Friday, September 16, 2011

Mildly Bitter On Hiatus

Dearest Followers:

All two of you.  I'm leaving town for a couple of theater-free weeks.  Work trip. Nothing exciting.

But I will be in London in October for a massive theater trip.  Prepare yourselves for the blogging onslaught that will generate. 

I'm pretty frickin' excited about it and I hope you'll check out some of my reviews when posted.

I will be seeing:  Decade, Terrible Advice (starring Scott Bakula and directed by Frank Oz), Daniel Kitson (who you know I love) in It's Always now, Until It is Later, Tom Riley (recently seen in Arcadia on Broadway) in My City, Backbeat (yeah about the 5th Beatle), One Man Two Guvnors starring James Corden who was amazing in Gavin & Stacey, Othello starring Dominic West and Clarke Peters, Grief by Mike Leigh, Ghost the Musical, Jumpy oddly enough starring another Arcadia actor Bel Powley, and last but not least The Tempest starring Ralph Fiennes. 

Going to visit with some friends and go on a Badger Watch!  Yeah...no idea what that is.  It does involve badgers...

But stay tuned...and forgive the couple week hiatus of silence.  Though maybe if I go somewhere pretty I'll post some photos.

Bitterly yours,

MB

Fringe Encore: The More Loving One

Thanks to @PataphysicalSci I was invited to see the Fringe Encore of The More Loving One. 

It is a comedy about two couples, one straight and one gay and the ways in which they communicate or do not communicate with one another.  Ugh, I even hate the description of that but the work actually transcends the cliches.  It is by no means perfect but the writing and characters are compelling and funny.  The situations and discussions explored could have easily fallen into common traps but for some reason the writer, Cory Conley, manages to walk that fine line and surprise me--yes me--a super jaded viewer.

The straight couple are having a fight about a friend of the husband who was caught in a relationship with a 14 year old girl.  The roommate of the straight couple, Heinrich is trying to decide where to take things with his younger boyfriend of four years.  But really, there are deeper issues for both couples that they are trying to sort out. 

There were problems with the production but I hope the team keeps working on the material and can stage this again with largely a different group of actors.  My suggestions--yeah I know, no one is asking me for them:

1) Can you not make the girl a frickin' filmmaker artist wannabe.  That is cliche.  It's tired.  And it doesn't help anything.  The staging of her video shoot was awkward and strange.  I got awfully confused about the timeline from that scene.  I think it needs to be clearer.  Just make her a painter or something.  The new-media artist weirdness just doesn't work on stage.  There I said it.  It's true for Rent.  It's true for this show.  Maybe as a former film student I am biased here...or maybe I have just seen so much bad video art...I get it.  She has to have a profession that her scientist husband things is trivial and that keeps her at home hanging out with Heinrich.  Pick something else.  Make that relationship between Lauren and Heinrich clearer and stronger. 

2)  Also please cast actors and adapt the script to make it clearer what sort of generation gap you are exploring.  I loved Preston Martin as Henry.  He was absolutely the strongest member of the cast and hilarious.  But he looked older than everyone else in the cast and it was my understanding that he was supposed to be younger than everyone else.  Confusing.  I don't care if he is even an older undergraduate student, but then the rest of the cast has to read mid to late 30's.  And that's also where you lost me.  Part of me wondered if this married couple was a young couple or an older couple.  Some of their issues seemed more emblematic of younger couples but then some issues also seemed like they could work for an older couple.  Again, the casting made this harder to see clearly. 

3)  Heinrich--is he supposed to be German German?  I'm very confused about who he is as a person, what his relationships are with the other characters and why...I think the performer, Jimmy Davis, was just too one note for the whole show and I struggled to understand the character's motivations because of that. 


The show as a whole was enjoyable and I would completely look out for this writer's other works in the future.


Disclosure: Tickets received for this performance were complimentary for press.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Follies: Wondering About Roads Not Taken

I had never seen Follies before (I went to two previews and have held back my review until the opening).  I must have absorbed many of the songs over the years just from Sondheim medleys but without the context of who was singing and why.  

When I heard about the Kennedy Center transfer I was excited.  I loved Bernadette Peters in A Little Night Music and she was the main draw for me.  I loved Jayne Houdyshell in Well and was pleased she was also in this production. I had never seen Teri White, Jan Maxwell or Elaine Paige before so it seemed like a good chance to see some great performers all in one show.

