Ottorino Respighi / Shrek

On this day in classical music: Ottorino Respighi’s tone poem “The Pines of Rome” was given its premiere in Rome in 1924. The second of Respighi’s Roman trilogy (Fountains of Rome, 1916; Pines of Rome, 1924; Roman Festivals, 1928), this four-movement orchestral masterwork depicts pine trees at different times of day in various Roman locales: The Pines of the Villa Borghese, Pines Near a Catacomb, Pines of the Janiculum and Pines of the Appian Way. As the third movement gives way to the finale, the sound of a nightingale is heard. During a performance of “Pines of Rome,” a recording of a nightingale is played through the hall’s sound system. Listen to the Stuttgart Radio Symphony Orchestra perform the opening movement of Respighi’s “The Pines of Rome.” Georges Pretre conducts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk2q8GU3ZsA

On this day in the musical theatre: The musical “Shrek” opened on Broadway in 2008. Based on the 2001 DreamWorks film and the book by William Steig, “Shrek” featured a score by Jeanine Tesori and David Lindsay-Abaire. “Shrek” had a cast headed by Brian d’Arcy James as the title character and Sutton Foster as Fiona. The musical ran for a year but wasn’t able to recoup its original investment. “Shrek” was considerably reworked before its national tour was launched. Watch the original Broadway cast perform “What’s Up, Duloc?” from the 2009 Tony Awards broadcast. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6eibFYnlF4

Musical musings: ’Tis love, the fairy tales tell us, that turns dross into gold and clods into gods. So it seems appropriate that about halfway through the leaden fairy-tale-theme costume party called “Shrek the Musical,” which opened Sunday night at the Broadway Theater, it’s a love scene that gives us a startling glimpse of true happiness. That vision arrives when the hitherto adversarial hero and heroine of this latest screen-to-stage musical, adapted from the popular 2001 animated film and the children’s book by William Steig, recognize they just might have something in common. Never mind that this something appears to be a shared affinity for breaking wind and belching really loudly. But “Shrek” does not avoid the watery fate that commonly befalls good cartoons that are dragged into the third dimension. What seems blithe and fluid on screen becomes lumbering when it takes on the weight of solid human flesh. The pop-cultural jokes and “Fractured Fairy Tales”-like spoofery that are the currency of “Shrek” (and Mr. Lindsay-Abaire sticks close to the screenplay) passed in the wink of a mischievous eye on screen. Onstage they seem to linger and grow old. And morals about inner beauty and self-esteem that went down easily enough in the movie stick in the throat when amplified into power ballads with lyrics explaining that “What makes us special makes us strong.” Then there’s the issue of performers having to dress up to resemble fantasy illustrations, a process that, to put it kindly, tends to cramp expressive acting. As the title character, a misanthropic green ogre who learns to love, the talented Mr. James is so encumbered with padding and prosthetics that your instinct is to rush the stage and tap his head to see if he’s really in there. (Sutton Foster’s) Fiona is fun. No wonder Shrek falls in love with her. And when Mr. James responds to her, you realize that there’s a winning character (not to mention a very fine actor and singer) inside that fright suit. I know, I know, that’s what the show’s about: the beauty within. But it seems to me that if “Shrek” had more generally heeded its own advice about substance versus surface, it might have come closer to casting the spell that lets Broadway shows live happily ever after. – Ben Brantley in The New York Times

Thank you for joining our conversation on Articulations. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.