Dance of the Vampires

[DancerGirl16]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 11:02am

Any fans? Because I LOVE IT! The choreography in that show was outstanding!!!!

[JakeB]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 11:11am

Erm.. was it?

[Jimmcf]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 11:22am

I love it too...but for the memory of Michael Crawford brandishing a penis shaped spounge while wearing ruffles.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 11:23am

he did that on stage too?

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 12:32pm

I'm sorry I missed this one...wasn't it only around for like 2 or 3 months? I will probably go see it in the lincoln center library one day...it sounds like it was so bad, which actually made it enjoyable! too bad there is no cast recording...

[Loge]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 3:25pm

I am a huge fan of the original Vienna version, which was dark, powerful, beautiful, and had the comedy placed with the right characters. I.e. - not Krolock.

In Vienna, Krolock was a tragically beautiful character, who was able to rip your heart out when he sang "Endless Appetite" because it fit perfectly into the story. On Broadway, how could one possibly take this number seriously when the new Krolock was such a baffon. That, and the fact that the audience started laughing during "Total Eclipses", which isn't meant to be funny, tells you right there what a mess it was on Broadway.

The score is wonderful, and it's too bad it wasn't recorded.

I have a complete bootleg from Broadway (both CD and DVD) and it's a mess. I do like the music though, but it didn't know when to be funny or serious.

I am still praying that an English version of the original version (with a few tweeks) will appear. I'm not holding my breath though. The whole thing was first written in English, so Steinman could write the score (he doesn't speak/read German), then Kunze translated it to German.

Don't know why they had to change it for Bdway.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 3:37pm

script

[Loge]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 7:26pm

I will hire you! Not.

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 9:04pm

Dance of the Vampires 2nd Year Anniversary

It's coming up, people. I know how much we dread it, but I think we can really
discuss it this time. Sondheim's Anyone Can Whistle has a band of flop-fans,
people who attended the original opening night who meet every year since 1964
(40th anniversary*). I think, this being the 2nd anniversary, we can have a
short forum about the development of this spectacular disaster. We should
delete it if it gets too far. I don't think, me, personally, have ever been
given a full essential account of things. I'm very confused about the English
development of the show. Our only account, one that goes into particular detail,
is Smeghead's biased comment at Realm of Dreams. I've never thought, despite
his performance, that Michael Crawford was completely to blame. I hope the
Sonenberg mafia don't track me down for this (but I hope Meat Loaf reads this:
He may sincerely enjoy it). Anyway. Let's discuss. This has been my take:

OK. Tanz der Vampire has swept the Euro awards with six nominations and wins
for various concept and design. Since 1998, after the Vienna premiere, producer
Rudi Klausnitzer discussed a Broadway premiere for that Autumn. It got delayed
because of Polanski's involvement. Early on in the production it was said that
producers were trying to get Polanski into America to direct the Broadway version,
though that would've been bogus. I realize this is controversial, but how on
earth could somebody expect to get Roman into the United States - dredging up
an old sensitive issue - for one simple, non-naturalist expensive Broadway
musical? That's like reviving Walt Disney to produce a sequel for Snow White
(and we *KNOW* he wouldn't go for it). So, what was the deal? Why on earth, or
in heaven's name, did they think they could get away with getting Polanski
back into the U.S. to direct Dance of the Vampires??? If he had of succeeded,
only minor, it would've been a major controversy - and spark for debate. I
don't say this to upset or spite Polanski, but that is the fact of things.
Look at the Academy Awards. Half of the room were in hysterics, and the other
half were really pissed off - refusing to stand up. It was a major controversy.
Even after that, how would critics have reacted if he DID turn up to the Minskoff
to direct DOTV? They would've had a field-day (even if the show was in its
proper and original incarnation). So that's the first phase of the show, right?
1998 and 1999 were spent on trying to get Polanski into the U.S.? When Rudi and
others realized that wasn't going to happen, and after the constant delays,
and losing theatres (like hot-cakes), they put their feet down and said they'd
'better get on with it' and find someone else. But who??

