBAJ is that sometimes our heroes are assholes. In other words, nothing in the real world can be all good or all bad. Gray area is an inescapable part of life. It's what makes life interesting and complicated, and it's also why humans require art to make sense of it all.

The repeated No's throughout the song -- words of resistance, denial, regret, delusion? -- are just as complicated as the rest of the lyric. In a sense, they are speaking for Jackson and for Americans today as we look back on our history. We want to resist or deny the death and slaughter that grew our nation. We want to deny that we gave the Native Americans "smallpox blankets" to help kill them off. We want to look away from our collective act of paving over much of America's natural beauty. We celebrate Eisenhower's achievement of creating the intestate highway system, but in this context, his great achievement sinks into gray area too, a gray area we try to ignore as we speed from place to place.

But the No's also form a kind of bookend with the show's opening, "Populism, Yea! Yea!" Jackson's story begins in rowdy optimism and the love of his countrymen, as the whole cast sings, "Yea! Yea!" over and over. And the show ends at the sunset of Jackson's life, with a single soloist and a moody emo ballad, repeating, "No, no, no... No, no, no..." And the music beneath the No's switches back and forth from major to minor and back again, providing a parallel musical/emotional gray area. Is the soloist telling Jackson he was wrong, that he took the wrong path in life...? Telling him that he had the wrong values and the wrong priorities? Or maybe the soloist is just making the point that nothing is only good or only bad, that the good that came from Jackson's actions carried lots of bad with it too.

Maybe the soloist becomes History in the same way the Storyteller has been throughout the show, and he's telling Jackson that America's founding impulses weren't just to kill and take and destroy, that Jackson misunderstood -- and forever changed -- America's national character. From the soloist's and Storyteller's point of view, outside of time, Jackson failed morally and his kill-and-take strategy would continue to grow America after he was gone, but at what moral, spiritual price?

The band soloist continues...
The rivers run,
And parking lots,
The endless, endless fields and cities.
We make them,
Replace them with
All our dreams of the future.
And what was it for?
The swimming pools?
The highways?
The ballgames in the dusk, on the battle fields?
A time we were so foolish and so young.
No no no,
No no no.

And the song ends with an insightful and disturbing conclusion about America as Despoiler, and a return to the more conventional meaning of "second nature" -- an acquired behavior or trait that is so long practiced as to seem innate. But it only seems innate. It's artificially created but we perceive it as natural. It's a second nature.
The grass grows.
We take it.
We want it.
It's second nature to us.

And that's where the show earns it -- "We take it. We want it. It's second nature." It has always been our (seemingly) innate impulse to just take what we want, the show is telling us, and we try our best to ignore the moral implications as much as we can -- just as Jackson does throughout the show. But there is always a price to pay. This is serious, subtle storytelling about America as a nation, slyly camouflaged through most of the show behind rowdy, wacky, high-energy comedy. But it's truthful comedy. It's real in all the ways great theatre always is. And like all great storytelling it leads us to a deeper, fuller understanding of ourselves and our world.

The adventure continues...

Long Live the Musical!
Scott