Please wait...
Please wait...
ums.org

Discuss

People are Talking: UMS presents John Malkovich in The Infernal Comedy at Hill Auditorium [plus AUDIO]

Posted: 10/1/11 -- 12:00 am

48

avatar by Stephanie Normann

 

Photo on right: Things waiting for John Malkovich at dressing room.

UMS Presents: Interview with conductor Martin Haselböck by UniversityMusicalSociety
 

Tell us what you thought! This is the place to comment on the performance and talk to other people about what you saw and heard.  Don’t forget to click the option to be notified when new comments are posted.

Stephanie is the Marketing Manager at UMS and has been with the organization for four seasons. She is also a member of the UMS Choral Union.

48 COMMENTS   view newest first

Connect with Facebook


Notify me of followup comments via e-mail!
You can also subscribe without commenting.

  • avatar

    How can the demonstrated assault of women be funny? The concept of this performance is ill-conceived and offensive. We are amazed that the UMS would program something so demeaning. After 3o minutes we had enough and left.

    Reply
  • avatar

    I enjoyed the performance immensely as a way to rethink what is opera. It tells a story with the music to underline and expand the meaning of the libretto. My question has to do with the translation or mis-translation of the German. I would find it difficult to believe that it was in error. But why was it done that way? What reason did I not understand?

    Reply
  • avatar

    The concept was fine, but I found the performance to be in very poor taste as well as repetitive to the point of being boring. I was especially offended by the overuse of profanity and was also disturbed by the laughter that accompanied every use of the f word. Why was I there? Because it was part of the UMS series. This performance was definitely not up to the high standards I’ve grown to expect of UMS.

    Reply
  • avatar

    Wow, I was really blown away by the performances and loved the show. I admit to being a fan of theater-music and film-music genre-benders (Alexander Nevsky, for example), but I thought this show really worked. The music was sincere and moving, and then you get the comedy and charm from Malkovich’s character, but he is an established liar. So the comedy is never “serious,” so to speak – it’s not real. It communicates the character’s charm, rather than belittling any of the brutality. So I didn’t find the use of humor in the context of such a horrific story to be inappropriate at all the way it was done. This reminded a bit of another show I absolutely loved in Detroit about five years ago: A Soldier’s Tale with F. Murray Abraham, Colm Feore, and members of the DSO. Great job, everyone. Thanks for bringing it to Ann Arbor!

    Reply
  • avatar

    This show was self indulgent bullshit by John Malkovich. I, as i’m assuming most of the audience, am a fan of his movies, but for anyone to say they truly enjoyed this performance— well, let’s just say I would ask those people to really ask themselves if they enjoyed the show, or if they enjoyed the fact that a bona-fide celebrity was in it.

    I have been to many “eccentric” shows, with many different themes, and I am open to all views and interpretations of life… this show, however, was simply vomit on the stage.

    Again, i can’t sum it up any more succinctly than to say… this was Self Indulgent Bull Shit.

    Reply
  • avatar

    I didn’t like it. I didn’t have high expectations going in, to be quite honest. It seemed like a train wreck from the get-go. I was happy that I had bought the $10 seats because it made it easier to leave midway thru. I know I am not the only one, as my counterpart left to go to the bathroom, yet never returned. They did eventually come back to get me, and we had a coney dog at the place around the corner…and we were all the wiser. The fries were more memorable (in a GOOD way) than the show. Disappointed, yet what do you get for an ill-conceived concept with a popular name attached to it.

    Reply
  • avatar

    Although I quite enjoyed the musical part of the show, I couldn’t understand the laughters from the audience. I have a perfectly normal sense of humor, yet I didn’t find any moment of the show quite funny or clever. The marriage of storytelling by monologue and operatic arias was laudable, but the whole show felt a bit flat.

    Reply
  • avatar

    While I found it disturbing and simply “creepy” at times, everything seemed very consistent with the research I did on Unterweger prior to the performance–including the white suite and black polka dot shirt as well as Unterweger’s uber-cocky demeanor. The most disturbing aspect for me was that pop culture could embrace this psychopath and make him feel so invincible. Makes me worry even more about reality TV that rewards bizarre behavior. Not a good reflection of our society. I think the performance elicited the intended reactions.

    Reply
  • avatar

    My wife and I enjoyed the performance thoroughly. Great theatre!

