EDITED: "Oh my gosh, you're adding MORE WORDS?"
I am.
I want to establish that this actually
isn't the worst thing I've ever seen and reiterate that this review isn't an attempt to just slam the show. If you take it as a stand alone piece
without the original
then its mediocre, bland and still pretty bad but not to the level it falls in connection with the original story. The whole problem is that it not only ignores the lessons learned at the end of the original, but really seems set out to destroy that they ever happened in the first place. That's what bothers me the most.
No, the worst production I have ever seen actually falls to
The 10 Commandments: The Musical which is available on DVD if any of you are as curious as I was. It was filmed in 2006 and stars Val Kilmer. I kid you not.
At least
Bad Year for Tomatoes had Piney.
Back to Original Review:
This is a very, very long review. I'm not sure you're actually
that interested. Suffice it to say the story was bad, the lyrics were
bad, the music was good and the sets were eh except for one amazing
Peacock visual. There, I've summed up my entire review in one sentence,
but this is Phantom
and I like to elaborate. A lot. So here is my very detailed review, if you're so inclined.
So....
Love Never Dies.
Hm.
If you're unfamiliar with that title then you should know that this is the musical sequel to
The Phantom of the Opera.
Yes, the musical sequel. Composed by Webber himself. There was a
theatrical release of the stage show last Wednesday night in certain AMC
theatres and I would've never known about it if Will hadn't asked me
one night why I hadn't told him. (I had no idea they were doing this.
Why
would they be doing this?!) But I was thankful for the opportunity to
a) see it and b) not pay as much money as the theatre would require.
Since I knew what I was getting into. (Oo, foreshadowing.)
Also, this was my first musical sequel. Yay! Having these opportunities come around so rarely I was thrilled to snatch one up.
First off: technical issues. It didn't help that the show
was recorded badly. During the four or five large ensemble numbers,
they had failed to record the chorus correctly (at least that's what we
were told was wrong.) Therefore you essentially heard the faintest bit
of singing of the chorus in the background along with the orchestra and
then suddenly out of nowhere you'd hear the lead break in incredibly
loudly. It was most amusing in "Bathing Beauty" where Meg takes to
yelling out what kind of bathing suit she's wearing. So you'd hear:
"bathing beauty, on the beach, bathing beauty, wave hello---"
"STRIPES!!"
"what a cutie, what a peach, bathing beauty--"
"DOTS!!"
I'm not even joking. I assured Brad he really didn't want to hear that song anyway.
Though, the manager did come out (after Brad went and pointed out the
problem) and gave everyone free passes. So they did work to fix it, even
though it wasn't really their fault to begin with.
Yes, speaking of my friends, Brad & Regina actually came with me.
You know you're loved when you can convince your friends to come see (of all things)
Love Never Dies with you when they have - not only zero interest - but interest in the negatives. Thanks for being such good sports, guys. :)
So how does it rate up?
Sigh. Well. I guess it all depends on what context you put it in. Are you really looking at it as a sequel or as its own stand alone piece? Neither is good, but one is slightly better than the other. But since this is set out and marketed as a sequel, that's the context we're going with. (Also, while I can't really attach the two, I still have trouble considering it without the first.)
Look, when they first announced the Phantom sequel
for real I
laughed hysterically. I've heard for years that he was working on it,
but it seemed so ridiculous - and the book he was originally basing it on was so
ridiculous (
Phantom of Manhattan, by Fredrick Forsyth) - that
this whole thing has felt like a total joke. But I was also upset,
because the last thing I wanted them to do was ruin the original. So I saw no good coming out of this.
That being said though, guys - honestly - if they could have pulled this off I would love to be happy for them. If
Phantom
had been the first show to pull off the musical sequel successfully, I
think I would have loved that. So yes, I'm a Phan - and I'm even a
Phangirl to a solid extent - but I'm still working to make this is a pretty unbiased
review. That's my aim.
(If you want a track by track review, I recently came across
this one at a blog called Musical Cyberspace
that's pretty awesome. It refers to the original production. The
DVD/Theatrical Release is the new Australian production with a newcomer
named Ben Lewis as our Phantom.)
The....er... Better Than Expected?
Look, this show isn't good. But from the original reviews I read
that first preview night to what I saw tonight, I can tell you there
at least have been
some improvements. The biggest one lies with the ending - not that it really changes it
that much, I guess - but its something and I won't spoil it.
