The Pulitzer.

We’re 18 minutes away from, by all accounts, Ruined winning the Pulitzer. In The Heights seems to be the closest contender. Lydia would be right up there, based on everything I’ve heard, but without a New York production, it’s an uphill battle.

UPDATE: Yep. It’s Lynn. Congratulations. Heights was a runner-up, along with Becky Shaw.

UPDATE: Here’s an article on why this all matters (from the perspective of women writers — people of color aren’t mentioned, but the same all applies):

This season, according to American Theatre magazine, the most-produced play at regional theaters (barring “A Christmas Carol” and Shakespeare) is John Patrick Shanley’s “Doubt,” which won the Pulitzer in 2005 and has since been made into a movie. At number 3, trailing Joe Mantello’s David Sedaris adaptation, “The Santaland Diaries,” is the 2007 Pulitzer winner, David Lindsay-Abaire’s “Rabbit Hole.” Also on the list are non-shortlisted plays by former Pulitzer winners (August Wilson, Tennessee Williams) and finalists (Sarah Ruhl, Theresa Rebeck). Ruhl and Rebeck are the only women in the top 10 aside from Harper Lee, whose Pulitzer-winning novel, “To Kill a Mockingbird,” was adapted, not by her, into a play.

It’s a bit of a rout, really, and the reasons for it remain fuzzy. Women make up half the population; surely they have half the stories to tell, don’t they? Surely they’ve been writing plays all along, haven’t they? The first woman to win a Pulitzer for drama was the long-forgotten Zona Gale, whose “Miss Lulu Bett” was the third play to win the prize, in 1921, a year after Eugene O’Neill was honored for “Beyond the Horizon.” Granted, women in the past encountered greater obstacles to education and professional success than they do these days, thus clearing the way for their male contemporaries to crowd the repertory and become today’s classic American playwrights. But one would have thought we’d be further along by now.

Pulitzer Contenders.

Playbill does a little prognosticating.

From everything I’ve heard informally, this is a one horse race. Ruined seems destined to give Lynn Nottage her first Pulitzer.  It’s a combination of topical cultural relevancy, emotional heft, and cumulative recognition of one of our brightest theatrical lights.  I better get in to see it this week before it wins the award.

Of course…there’s one other possibility, and Playbill addresses it.  If the prize is given “for a distinguished play by an American author, preferably original in its source and dealing with American life,” then maybe Ruined slides a bit from the top spot, opening the door for, say, In The Heights.

What I’m saying is, it’s a one horse race, but maybe, it’s a two horse race.  And a Latin horse at that.

West Side Story Looks Like A Hit.

At least judging by ticket sales so far.  Over a million dollars for its first seven performances, 96% of all available tickets sold, #2 in overall ticket sales for the week (behind the juggernaut that is Wicked but ahead of the juggernaut that is Jersey Boys).  And that’s before reviews, which I think will be solid if not spectacular.  As expected, this show should be a big old moneymaker.  (More from Variety here.)

What I’m really interested in seeing is how West Side impacts sales for In The Heights – I’d like to believe that Broadway can support two Latino musicals at the same time, especially since they’re the two most important Latino musicals of all-time, and especially especially since they’re not really Latino musicals in any way that should prevent audiences of all kinds from coming out in droves.  (In related news, I’m going to see In The Heights again on Saturday — first time with the replacement cast for me, and first time since seeing West Side.  Should be worth a nice juicy post next week.)

In other box office news: Shrek seems to be limping along, selling 65% of all available tickets.  It’ll be interesting to see what happens with this show as it goes forward.  There are a lot of straight plays opening on Broadway this year, and not a ton of children-themed shows that come to mind.  The longer Shrek can keep bringing in even 65% capacity audiences, the more I like its chances of eventually catching on and recouping.

In The Heights is Better Than You.

It’s an oldish video apparently, but I’m just seeing it.

People.

The world is completely different now.

I cannot express to you how beautiful this is to me.

I Just Want To Point This Out.

Best Musical: In The Heights
Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire

This is not a coincidence, nor or these two unrelated events. I’ll say no more on that topic.

But I also want to point out that if you add those two and then multiply by The Wrestler, you get…The Elaborate Entrance of Chad Deity.

The Truth About The Shows That Closed, Part Two.

Here’s part two. Go back and read part one. I’m not linking it.

