Urinetown

UrinetownUrinetown is our second outing of our 2016-2017 season. We have a total of 23 participants joining the Alliance for two performances.Composer and Artistic Associate Maurice Saylor led off our first discussion. Board Member Melinda Murray will lead the second discussion.

We invite you to blog your experience. It informs and benefits our group, the producing company of Constellation, and the theatre community of greater Washington.

As always we try to frame our discussion with a thoughtful interpretive question or two – for which intentionally there is no one right answer. We all learn from your contribution and by listening to each other.

According to the performance you saw, was there a moral in the musical?

 Why did the Director choose to emphasize in choreography and staged characterization the strong nods to other famous musicals?

 If you’d like to read Susan Galbraith’s review of the production, go to

http://dctheatrescene.com/2016/09/08/urinetown-musical-constellation-theatre-review/

 

4 comments on “Urinetown”

  1. Melinda

    As we discussed what the moral was, the lesson learned, somehow I hadn’t wanted to go with –there isn’t one. Whether you take the economic, capitalist route or the idealistic, humanitarian route to a societal problem, neither will be right. It kind of made me feel that I was being played. Yet, during the performance, I loved the musical numbers as numbers. But I didn’t have the answer to (or the point of), why is this so dark when the music is so happy? I agree with Robert’s comment above that instead of stringing together fun musical numbers in the second act, it would have been better to play out the moral or find a better answer than “c–none of the above.”

    I couldn’t figure out what the point was of making nods to various musicals other than to poke fun. Yet that didn’t fit with the overall theme.

    As pure enjoyment with great actors, energy, voices, choreography, incorporating big scenes in a small space, it was great.

  2. Robert Darling

    An apt and accurate review. For me the evening had much going for it —perhaps too much. The constant self-reflection toward satirizing the musical “idea”, energy, rather obvious comedy, are correctly summed up in Gailbraith’s “not a musical for the ages”. At the same time it presents a very dark subject —public corruption, political payoff, environmental degradation +++ Caldwell’s is a Trump event even without hair, he is Daddy Warlocks. As the review notes: “…Midder also sheds this mask and signals he wants to play for deeper stakes. The show doesn’t quite let him do this.” For me, it would have been better evening if more effort were placed on the growing seriousness central to the second act. It constantly pulled me this way and that, Aristophanes shown through but I wanted a bit more Sondheim.

    • Kaycie

      Just about all of whatever you claim happens to be susrnipipgly appropriate and it makes me wonder the reason why I hadn’t looked at this in this light before. This particular piece truly did turn the light on for me personally as far as this topic goes. Nonetheless there is actually one particular issue I am not too comfortable with so whilst I try to reconcile that with the actual central idea of the position, let me see what the rest of the readers have to say.Nicely done.

Comments are closed.