In the beginning, I remember Webber talking about how few times
he wanted to reference the original show musically speaking and I was
disappointed in that. When you attempt a
musical sequel you can't just abandon
the music
of the original. I'm kind of biased here, because I LOVE musical
references and music attached to characters and plot points, etc. In
terms of a musical, it can add so much more depth to the show and not
necessarily feel like a "oh, I had to see the first one to get this"
moment. So whether they were originally placed there or not, there are a
lot of them now and they do add a
lot to the show. They're not all great, but the majority of them are, and I was glad to see them there.
Speaking
of the music, Webber can still create great melodies (ooh! but he
steals! Puccini! blah blah, okay, whatever....). I actually
really love
the instrumentals of "Beneath the Moonless Sky" but the lyrics, oy.
Never mind. We'll get there. For the most part, the music is what it
should be when it should be: pretty, lush, or vaudeville.
Thankfully, the Phantom is not
completely emo. He
does actually threaten to kidnap Gustave (Christine's child) if she
doesn't sing. Obviously I'm not promoting kidnapping, but that is
something the original Phantom would have done. It's the only moment we
really see that menace, that control still there instead of this sobbing
teenager. Now -
again - this moment should never have to happen
because he had redemption and learned the lesson of love at the end of the original GAH this sequel is NOT VALID but
hey. It's the only moment in the show where he didn't feel like a
complete wimp. I wonder if this part was added in to the new production.
Actually, a few scenes after that he and Christine have this great
moment where he's all "no, you go now, I understand" and she's all "No,
I'll sing for you anyway" and it's actually kind of sweet and you can
see an actual friendship there. And it was great! But then IN THE VERY NEXT SCENE HE'S IN
he's
betting - yes, betting - Raoul that she'll sing and stay with him instead of leaving with Raoul.
Sheesh.
Do you see? Do you see you can't say anything good about this production without an exception tagged along with it?
And last but certainly not least.... The PEACOCK. During Christine's aria she's dressed in this costume that
perfectly compliments this gorgeous peacock background that makes such
an incredibly beautiful visual. Granted, you have no idea
why she's a giant peacock, because there is absolutely NO CONTEXT for it but it's still really, really pretty and you no longer care by this point.
The Bad
The scene I was actually looking forward to the most was "The Beauty
Underneath" which is when the Phantom takes Gustave down to
his....apartment/lair. When the first reviews started coming in preview
night I heard over and over again about how this scene is essentially
like an acid trip. Singing Medusa headed chandeliers, half human, half
ape figures pushing around a tray, etc. (Those are the only two
particulars I remember.) Well, they've changed that. Instead you now get
about six glass pillars filled with "freak" people (mermaids, long
fingernails, etc.) and some very random, weird and very disturbing all
skeleton human/horse figure prancing around in the middle of it all. (And
I do mean disturbing in a bad, bad way.)
Also, why at the beginning of the show mention that
Christine, Raoul & Gustave have two whole weeks to play in America?
Why? That never comes into play again. And I can't believe for a second
that these events play out over TWO WEEKS. It feels like three days.
Suddenly, it's "tomorrow night" you're singing the aria.
The lack of spectacle. This is Coney Island. Sure, there are a
few pops here and there of the acts and the people, but not really. This
show could have been set anywhere. Coney Island has no effect on the
story or, apparently, the set. Maybe its just because we're spoiled by
the lush sets & costumes of the original
Phantom, but except for the Peacock scene, something is distinctly lacking here. Especially with the inspiration they could have pulled from Coney Island during that time period.
The names. Phantasma? Mister Y? Really? You don't have anything more clever? Is that nitpicking? I can't tell anymore.
Couldn't we give Gustave some character? Some more lines
besides "It's so beautiful, it's so beautiful, so strange &
beautiful" and "Daddy, play with me"? It sure didn't feel like it. And
why does he have to be prophetic? Why can't he just be a (fairly) normal
kid? Why is he obsessed with the strange and dark at ten years old?
Kid, have you even seen strange and dark yet? Considering you're in the care of Raoul & Christine, I doubt it.
It is nice to see Raoul raise the question "Why Does She Love Me?" but its only nice because you've been wondering that same thing for the past hour and half. We have no idea why she loves Raoul anymore. They've thrown his character so far from the direction of his original that he has no redeeming qualities left. He yells at his son. He yells at his wife. He gambles and drinks their entire life savings away. And not once (until the end when its way too late) do we ever see any kind of tenderness towards any of them. Indeed, the choice has been made way too easy for Christine.