    Reply
  • avatar

    The venue ( Hill) was unsuitable for the performance. The audience sited in mezzanine didn’t see much at all! Hill is great for concerts, but that’s about it.

    Reply
    • avatar

      I agree. We were seated in what are otherwise good seats in Hill: middle of the Mezzanine, about half way up; however, since much of the actor’s / singers’ performance was in the very front part of the stage, or even up an aisle, we couldn’t see, even with leaning forward, since of course everyone else in front of us was leaning forward. After awhile I just closed my eyes and listened to the glorious music. Mr. Malkovich has remarkable stage presence and an interesting voice, but, really, I didn’t care for the yap-yap of a serial killer character. The singing and the orchestra, on the other hand, were tremendous. THAT was worth the money!

      All that said, I appreciate the UMS continuing to go out on various limbs to bring edgy and different programming. Not everything pleases everyone – if it did, then it would all be pretty boring! Michael K & Ken F, keep it up! Margaret Petersen

      Reply
  • avatar

    We love that UMS is willing to take a chance on edgy performances and to challenge the audience, because we end up seeing some fantastic things that way. But this one really didn’t work for us. The music was enjoyable, and there were moments that the acting pulled us in, but then it invariably fell flat. It was interesting at points, but never really came together in a way that made us feel we’d learned much from the confessions of a serial killer.
    But please don’t stop, UMS–we’re glad to have had the opportunity!

    Reply
  • avatar

    As ignorant as I am about opera, it was Malkovich who drew me to the event, and I wasn’t disappointed; he was brilliant. The fact that his performance made some narrow-minded members of the audience uncomfortable shows how well he succeeded in oozing the psychopathic charm of a successful criminal. The concept of having the opera singers become actresses in his drama was compelling, but while I understand the artistic intent, what didn’t work for me was importing snatches of unrelated operas into Unterberger’s story. An original opera, or at least a few original pieces, would have made the production sparkle. Or were the selections fitting and trenchant? I would like to hear comments from others who know the operas. And who was responsible for the mangled English in the superscript translations — “across this waves I will encore his shade to the opposed shore”?

    Reply
  • avatar

    The concept was good … but the show was not nearly as good as it could have been. I was excited to realize the music was from “bona fide” opera–music appropriated for _The Infernal Comedy_ rather than written for it; unfortunately, the emotional range covered by the arias was just so narrow. (I expect this is part of what laenchen, above, meant by repetitive.) Why did the two ladies sing every time about betrayal and accusations and cruelty? Why not ALSO let them give voice to the idolization that Unterweger experienced, the fantasies of reforming him, and the excitement at being near a celebrity?

    Ms. Meghnani has a terrific voice, resonant and powerful. It was cool to see Mr. Malkovich in person. But I don’t appreciate a performance explicitly styling itself the product of creators’ incompatible visions (Unterweger, ‘editor,’ ‘publisher’) or calling attention to being half-finished–suspension of disbelief or not, it’s sloppy and indeed, not up the standards of Hill Auditorium or UMS.

    Reply
  • avatar

    Not a good show. Somewhat offensive, more so just not all that thought out. The music was good, but none of the emotion of a fairly intense premise was there. It felt incomplete, less than witty and like a wasted opportunity.

    Maybe my negative reaction to the show is in part due to the fact that we couldn’t see a thing in the Mezzanine. It got so bad that a older man stood up in protest before being removed by an usher. Halfway through the performance I gave up stretching my neck trying to see. I bought two tickets with UMS Arts and Eats blindly not knowing my seating location, and am honestly am pretty upset about how this trust was abused. I’ve never wanted money back for a show until last night.

    Kind of a bad night guys. Don’t think I’ll be recommending this to anyone.

    Reply
    • avatar

      We, too, had a negative reaction due to the fact that we were seated in the middle of the Mezzanine. I feel the UMS abused our trust and faith in not informing us of the production’s lack of visibility. We thought we were paying for premium seats.

      The performance didn’t “hang” together as a whole, even though individual performances were great.

      Reply
  • avatar

    The idea was a good one in concept but lacking in execution. I have no problem with the f-bomb since it illustrated Underweger’s growing frustration with the incompetency of the production.

    Pacing, repetition, and lack of character depth was an issue. People do get bored when there is a one-sentence poorly-translated supertitle (that has been previously shown numerous times) that goes on for several minutes. Why not show another facet to the characters and move on?