As a quick plot summary, basically this is a 1971 reunion of former Follies girls and their spouses hosted in the soon to be torn down theater where they all had performed.  The focus is on two couples who have not seen each other in 30 years but the action is often broken up with numbers by past Follies girls.  When the older people reminisce their younger selves appear (sometimes speaking, singing or dancing).

I'm going to say this--I love dark material and this show in many ways is right up my alley.  One of the greatest strengths of the underlying work is that it dives deep into true emotional nostalgia and that nostalgia is not just limited to a showgirl's past but into universal questions about paths taken and paths not-taken. I love this stuff.  Wallowing in what might have been, what was.

Follies explores that age old question "What if?" and shows you that asking the question and answering it will provide two very different emotional experiences.  Asking "What if" gives you the space to explore the fantasy, the romance, the lies you tell yourself.  Answering "What if" with reality, truth and the compromises that life/adulthood/maturity sadly deliver.

I loved Act I.  The set-up of who each character was, their youthful hopes and ambitions and the realities of how their lives have played out.  There are famous songs such as Broadway Baby and I'm Still Here that are delivered with aplomb (although Elaine Paige royally lost her way one night in I'm Still Here).  There is a fantastic show-stopping dance routine led by Teri White.  But when Ron Raines started to sing Too Many Mornings I burst out into tears.  I'm no drama queen and not a theater-crier by nature.   The lyrics, the music, his voice, the sadness, the longing, the loss.  Fucking hell.  I just lost it.  The song becomes a duet and Bernadette Peters joins in.  The first preview I saw, Bernadette's voice was just not there and it was devastating.  The second time I saw it (also in previews) she hit the notes and it was more satisfying. 

I've reviewed other clips of that song on You Tube (possibly obsessively) and it is too bad BP couldn't bring it.  If you listen or watch any clips on You Tube you can see some stronger voices bring a lot more to the song that she does.  Please watch Julian Ovenden sing it.  And then laugh at the creepy weird "acting" at the end of this clip.

The curtain drops on Act I in an awkward place and yet I was wholly satisfied by Act I.  Act II lost me a bit.  I know they tried out eliminating the intermission at one of the previews and I understand why you might do that.  The split between Act I and Act II can be very jarring.

Act II is largely set in a world called Loveland.  I get what the Loveland sequence of Act II is there to accomplish but I liked it less.  It is supposed to be a surreal, dream sequence of sorts performed as old Follies numbers.  I get it, intellectually.  The characters are working through some issues in their minds and they are expressed as song and dance numbers.  But visually it is the brighter, shinier part of this production  But I did not like the visual style and garish palette used.  Again I understand the choice for bright colors and Follies-esque numbers, but I thought the shrill pink used, and the cheapish looking flower wall was a little nauseating and dizzying. There is one point where the lights flash with different colors and both times I saw it I thought, "Ok, I don't have epilepsy, but here is where I have an epileptic fit."

I wish they had made Act II look more like a proper 1940's Follies show.  The hairstyles and some costumes are...but the set is just strange and awful.  There I said it.  I hate that damn pink puffy set.  Maybe because I liked the set in Act I so much--the bones and skeleton of an old theater haunted by ghosts of Follies girls in gray, black and sparkles. I understand the idea of contrast...but it was just seizure inducing for me.

The only song I really like in  the Loveland sequence is Losing My Mind.  I appreciate the comic timing, voices and choices made on "God-Why-Don't-You-Love-Me."  And the staging of "Lucy and Jessie" and "Live, Laugh Love" are fine.  I just love Act I so much Act II pales in comparison for me.  And I think it is somewhat about the underlying material and a lot about the choices they have made here in this production. 

For the most part I like the cast in this show.  One misstep for me, and only me, is Danny Burstein.  I saw South Pacific with Danny Burstein in it and for some reason I could not shake that image with him in this show.  And I'll tell you it is distracting to imagine a little sailor hat on anyone in this show.  It's clearly a mental misfire going on in only my head but I had trouble shaking it. I don't know why he didn't work for me in the role of Buddy.  He should have.  He's got a great voice, he looks properly "schluby" but maybe he's also too sweet.  But he's supposed to be kinda sweet.  It could have been how the role is written.  He's a man of two hearts and that duality is hard to pull off.  I just didn't feel for him. He's cheating on his wife but he loves his wife.  For some reason I never felt he did love her.

