IS LOVE NEVER DIES COMING TO BROADWAY?????- Page 3

[Cuneas]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 11:20am

Sue me...it's how I write on my own site. If the Forums didn't want people to make posts that long, they'd have a tighter word count limit.

Although, granted, that's a pretty adorable cat, so props there, I guess.

Updated On: 9/24/14 at 11:20 AM

[Justin D]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 12:14pm

All creative people need others to rein in their ideas.

I always maintain that if Cam Mac and Hal Prince were not involved with Phantom, it never would have lasted this long. The finished product would probably have been a camp fest like the 2004 movie and probably only have run for a few years.

What Webber needs to do is surround himself with that caliber of persons for any other shows he does and relinquish all production/creative control outside of the score.

[Cuneas]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 4:35pm

I'll grant you that most artists could do with a few checks and balances (John Kander even talked about that function in a songwriting collaborator in "I Miss the Music), but do you have any reason whatsoever to believe that Webber is not the one responsible for his successes other than your personal desire to have an excuse to denigrate him? You seem to be basing this judgment on what you _want_ to think, not on any kind of actual evidence.

As I stated, Webber has had flops, but until extremely late in his career, they were generally the kind of flops that happen to everyone. Hell, let's use his longtime perceived rival (and the unquestioned darling of the theater snob set) Stephen Sondheim as a comparison. Aspects of Love and Whistle Down the Wind are shows with interesting concepts and ideas behind them, that despite an abundance of good music, ended up not playing effectively on stage. How is that any different from the Sondheim flops like Anyone Can Whistle or the original version of Merrily We Roll Along? And as stated, The Beautiful Game was a very daring and honest piece that failed mostly due to audience expectations, something Sondheim has encountered repeatedly with such artistically successful but commercially unviable shows as Pacific Overtures (and the fact that Webber even did a show like that kills a lot of theater snobs' pet myths about him right there). And Webber's stubborn refusal to give up on the disastrous Jeeves musical could be likened to Sondheim spending two decades trying to perfect his own worst show, the endlessly-retitled 'Wise Guys/Gold/Bounce/Road Show' franchise. And given that Sondheim has flatly refused to work alone at any point in his career, it's pretty much impossible to say how much of his perceived good judgment was the result of other people's advice. Does that make _him_ some self-evident fraud piggy-backing on the talent of others? If not, then it really doesn't make a convincing case that Webber is, either.

And as for the particular example you sited, the 'creative control' on the Phantom movie was largely held by a notoriously untalented Hollywood hack, so it would seem a bit more plausible to blame _him_ for how it turned out than Webber.

[Justin D]

Posted: 9/25/14 at 11:19am

True, I do also blame Shumacher, but Webber has praised alot of his ideas when you watch behind the scenes footage. But then again, look at the first Superstar Movie, many years later Webber came out and said how he hated the direction that movie went, maybe in 10 more years he might come out and say the same about phantom (although to be honest I do believe hearing him sort of distancing himself from the phantom movie in an interview)
I just think he should stick to picking the show idea and writing the music and leave the physical producing to someone else. Which is sort of why the Aussie LND was a bit better than the London version.
As an artist I know better than most that it is hard to resist the urge to tinker with what you have made, it is also just as hard to know when to stop tinkering and to know what needs changing and what does not, and having honest people around does help. Sometimes I just get the feeling that he might have too many yes men around thats all.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/25/14 at 1:28pm

The Beautiful Game was a very daring and honest piece that failed mostly due to audience expectations

I saw it and enjoyed it, but the show was not without its problems, none of which had to do with expectations. The score had several high moments, but its lows were massive pitfalls, some in part to the music, some in part to the lyrics, and a couple in part to both simultaneously. And the sole book of a musical by Ben Elton that wasn't a complete disaster was interesting enough based on our familiarity with Romeo and Juliet adaptations. The staging and choreography were quite creative and unique and THAT was probably the main source of audience expectations because it wasn't a huge spectacle.

Aspects of Love and Whistle Down the Wind are shows with interesting concepts and ideas behind them, that despite an abundance of good music, ended up not playing effectively on stage.

I think Aspects of Love is genius and the US tour of the Toronto minimalist production was brilliant. I saw the original West End production of Whistle Down the Wind and it has some thrilling moments. I felt like there was potential for a hit show in there somewhere, but it was saddled with many terrible lyrics and erroneous scenes/ballads/reprises that slowed down or stopped the action of the show. Too often, watching it felt like sitting in a broken bumper car as you hoped to be jolted back into movement again. The book was nowhere near as deadly as Love Never Dies (also saw that West End production), but the story never felt as intriguing or engaging as many of Webber's previous works. Between the moments of exciting spectacle, it had a lot of dead air. And Unsettled Scores is probably Webber's most bizarre and hackneyed showpiece ballad to date. The music sounds like 2-3 songs Frankensteined together and then layered with boring and trite lyrics consisting mostly of a laundry list. I couldn't help but giggle when I first heard it in the theatre (and especially that hilarious reprise) and I doubt that was the intended response. The show stands out to me as a dazzling disappointment.