I still want to know where Barry Keating fits into all this. He would've done a
fine job directing it, because he would've given life to - and improved - the
Neverland-version Jim had composed. He would've made that into an excellent show.
Despite our personal differences, I always thought he did great work with Jim.
But how did he fit into the D.O.T.V. chronicles?? I'm going to assume that he
was the alternate director, listed after Polanski, and that when he couldn't
do it Steinman agreed to produce Starmites 2001 as a concession (and write a
Broadway revival of Rhinegold known as VALHALLA)! After a short recession, the
directors for Dance of the Vampires were announced: Jim Steinman (himself),
which would have been an interesting role, and John Caird (my beloved Captain
of Song and Dance, ah!). They would've made a perfect team. Caird has always
been profoundly practical and philosophical about his work - I liked how he
handled the dramaturgy for Les Mis - and Steinman, well, he's a genius. But
Caird couldn't get to New York. He was stranded in London with some other
commitments. I think, the producer DAVID SONENBERG, said there were 'myriad
logistical delays'. And this gets us to the next phase. How did Klausnitzer
negotiate the involvement with Sonenberg? And when did 'Tanz der Vampire'
start becoming 'Dance of the Vampires'? My theory is Sonenberg himself. He
wanted to succeed on Broadway, after wonderous credits in Hollywood - and
as a typical business-man wanted to go with the 'formula' (Producers, etc.)
So he was the one who probably encouraged Steinman to write in 'bankable'
American humour, American morals, and cut out the German 'God-is-dead'
philosophy by Kunze, which (incidentally) 'may have scared the crap out of
Americans' which I think is a total crock of bull. If they don't like the
show, tough ****. They shouldn't see it. Tough **** indeed. Tough ****!

So I blame Sonenberg, more than Crawford, for imposing the idea of making
it more American. He was also the man who executed the deal of Jim working
with Warner Bros on Batman (to my knowledge). I never had a good feeling
about the guy. Never. But Caird and Steinman assembled a very interesting
alternate draft for Tanz der Vampire. This was instigated by Sonenberg,
and wound up being the one 'read' at Chelsea Studios? It was still very
satisfactory, a wonderous philosophical alternate - and a beautiful insight
to Jim's current idiom and feelings of age. The reading starred Steve Barton
(the original Count), William Youmans, Max Von Essen, Sarah Uriarte Berry,
Tom Alan Robbins, Kate Shindle, Bertilla Baker, Jason Wooten and Ken Jennings.
Steve Barton reprised his English role for the D.O.T.V. demos, later integral
sources for the American producers. The work seemed to be developing, getting
closer and closer to a Broadway production, but there's a very black period
which I haven't been able to discern. The whole time is surrounded with mystery.
Steve Barton died in 2001, and the show seemed doomed. Then, without warning,
to my knowledge at least - I don't remember the transition between the show
being lost to the CRAWFORD ANNOUNCEMENT - it seemed to 'get there'

The directors weren't announced, but Michael Crawford was signed for the
role of Count von Krolock. Initially, being a fan of the Phantom, and knowing
little of the Tanz score at the time, I thought it was a sensational idea.
Crawford was larger-than-life in Phantom, a hypnotizing, dominating presence,
and imagine it - A HUNDRED-TIMES LARGER - as the cabaret, casanova Krolock.
It could have been glorious. He could have sang them till they caught on fire.
But something happened. I really don't know what happened to the show. They
brought in John Rando and John 'Carappa' - of all the people in Christendom -
when what they needed was Harold Prince. I'm disgraced that Andrew Lloyd Webber
wouldn't help his colleague, because he could have sent in someone who would
have done a worthy job. He would've known FULL WELL of Dance of the Vampires,
but he failed to help out. He should be blamed, along with Sonenberg, along
with the whole team who wanted to throw away Kunze's philosophy in favour of
American chat-show idiom trash. It wasn't all Crawford's fault. He went along
with his own problems. He is also to blame. He shouldn't have signed to the
part if it wasn't what he wanted, but the show was already ####ed at that stage.
They'd already transformed it from what it was in Vienna. They didn't transform
it for Crawford. It had already been transformed - at Sonenberg's request -
with what he felt, for the best of Steinman, would score them with the public's
eye. I'm ashamed that Steinman went along with it. I'm ashamed that he couldn't
find the conviction to put his foot down, like Bat Out of Hell, and say "NO" or
"Up yours". He should've put his foot down. It wouldn't have became what it did