I really don't like the staging of his big number "The Right Girl."  He's angry and the dance is somewhat comical.  Something about it was off for me.   I know others love it and think he can do no wrong.  And it wasn't bad by any means...there was just something that didn't gel for me.  I may see it a few more times and maybe it will become more clear what isn't working for me.  And I may be alone in this opinion.    The more I think about it the more I think it is the character I don't connect to and maybe not the performer. 

I was completely enraptured in the dynamic between Phyllis, Sally and Ben.  I sadly understand the relationships that form when you are younger, that as you grow older, grow apart.  I also have come to know many couples who stay together well beyond the point to which they have much of a relationship anymore.  I am also painfully aware of the "rock star" syndrome as I call it.  The person who you were so in love with at a time in your life that you have put them and that relationship on a pedestal.  You have erased all that was wrong with the relationship and turned them into this "rock star" in your mind...so that one look at them again, one glimpse of where they are now turns you into the gushing child you were then a la Sally.  I have been to enough high school reunions to know that I won't go to any more.  And google-stalking those people is also bad news.  I'm here to tell you. But that's a blog-post for another day...

And I get the shenanigans Phyllis and Ben engage in to feel again. Jan Maxwell is sharp-edged and bitter in all the right places.  I love her acerbic line delivery throughout.  I don't particularly like that they've dressed her in a champagne colored dress.  She gets very washed out.  But her performance is terrific.  Her "Could I Leave You" is spot on.

I happen to love Ron Raines in this role.  It may just be I want to be wrapped in his voice like a warm winter coat...and that's all he has to do is open his mouth and I am there....Others I think find him a bit wooden.  For me, he sings and I melt.  And I wonder where he's been all my life. 

Bernadette Peters comes across as a dreamy child living in a fantasy--living for a fantasy.  And maybe she's actually a little crazy.  It's an interesting choice and I imagine others would play the role very differently.  I liked it but I have a warm spot in my heart for her.  Others might find it grating.

The younger versions of Ben, Sally, Phyllis and Buddy are all well cast to provide the echos of the past and the voices of these characters in their youth.  They are specific enough for each situation, but let's face it they are ghosts and are played as ghosts so they are not as rich and satisfying as their present day counterparts.  But they play the shadows of those characters very well.

There is a lot to love in this production if you are willing to go to some shadowy emotional places with the characters.  It's not a light and frivolous night at the theater.  But it was satisfying and enriching to me--someone who is happy to spend a few hours in the dark.

Monday, September 12, 2011

The Select: Long Drunken Shenanigans in Pamplona

So I rushed to read The Sun Also Rises to prepare for the Elevator Repair Company's production of The Select (an interpretation of Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises).  I wasn't sure how experimental or deconstructed the book might be in the show and I thought I should give it a read. 

Turns out, the play is pretty much a narrative recitation of the book with some bits dropped.  So don't feel you are missing anything if you have not read the book.  A short run down of the plot basically involves Jake, a thirty-ish impotent journalist hanging out and drinking in Paris who gets swept up in a bit of a love triangle of sorts with his "tennis friend" Robert.  They both love, in their own way, Lady Brett Ashley.  This somehow leads them to Spain for the bullfights where tempers flare, emotions bubble over and bulls die.

The book is largely narrated by Jake and therefore so is the play.  At the start, the dialogue is performed in such a way that Jake might say "I turned to Robert (action: he turns to Robert) and I said, What rot."  The "I said" trope was a little annoying and seemed to fade away as the play went on.  The book is very dialogue heavy and so it doesn't feel like a lot of "adaptation" was needed. 

For the record, half the audience left at intermission never to return.  I think this will be a divisive production.  Either you will love it or hate it.  I actually enjoyed large parts of Act I but it turns out I would have been happy to have missed Act II all together. 

One of the difficulties with this play and this work is that all the characters are pretty despicable.  I felt that way after reading the book and the play conveyed the same feeling.  There were points where I really wished the performances could have clarified the emotional state of the characters for me and the actors either chose not to (perhaps following the ambiguity of the book) or didn't convey the emotional note they were going for.  

I thought Mike Iveson, the actor playing Jake, was poorly miscast.  He had a comical tone but that didn't feel right for the part at all.  The actor playing Robert Cohn (oddly reminded me of Josh Hamilton as Grover in Kicking and Screaming) seemed to capture the desperate, hanger-on nature of that character.  Lucy Taylor, as Lady Brett Ashley, was haughty, flip and contradictory but she wasn't ravishing enough to make it clear why these men were falling in love with her. With Jake and Brett, you need actors who are so magnetic and charismatic that their impulsive actions make sense.  Sadly none of the leads were that compelling. 