‘HAIRSPRAY,’ closed Sunday — Monster hit, and deservedly so. Spawned a far less successful retread (I mean Crybaby – and retread is unnecessarily harsh, sorry) and a not-nearly-as-good movie (although Amanda Bynes was super adorable, as always). Made $265 million on Broadway alone, not to mention the tours and everything else. Ran for six and a half years. You can certainly say that this show could have run longer in more ideal conditions (especially since they could bring in any number of stars {I saw George Wendt, Naturi Naughton, and Tevin Effing Campell} to keep it going), and you might be tempted to call it a victim, but it’s not the kind of victim you spend much time crying over. Tracy had a great run.

‘IRVING BERLIN’S WHITE CHRISTMAS,’ closed Sunday — Limited run, huge hit, possible future life. Exceeded expectations. No victim.

‘LIZA’S AT THE PALACE,’ closed Sunday — Limited run, big hit, extended twice. Could have run as long as the theater stayed available and her body could hold out, I’m sure. Still, I might call this one a slight victim; some weeks they only sold about 80% capacity when you might have expected this to be completely sold out. It’s a moneymaker though, and not a surprise closing — if anything, those two extensions buck the trend.

‘THE NEW MEL BROOKS MUSICAL YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN,’ closed Sunday — You can call this a victim, and it was, on some level. If the economy was better, it might not have closed. The writing had been on the since the Times review came out. The show’s troubled history has been well-documented, and the closing notice really came as no surprise. If this show is a victim of anything, it’s the success The Producers: all anyone wanted (and would accept) from it was to be as good or better as the biggest hit in recent Broadway history. It wasn’t. Still, they held on for over a year, and although they probably lost a ton of money (the show was astoundingly expensive to run each week), they’ve got a national tour announced for the fall. Closing was inevitable. Not a victim.

‘SLAVA’S SNOWSHOW,’ closed Sunday — This show didn’t sell all that well, from what I can tell, staying between 60-80% for much of its run. I’d say that they could have done better with more stability in the economy, but you definitely can’t say that the closing is a result of the economy: it was a limited run. This show had been successful Off-Broadway for years (and internationally for more than a decade), and the Broadway run probably didn’t break any financial backs. We can call it a moderate victim, and assume it won’t be back next year.

‘SPAMALOT,’ closes on Jan. 11. — $175 million dollars grossed. Recouped in six months. Ran for almost four years. Ongoing national tour with the kind of show that can pop in another name (Richard Chamberlain! Gary Beech! Clay Aiken!) and sell tickets in Cleveland and beyond. Certainly a victim — there’s no reason to believe that this show couldn’t have wrung out a few more years under ideal economic conditions — but not a particularly sad one.

‘SPRING AWAKENING,’ closes on Jan. 18. — I really should see this before it closes — I won’t get to, but I should. Somehow, this one flew entirely under the radar for me, even when it was the hottest show in town. You can imagine this show running longer, but then again, most folks wouldn’t have imagined it lasting this long in the first place, not to mention the national and international tours. It made its money back over a year ago, and was probably (speculation here) hurt somewhat by In The Heights and Passing Strange (although it’s hard to believe that the latter’s ticket sales put a dent in anybody’s profits). This is a victim, yes, but one that had already outperformed original expectations.

Let me take a second to explain why I think the outperformed expectations label is relevant. There’s this expectation in the United States that things can always grow, that business can always be better. It’s part of what got us into this whole economic mess in the first place. You can’t expect that every Broadway show is going to run forever. Shows close all the time — there are only so many ticket buyers to go around. So while it’s easy to say that all these shows would have stuck around without the economic downturn, it’s not realistic. Many, if not most, had long runs and were running their course. It’s impossible to say what would have happened otherwise, but it’s worth noting the shows that were financial successes when forced to shut down.

‘13,’ closed Sunday — If there’s a real victim in all this, I’d say it’s this show. In an ideal world, this show could have done exactly what it hoped to: capitalize on High School Musical and Hannah Montana and the entire tween culture of singing and dancing and precocious yet entirely chaste “rocking.” In an ideal world, they would have been the only such show in town (Wicked sort of fits that bill and Shrek might have bitten into that market, but Grease and Hairspray were a little too risque to really count), and they’d have tapped into the kind of repeat business that turns unassuming properties into monster megahits. But these aren’t ideal times, and the reviews weren’t great, and the buzz never got going. Tickets weren’t moving (around 50% capacity when they announced the closing date), and the kids just never started loving it the way they would have had to for the show to have legs. It’s hard to say that 13 would have been a huge hit (again, the reviews weren’t great, or to be more specific, the Times review wasn’t great), but it’s not at all difficult to imagine that it could.

