The Lord of the Rings Retrospective

[ChewingTheScenery]

Posted: 7/30/12 at 10:17am

Hello,

I've written quite a long blog piece looking back at at the Lord of the Rings stage show and asking 'What Went Wrong?' as the first in a new series of articles.

You can find it here; http://bit.ly/NDLcDm

Many thanks,

- Harry Zing

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/30/12 at 11:42am

Very interesting read. I understand your issues about the book, but as a non-fan of Lord of the Rings (didn't like the books or the films) dragged to this show the same day I arrived in London from Chicago, it was the first time I ever actually enjoyed the story and found it the easiest adaptation to follow.

It's still the most amazing spectacle I've ever seen and the first act finale is the greatest effect I've ever seen occurring on any stage. In fact, the only gripe I had about the show involved the battle scenes. Poorly choreographed and executed fight scenes against a backdrop of cheesy projections. Had those been tightened and restaged, I think the show could have been dropped into the Ford/Hilton/Foxwoods on Broadway and yielded its first hit. Such a missed opportunity.

Love the score and listen to it often. The music is gorgeous (and I too would have liked more of it) and the Cat and the Moon number was a rousing highlight. My only regret was not seeing the show again while I still had the chance.

[ErinDillyFan]

Posted: 7/30/12 at 12:35pm

Mister Matt: It was not originally in Chicago, but in Toronto.

I saw it in Toronto at the next to last performance there. I too found it the most amazing staging I have ever seen. The set actually became an actor in the show, with so much movement. At over 4 hrs with 2 intermissions, I think most people found it too long. However, for diehard LOTR fans, the story was edited too much, the movies are over 8 without songs. I have read the books (although 30 yrs ago), but my wife found the story hard to follow without knowing the story ahead of time. The music is nice, but with 11 songs in 4 hrs, seemed sparse.

[beltingbaritone]

Posted: 7/30/12 at 12:41pm

ErinDillyFan, I think Mister Matt meant HE was coming from Chicago to London the night he saw this. Or at least that's how I read it. :P

I'd be curious to know what Act I Finale consisted of that made it such a spectacle, if anyone wouldn't mind sharing.

[MusicMan93]

Posted: 7/30/12 at 12:49pm

Thank you Harry for writing this. As someone who never saw the production, only the montage clips I would watch over and over, I always wondered what the real problems were with it. I felt like there were only ever two different opinions from critics and theater goers.

One: It was the worst show for "obvious" (but never explained) reasons.
Two: it was the best show ever and everyone should to see it!

It was nice to finally read something that covered everything and gave a very balanced and well thought opinion. Here's hoping it gets that unlikely DVD release.

[ErinDillyFan]

Posted: 7/30/12 at 12:57pm

I think I did misread his comment.

I don't remember the Act 1 Finale specifically. The finale is amazing. With fight on the top of the vulcano, cut with two other scenes. The hydrolic set could move so fast that the lights would go out and comeback on in a blink of an eye it it would be different. Like a movie cut. There were some amazing uses of the stage. When they were climbing around the mountain, the stage would sprial up and the actors staged in the same postion except got higher as the set moved past them. Then, a door opened and they went inside the mountain, then with a few lighting changes they went from a whiteout blizzard on the side of a mountain, to dark cliffs and narrow walkways and drop-offs where you could not see the floor of huge segments of the stage.

There were so many jaw dropping effects during this show it is hard to remember most of them 5 yrs later after only one viewing. Updated On: 7/30/12 at 12:57 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/30/12 at 2:26pm

ErinDillyFan, I think Mister Matt meant HE was coming from Chicago to London the night he saw this.

That is correct. Not always a smart move to see a show the night you fly overseas, but Lord of the Rings actually helped me overcome the jetlag. Luckily, the show was not nearly as long as the Toronto production, which was my greatest fear walking into it.

I'd be curious to know what Act I Finale consisted of that made it such a spectacle, if anyone wouldn't mind sharing.