A couple performances stood out for me.  Kate Scelsa, as Frances, was allowed to go for broke as the woman who is desperate to be married but cannot get her man to commit.  It was a highly comic performance and it suited the role.  Frank Boyd, as Harvey Stone, had a short but memorable scene.  Ben Williams, as Bill Gorton, was incredibly charismatic and I often wished he had more to do. 

It oddly felt like someone had handed The Sun Also Rises to a comedy troupe to see if they could have some fun with it.  If only that is what they were committed too.  It ended up being half a wild-comedy act and half a serious endeavor.  Act II was so laughable and bad...I can't even begin to describe the bullfighter nonsense going on there. 

There is certainly no mistaking this show and its approach as being naturalistic.  The theatricality of the comedic bits was largely driven by the sound design.  The actors are credited with the sound design.  Behind the bar at the back of the stage was a sound unit where actors would make sound effects.  These were often done for comic effect or to give the scene a stronger sense of place (a bullring, a loud bar, a babbling river).  I have mixed feelings about the sound design.  Sometimes I was fine with the sound choice being made but the more comical it got the more distracting it felt from the material.  There were many points where the emotional tone was quite serious and the comic sound design just took away from the moment.  There was also unevenness with the sound.  It would be loud and then drop out completely...which was again jarring.  The sound design didn't feel cohesive.  Normally who would notice these things, but the sound design plays a large role in this production.   

Since so much of the story takes place in cafes and bars in Paris and Spain that is what the set is.  Although some scenes are in bedrooms, the characters just lay down on the tables.  I had a few issues with the set.  First off the "tables" used were like cafeteria folding tables which looked so obviously modern and cheap. yet the background set was nicely crafted.  I know they needed to move the tables around and use them for varying purposes but it would have been nice if they had made the tables seem remotely period.  When the scenes to change to bedrooms scenes the table thing just felt awkward.  The actors sort of splayed out on a table...it didn't work for me.

I would see another production by these folks but I am disappointed that this one didn't really work for me.

Sunday, September 4, 2011

Understudy Love: Ones to Watch (Amended)

Just wanted to put up a quick post about some of the lovely understudy performances I have seen this summer. Seeing two different performers interpret the same role gives me new perspective on the production, the role and the actors.  I think it helps to show what about a certain performer I like and what another performer brings to the role.  It's just a new prism to see a show through and if you've seen the show before it can really open your eyes to aspects you never noticed before.  And you come to see that there is so much talent out there that doesn't always get a chance to sing out.

I have already discussed the understudy performance in Jerusalem which I enjoyed.

With all the shows of Hair I have seen this summer (hangs head in embarrassing shame), I have had the chance to see three different performers perform Crissy (Kaitlin Kiyan, Laura Dreyfuss, Cailan Rose) and Woof (Matt DeAngelis, John Moauro, Larkin Bogan) and two interpreters of Dionne (Phyre Hawkins, Tanesha Ross).  And this weekend Paris Remillard called out for the lead in Hair, Claude, and Marshal Kennedy Carolan filled in.  Also I saw Alex Ellis perform the role of Brenda Strong in Catch Me if You Can.

I will admit that when I heard Marshal was going on in Hair I rushed out to lotto to get a ticket.  I did not want to miss out on his turn as Claude.  As I have previously mentioned, the chemistry in Hair between Claude and Berger is one of its more compelling elements.  Getting to see someone else go on in the role of Claude was exciting both to see what another actor would do with that role and to have a chance to see Marshall Kennedy Carolan sing more.  I had seen him sing at the Hair Be-In and at Broadway Sessions (a great rendition of I'm Alive).  He also regularly performs the "What a Piece of Work is Man" trio.  He's got a fantastic voice. 

Marshal was noticeably nervous (seriously his hands were shaking--totes adorbs).  But he made it through.  His voice was great and he made some personal adjustments on a few songs.  Whether it was a combination of nerves, excitement, or fear, in the first Act, he seemed to be ready to burst out of his skin.  Certainly Act I is more upbeat so it was not out of sync with the show entirely (although he seemed kinda smiley at times when he shouldn't be).  I really liked his I Got Life--his first verse gave me chills.  I was up in the mezzanine for the first Act and wish I had been closer to see more of his performance in the song Hair.

