Stephen Sondheim’s last musical is, in many ways, a labor of love. It’s an adaptation of two films by Louis Buñuel, showcasing Sondheim’s longstanding passion for cinema. More than four decades back, Sondheim, along with playwright and director James Lapine, began to brainstorm ideas that ultimately took shape nearly ten years before his passing in 2021.
According to the production’s program notes, the development unfolded gradually through email exchanges involving Sondheim, director Joe Mantello, and Book Write’s David Ives. This final gift from Sondheim—a draft of the musical—will premiere in Europe in 2023 after its stint in New York. The original cast will change, bringing fresh faces to the stage. The piece is inventive and rich in imagination, though it clearly has its challenges.
The plot is a blend of social satire and understated charm, revolving around a wealthy group whose dinner plans are invariably sabotaged. One narrative echoes “Angel of Angel,” about a house party gone awry, while the first act draws from the earlier film, and the second focuses more on the latter.
Mantello’s direction opens with vibrant, satirical humor about the lives of the elite. The initial interactions in upscale restaurants and cafes are engaging, yet the later scenes begin to feel lacking, almost overshadowed by the absurdity, and the initial allure starts to fade when adapted for the stage.
While the cast is energetic, some performers struggle vocally. Paulo Satt, portraying the ambassador from the fictional South American nation of Miranda, displays impressive operatic skills, and Chumisa Dawnford May takes on the role of the revolutionary Fritz.
However, as the show shifts from one movement to a kind of stagnation, it risks losing momentum. The deeper themes of existential repetition become apparent, dragging things out despite hints of impending doom. Musically, it carries Sondheim’s signature style, yet lacks standout or memorable songs. Although there’s humor and warmth, the work falls short of Sondheim’s usual depth, offering some witty lines but also stumbling into mediocrity with predictable rhymes. The tension in the recitative can feel forced at times.
The development of the second act post-dinner gains significance, evolving into a commentary on dystopia. The inertia displayed by the wealthy characters leads to their self-imposed isolation as their servants abandon them. Still, the critique of class dynamics feels somewhat weak. There’s a light-hearted mention of a servant whose silent struggle in the film doesn’t translate effectively here, leaving a sense of frustration without a sharper edge until we reach the ambassador’s residence.
While the script and music may lack energy, David Zinn’s set design offers impressive visual stimulation, creating a dreamlike atmosphere with its vibrant lighting and surreal nuances that complement the otherwise realistic setting in the ambassador’s final act.
Is this entire scenario merely a dream echoing Jean-Paul Sartre’s themes? Is the reality for these characters a sort of hell, trapped in a room for eternity? These questions linger, contributing an interesting perspective on wealth, poverty, and existential dread, but the intrigue soon dissipates.
