Dance Of The Vampires................- Page 2

[PigletH13]

Posted: 6/30/03 at 10:03am

And Issa...where can one frind the original script for BFO? I'd be very curious to know what was done in Australia and what will be done here.

[lensman]

Posted: 6/30/03 at 10:37am

Is it still there? Don't split hairs!

[lensman]

Posted: 6/30/03 at 10:39am

>I agree, if you have seen the original Vienna or Stuttgart >version, you would realize how amazing it is in it's original >form!!!! Why did those morons change it so much, sheeeeesh!!!

Probably because they felt that any show with "Total Eclipse of the Heart" as a set piece is not going to be taken seriously as a dark, brooding piece.

[aurora1958]

Posted: 7/1/03 at 12:46am

I loved DOTV too, and having seen the previews from October, I have to agree that the previews were definitely rough and needed the intense workover the show eventually got. Had it previewed elsewhere, like the West End as Crawford had wanted, all those changes would have been made before it got over here and it wouldn't have become the joke it now is. I also agree Mandy and Max should have been recognized, man everytime I hear "For Sarah" I get goosebumps, he was amazing. And those dancers....constantly changing the routines during the day and doing them at night...what incredible performers. I couldn't believe the difference in the "Carpe Noctum" sequence and the finale from Previews till January. Oh and before I forget, Asa Somers. How to take about 15 minutes of stage time and make it last...

The good thing about it is that all these incredibly talented performers are all working pretty much, and have gotten some incredible fan following/support from it. That's a very good thing.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 7/1/03 at 8:36am

Ok...so I'm going to be in the minority here, but I thought DOTV was awful. I saw it towards the end of the run and it almost fell into the "so bad it's good" category. I did think some of the sets were great...but I thought they were poorly lit. If it was going to get a Tony nom..I thought it would have been for the sest. Some of the cast was good too...but they had nothing to work with. This was a musical that couldn't decide if it wanted to be a campy spoof or a gothic vampire show. It's own schizophrenia caused it's demise. I thought the music was bad at best and at times awful. And there has been much discussion of Michael Crawford. I'm a fan of his...but I thought he was terribly miscast in this. I can't say that I'm sorry I saw it...but I wish I saw it for free.

[luluhed]

Posted: 7/1/03 at 8:49am

I have no problem admitting that I was just totally in love with DOTV. I only saw it twice, but without trying to be dramatic here, the effect of the music brought me to tears several times during the show. I love Jim Steinman's music and IMO the singing was flawless. Highlights for me were Max's "Sarah", Jason Wooten's part in "Carpe Diem", anything Michael Crawford sang, and Mandy's last phrase in "Total Eclipse". Although the coreography was ambitious, it didn't pack the same punch that the music did, so for me there was a bit of a discrepancy there. At times I felt like saying c'mon, move it! The music was so strong and driving, but the dancing seemed a little blase in comparison. Nevertheless, I'd have seen the show much more often, had that been at all possible.

[Old Bat]

Posted: 7/6/03 at 8:50am

I've just caught up with the discussion about Dance of the Vampires (always behind - that's me!). I saw the show twice whilst on a flying visit to New York and loved it. I agree with IssaMe in that it should have opened in the West End first. It had a lot of salutes to the good old British pantomime, and the British appreciate the daft (and the pisstake, which the show undoubtably was). Michael said in a couple of interviews on BBC Radio that he wanted to open in London first but, as the money was American, there was no way the producers would do that. Shame!

[JakeB]

Posted: 7/6/03 at 9:15am

The lyrics were bad, the people next to me were laughing.

[IssaMe]

Posted: 7/6/03 at 10:07am

If the people next to you were laughing at the lyrics, they probably were Steinman fans - the loudest (and most unexpected) laughs came from Steinman fans at all kinds of "in" references to his canon in this show.

I saw this happening night after night.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 7/6/03 at 10:39am

Well...I was probably one of those people laughing...and it was not because I was a Stienman fan...