I'll try my best, but it's sort of hard to describe without gesticulating wildly:

The first act ended with the confrontation of Gandalf and Balrog. Balrog was an impressive and enormous puppet upstage with Gandalf somewhat downstage center. During this standoff, some fog is piped in onstage and wind begins to blow. Paper bits are released as the maelstrom picks up with an incredible fury, looking like leaves and twigs being blown about the massive stage area. Then suddenly, aided by the clever visual cues created by the fog and debris, you can actually see the storm slowly pushing through the proscenium (this was the point where my mind was trying to process what I was actually seeing) and ultimately exploding out into the house with the wind and debris whirling over the heads of the audience. When the house lights come up for intermission, the paper debris is slowly fluttering down into the orchestra seating. I was absolutely glued to my chair with my mouth hanging open.

Whereas previously, Lord of the Rings seemed so drawn out and slow, I was either falling asleep or begging for it to be over (especially in the 2nd and 3rd films), I didn't want this production to end.

There were so many jaw dropping effects during this show it is hard to remember most of them 5 yrs later after only one viewing.

Agreed, which is why I wish I had seen it again. With the promo clips I've seen of the London production, I often wondered if the entire show was filmed professionally. If so, I think it could have a profitable DVD release.

[metropolis10111]

Posted: 7/30/12 at 2:48pm

I actually flew from Chicago to London as well just to see this show. There was a documentary on the local PBS station about it and by chance the day I watched that the CD came out. I fell in love with the score and it is still a very often listened to disk. The show itself was a bit of a mixed bag with some of the most amazing stage craft I had ever seen and some things that just left me cold. The score is what really drove the show for me and I so wish that there was more of it. Going back over the show in the book and program there really is not much musically cut from the recording but I still wish there was more. The stage was beyond anything I had ever seen and while needed for the story I think that the show could be served better by making it a bit longer, adding more to the score and presenting it as a concert piece.

[JeanGudio]

Posted: 7/30/12 at 7:18pm

what is the point of this article ? I do not see any purpose of writing anything about a musical that is dead and buried . Its cruel and un called for to write something so negative about a show that is no longer running.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/30/12 at 7:57pm

Then don't read the thread on Bring Back Birdie. Or Ken Mandelbaum's Not Since Carrie.

what is the point of this article ?

Speculation and analysis. The title of the article and the first paragraph pretty much spell it out.

Its cruel and un called for to write something so negative about a show that is no longer running.

It's neither cruel nor uncalled for. Notorious flops will always be discussed and critiqued. Whether published by critics or discussed on message boards. Analysis of what didn't work can be as valuable, or more, than pointing out what did work. And he was pretty fair about discussing what he admired about the production as well. It's not a bitchy snarkfest or anything. There didn't seem to be any hint of malice. The autho wanted to analyze "what went wrong" and does a rather fair job at speculating the answer using his own opinion.

[JeanGudio]

Posted: 7/30/12 at 8:07pm

but why now ? the musical is done and dusted I also think it was a work of art the musical that is
I read it quickly and thought it bad and uncalled for

Updated On: 7/30/12 at 08:07 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/30/12 at 10:49pm

but why now ?

Because he was thinking about it? Honestly, it doesn't matter if it was now, the day after it closed, or 25 years from now. There's no expiration date for discussing a show that's closed. If there were, most theatre academics would be out of jobs. And we'd lose most of the Broadway community. It's not uncalled for to voice an opinion, especially one that is exploring critical thinking.

If you think shows that closed shouldn't be discussed, then we'd have to include all the positive comments. Why now, right? Or do you believe nobody should ever say why they disliked a show if it closed? It doesn't make sense.

Shows that closed at a major financial loss will ALWAYS be discussed and opinions that differ from yours will always be expressed. Welcome to planet Earth. Hope you enjoy your stay.

[JeanGudio]

Posted: 7/30/12 at 11:22pm

it was a cruel assessment

[MusicMan93]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 3:30am

@JeanGuido
Cruel? You thought THAT was cruel!? Check out this review, http://theater.nytimes.com/2006/03/24/theater/reviews/24ring.html?pagewanted=all , but be warned. You migh find ithis appalling!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 9:03am

it was a cruel assessment

No, it wasn't. But you should meet bryan. I think you two would be perfect for each other.