Also unfortunate is the trend towards younger Phantoms. I suppose
you could blame this towards the recent craze of Ramin Karmiloo, but I
really think it started back with the movie. The Phantom really, really
needs to be so much older than Christine. That is not played with here
at all. Yes, at two points his wig is knocked off and he looks older
than her. But most of the time....? He looks 20. And indeed, part of
that is because its a theatrical release and not the stage and you're
seeing it so up close. But it doesn't help the story at all.
The Ugly (Or: What Did Real Harm to the Production)
(Also, Major Spoilers. Well. Probably Ones You Could Guess Anyway, But Still. Spoilers.)
I knew we were in even deeper trouble when they still listed Fredrick Forsyth's name as a credit across the screen as the beginning. I can only assume for the inspirations from his book. Sigh.
The LYRICS.
Partially, that's an "in general" statement. I had already warned
Regina that the music was beautiful, but all that stopped whenever they
opened their mouths and words came out. That still holds true.
But its
especially true for the title song which was particularly awful. Look. Any time the Phantom's character writes a song it must be
fantastic. It
must be
the best. That's essential to his character, like his singing. And that worked great in
the original - "Point of No Return" was a perfect addition. And then
here you have.... "Love Never Dies." Musically speaking, it's not that
bad (although I'm already cringing at it on the relisten since I know what's coming.) Lyrically speaking?
Bang my head into a wall. It would be less painful at this point.
I mean, this is what you have to listen to:
"Love won't let you go once you've been possessed.
Love never dies, love never falters,
Once it has spoken, love is yours.
Love never fails, love never alters,
Hearts may get broken, love endures.
Hearts may get broken, love endures."
LOVELOVELOVELOVE. LOVE. TRUELOVE. WE GET IT. LOVE.
The STORY. Not only does
no one grow and
no one really develops, it is essentially the
exact same story & formula of
Phantom. Phantom wants to hear Christine sing. Manipulates her into coming. Raoul doesn't like this. Phantom takes a character down to his lair for the "Phantom of the Opera" moment.
Phantom's face is revealed to a character. Christine & Phantom have a
"Music of the Night" scene. No one knows if Christine will sing! WILL
SHE SING?! They even PREPARE THE ORCHESTRA. (You can practically hear it
in your head: "Door 1 Secure? Secured. Door 2? Secured!" or in
Love "Is the orchestra ready? Ready? Are the lights ready? Ready!)
Except this time - ha! - Raoul DOESN'T want her to sing. There's the
twist. Christine sings. They have a chase sequence. The Phantom is
emotionally ripped to shreds. The end.
Okay, so there's some fine line differences, but the formula is still pretty much the same.
And so is the story! What, we ultimately come down to "Will she sing?"
again!? We even include the bulk of "Twisted Every Way"
again?! The Phantom is still fighting with Raoul over who she'll go with? The Phantom is still wrapped up in how he looks? This whole thing feels so old! Didn't we do this already? Didn't we already learn these lessons??
And with the story goes the characters. Phantom is now pining after Christine....again.
Except I guess the big twist to this story is that he's more human than
mysterious figure which is....lame. Okay, it could be cool, but instead
of continuing his character arc from the last show it feels like we've
just started all over. Reboot. We didn't like the way the last one
ended. We must start over.
Brad mentioned he would like to see Gustave not be the Phantom's kid
(but still exist as Raoul's & Christine's) and have the Phantom step
in as a Godfather/mentor role to Gustave in a way he never could be
with Christine. Thus continuing his growth and paving the way for
Christine & Raoul to forgive the Phantom. I thought that was
interesting.
But I have never
ever gotten behind the idea that the
Phantom and Christine have a kid. Ever. Not in any iteration has it ever
made sense in my brain and even less so in this one.
In the original London production of
Love there is at least a
lyric that says "Oh Christine, My Christine, in that time when the world
thought me dead/ my Christine, on that night just before you were wed/
ah Christine you came and found where I hid....."
That particular lyric about
when they came back together is removed from the Australian production. And I don't think I just missed it because Brad and Regina didn't catch it either, and I was waiting for it.
So. Without that lyric your only option for fitting this story together is to believe it happened during "Music of the Night."
Which is ridiculous. Look, I've heard several people comment - years
before the sequel - that that song symbolizes that they have had sex.