[Sunfish]

Posted: 7/6/03 at 11:34pm

>> Well...I was probably one of those people laughing...and it was not because I was a Stienman fan...<<

This immediately brought to mind the "you walked out?" thread. I wish some people *had* walked out of DOTV rather than mock everything, and ruining the performance for all the people around them. I know the scoffers have paid for their tickets too, but I am not sure that gives them the right to disrupt the performance for some personal ya-yas. When is it more rude to stay than to go? Any comments?

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/6/03 at 11:36pm

It is more rude to stay when you feel the need to make obnoxious comments about the show and performers during the show and can not help but to do it. Updated On: 7/6/03 at 11:36 PM

[PJ]

Posted: 7/6/03 at 11:38pm

I agree.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 7/7/03 at 7:42am

So now I'm a "ya-ya", whatever that is . Actually, if I thought my laughter during the show was disturbing anyone I would have contained myself. But since the majority of the audience was laughing I didn't feel that I was disturbing anyone. And I saved all my "obnoxious comments" for after the show when I was out of the theater.

[mcphan19]

Posted: 7/7/03 at 1:04pm

Hi,

I just wanted to add my two cents to this discussion - I saw Dance several times in previews and afterwards (saw it closing night as well) and I have to say that it was one of the better shows I've seen. It wasn't the best show, but it wasn't as bad as the critics made it out to be.

I will admit though I first saw the show during the second week of previews, and my first impression was that it was good, but needed work (Crawford's costume and makeup were so awful, I'm glad they changed it, and also some other aspects of the show) What got me more pissed off was the fact that people were bashing it online and in the papers, and when the reviews came out, they all sounded the same, and focused mainly on Mr. Crawford, almost totally ignoring the rest of the talented cast, and making personal attacks on Mr. Crawford himself. I'm not sure why the critics took the show so seriously - it was supposed to be campy and spoof the traditional vampire story. I think the main problem was that Crawford is so synonymous with the role of the Phantom (which he should have been at least considered for for the movie, but that's another topic) that comparisons were inevitable. Dance is NOT Phantom (although I have to admit there were similarities)

I will admit I mainly went to see the show to see Crawford, but as I saw it more and more (ok, I'll admit I managed to see Dance 9 times) I began to love the show for what it was, and cheered for the rest of the cast. Mandy and Max just blew me away, I was hoping that they would be recognized for their work.

What also bothered me was that it seemed that the producers had little faith in the show - there wasn't too much marketing (at least that I was aware of) I think a CD single of Total Eclipse should have been released (the song's 20 years old now) or at least a concept CD and the cast memebers should have done some talk shows or morning shows (I heard that there wasn't too much advertising b/c the producers were relying on Crawford's name to draw in people, which is fine, but they should have done more than just put his name on the marquee) I do think it was a mistake to open cold on Broadway (I was surprised that there weren't tryouts elsewhere)

but at least I have my memories (and by various bootlegs) to keep the spirit of Dance alive.

ok, I think that's more than $.02 worth,

Jen

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/7/03 at 7:07pm

Out of town tryouts, while preferable, have simply become to costly with all the big sets & equipment etc. The days of closing in Boston are no more., Legs Diamond was dead when it started to get deadly word of mouth during previews. No matter how good it was, this was a death knell. the other being Peter Allen suffering from Frank Wildhorn diease. This is the disease that makes you write pop music that the great unwashed masses like but our hoity toity critics do not.

[aurora1958]

Posted: 7/7/03 at 7:22pm

Nothing wrong with saying you didn't like the show, and your reasons make sense, you're not just being nasty to be nasty. I do disagree with the problem with it being gothic horror or campy. Why can't it be both? The movie certainly was. Let's forget Tanz for a while and remember the original movie it was based on. That very topic is what gave it good reviews originally (I say this coz I have the movie in my lap right now). Critics liked the fact that one moment it was funny and the next it was creepy. So why not with the show? As far as Michael's casting is concerned, I felt he didn't quite get a handle on it until towards the end. And then he was absoluely awesome, but I think it was really difficult with so many changes going on during the preview to opening period.