And then Kunze was cut out of the show for a while. Polanski didn't even talk
about it. He is yet to reveal his opinions on it. From what I've been told,
his people checked it out and were disgraced. But, from the Hamburg video I've
seen, he seems to have taken some of the ideas that were added for Broadway*.
Now that the show was in the hands of ALL the people who SHOULDN'T have gotten
ANYWHERE near it - we'd wait and see what happened. It was like the Titanic.
It was inevitable it was going to sink (apologies to Steinman). Why, of all
people, would you get a comedy team to direct and choreograph what was originally
a profound gothic rock opera? It's like getting Bob Hope to dance with Michael
Jackson. It's unheard of! Why would they choose David Gallo's abstract sets and
design in favour of the elaborate, gothic, particular designs that William Dudley
enforced? They needed designs in the style of Maria Bjornson. They should've
used her instead (and, once again, Lloyd Webber could've helped out). John
Carrafa, from watching the video, was totally incompetent. The dancers just
improvised, had little trust in each other (you can see them trembling when
they go for their moves), and they just seemed to attempt to fill the space
with patterns that transcended the set and look like an ugly crossword. John
Rando couldn't tie the elements of gothic opera - Steinman's intentions - with
the more commercial approach Sonenberg and his casino-pals were acing for.
They needed a pro like Hal Prince, or Trevor Nunn. It also wasn't easy that
Michael Crawford and Jim Steinman had the biggest conflicting ego's in the
business. It was like God verses Satan, you know what I mean. Ann Hould-Ward
was wrong for the costumes. She was too Disneyesque. She was just typical
'imagery'. They needed subtletie, and roughness, like Sue Blane. They should've
worked with Timothy O'Brien & Tazeena Firth or Adreane Neofitou, or at least
John Napier. They had the right kind'a idea. They didn't need that showyness
of Hould-Ward. There was no subtlety at all. The lighting and the sets and
the costumes were too bright and glamoury. It lacked all traces of subtlety,
connotation and satire. It was just bland, ritzy and amplified. Nothing was
ever treated serious - an aspect that hindered the entire production. The
sound was ludicrous. If you play the video at the lowest volume possible,
it still sounds FULL-BALL. And think of the poor audience! The sound design
on Dance of the Vampires was LETHAL. It could make deaf people HEAR. They
certainly would've felt vibrations: to the point they'd mistake it for
earthquakes. The sound design was all for Crawford's benefit, and everyone
else just sounded disgusting. It was like they were singing out of a loud-
speaker. It was like a really bad transmission for S.O.S. God save us all!
And the Casting: Rene Auberjonois was completely wrong for the Professor.
He was too stiff. He was too 'official'. They needed someone slippery and
slidey, with a humungous range - and not someone with a particular voice
they would recognize from The Little Mermaid. I felt he was completely wrong
for the part - and seeing him next to Crawford was like Barbra Streisand and
Bert Lahr having sex. Mandy Gonzalez, beautiful voice, but totally wrong for
Sarah. Her voice was too confident, no subtlety whatsoever, and her look was
all wrong. They needed someone 'less tall' and 'skinny'. They needed a more
rounded, chubby, and subservient actress like Cornelia Zenz. Sarah needed a
lot of subtlety. She was far too Broadway. It was really just, to me, 'let's
see Mandy Gonzalez get her way to the big lights'. And, Max Von Essen, no way.
Alfred is not supposed to be confident. He's not supposed to have a muscular
body. Aris Sas is gorgeous because he's subtle, and skinny, and he shakes so
effortlessly. He's stumbling and moaning and scared of everything, and he's
not supposed to have a slimey, American 'teenage-flick' movie accent. Max
was all wrong. Ron Orbach was wrong for Chagal because he didn't have the
squeekiness and Topol-quality of James Sbano. They needed an old pro, or
some sexy old guy, to play the part. He was just too big and official and
well 'Broadway'. Leah Hocking was the wrong kind'a Magda. Liz McCartney was
interesting. Boris: who the #### is Boris? Let's pretend he never happened

