A Tale of two Franks!

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 10/22/07 at 11:31pm

I guess sooner or later most literary characters get their own musical, Dr. Jeckyl, Mr. Hyde, Candide, Jean ValJean, even ANNIE!
This year Dr, Frankenstein and his monster actually get two and unfortunately they are both duds.
I have posted my thoughts on Mel's tired, old joked, overblown mess on Broadway and now we get this Off Broadway boring, dark, unmelodic version.
It just sits there, taking itself way too seriously and lacking any real drama.
The music is just sort of a drone and I kept waiting for a good song. but I never heard one.
I left the the theatre humming GOD REST YE MERRY GENTLEMEN, cuase the last song sounded a little like that.
Of course even the worst score sounds somewhat OK when you have fine singers like Becky Barta, Jim Staneck, the velvet throated Eric Michael Gillette and the glorious Christiane Noll (GOD. she's good). but when you long to hear "This IS The Moment" you know the score is bland.
The set and especially the projections are interesting, but for what looked like a trillion lighting instruments. a lot of the actors faces were in the dark.
The costumes, except for Ms, Noll's Wedding gown were hideous. what were all those belt buckles on everyone?
Steve Blanchard was awkward, he has a very good voice but his songs were wierd and he started slapping himself at the begining and just kept doing that through the whole show.
Why were there no scars on his body?
He also did the same bow he did in BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the one where he kinda lumbers out like he's saying "I'm not really a musical comedy guy. I'm really a jock".
Hunter Foster is miscast as Victor, that youngness in his voice that worked so well in URINETOWN sounds wrong here and I never really saw that glint of craziness in his eyes they kept singing about.
Well, that's what I thought.
Feel free to agree or disagree.

Updated On: 10/22/07 at 11:31 PM

[TheFriarsDruggist]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 5:22am

Damn...

And here I wanted to like the non-Mel-Brooks one...

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 8:18am

Well, you might, and it's a lot cheaper.

[ken8631]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 8:19am

Me too. Just saw Young Frankenstein last night and thought I might go see the other one. I'm changing my mind quickly....

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 9:36am

I was hoping Frankenstein would overcome Mel's and be a big off-Broadway hit, but I should have known that it would fail.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 10:20am

Well it had potential but it fell well short of that potential. I suppose I won't be mean but there's not much at all to commend about it besides the cast. Who is producing this stuff? Surely there were a dozen NYMF shows that deserved a longer life before this.

Alas, commercial viability will win every time, regardless of quality.

[nutterbutter]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 10:25am

I saw FRANKENSTIEN on their first preview night, and thought it wonderful. I won’t go into detail again, as I wrote a review a couple of weeks ago, but I thought it a beautiful, thought provoking show. I'm sure they have made some changes since the first night, so I’m looking forward to going back and seeing it again once it officially opens.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 11:38am

What did it provoke you to think about?

[nutterbutter]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 1:54pm

Well, it mainly brought to mind the current debates we have in our lives today, over such things as stem cell research, cloning, abortion, etc. All of these issues we face today have the same central theme…What is Life? When does it begin? Should we be creating or tampering with it? Does a “soul” equal life? How far should science go when it comes to human life? These themes are so prevalent in FRANKENSTEIN, both the novel and the show, and what I find so astounding is that this novel nearly 200 years ago, and by an 18-year-old girl, no less.

I think inevitably, a show such as FRANKENSTEIN will get compared to others in its genre, such as JEKYLL AND HYDE. It tends to get thrown in with all of the other Victorian gothic pieces. Heck, most people think FRANKENSTEIN takes place in London in the late 1800’s. (when it actually takes place in Germany and Switzerland in the late 1700’s) That is unfortunate, however, for most people do not realize this novel, which the show follows very closely, was written nearly 100 years before all of the others. It is a novel of the Romantic era, not the Victorian.

Although the show is clearly set in the past, I really liked the way the time period was kept almost intentionally vague, with the set being quite modern, and the costumes suggestive rather than literal. To me, that again brings forward the theme that these issues are still very much alive today. And that is where I believe that this show IS so different than a JEKYLL, which was very much set everything in a big, distinct, literal, period.

FRANKENSTEIN is not about a big, scary, green guy with bolts. For me, it is about the hubris of man, and our eternal quest for life over death.

(and now, class dismissed. )

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 2:06pm

If Christiane can't breath life into a show, no one can! Having heard from someone involved with Frankenstein prior to the opening...I'm taking his advise that it's one I should skip.

I'm also not thrilled with YF, though sadly I think it will be one of the most popluar shows this year. Totally un impressed with this year's offerings...almost all of them. Just my opinion.