I moved to the orchestra for the second Act and by then, I feel like he'd gotten more comfortable in the role and was able to channel his energy to a more somber place.  There was something more vulnerable in Marshal's interpretation.  He plays so much younger than Paris (and Steel) so vulnerability comes across from that too.  There was a lot of Steel brushing Marshal's bangs out of his face (yes adorable). 

One thing that was hard not to notice was how bloody winded Marshal was at times...which really goes to show how physical that role is.  Marshal is no slouch (have you SEEN his six-pack abs).  It's just an incredible amount of running around and singing all at the same time.  After seeing Paris perform it a bunch of times, he makes it look effortless.  Seeing Marshal perform reminded me that I have been taking so much for granted in Paris's performance and that it is a physically demanding role. 

AMENDMENT:  In a stunning turn of events, Larkin Bogan went on as Claude in the Monday night show of Hair (well stunning for me--I don't get out much).  So again, I had to check out his performance even if it meant missing Lindsay Mendez's concert at Birdland which I already had a ticket to (guilt, guilt guilt).  They wigged Larkin in a long, straight haired wig for the show which was a little disappointing since he has such fun hair to begin with.  But he jumped into the role feet first.  He was very relaxed and comfortable in the role.  If I didn't know better, I would have thought he had played it 100 times before.  He and Steel had some wonderful, playful moments as Claude and Berger including Steel basically tossing Larkin up in the air by his belt.  Vocally, Larkin was on fire and he did not seem winded at all. He had some vocal fun with the "Amen" of I Got Life.  Larkin's Claude was sweeter than other Claudes and he did a nice job of going from playful antics to somber reality.  Maybe it was the blondish wig, but Larkin's Claude reminded me more of Gavin Creel's Claude than anyone else.

There are a greedy few hoping for a Matt DeAngelis Claude this week, but I am pretty happy to have now seen 4 Claudes (counting Gavin Creel, of course, in the 2009 Broadway production).

There are a lot of fans for the Hair tribe and swing cast with good reason.  There are some amazing voices in the tribe and swing that you might not otherwise get to see stand-out unless they are covering for someone else. 

I think Matt DeAngelis is a fantastic Woof but I really liked Larkin Bogan's interpretation as well.  Matt is physically a tall and imposing guy.  His Woof can be sweet, puckish, and yet swaggeringly sexy.  His Mick Jagger moment is spot on.  For his character, he succeeds at making him believably bisexual.  Larkin has a completely different presence but made his Woof his own.  Still in the same model as Matt, Larkin's Woof is sweet and sexy but less swagger.  I actually liked his "Scarlet O'Hara" more.  Larkin has a beautiful voice and it was nice to see him get to show it off a bit when on for Woof.

Tanesha Ross stepped in for Dionne yesterday in Hair and she killed.  Again, I saw her last week at Broadway Sessions where she got a standing ovation.  That's right a standing ovation in a basement, open-mic thingamabob.  She's amazing.  I was excited to see her step in for Dionne.  Her final rendition of Let the Sunshine In with tears in her eyes was heartbreaking.

And as I have said before, I really just want the cast of Hair to start performing Sunday in the Park with George.  So I can hear this over and over and over again. 

I never got to see Kerry Butler in as Brenda Strong in Catch Me if You Can so I cannot compare it to her understudy's performance.  I am disappointed this show is closing so early.  Alex was lovely in a role that I think is sadly underwritten.  I'll keep an eye out for her in other shows.


If Hair is not your kinda show, I'd at least keep an eye out for these performers as hopefully you'll get to see them in other shows in the future (seriously I will invest in Sunday in the Park with George right now! I know it's too soon for that revival but still...). 

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Daniel Kitson Can Have My Babies

I should be clear. I don't want any babies.  Ever. 

But if there was a person who might convince me otherwise it is British comedian-storyteller Daniel Kitson.  Is this because he is the most gorgeous, charming man on the planet?  No.  It is because he can weave a story so compelling, convincing, heart-breaking and beautiful I just want to give birth to his babies so his greatness can be passed along to future generations.  I mean haven't you ever just wanted to be so close to someone because of their immense talent and immeasurable genius...like Eminem. 