    The truth about serial killers involves their huge egos and their perceived entitlement to abuse women (so I have no problem with the depiction of this). The best scene in the play epitomizes this with Underweger humping across the stage on his back while strangling a woman while droning on about himself.

    The performance also brings to light the sad part about the women who degrade themselves by involving themselves with these proven abusers as well as the do-gooders who think that serial killers can be reformed through art and then paroled. Colin Pitchfork (yes, he is a real guy and that is his real name) is another example and his art entitled ‘Bringing Music to Life’ is a slap in the face to everyone. Bring the victims back to life, then we can talk about your parole.

    Reply
  • avatar

    boring, ill-conceived, the focus on the deluded women?!?! the music and the staging were badly done, lots of wandering around on stage, not funny enough, and or dark enough. Left about 45 minutes in. Much more could have been done with such material, think Don Giovani

    Reply
  • avatar

    I didn’t research this one because I generally trust UMS to stage high-quality events. Now, I feel a bit heart-broken. I didn’t find it moving and spent a good portion of the show fantasizing about yelling “Oh come on!!!!” and the repercussions. Was this a test to find that first member of the audience that was outraged by the performance and the thinness of the narrative? Would Malkovich invite me backstage to laugh at the hoax? Would we spend the rest of the night talking about good theater?…Operas that we loved?

    The most funniest and most rousing parts were when Malkovich commented to the audience how disorganized and empty the production was. How meta! I feel like I wasted my money, the mezzanine left me in a cloud of other peoples heads and necks, and wish I knew where to go to try and argue for a refund.

    Reply
  • avatar

    Perhaps this performance was an excellent example of this particular art form. If so, we will decline future opportunities to experience it. It lacked focus, being neither music nor drama. Even the high talents of Malkovich, the musicianship of the orchestra, and the excellent voices of the sopranos could not overcome the clumsiness of this presentation.

    Reply
  • avatar

    Each part of the performance was very well done–Malkovich’s acting was excellent, and the arias were beautifully sung–they just didn’t fit together. I found that when my attention was focused on Malkovich, the music was an unwanted interruption, particularly Baroque music that is characteristically repetitive. Then when I gave myself to the music his voice was startling and unwelcome. I agree with the person who suggested that the music should have been written by a contemporary composer and integrated more fully into the acting performance. It was an interesting but bewildering experience.

    Reply
    • avatar

      Thank you. I also agree. My husband and I were intrigued for roughly two-thirds of the performance. After that we felt that Unterweger had nothing more to reveal about himself, and, sadly, the music, too, had become boring for lack of contrast.

      To me, the insertion of Unterweger’s crude behavior into the realm of dignified music was painful, but part of the piece. I have no desire to experience this again, but it was worth seeing once.

      Reply
  • avatar

    I wasn’t there, so I can’t offer an opinion about the event. But I’ll repeat what I wrote when the 2011/12 program was issued: I’m glad UMS is looking for new horizons. That’s urgent. But from the remarks I read I infer that you went a bit too far with this. Similarly, I worry about the three upcoming Maverick concerts. Although I am personally enthusiastic about them, I suspect that most of the audiences that have been used to exclusively “warhorse” items, such as are featured by Muti this year, will not be thrilled to hear only mid-20th century American music for an entire evening. (And I say this with the greatest respect.) Well, let’s hope for the best.

    So, my advice is: start easy. Bring in orchestras that will insert, say, the Cowell Piano Concerto, which is now surrounded by other contemporary works in a Maverick concert, between, say, a Mozart Symphony and a French Impressionist composition. That’s enough fresh air for a start. I know, I know, you are limited to what the managers offer you; you may have to go further down the list of orchestras; but if the Hamburg Symphony Orchestra can do a whole evening with one Messiaen composition – and I say this as a Messiaen fan — then surely they can equally well do something by Rihm or Zimmermann between Haydn and Beethoven, no? If this is successful, other organizations will catch on.

    By contrast, sitting through a Maverick concert one evening and then going to one featuring only the three Bs makes one feel like a kid who wants to get the hated peas out of the way and eats them all first before turning lovingly to the meat he adores.