So what have we learned? Some of these shows would have closed anyway. Some of these shows had long fruitful runs. Some of these shows were always planning to close, and some closed just a bit earlier than expected.

And what does that mean?  The hell if I know.

West Side Casting Announced.

All the info is here.

The big news, from my perspective, is that Karen Olivo, who plays Vanessa in In The Heights, will be Anita, which is kind of great. Josefina Scaglione is Maria, which I can see, but I’m not yet convinced (and like my mom says [even though she doesn't want to say it in public]: “they couldn’t find a Puerto Rican girl to play that role?). I don’t know many of the other names, but the bios are pretty interesting. At the very least, this is going to be the sexiest cast on Broadway.

Broadway: Best of Times, Worst of Times.

Michael Riedel wrote an article today about the grim state of the Broadway stage.  His argument is tied, not surprisingly, to the recently announced closings of Hairspray, Spamalot, and Spring Awakening.  Each of those shows was expected to run a lot longer than it did.  I’ve seen the first two shows, and think they’re great Broadway works, and it’s a shame to lose them prematurely.  (I’ve still got a Hairspray post sitting around someplace — I’ll post it before they close, I promise.)  I haven’t seen Spring Awakening, but I’ll find a way to sneak into it before it’s gone too.  Even so, each of these shows have had respectable runs, if shorter than hoped (although even there, I’d say each of these shows did a bit better than might have been originally expected).

Riedel also cites three shows (13, Boeing Boeing, and A Tale of Two Cities – see what I did with that title?) as being “in the quicksand,” finding themselves in danger of closing soon.  As a point of fact, I’ll just mention that none of those three could have been considered sure things at any point in their runs or development by any stretch of the imagination.  Boeing Boeing might even have overperformed, thanks to its Tony win; it has recouped its investment and is sending out a tour.  The other two shows were each trying to capitalize on existing monster hits (High School Musical and Les Miserables, respectively), at least in terms of perception, and I wouldn’t consider it a shock or an aberration for either to close quickly.

The situation is bad, yes.  Money is tight all around.  Broadway costs are high (I mean the costs of putting a show together, not tickets — although that’s applicable too).  Broadway audiences tend to come from out of town — so what happens when the US economy tanks?  There are lots of concerns, for sure, and we haven’t seen the worst of the crisis.

But.

Riedel says: “New shows will be arriving in the spring – “Hair” will go to the Shubert – but there’s very little on the horizon that looks like a “Wicked”-size smash.”  I’m not so sure.  Take a look at what’s opening this season:

9 to 5 — Certainly not a guaranteed hit, but a Dolly Parton score, a good cast including Allison Janney, and a woman-centric storyline.

American Buffalo — Mamet with stars.  Stars that appeal to different ethnic groups — Leguizamo and Cedric will drive tickets for sure.   Open-ended run, meaning that new stars can slide in and out to keep tickets moving.

Billy Elliot — Juggernaut in London (although I hated it).  Maybe it won’t translate to the US.  Maybe it will.  If it does, it could be a monster.

Shrek — If this isn’t a potential juggernaut, I don’t know what is.  (I resisted the urge to call it a monster hit, but you know.)  Big title, great creative team, big-time Broadway cast.

Vanities — Okay, now this one looks like it could close fast.  No big title, no huge stars, pretty small and low-concept.  Then again…it’s a three character musical (which means it’s a cheap musical), it’s intermissionless (which makes it a fun, quick night at the theater, which should help word of mouth), it’s about women and friendship and nostalgia, and it’s been a hit (in play form) everywhere it’s been before.  If this was an NFL fantasy draft, this would be your sleeper RB pick.

Waiting for Godot: Limited time JUG GER NAUT.  Nathan Lane in Beckett?  This could be the not-for-profit event of the year.  And as I mentioned before, Bill Irwin is the really exciting part of this whole project.  This will be a huge hit for the few months it’s up.

West Side Story — MONSTER.  There’s no guarantee, of course; the last Broadway revival was in 1980 and ran for only 333 performances.  But it’s West Side Story, for god’s sake.  I just hope that it and In The Heights can coexist.

