Oh, And I Also Saw "& Juliet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

                                             This show was never on my radar, darlings, but when opportunity comes, I grab it.  This was never on my birthday agenda, but I had to confess to a curiosity about it, and it is, after all, a musical.  How bad could it be?

                                                Pretty bad, and I will get to that.  But, to think back that I once wanted, as a career to be a theater/film critic.  After the taste of it I had during my birthday week, all I can say is I would have had an exhausting life.  And the professionals have to sit through crap far worse than what I saw, so I take my hats off to all of them.

                                                  As to "& Juliet."  This also came to Broadway by way of London. I used to think--foolish me--that London theater was more highbrow than American (although it used to be) and that for something to be brought over here, it had to be exceptional.  The best example was the recent Broadway iteration of Sondheim's "Merrily We Roll Along."  As opposed to this season with "The Hills Of California," "Tammy Faye," and now "& Juliet."

                                                     Let me explain.  I know pop music, but not the era this show uses.  Though there were melodies I recognized, the score did nothing for me.  I mean, I know who Taylor Swift is, I have heard her sing, yet I cannot name a single song.  But then, dolls, I know who Pola Negri was, and how many people can say that?

                                                         Knowing Pola Negri won't help with "& Juliet."  It is loud, colorful, and the female costumes reminded me of "SIX," which I thought was a better musical, since it had an original score.  Also, it had structure, something this show lacks.  Sure, its premise is what if Juliet had not died, and it might have been fine, had they just stuck to that.  But then bringing in Shakespeare, portraying him as a sexist husband, and his wife Anne Hathaway (the name gets a laugh every time it is said; I wonder if the actress has seen this show) as an unfulfilled, unrecognized talent, and then resurrecting Romeo, who comes off as such a doofus are just too many plot threads for one musical, and, frankly, who cares?  It's not like Shakespeare has never been a source for musical theater, often resulting in some of the best works of the genre--"The Boys From Syracuse," "Kiss Me, Kate," "West Side Story," even "A Little Night Music."   But these had original scores, not a hodge podge of songs the creators happened to like and then fashion a musical based on them.  A musical starts with a book, and this book is overwritten and contrived.

                                                           Sure, the performers are talented, energetic, with Luke Shepard's direction and Jennifer Weber's choreography moving things along, if only in a generic routine manner. Oh, and if one suffers from motion sickness or epilepsy, Howard Hudson's lighting design is sure to drive one crazy!

                                                              Still, I did learn one life lesson from "& Juliet."  One way of solving life's problems is to stick the problem person in a convent.

                                                                 Were I not married to David, I might have been taking my vows right now, if not proselytizing on the floor before the cross of Christ, in the shape of that cross. And on a stone floor!!!!!!!!!!!  Like Gladys Cooper!

                                                                    But really, who wants to join a convent, except that run by the Sisters Of Perpetual Indulgence?

                                                                    I am telling you, girls, skip this show!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!