    Reply
  • avatar

    I’m tired of these subscribers who want to be satisfied with “safe” fare. Gimme a break. You want traditional, then go to the DSO. I’ve had enough of the traditional in the Detroit area, and have given up on hoping that the DSO pushes into any new territory. I for one am very glad UMS is taking some real chances this season with bold programming like they used to. You keep up the “traditional,” and you are not pushing the envelope, experimenting, evolving and building new bridges, as art should. Thought it was gross? Do you not research or read about what you are going to see? What do you expect a chamber drama/black comedy about a womanizing serial killer to be? It shouldn’t be polite. It shouldn’t be refined. It should implicate an audience by making it uneasy. I for one, thought it was very refreshing. In this age and time, I’m not looking to be mollified by tradition. The three act structure was great: charm the audience, then shock the audience, then implicate the audience. I will agree that the staging was clumsy– whoever was on the lighting, performed terribly. The subtitles were problematic as well. The use of stage space was clumsy. Otherwise, the fine balance of funny/not funny, was more than appropriate. I heard more than a few blue-haired types in the audience grumbling from not being able to digest their pre-concert meals during this one. Good!

    Reply
    • avatar

      Ryan, I agree. I’m glad they took a “chance”, but using high profile actors isn’t really taking a true chance, since they at least knew the name would draw people. He did a decent job, overall, but it was a bit boring to me. I thought the music/sub titles were distracting, thus, I didn’t feel the music/arias fit the rest of the composition of the piece. But yes, I agree..I think it’s nice for people to feel uncomfortable once in a while..it makes you THINK…which is something NOT everyone wants to do…

      Nice review! Well said.

      Reply
  • avatar

    My husband, guest and I hated this performance. The writing was awful, the acting was bad . . . Over desserts, we came up with the concept that this piece was a dare between two narcissists to see if an intellectual crowd could be fooled or proved to be pseudo. After reading some of these comments and by the number of folks who clapped, I guess they bet correctly. At the very least, why weren’t some of the sociopath’s poems read?

    Reply
  • avatar

    This comment was removed due to non-compliance with UMS participation guidelines.

    Reply
  • avatar

    “We came up with the concept that this piece was a dare between two narcissists to see if an intellectual crowd could be fooled or proved to be pseudo.”

    Oh now that’s original. And cynical.

    I think Americans have lost the ability to know what black humor is. If you don’t like it, fine. But you shouldn’t turn around and use the stereotypical tactic of dumping on the “intellectual crowd.” What a tired gesture, blaming it on those intellectuals. There also is no such thing as an inappropriate laugh. It’s appropriate to someone, at a moment they deem appropriate. Black humor is a slippery beast that some get, and some don’t. It was clear to me that the creators were using Unterweger to explore that grey area between funny and not, true and false, refined and vulgar, structured and unstructured, scripted and improvised. If you look carefully, all the contrasts are in place.

    I also believe that anyone who walks out of a performance forfeits the ability to critique the work as a whole.

    Reply
    • avatar

      Proving once again that Ann Arbor is at least in part a very provincial Midwestern town that prefers “safe” pseudo-experimentation yet somehow is convinced that it is the prestigious cultural equal of smug coastal snobbery. ..

      From some of the better comments here, I now realized I didn’t even grasp the full scope of this satirical tour de force. I suspect what really appalled the mainstreamers was when Malkovich boldly went into the audience to criticize their sex lives–having failed to see that he was IN CHARACTER as a charming psychopath.

      Killer stuff.

      Reply
  • avatar

    An call of desire expressed by extravagant baroque arias and response of pathologic control personified by a mendacious serial killer? Malkovich’s power of control, meant to extend over the audience, seemed to have been more effectively employed over the author. Kudos to UMS for not just sticking with the traditional. But the tension and energy were dampened by the interminable-feeling arias and in the end, to paraphrase one of the sopratitles, failed to “foraminate my breast”.

    Reply
  • avatar

    We saw John Malkovich play a swishy Balkan general at the Steppenwolf Theater in Chicago and again his European accent fades in and out like AM radio at night. But I’m crazy about his movies. Nothing ventured nothing gained…won’t be flying my time share jet to Santa Barbara for the next show.

    Reply
  • avatar

    I rebuke the “emperor’s new clothes” ad hominem attacks, i.e., if I say that I don’t find the underlying dark comedy brilliant (and brilliantly executed), then I’m too stupid and provincial to “get it”. Malkovich has been doing the whole Unterweger stage opera thing since 2008 under various titles, so he could have ironed out the issues causing audience boredom by now. There are other dark plays and films that arguably do not have the same issues (Pinter’s The Homecoming, films: Dogtooth, Man Bites Dog, Nekromantik (1 & 2), Der Todesking, etc.). There is an old provincial saying “If it smells like ass, then it is probably ass”.