Never got to see Woman in White and I love the music, but again, TERRIBLE lyrics (this from the genius that gave us the witty City of Angels and Hercules?) and what I saw of the set looked like a poorly executed ground-breaking idea. With a new design and hefty lyric revisions, I feel like it truly has the most potential to be something special.

Stephen Ward...ugh. I've only heard the score and I'm wondering...did anyone like it?

[Cuneas]

Posted: 9/27/14 at 12:37am

I'll grant you that about half of The Beautiful Game's score was pretty terrible, but I still think a major cause of its failure was that it wasn't what audience expected from an Andrew Lloyd-Webber show. I discuss the issue on my own site here: http://www.knightsofbroadway.com/2003-2004-season/ (it's near the bottom of the page, if that helps).

I also discuss the reason for Whistle Down the Wind's failure here: http://www.knightsofbroadway.com/2007-2008-season/ (Again, near the bottom).
To summarize, I actually agree with your observation about the show being buried by a surfeit of music, but I completely disagree about "Unsettled Scores". It's an absolutely brilliant song, albeit in a very Jim Steinman way, so I suppose I could write off your failure to appreciate it to your being unused to Steinman's style. That's the only reason I can imagine anyone would fail to appreciate that lyric.

But I thought The Woman In White was, particularly in terms of music, the least interesting thing Webber had ever done. I discuss _that_ phenomenon here: http://www.knightsofbroadway.com/2005-2006/ (It's the fifth entry from the top.)
Updated On: 9/27/14 at 12:37 AM

[AHLiebross]

Posted: 9/27/14 at 4:18am

LND has some beautiful music in it. One critic (I've forgotten whom) loved ALW's use of waltzes. "Till I Hear You Sing" is a lovely song, and pales only in comparison to the song it emulates, "Music of the Night."

The book, based on Frederick Forsyth's sequel, "The Phantom of Manhattan," does not make much sense, in my opinion. Although POTO's stage version does not set out Madame Giry as a mother figure to Christine, there is no hostility between them. Also, Raoul never showed signs of being a cad -- only of being overbearing. I think the gambling addiction that caused him to lose his fortune was simply too much -- merely making him an alcoholic would have sufficed.

The time line is as garbled as the one in "The Pirates of Penzance;" Gustave's age is definitely messed up -- he should have been about 9 and 1/2 years old, and not 10. However, I did not interpret "Beneath the Moonless Sky" as taking place the night before Christine's and Raoul's wedding. A few weeks could still have been "just before" and would have provided Christine with the ability to figure out which of the two men was the father.

I don't see Christine's decision to find the Phantom and consummate their relationship to be unrealistic. I've seen the 2004 movie countless times, and the stage musical, I think, nine times. This last time, I realized that Raoul expresses his love for Christine, but she never tells Raoul she loves him. The way Norm Lewis and Sierra Boggess (and Norm Lewis and Mary Michael Patterson) play their roles, Christine makes clear how attracted she is to the Phantom. A liaison would therefore have been possible.

I agree that implying that the Phantom raped Christine in the final lair scene would sound the death knell for the show because rape is an unacceptable act for a character with whom the audience is supposed to sympathize. OTOH, consummating the relationship after MOTN would have made sense, except that the stage version says that six months elapsed from Christine's debut to the New Years Eve gala, and a few months would have been necessary to rehearse the Phantom's opera. As a result, a later assignation was the only way to move the story forward.

Here's how I think LND would have made more sense: Raoul, an alcoholic or a wonderful husband who is jealous of the Phantom (either would work), deep down is suspicious that Gustave isn't his. That would explain his hostility to the child. There was no need for Meg, who was already in love with the Phantom at the end of POTO, to have worked to raise money. Instead, the Phantom would probably have had funds secreted all over the world. Rather than have Meg go nuts, her mother could go nuts and decide to kill Christine. Meg can rush forward to save her and wrestle with Mme Giry for the gun, which goes off and kills the Phantom instead of the character who is killed. In my version, Christine would cradle the Phantom as he dies, but when Raoul walks in, she gets up and runs to Raoul. They walk out with Gustave, with Christine looking back. Meg would then hold the Phantom's head in her lap, take off his mask, and kiss him. The show would end with Meg holding the mask on stage with the dead Phantom, and she could sing "It's over now, the Music of the Night," followed by the orchestra's playing the same few notes that end POTO. That would draw a parallel between the ending of the two shows.

All of this is, of course, wishful thinking -- ALW gets the chance to end the show his way, and I have to be content to write "phanphic." At least, in the phanphic world, I get to create a happy ending.