Ok.  This has gotten a little weird.  Are you uncomfortable?  Shall I dial this back a moment.  I think I should explain before someone takes a restraining order out on me.

Last winter I got a postcard from St. Ann's Warehouse.  I remember it distinctly--it had a lightbulb on it.  It announced a show by Daniel Kitson called The Interminable Suicide of Gregory Church.  I had seen a few shows at St. Ann's Warehouse but I did not religiously follow their programming.  I don't know what about the postcard made me buy a ticket.  Maybe it was reference to the Edinburgh fringe as Kitson was a well-known performer from the fringe.  I went to the Edinburgh fringe once and saw great shows (Jerry Springer The Opera at the fringe!).  Maybe it was merely the idea that this might be a funny yet depressing show about suicide.  "Sign me up," I though, "It's January, it's fuck-off cold, I love the depressing."  So I wandered into the bleak and cold.  It is always as cold as Antarctica when I go to St. Ann's Warehouse.  Also it is usually blowing a gale.  I try to convince myself that I am some sort of 19th century mariner going to work to take my mind off the epic walk from the train to its doors (Does that make me weird? Don't answer that).  Freezing.  I arrive.  I take my seat awkwardly in the front row.  The seats were set up I think on all 4 sides and all the staging was a stool and a glass of water. Frankly I remember nothing except Kitson himself.

Quietly and efficiently Daniel Kitson walked out from "backstage."  He looked in his 30's, scruffy beard, glasses, ill-fitted jeans.  And he started talking and we were laughing.  He speaks at lightening speed.  He has a stutter and a delicious Yorkshire accent.  I was on the edge of my seat.  I was completely in the palm of his hand.  He announced from the beginning that this was largely a work of fiction but it felt anything but false.  It was human and real. You know when you see a work of art, painting, play, movie, whatever, and it just skewers your soul...I mean you literally feel you have been stabbed deeper than your heart with ache and wanting.  Yeah there.  That's what it felt like...but in a good way.

The show, in an insufficient nutshell, is about Kitson discovering a treasure trove of letters in an attic written by Gregory Church which he obsessively organizes and reads and what unfolds is Kitson's discovery of another man's suicide that is interrupted by his life.

Without special effects, highwires, stagecraft or anything, it was a story and a voice that pulls you in and seems to promise to reveal everything.  It is merely words and a voice and it is all the theater you need.  Quietly and delicately, it feels as if the secrets of the universe, human nature, life and death will be given to you if you sit their patiently.  The story he told was rich with specific details such that you could smell the attic he was visiting, feel the touch of the noose, and taste the milk in the delivery bottle.  The voices of the various characters were distinct.  Truly it was a show that delivered the extraordinary wrapped in the ordinary.  It was over in 90 minutes (no break) and I was dying for more.

Like leaving a play you want to read and re-read, I just wanted so much to hold the story in my hands so I could relive it over and over again.  I wanted to wait in my seat for the next performance.  Of course, the run was sold out and I could not get another ticket at that point.  Here is the New York Times review.

There is very little press on Kitson.  He apparently shuns it.  He's not interested in becoming a worldwide phenomenon.  He does shows early in the morning in the hopes he weeds out d-bags who just want to be cool and get his proper audience. 

I saw he was doing a show at the National Theatre in London in October called It's Always Right Now, Until It's Later.  I bought tickets to two shows and then a plane ticket...planning a whole theater trip around this show basically.  It sold out before tickets went on sale to the public.  (He's since added shows in December which also sold out immediately and caused the ticketing system to crash).  And then it was announced he's coming BACK to St. Ann's Warehouse in January 2012 to do the same show.  So I bought tickets to two more shows there.  So if you are keeping track I am seeing the same show 4 times in two different continents and I have no idea what it is about.  He uses a Calvin & Hobbes quote in the ad.  So it must be amazing, right?  I guess I understand how one could fall under the spell of a cult leader now.  Hmmm.  Yeah.  Well.  I don't care.   

You should get on his mailing list.  Because his emails will make you laugh and he'll give you the heads up on tickets on sale. And if you are like me, you'll treasure every little scrap of his voice even if in email form.  I'm already depressed that I only have tickets to 4 shows and at some point in January 2012 it will all be over.

Is this unhealthy? Hells yeah.  Doesn't make it any less true.  So Daniel Kitson, if you see someone sobbing uncontrollably at your shows in London and New York in the front row and she looks like me, yeah I'll have yer babies.