    Reply
  • avatar

    I found the production didn’t quite live up to my expectations, which were very, very high. I sensed Malkovich was holding back, as if afraid to thoroughly unleash his acting skills on the much less theatrically accomplished people sharing the stage with him. And the fact that he is such a name brand–which I expected would work for him–worked against him. I wonder how this would work better with another actor, or if it depends too much on casting a celebrity already well-associated with his dark side. And I was absolutely furious with the audience for applauding his first appearance on stage. Why does a famous person walking on stage unhinge people like this?

    Reply
    • avatar

      Sally, the audience also applauded the conductor when he came on stage. And the musicians. And the singers. So what was inappropriate about applauding the person who was the main reason many people came?

      I would say that yes, Malkovich’s “celebrity status with a dark side” was perfect for the part. I believe that hooking in the audience and then offending it later was an integral part of the concept.

      Reply
      • avatar

        Re: applause. Once the house lights go down, I like to feel like I’m in a different world, and any acting company worth its salt does too. It absolutely drives me insane when the audience wants to stop that action and acknowledge that a famous person is walking onstage.

        As I recall, the sopranos were not applauded. The conductor was applauded before anything really started, and that’s fine. It’s part of the classical music tradition. But John Malkovich? It stopped the action and was simply to acknowledge his celebrity status.

        And re: the type-casting of John Malkovich, it didn’t work quite as well as I was expecting it would. It was a great idea, but in the end, I want a real, meaningful performance that tells me something. I want John Malkovich to deliver–his reputation as a celebrity with a dark side by itself doesn’t do it for me. I felt this was, in the end, high concept, and disappointing delivery. But concept gets an A-plus.

        Reply
  • avatar

    Susan Isaacs Nisbett reviewed the production for AnnArbor.com, writing in part: “The idea behind this musical drama … is more cogently explained in the program notes than it is played out on stage, where it tends to drift without much purpose or revelation.” The full review: http://www.annarbor.com/entertainment/review-infernal-comedy/

    Reply
  • avatar

    It is interesting to read the audience comments about our piece, and it has been fascinating to guage the different ways that audiences respond during the performance, from city to city and country to country. Our American performances so far (and Ann Arbor was the third) seem to have elicited far more ‘real’ laughter (as opposed to the ‘uncomfortable’ kind) than in Europe. I’m not sure why. Certainly there are moments in the piece that are downright disturbing; these moments usually silence any outright laughter, because they reveal with a shock that the man addressing them has duped them with his charm and humour, in the same way that Jack Unterweger did with his public.

    A note about the surtitles: as a native English speaker, I am truly embarassed, and we can only apologise. By accident an old file, with that atrocious translation, was used. I myself had gone through the translation to eradicate any non-sensical English ‘approximations’, and do not know how the person from the venue who operated the surtitles ended up using an old file. At least this was some potential fodder for Jack’s rant about the ‘quality of our so-called ‘organisation”.
    -Dean Kustra, Geschäftsführer, Musikkonzept

    Reply
    • avatar

      ‘embaRRassed’. Apologies for the typo.

      Reply
      • avatar

        I found the most horrifying aspect of the affair was the audience response, with people cheering and laughing at Malkovitch’s “jokes”. The material wasn’t light or cheerful; it was a sociopath trying to charm his way out of recrimination for vile acts. The piece undermined Unterweger, it did not celebrate him. The decerebrate, fawning, star-struck response of the audience was vulgar, unsettling and disappointing. I expect more from Ann Arbor than cheap guffaws in response to lines about abusing women.

        If the goal was to “dupe” the audience and then reveal that they’d been duped, then that failed utterly in Ann Arbor. Half of the AA audience was completely aware of the enormity of Unterweger’s acts from start to finish, and those people left and have written nasty reviews. The other half was star-struck by Malkovich and had completely thoughtless responses to the content throughout the entire show; their responses never changed, they remained the people who laughed heartily (and mindlessly) in knee-jerk reaction to “jokey” tones throughout the entire show.

        As to Malovich, he gradually receded from the character over the night until the monologues were almost purely in his own voice, not Unterweger’s. He started strong but ended up phoning it in by the middle/end.