You’re Welcome America: A Final Night with George W. Bush — Will Ferrell on Broadway.  Playing W.  Limited run.  Spamalot will have already closed.  This is THE boy musical of Broadway for those two months.  Anyone who gets me tickets to this wins at life.

And that’s not mentioned Spider-Man, which, truth be told, could be the biggest financial disaster in Broadway history, or could make $300 million and change the way things are done at that scale.  Nor does it take into consideration Godspell, for colored girls…, Brigadoon, or Nice Work If You Can Get It, all of which have technically “postponed” their runs and could pop back onto the radar with open theaters (and an aggressive investor or two).

Nor does it mention any of the Off-Broadway shows that could end up as transfers based on buzz; I’ve heard buzz for Taking Over, Danny Hoch’s genius one-man show (read: Danny Hoch’s genius “cheap” show), and Beau Willimon’s Farragut North (which was originally rumored to open on Broadway with Jake Gyllenhaal.   Who knows what else could pop up?  Last time Mos Def and Jeffrey Wright did a show together at The Public, it moved to Broadway.  They’re working together again on a John Guare play.  Think that’s not a contender?

Nor does it mention the new TKTS booth in Times Square, or the new one in Brooklyn, both of which should help a steady stream of discounters find their ways to the struggling shows.

Yes, I understand that not all of these will hit.  Not all of them will recoup.  Some will flame out spectacularly.  And yes, there’s a lot of star casting involved, and movie remakes, and all the stuff that folks hate about Broadway (although no jukeboxes, interestingly).  And yes, there will be huge financial hits to come, and Broadway will suffer as the rest of the country suffers.  Who knows what will happen to investors?  To audiences?  To the city itself?

But a disaster?  Maybe I’m I’m being a little too Tracy Turnblad enthusiastic/naive, but I don’t see it as a disaster just yet.

(Oh yeah…I forgot Dirty Dancing too.)

RENT. Six. (Post-RENT|IN THE HEIGHTS)

It’s been one week since I saw Rent’s final performance in the movie theater.  I have seen five shows (all but one were musicals or near-musicals) since then, not to mention another near-musical and another play last week.  And they all, in some way, can be tied back to Rent in my head.  I’ll go one by one here (actually, now that I think about it, I’ll list them here and split them into smaller discussion posts; contentcontentcontent), and I’ll ask you to remember that I’m not reviewing anything here–just tossing out some personal thoughts cultivated in the glow of my reexaminations of the Rent experience.  These are the shows:

In The Heights
Hairspray
Boom Bap Meditations and the break/s (both part of the Hip-Hop Theater Festival that I’ll discuss together)
Rock of Ages
Close Ties and Man For All Seasons (very different plays that I’ll discuss together)

So that’s the list.  And I’ll start, fittingly, with a show I’ve already discussed semi-intensively here: In The Heights.  This is what I wrote about the show right before The Tonys, which was right after I saw it for the first time:

In The Heights made me cry, and made me cry repeatedly (well, not cry, but tears in my eyes intermittently from the moment the music started), not because of the touching stories of love and acceptance and keeping life going in the face of all kinds of hardships (because honestly, the storylines are nothing we haven’t seen before), but because–and forgive the emotion here, but the emotion is really the point–GOD DAMN IT THOSE ARE PUERTO RICAN FLAGS UP THERE, and Dominican flags, and some Mexican and Cuban, and that’s Washington Heights, and it’s really Washington Heights, and that dude is starting the show by rapping, and it’s good rapping, really good rapping, really real rapping, and there’s a b-boy, and a real b-boy, and the Spanish fits, and no pare, sigue sigue is just, it’s just, god damn it, it’s perfect.  And we’re not gang members or drug dealers or even Lothario Latin lovers–we’re people, hard-working people who struggle with gentrification and self-worth issues and questions of leaving home and putting our pasts behind us to succeed or clutching madly to keep them close and push us even higher.

And I was in the audience on Mother’s Day, and this, I can’t stress this enough, this is what I want Latinos to do on Mother’s Day, I want them to go see In The Heights, all dressed up, full families, and I want them cheering when the lights go down, and I want them cheering and “oooooh”-ing when Nina and Benny kiss on the fire escape, and I want little Puerto Rican and Dominican boys to feel like Usnavi is looking right at them when he’s rhyming the way I felt like John Leguizamo’s Miggy was looking right at me all through Spic-o-Rama.  And you know what?  I’ve got tears in my eyes (just barely, son, just barely) even right now–right now–as I’m writing this.