But I've never been able to get behind that. For
one, it should've been mentioned
somewhere. For
another,
by the time the Phantom actually gets Christine in his hands he seems
so bewildered with what to do with her. There's this control during
"Music of the Night," but once she passes out from the mannequin its
always played as such a tender scene where he picks her up and places
her gently on the bed. And then goes back to composing.
Right? Did I forget something?
Not to mention, in the original
Phantom "Final Lair" they have this exchange:
Christine: "Am I now to be prey to your lust for flesh?"
Phantom: "That fate which condemns me to wallow in blood has also denied me the joys of the flesh..."
Obviously nothing has happened yet. Otherwise that conversation is void.
Relistening to the "Final Lair" now makes my head spin in context of the sequel.
Phantom, how did you fall so far?
And Christine - who has just escaped with her life and the life of the one she loves - just....goes back to him? They have a
kid?
Raoul becomes a drunkard and gambles away all their money?
I don't know what's going on anymore!
The Phantom and Christine have an entire ten minute segment - two songs long
back to back - where they just relay exposition about the past? "Once Upon Another Time" should be cut. No questions.
(There is way too much reliance on exposition in the entire show. Very little feels natural.)
Also, someone dies. And it feels like one of the longest death
scenes in musical theatre history. Not only do they attempt to get up
and move, but they have TWO reprises. TWO. I can actually remember
listening to the cd and thinking "Sheesh, they haven't died
yet?"
I've heard this production referred to as "Paint Never Dries" quite
often, but during that last death scene all I could think of was
"Schmaltz Never Dies." It popped unbidden to my head. It was not a
deliberate "I have to come up with a mean parody!" slam. They just
wouldn't DIE.
Oy. The whole ending is just out of nowhere.
Is some of this plausible? Is it plausible at all? Sure, I
guess. I guess I could see Mme. Giry & Meg smuggling the Phantom
out of London and working for him. I guess I could see Meg trying to
gain his affection....? I guess I could see Raoul becoming jealous of
Christine's success and letting it go to his head and affect his
choices....? I guess? If all that fell into place this story could
happen? Even though it goes against almost all their character types?
Which brings me to this:
The Final Say:
This is where my major problem with this production comes in:
This production should have never happened.
"Oh, Sherri, you just didn't want a sequel...."
That's true. But mostly, I just didn't want THIS sequel.
The end of the original
Phantom leaves our characters forever
changed we think. The Phantom - for the first time in his life - has
had someone accept him despite his looks, despite what he's done to her
and those she loves. Christine understands who he is, where he's coming from and still kisses him. And it
obviously deeply affects him - despite his obsession he not only sends
her away, but sends Raoul with her,
provides the boat and then disappears himself.
Christine - for the first time ever - has developed her own sense of
character. For the very first time, no one tells her what to do here. In
fact, Raoul is shocked and repulsed she did. Of her own volition though she makes the
choice, one no on else here would make, and kisses him. But it's not out
of romantic love. It's because she finally sees the "pitiful creature
of darkness, what kind of life have you known? God give me courage to
show you you are not alone...."
The obvious changes in both characters are so beautiful!
The Phantom has had someone finally get past his looks, past his deeds.
Christine has moved past her sense of uncertainty, fear and naivete.
He gives her up. And the kiss is one of the great acting moments in the show for the Phantom. I love to watch how each one plays it.
And then.....nothing changes. We go back to the same story. All
of this has been null & void. The Phantom goes back to longing for
Christine. He still is wrapped up in his physical appearance. He still
wants to hear her sing. Christine is back to being a mousy character.
Does what people tell her to. Somewhere in there we're supposed to
believe she seeks him out and has his kid in total secrecy. Whatever.
This musical doesn't make sense. When you play it back to back with the
original the absolute absurdity of the character arcs really blast
through. You lose Christine's purity which makes her whole character
fall apart. You lose the Phantoms.....well,
entire character.
This musical should've never happened because your characters would have never taken this path to begin with.
Webber made comments on early in
Phantom's history that he never understood why the piece was so successful and that he thought it was a "hokum." Those comments have never rang out so loud as they do here where it is
obvious he has no idea why the first one succeeded.
Overall, it's about what I expected, but its still
frustrating to hear the creative team discuss how proud they are of this
piece and how great they feel to have it forever sealed on film. I'm
not saying there's not potential here for a decent show - because there
is if you gut it and reconsider it enough - but it's certainly not there
yet.