        If the purpose of the piece was a sudden reveal, you’ve got to find a uniquely ignorant audience that doesn’t grasp the concept of “recidivist serial killer”. Other than a reveal that can’t work because the piece is historical, the show seemed to have no real point.

        Reply
  • avatar

    A much more interesting and important question is at play here than simply whether one liked the Malkovich production. Consider – of all the performances you choose to attend, what percentage would you like to love? Like? Tolerate? Hate? If you want to love 100% of those you attend, you probably won’t be expanding your artistic horizons very much. We all have to make our own decisions about how often we are prepared to go to a performance that we really, really don’t like. But we have to take that chance in order to be blown away by something that we unexpectedly find that we really, really love.

    Reply
    • avatar

      Well, since you advertise your question as more interesting than the ones already posed, it should be answered. How many events would I like to love, you ask. Why, every single one! People buy tickets to UMS concerts because it has earned a reputation for presenting top-drawer events. But can one expect UMS to make them all likable? No, probably not. Michael and the gang are looking for an enrichment of the fare they present. I applaud that. Even when they stick with traditional programming, they cannot be sure every concert will be a success. But that does not impose an obligation on us to either like everything or else to keep our dislikes to ourselves. Concerts are not like the weather: sometimes the sun shines and sometimes it rains and there is nothing you can do about it. On the contrary, UMS has provided us with a space to discuss our experiences. One hopes they will occasionally benefit from the discussion.

      As I mentioned in my earlier posting, I was not there and can’t comment on the event, only on the discussion. I was skeptical about this event before it took place, and it seems my judgment was borne out. It appears, the musical part of the evening did not require the dramatic frame and was, if anything, compromised by it. So, it seems to me there is a lesson in that. One can try to expand the traditional concert menu in new directions by combining it with various arts that support each other. (I confess that personally I would much, much prefer that the Choral Union Series did not trespass on the Theater Series but stuck to music — new and old — of which there is plenty to choose from. But even within that domain unfortunate choices can occur and discussion is quite in order.)

      In the German-English video on the web page announcing the concert, Malkovich says (a) that this may be the founding of a new genre and (b) that in his career he has gotten used to failing: ”I fail every day.” These two statements taken together are not only amusing; they also contain a lesson. There is novelty that succeeds, and there is novelty that fails. New does not necessarily mean good, and learning the difference requires our input.

      In one respect the event has been a huge success: it has stimulated more discussion in this space than any other event I can remember.

      Reply
  • avatar

    John Malkovich expertly portrayed an intensely perverted mind, capturing messages and styles which appeal to the Viennese Soul. The transitions from being an adored rehabilitated writer, trophy of Vienna intellectuals, to a serial murder convict were subtle, intimate and credible. I was exhausted, challenged and shaken after being exposed to Malkovich in this role. Thank you. This programming choices are what makes a small university city like Ann Arbor a great place to live.

    Reply
  • avatar

    The show wasn’t perfect, but it’s a brilliant concept and was a lot of fun.

    All the pissing kinda’ sounds like the dusty Choral Union crowd couldn’t figure out when during the show was the right time to hawk up their phlegm-balls.

    Reply
  • 48

    PERFORMANCES & EVENTS

    DawnOfMidi-byFalkwynDeGoyeneche-420x420-3
    TICKETS

    1/31/2015

    Dawn of MIDI

    Helen-Edgar-420x420
    TICKETS

    1/7-1/10/2015

    Helen & Edgar

    Belcea Quartet
    TICKETS

    10/18/2014

    Belcea Quartet

    Mariinsky-ValeryGergiev-byAlexanderShapunov-420x420-1
    TICKETS

    1/24-1/25/2015

    Mariinsky Orchestra

    BobJames-420x420-2
    TICKETS

    11/15/2014

    Bob James

    Cendrillon production
    TICKETS

    4/24-4/26/2015

    Lyon Opera Ballet

    Messiah score on organ
    TICKETS

    12/6-12/7/2014

    Handel’s Messiah

    Gregory Porter
    TICKETS

    10/15/2014

    Gregory Porter

    Kiss and Cry production
    TICKETS

    10/10-10/12/2014

    Kiss & Cry

    Michael Tilson Thomas conducts
    TICKETS

    11/13-11/14/2014

    San Francisco Symphony