And all that is still there in a big way, although I wasn’t overwhelmed with the emotion of the whole thing this time around, probably because I had seen it and was prepared (and maybe because I was trying to be cool in front of Kitt Kittredge, who I was with this time instead of my mom, in front of whom I have no need to look cool).  The pride is embedded in the piece, and I still think that’s the second biggest legacy this show will leave when all is said and done (the first being its incredible use of hip-hop within a full-on dramatic context–I’ll come back to this idea when talking about the break/s and Boom Bap Meditations later in the week/future).  But the thing I didn’t originally recognize about the show — the thing I actually got completely wrong the first time around — was this:

It’s a really good show.

I think I overvalued the impact that all those Puerto Rican flags had on my enjoyment the first time around.  I credited the show for a solid understanding of Broadway musical storytelling structure, but kind of downplayed the effectiveness of the story’s specifics.  I wasn’t even convinced that the songs (outside of the couple of big showstoppers) were entirely new, exciting, or hummable.  I was wrong on most, if not all counts.  It’s a good show, a strong show getting great performances that smooth over any trouble spots for sure, but it’s well put-together and (and I hate using this word) universal somehow — you don’t have to have firsthand knowledge of Puerto Ricans or Dominicans or hip-hop or The Heights to get it.  If you go with it, you’ll dig it.  You’ll probably love it.

(The problem of universality, we might have discussed before, is a major point of contention for many writers of color.  Our work, if it goes to “mainstream” audiences, is expected to “transcend race/ethnicity” so it can be consumed by the population at large.  In other words, your “average theatergoer” (I’m euphemismising away) needs to see/relate to your Puerto Rican characters as something other than (more than?) just Puerto Ricans — they need to be “real people.”  I think when I state it that way, “euphemisms” and all, it’s easy to see exactly what the problem with that “thinking” “is”.  Okay, those last two weren’t euphemisms at all.  I’ll talk more about this soon–specifically when we spend some time on those plays mentioned above.)

Point is, this show does the “universal” thing without compromise.  It tells a good, easy to follow story, and it tells it well, and it happens to tell it through cultural forms associated with young Latino folk.  That’s no small accomplishment.  it’s what I attempted to do with Welcome to Arroyo’s (and if any of you reading this haven’t read that play, it’s being published next year, so there’s your chance), only my story is a little messier and militant and maybe particular to one culture.  Lin-Manuel and Quiara and team have succeeded in not giving up the flavor while making the meat a little more tender and palatable for all-to-most tastes.  That’s a good thing.

That night, there was a couple sitting directly in front of us (and Britney Spears about ten rows up and over), and they were white, and they were older (maybe my parents’ age), and they were reacting semi-loudly throughout the show, trading thoughts back and forth in that “ooh, I’m enjoying this” kind of way.  It was good to see.

And how does this all tie to Rent?  Two things that I’ve mentioned here before:

1.  Spring Awakening, some say, is the logical heir to Rent’s fans, and I’d say that’s at least partially right.   But some of us, we kind of needed a show about young folks in New York City to come along and fill the void Rent is leaving behind.  We needed a multicultural show.  We needed a show that, for all its perceived toughness in form and music, is an old-fashioned musical at heart.  That’s Heights.

2.  At the Tonys, the original cast of Rent came out onstage and sang, and the audience applauded…but Lin-Manuel gave them the standing ovation they deserved, shortly after giving the coolest acceptance speech ever.  And it’s fitting, because as much as Rent’s artistic success is tied up in its creator’s backstory, so is Heights‘.  Historians are going to look back on this year’s ceremony and say “Paulo Szot?  Really?”

This is now my longest post ever, I think, so I’ll stop and sum up by repeating all I really wanted to say about this topic anyway:

Go see In The Heights.

RENT. One.

It’s 1996, probably February sometime.  I’m in the second semester of my first year at NYU.  I’m part of the Gallatin Scholars, a group that gets to go to cultural events as part of our scholarship package.  We get tickets to this show at New York Theater Workshop.  We sit in the front row.