The whole show, in its long and winding path, was a complete and utter travesty
in all departments. The only thing that was good was Steinman's music. Everyone
loves Steinman's music. His stuff was the only stuff that worked. His new songs
were also quite interesting. The cast was wrong, the sound was wrong, the
lighting was wrong, the sets were wrong, the costumes were wrong, the publicity
was wrong, and the choreography was non-existent, and the direction was so
out of control. It was like a car-accident. And the VENUE was wrong! The stage
was much too big. The stage was much too big for that intimate quality Tanz
possesses. You can't, literally, (and thank God for the video having close-ups),
even see the cast at all. They look like dots of white light on the stage, the
occasional colour in their costumes. You literally need a microscope to even
get close to what they look like. In Vienna, you can study every detail from
the back of the stage. It's just, the whole thing, except for Steinman's music,
and the actor's interesting take on it, a travesty of the show it could've been.
What it needed to be was to trust in itself, to take a major risk to become the
success it was in Vienna. It would've succeeded. They would have seen it as
something like Phantom. They didn't need Crawford. They should have cast an
unknown. Lol, they should have either cast Rob Evan (Mr Batman) or saved Tom
Hewett the trouble with Dracula. They should've stuck with what they had, and
kept shopping with it. Who cares if it would have taken longer? At least it
would have succeeded. Broadway producers would've picked it up (inevitably)
because it was such a major success in Europe. They would've cottoned on.
But I think, and this is a controversial theory, they wanted a testing
ground for Batman. I think, if that is so, is extremely disappointing.
Warner Bros should've completely backed off. They had no interest in the
project whatsoever. It was already a success in Vienna, so they didn't need
the Broadway production to prove it to them. It was none of their business.
But they let themselves see it. They didn't even bother to check out its
history. Everyone did everything wrong and they suffered from it. The whole
thing was wrong - from beginning to end - and you can't get much wronger.
It should've cost the career of Michael Crawford, if not Andrew Lloyd Webber's
respect as a friend and businessman. It should've condemned John Rando and
John Carrafa to 'theatre-school' in Off-Broadway for eternity. It should've
made Steinman stronger, to say he had survived the crash, to bring him back
from the edge of blackness. He should've had his chance to shine again and
say he was capable of conquering the morons. But, stupid producers, always
with no brains and no risks, ignore the true talent - then whinge later when
Broadway's become a gigantic abyss. The whole thing was a rotten affair

I think I've gotten too personal about it, actually. But it's my opinion,
for once and for all, and I wanted to know - ultimately - more fully - what
exactly lead it to its great demise. I wish someone would come out and speak
about it. The Crawford fans have covered it up like a teenager sperming on
the bed-sheets. The Steinfans are the only ones to have rationally and
logically argued it out over time. Broadway just see it as a disaster,
totally ignorant of it's beautiful history. They just see it all as a major
business downturn. Andrew Lloyd Webber and Cameron Mackintosh have never
mentioned it, nor has Lloyd Webber come to the defense of Jim Steinman.
It's such a shame he would turn to the man who had caused the show it's
later grief, who just made it so much worse, rather than the man who was
almost destroyed by it. It would be nice if Steinman and Polanski talked
about their feelings for the show, as a general perspective, because looking
back on these things - today - could even provide for some entertaining
memoirs. I have footage of Steinman, speaking to the press at a rehearsal,
where he calls it "Phantom of the Opera on steroids," lol. But Steinman has
recovered from it. He has found a new lease on life. He got rid of David
Sonenberg. He scored well with Wuthering Heights and opened up many many
options - and he's got Bat Out of Hell 3, which will definitely get him
Neverland and everything that goes with it. I hope, from the bottom of my
heart, that this WAS a mis-adventure, and that Broadway have the money and
the hope (someday) to allow him to return with something special. I constantly
encourage Ray to revive The Confidence Man Off-Broadway. I hope the New York
plans come through. It would be nice to have that show, of all shows, as a
wonderful, intelligent, stirring concession to Dance of the Vampires

