Good word of mouth for Love Never Dies in Melbourne- Page 2

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 2:15am

The set actually looks really cheap to me in that video. And is that Cameron Mackintosh or just some guy that looks like him? Why is he there?

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 2:50am

Also next weeks Sunday paper has a free combo CD of Phantom and Love Never Dies ( Australian Cast ) pm me if you would like a digital copy.

[The Scorpion]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 4:38am

I am glad that they have apparently restored the Phantom's menace and trickery (despite this undoing the original's final scene), and the set does look better than in London, but to me what saddens me is that, from all the press coverage, it looks like the solution to this mess was not to give the appalling book a complete overhaul, but to mask an insubstantial, superficial show with some bright lights and moving set pieces. In that way, ALW has become a parody of himself, giving his long-time detractors justification in their exaggerated claims (previously I never felt as though I was "humming the scenery"), and I find this tragic.

[Schatten]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 6:13am

REVIEW: 21 MAY 2011
Love Never Dies
Regent Theatre - Melbourne

I didn’t entirely know what to expect from Love Never Dies in Melbourne. Although I have not seen the London production, it appears to have a relatively simple set construction in comparison to the Melbourne production which seems to be deliberately elaborate. In every sense of the word, this production is large and colourful. If it was in New York, it’d be called a ‘big Broadway spectacular’. The first thing that strikes you as you walk into the Regent Theatre auditorium is the set that will not allow itself to be confined to the stage. The set spills from the stage and is made to look like roller coaster tracks with turrets and a bridge which can ascend and descend over the stage. This allows the actors to traverse from one side of the stage to the other creating multi level gangways. The set utilizes a revolving stage which allows set pieces to be changed out of view for a quick and easy transition. All set pieces look immaculate, and cover the entire stage without feeling overwhelming. The Coney Island scenes are deliberately gaudy and the use of sections of the rollercoaster track can be rearranged to form ramps, bridges, and can allow the Phantom to perch himself on high to observe some of the proceedings. Focus is maintained on the macabre and the set flows and adapts organically and smoothly as if this show had been running for much longer. Christine’s dressing room and the bar are both large set pieces and are in keeping the décor of the era. The Phantom walks through walls, makes use of two way mirrors and generally tries to pop out of nowhere unexpectedly. This is certainly a strength of the Australian LND construction which attempts to restore some magical elements to the Phantom.

The costumes are, once again, dazzling. The Phantom retains a similar look to his POTO incarnation, but with a slight update on the fashion to reflect the period. Christine, however, gets all the significant costumes and due care is paid to ensure she appears dignified and elegant at all times. Christine always retains a sense of delicate femininity which is highlighted by ensuring her costumes compliment her figure, reveal the right amount of skin (e.g. neckline and forearms) and that her Sarah Brightman hair sits immaculately in each and every scene. ‘Til I Hear You Sing’ was the highlight for me: The Phantom, hunched over his organ on a levitating platform (which rises after the climax so the Phantom can observe the Coney Island freaks beneath him). Above the organ hangs a portrait of Christine in her POTO garb that begins to move and look longingly at the Phantom half way into the number before resuming its original position. The portrait is a wonderful addition as it looks very convincing as a painting and effectively communicates the sense of unrequited and overly romanticised love and longing. This probably works better than the automaton.

Ben Lewis’s performance as the Phantom was good. He has a commanding and beautiful voice but, perhaps, lacks the power to intimidate and command the attention of every audience member. He is a more reserved Phantom and does not possess the ‘force of nature’ component of his POTO predecessor. To be fair, I think this is the way the role is written rather than anything else. Anna O’Byrne does well within the confines of her role also. Her heavenly voice is hypnotic and she delivers the title tune with a great deal of regret, shame, desire and acceptance. As always, Sharon Millerchip gives a great performance but I was left feeling that the role of Meg was far too restrictive for someone with such talent, and such an accomplished musical theatre performer. Simon Gleeson also did all he could within the confines of Raoul but I felt he was delegated to the sidelines for most of the show. The orchestra performed the sweeping melodies with gusto and produced a full bodied sound which was emotive and a joy to hear.