Also the ridiculous laughing at Total Eclipse..knowing it was Jim Steinman score...and since these fans of Tanz knew it was in there..why did they laugh? I can understand people who were surprised by it, not expecting to hear an old 80's song in a Broadway show. Bit the hyena type hysterics were not from people who were surprised.

And if these people are so called theatre people, how rude to their fellow professionals to do something like that. No matter what they thought of the show. Common professionalism should have kept that down.

[luluhed]

Posted: 7/7/03 at 8:44pm

Um, I loved the show more than any other, and I laughed a lot too. That was the point. There were many funny things about it. People who laughed were probably having just as good a time as I was~ One thing I liked about the show was that it didn't take itself seriously. Of course audience members should laugh.

[Butch2]

Posted: 7/7/03 at 8:49pm

It's my opinion that shows that "don't take themselves too seriously" shouldn't charge for tickets what shows that do take themselves seriously charge. After all, the "it doesn't take itself too seriously" is a line that is always trotted out by shows that lack big important things that make shows good, like coherence.

[Sunfish]

Posted: 7/7/03 at 8:53pm

Of course they should laugh...at the funny parts! Someone mentioned the "hyena" laughing during songs like "Total Eclipse of the Heart". It was clearly forced and wasn't a reaction to either the fact that it was a known song or because it was supposedly funny. Or during songs like "Say a Prayer" or "For Sarah". What was funny about them? I found them very moving.

There were many funny bits, some of them better than others, but the laughter response to some songs was intentional and simply rude. IMHO.

Has anyone run into this in any other shows? Where particular audience members seemed to have an agenda to "disrupt" the show?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/7/03 at 9:29pm

I enjoyed DOTV more than "Pacific Overtures" or "Sunday in the Park With George" I know Sondheim is thought of as God but admit he does do some very pretentious musicals that can be boring & deadly at times. I am a great fan of his work but occasionally his stuff is mind numbing & someone needs to take him down off his pedestal every once in a while. I loved " Follies" (original & revival), " A Funny Thing (Phil Silvers revival), "Gypsy" etc but give me DOTV over the first 2 shows mentioned in this post. Shoot me but I am glad I said it

[luluhed]

Posted: 7/7/03 at 9:35pm

Butch-I'll just chalk it up to different tastes in art. My creative taste tends towards the light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek, and sometimes downright silly. This applies to the visual arts as well as theatre. Perhaps you prefer the more serious or heavy handed. Each to his own. Me-I prefer shelling out the bucks for a laugh.

[Sunfish]

Posted: 7/7/03 at 9:54pm

Does Hairspray take itself seriously? Does The Producers? Both are light-hearted, both are monster hits, both have dramatic moments, and both somewhat make fun of their own shows.

Just because a show isn't pretentious doesn't mean it is less of a show. IMHO :)

[luluhed]

Posted: 7/7/03 at 10:20pm

I saw a lot of ugly threads on other boards pertaining to this show. IMO there was a certain delight when it failed and closed. The anti DOTV crowd far outnumbered those who liked it and there was a lack of respect for others' opinions. I'm not going to debate the show here. All I'd like to say is that I respect all others' opinions on what pleases them in the arts and would like the same. It's all subjective. No one here is right or wrong about art.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 7/8/03 at 7:33am

Aurora...you're absoulutely right...there is nothing wrong with a show being both gothic horror and camp....if it pulls it off. My problem with DOTV (the play and the movie) is that it didn't pull it off. While I found some of the funny/campy stuff to be quite funny...I didn't find the play found the serious tone it needed it certain places. Therefore...while it was attempting to be serious...it still came of as campy/silly. The Total Eclipse of the Heart number is a perfect example of this. And it's not just because of the song...but because of the way it was staged. There was just something laugable about hooded chorus vampires in the background with flashlights under their faces singing "turn around...."