P.S.
If anyone wants to know the sign that Dance of the Vampires gave (as in the
symbol) for its next location, watch carefully in the scene where Krolock
evaporates. The staircase takes the shape of the Eiffel Tower as it disappears,
which means the show will next open in Paris. It'll be interesting to see
what the French make of it, although they've never made anything of musicals
(not even Les Miserables). But Tanz is an opera. It'll get along there :)
And Polanski has worked and lived very profoundly in Paris :)

Happy birthday Dance of the Vampires. It's still, over-all, an
overwhelming, so-bad-it's-entertaining experience

Cheers to Michael Crapford

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 10:42pm

Did anyone read that entire post? Actually, Tanz is a musical, not an opera. Not even close. I would love to see the show, but I hope they improve the choreography from the production I saw on the DVD. That was the only thing I didn't like about the show. The finale had such fantastic music, but the staging and choreography was utterly bland and trite making the least out of the material that was given.

[Eastwickian]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 5:19am

"I'm disgraced that Andrew Lloyd Webber wouldn't help his colleague, because he could have sent in someone who would
have done a worthy job. He would've known FULL WELL of Dance of the Vampires, but he failed to help out. He should be blamed, along with Sonenberg, along with the whole team . . ."

I liked this sentence in particular, just for its sheer wrong-headedness. ALW had nothing to do with this production and as neither he nor Jim Steinman were producing, it was not for them to dictate the production team.

DOTV failed because it was (or became) the wrong show at the wrong time for commercial success. Although I love the Vienna version, I'm not even sure THAT would have had a long run. Gothic melodrama isn't 'in' right now, and is not fresh enough to be interesting

[fiyeros_elphaba]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 6:01am

i love the german version that's playing in hamburg. it's one of my favorite musicals. fantastic. i know there have been a few changes and new songs added that are really great.

[DancerGirl16]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 7:27am

Updated On: 12/15/04 at 07:27 AM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 7:57am

"Andrew Lloyd Webber and Cameron Mackintosh have never
mentioned it, nor has Lloyd Webber come to the defense of Jim Steinman."

That is so absurd! What is Lloyd Webber supposed to do? Step in on another's producer's show? Why does he need to defend Steinman? Steinman did not adapt the book or direct the show. And how is Lloyd Webber supposed to "defend" Steinman? Call te press and make statements? It's ridiculous! They worked together once. I think you spend way too much time phliosophising the past, which can't be changed. It is a good show that was horribly misconceived in its transfer. Ultimately, it is the decision of the producers on the final product and they are to blame for what opened on Broadway. It had nothing watsoever to do with Lloyd Webber or Mackintosh and the staging and book had nothing to do with Steinman. That's it. It's over.

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 4:26am

This isn't over by a long shot. Dance of the Vampires will NOT fade into the darkness!

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 4:42am

I thought DANCE OF THE VAMPIRES was fantasic. I didn't see anything bad about it.

[Musetta1957]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 4:14pm

All they had to do was NOT change it so drastically compared to the Vienna production. They would've been fine. If not, then certainly would've fared better than they did in the end.

But noooooooooooo....

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 4:22pm

That cut and paste is one of the most asinine things I've ever read. But I think this is my favorite snippet:

"I realize this is controversial, but how on earth could somebody expect to get Roman into the United States - dredging up an old sensitive issue - for one simple, non-naturalist expensive Broadway musical? That's like reviving Walt Disney to produce a sequel for Snow White (and we *KNOW* he wouldn't go for it)."

Yes, trying to bring in a director who isn't allowed in the country due to an outstanding criminal charge would be JUST LIKE TRYING TO BRING WALT DISNEY BACK FROM THE DEAD TO DIRECT SNOW WHITE II. There's a perfectly logical parallel to draw.

[eponine88]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 8:24pm

wow it took me awhile to get through that post.....

i personally liked dance of the vampires. i'm not saying it was a masterpiece, mind you, but it was still an entertaining show, and there were moments of it that i truly loved.