With all these wonderful positive attributes you would have thought that I thoroughly enjoyed this production. Unfortunately I did not. The biggest and most fundamental weakness of the production, for me, was its story. I would even go so far as to say there wasn’t really a substantial story there. I felt as if the plot was a continuation of a soap opera. I was also confused as the characters from the Phantom of the Opera were completely unrecognisable in Love Never Dies. Madame Giry behaved in a subservient manner, without the inner strength, stiff upper lip, and wisdom she possessed in the original. Meg went from the corps de ballet to a lowly sideshow performer in the States. Hardly an increase in her social position, not to mention her rapport with Christine having been whittled away to practically nothing. I couldn’t associate the Meg in POTO with Meg in LND at all. Raoul’s predicament delivered no explanation; he drinks and gambles but why? What is he trying to escape from? The trauma he endured in the Phantom of the Opera? The after effects of the original Phantom were never explored in this show and I feel this was a lost opportunity.

The Phantom himself is no longer the psychologically and physically scarred murderer we all know him to be. He has become almost the family man, at the mercy of Christine’s affections. He is subservient to her and lacks his skewed, obsessive determination and infantile emotional outbursts. He is relatively well adjusted in comparison. Without the Opera, without the Phantom's murderous mystery and intrigue, the character becomes a man in a mask with little gravitas.

Christine’s behaviour is perhaps the most questionable. Returning to sleep with the Phantom at some point in the past makes very little sense and depicts Christine as a woman of loose morals for her time and without concern for the emotional impact her behaviour would have on others (e.g. Raoul). Raoul having raised Gustave as his own, without being fully aware it wasn’t his child is not only cruel, it reduces any empathy for Christine who is, in my view, callous. Having flawed characters is not a criticism, but I didn’t feel the show acknowledged the existence of these flaws at all. I would also have thought that Christine would be far more protective of Gustave being in the Phantom’s company but she appeared to lack that maternal instinct.

The story did not delve into any deep themes and rolled along, telling its story superficially. Themes of betrayal, trust, obsession, lust, desire, maternity, and psychological trauma were never explored. Was it intentional for this show to keep events solely on the surface?

For me, this production looked and sounded like a success. It was a lavish visual feast as its sets were constructed ingeniously and its costumes were enchanting. It all worked together so well. Yet this show emphasised to me that without a coherent and powerful plot, everything else becomes window dressing. It was the story itself which undermined Love Never Dies, lacking real dramatic tension. In my mind this let down an amazing amount of hard work on the part of the Australian team to make this production look and sound world class. I don’t think this show could ever look better than its current incarnation. For those who really love LND, a visit to Melbourne may well be worth it and it’s a pity that the London version doesn’t seem to be anywhere near as elaborate and complex as this production.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 6:51am

They didn't make any changes to the script or score? For some reason I was under the impression that they were changing more than just the sets and costumes.

[Schatten]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 7:18am

I'm sure they have changed some details, I don't know the London production intimately so can't really comment.

There was certainly quite a few Phantom of the Opera motifs in LND in Melbourne (Music of the Night, Phantom of the Opera, Angel of Music etc.) which surprised me.

I was aware of a few lyrical changes from the cast recording but I don't know if they were implemented in the London production previously. Updated On: 5/22/11 at 07:18 AM

[ClapYo'Hands]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 7:29am

There were a lot of lyric changes added to the London production when it closed for four days last October. Charles Hart (original Phantom lyricist) added new lyrics to just about every song in the show (sometimes only word, sometimes complete revamp).

I do think they went a BIT far though. I didn't think the lyrical changes in "'Til I Hear You Sing" were necessary and wasn't a fan of "The Coney Island Waltz" lyrics by Hart.

At the same time last October, more music from The Phantom of the Opera was added to the score (to the extent that LND now opens with the last 5 chords of POTO - genius!) but "The Music of the Night" was definitely not one of those additions. Maybe the score HAS been further revised for the Australian production and even MORE music from Phantom has been added. Either way, I'd love to hear the new production.