Hellllllooo internet friends.

I’ve been a bit slow to review lately, as my actual job (consulting) has been taking up the majority of my time. I know you’ve all been waiting with bated breath. I’m back with another (potentially) hot take. You’re welcome.

So, if you’ve read the Broadway news bulletins lately, you may know that lots of new musicals are closing relatively early (i.e. before they’ve recouped), and people are sad. Some Like it Hot and Shucked closed over the past 2 months, and Kimberly Akimbo, Harmony and How to Dance in Ohio have announced that they’re closing soon (Akimbo in April, the other 2 in February). Kimberly Akimbo has been open for over a year (likely helped by the Tony Award wins), but the other two are closing after just a few months and long before peak Tony Awards season. Harmony, Shucked and How to Dance in Ohio are all original musicals not based on well-known books or movies. How to Dance in Ohio is based on a documentary/real events, but not a previous fictional story. Let me paraphrase for you what basically every theatre journalist has been saying about the closings:

• It’s so sad all these new musicals are closing.
• It’s not fair that these shows are closing.
• People don’t value the arts enough! Society sucks.
• We need to support new musicals instead of defaulting to big flashy shows that rely on previous IP, like Back to the Future or MJ.

And look, I agree to an extent. It’s sad when good shows close. Good. shows.

I’ll start with the good. I really liked Kimberly Akimbo, but it’s sort of a niche show that doesn’t have universal appeal like a big spectacle. That’s totally ok – good, in fact. There should be a variety of theatre, because trying to be everything for everyone is boring. But for tourists coming into town and choosing which shows to see, this may not be top of their list. It’s not particularly kid-friendly (at least younger kid-friendly), it has no gimmicks or crazy special effects, and it’s the sort of show that doesn’t require the scale of Broadway to bring the magic – it’ll tour well. After the post-Tony win bump died down, Kimberly Akimbo struggled to fill its big Broadway house. It’s sad that a beautiful show is closing, but it’s not shocking.

Same logic with Shucked. I really enjoyed that show, but I could see it not being for everyone. It’s corny and silly, and more serious theatre lovers may not appreciate the beauty in its simplicity.

I enjoyed Some Like it Hot and Harmony, but they weren’t on my top shows of last season. Some Like it Hot was fun in a classic Broadway way, but I think it’s hard to sell an old-style musical to a modern Broadway crowd that isn’t a beloved revival. Regarding Harmony: I think the story behind Harmony is very compelling and an important one to tell. The show dramatizes the real-life story of The Comedian Harmonists, a German music group in the 1920s-30s that was torn apart due to anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. The cast was fantastic (shoutout to Chip Zien, Julie Benko, Sierra Boggess and Zal Owen) and the music was pretty, but something fell flat for me. The set looked cheap, the first act dragged, and the music, on the whole, wasn’t the most memorable. I wanted to love this show – and I did like it, but it wasn’t a knockout for me. For both Some Like it Hot and Harmony, to me, both shows were enjoyable but not enough so to sustain long-term runs.

Ok, now onto the tricky part – How to Dance in Ohio. This musical is based on a 2015 documentary about a therapy group for Autistic young adults. The doctor leading the group, Dr. Amigo, arranges a school dance for the group as a therapy exercise. Most critics liked the show, but I’d venture to guess that most critics are afraid to overly criticize a musical about autism for the fear of being labeled as ableist. And the thing is…I did not enjoy this show at all.

First off, what makes a good documentary does not necessarily make a compelling musical. The plot was pretty boring. There were no big stakes. There was no real character development. Each of the 7 lead characters got their own song (or two), but in an attempt to share the wealth, all of the characters felt thin and underdeveloped. The show felt emotionally manipulative, like it was trying to make me feel for these characters without it being earned.

The plotlines of the non-autistic characters were also weak, in that they weren’t strong enough to suspend my disbelief. For example: Dr. Amigo’s daughter is an undergraduate dance student at Juilliard, but she’s taken a semester off due to an injury and has been working as a therapeutic assistant for the group. She is nearing completion of her program, but she suddenly discovers that she no longer wants to be a dancer, so she decides to drop out of the program to work full-time as a therapy assistant. Her father is disappointed but understands, and I think we as an audience are meant to sympathize with the daughter and be inspired to follow our dreams. I take issue with this plot.

1. Girl, what are you doing? You’re almost done your program. There is lots of value to a Juilliard degree, even if you don’t want to become a dancer in the long-run. Nowhere in the play do you mention having financial problems (at least from what I remember), so finish what you started, then re-group.
2. You have no formal training in therapy!! I don’t think you should be interacting with patients at all.

School’s not for everyone, and by all means follow your passions in life, but this plot is overly simplistic, unrealistic and it irked me.

There’s also an underdeveloped sub-plot about Dr. Amigo looking for companionship in life that goes absolutely nowhere. Stop.

Second, I didn’t enjoy the music of the show. To me, apart from a standout song or two, the music wasn’t memorable and was sort of generic. The lyrics were stronger than the music, but I wasn’t wowed.

Third, we have to talk about casting. The show has been applauded for casting “authentically” – namely, the 7 actors playing the autistic characters all “identify as autistic.” Those were the terms used in the playbill insert – I’m not sure what “identify as autistic” means exactly, but I suspect it’s the producers’ attempt at being overly cautious with terminology. Anyway, this fact has been pushed heavily in all promotional material, and I suspect it’s why a lot of critics are afraid to touch this show with a 10-foot pole.

I’m sorry, but I wasn’t wowed by the cast (autistic and neurotypical alike). The actors were likeable and quirky, but the show was not Broadway caliber to me. Some of the singing was weak, some of the acting was weak. The dancing was especially weak. For a show called “How to Dance in Ohio,” there was very minimal dancing, and it was not good. Also, the character in dance school didn’t dance. How does that make sense? Give her a dream ballet, for crying out loud!

Finally, I didn’t find this show artistically inspiring. For example, in a show that seems to be laser-focused on inclusivity (non-binary characters, LGBTQ+ characters, authentically casting the 7 autistic leads, etc.), it seems like a wasted opportunity to not include a non-verbal autistic character in the musical to show a wider range of people on the autism spectrum, as was in the the original documentary. I think it could’ve been cool to have a character that was non-verbal and could only communicate with the audience through song. It’s sort of what musical theatre was made for.

To make a long story short: sometimes shows close because they aren’t strong enough to remain on Broadway. And that’s not a tragedy. Let’s support the development of new musicals, but not at the expense of accepting mediocrity.