Let me back up for a second, actually.  My original plan when I came to NYU was to study acting and psychology, but when I get to New York City, I see the life of the student/actor, and I know it’s not for me.  Luckily, I’m in a flexible program; I decide to transition into a more broad-based approach to my studies, with a steady helping of theatrical education as a basic structure.  I’m studying the History of Drama and Theater, mostly dramatic literature, just sort of starting to understand that there’s a whole lot more to the theater world than the stuff they teach you in college.

So I’m excited when we go see this show at NYTW.  I’ve heard about it.  There’s buzz, although at the time I’m not quite aware of exactly how much buzz there is.  A few weeks later, the show would hit the cover of Newsweek.  At the time, this doesn’t seem all that unusual to me.  It also kind of doesn’t seem entirely unusual that this is a show about young people in the neighrborhood I happen to be sitting in–there’s lots of New York theater about New York, right?  So we sit down, and the theater’s kind of small (compared to Broadway, but big compared to lots of the Off-Off houses I was just starting to discover), and the stage is HUGE (feels like the stage is as big as the house), and we’re in the front row, and the lights go down.

And it takes a little while for it all to get going.  The first few songs have fun moments and rock guitar, silly humor (in the form of Mark’s mom on the answering machine), an incredibly sweet meet-cute (between Angel and Collins), some sexiness in the form of Daphne Rubin-Vega (a brief aside: years later, I’d meet Daphne whil working for Joe’s Pub.  I attempted to introduce her to our staff, including our graphics designer, who was a good friend of mine.  I completely — legitimately — forgot my friend’s name while making the introduction.  Daphne has that kind of presence.), and a lot of goodness going for it, but it hasn’t yet blown me away.

And then…it blows me away.

I’ve said this before, and nothing will shake my faith in it: the first quarter of Rent is pretty good, the last quarter is pretty terrible (seriously), but that half in the middle, starting with “Today for You” and ending with “I’ll Cover You (reprise)” is remarkable, incredibly, devastatingly good and relevant and important and powerful.  It hit me there in the theater, and it stays with me to today.  I can’t even express what it is, but that middle chunk gets it right, so right — it’s the kind of thing that musical theater could be and can be and should be, the kind of thing that In The Heights and Passing Strange got right in chunks and pieces, the kind of thing that Crazy for You did as well as anything I’ve ever seen, only with more heart, more real soul, and more of the voice of a group of people who actually exist.  That middle chunk of Rent is a time capsule, and it was a time capsule from the moment it was created — it gets that world right, or as right as you can get it in a musical theater context.

So it’s 1996, and they’re singing La Vie Boheme, and Maureen is mooning Bennie (and they’d go on to get married in the real world), and I’m maybe ten feet from her ass, and she pulls up her pants, and I swear she winks at me.  And then it’s intermission, and I’m shell-shocked, not from the bare ass, but from what I just saw — something that felt real to me, and was full of emotion and subversion on some level, even though it’s a big musical and therefore how subversive can it really be?  But it is, and they’re singing about stuff that I don’t even know what it is but I know that in the fact that they’re mentioning it, it’s important, and I’ll come across it someday (and then last year I finally read Vaclav Havel, and lookie lookie: it leads to a name for my blog) and it’ll impact my life when it does.

And then they line up across the stage at the top of Act Two, and it’s “Seasons of Love,” and I swear they’re a foot away from me, and Taye Diggs spits on me (in the act of singing, of course), and I’m right up close in their eyes, and they’re singing this song about dead friends, and it’s written by their dead friend, and they’re singing it for him — you can see it, they’re singing that song for Jonathan Larson, and I mean — how am I ever going to settle for creating theater that isn’t founded on that close a relationship?

And also, there in the middle of it, there happens to be one of the most beautiful love stories I’ve ever see — and it’s a gay couple’s story.  And you have to realize that I’m 18-years-old, coming from suburbs (not far from Mark’s mom’s house, actually), and I’m only now meeting my first gay friends, and as a straight boy/athlete from the burbs, you’re not exactly conditioned to expect to be moved to the core by a gay relationship — but there it is, in front of me, and Collins sings the “I’ll Cover You (reprise),” and good god, it’s maybe the most beautiful moment I’ve ever seen onstage.

And it ends, and I’m shaken, and everything has changed, yet I’m still not sure that anything has changed beyond me, if you know what I mean.  I’m still not quite understanding the cultural significance of what I just saw.

A few months later, it moved to Broadway.  So I saw it again.

(I’ll tell you about that tomorrow.)