Schmaltz Never Dies: The Phantom Sequel Review (Edited)

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.