#1
Posted: 3/18/07 at 12:07pm
I've had a few people poke me via PM and ask for my thoughts on this and Curtains. My apologies to those waiting, I just got lazy.
The Pirate Queen -- Friday, March 9, 2007
Before I begin, I shall make three disclaimers: I love Riverdance. I could sit mesmerized by Irish step dancing for days. I don't really love Les Mis, and I never saw Miss Saigon.
I can only assume that this production exists mainly to capitalize on the success of Les Miz, rather than to create something on par with what is arguably one of the greatest musicals of all time. It is in short ill-concieved and poorly executed -- an epic mess. I found myself wondering all too often "... what were they thinking?" and then it dawned on me that perhaps it was not thought out, because the truth is that if you slap "from the creators of Les Miz" on a poster, you don't really need a show that's well thought-out to sell tickets. I got the disheartening impression that the powers that be involved with this one knew it would sell tickets on that alone and neglected to do much to help it live up to such a very weighty claim.
Many people, especially those who saw it in Chicago, have been saying that this show has potential. And yes, it does absolutely have potential, but that potential is at its innermost seed. To me, there isn't really anything wrong with the idea or the subject matter -- in fact, I find it quite a fascinating one, and only wish a better musical had been created about it -- but how the creators have gone about telling this story is all wrong and misguided. Having potential is just not good enough; it has to be acted upon. It hasn't been, and the result, as I see it, is a show that doesn't know what it wants to be: a historical account? A love story? A visual-heavy epic that uses its genre to get away with trying to cover up a lack of substance? The show can't be fixed by cutting a song here and changing the blocking there; the problems that exist are so deep-seated that I wouldn't hesitate to call them unfixable. Fixing what is wrong with this show would require going back to the very beginning idea.
The show felt like it was about a month long. I hope some serious cuts have been made since the preview I saw. "Boys Will Be Boys," if it hasn't already, needs to go. Not only could the scene have staged itself based on its copy-cat nature -- it's little more than a mix of "Lovely Ladies" and "Master of the House," so sure, just go stage it like the mix that it is -- but it stands as a perfect example of the poor execution this material is subject to. It yields important information about the "threat" people see in a strong-willed woman (and that Grace's husband-to-be is a jerk). That all does need to be portrayed, but while I didn't find the song personally offensive, I found it unnecessarily crude and certainly not the best way to drive the points home.
The show is what it is -- a big epic musical complete with slow motion fight scenes, melodrama to the max and a score with orchestrations stuck in the 80's that can't quite decide what it wants to be. I had heard wonderful things about Galati (and saw, though I barely remember, Ragtime), so I was looking forward to his direction, but I was disappointed to see the tired, overused epic components like movement so unified that it is completely unrealistic and the aforementioned slow motion. For example, if a scene is taking place downstage and there are side conversations going on in the ensemble in the background, it looks ridiculous to have every pair moving in the same way at the same time. But what else could you really do with this type of musical? I suppose it calls for a certain type of direction, which at this point isn't exactly innovative or enjoyable to watch.
There is entirely too much going on on that stage -- you know something's wrong when a mast gets stuck in someone's hair (yes, this is the performance that was stopped). The set is busy and distracting... and since when does elaborate have to equal ugly? I say that most especially with reference to the costumes, but I found very little about the design to be beautiful in the least. Perhaps the best example is whatever mockery has been made of Queen Elizabeth (who made the decision to dye her eyebrows bright orange?). Her costumes are hideous to the point that I wasn't sure if she's comic relief or not. It seems like that's her intention, yet nothing she does is actually funny, so it falls flat. And if it's not the intention, I'm not sure which of the two possibilities is a bigger problem. Personally, I'm not sure the point behind making a mockery of one of history's most respected figures, but I'll gladly be enlightened. As far as the set goes, I found it overdone. The visuals are well-crafted, but is a boat on fire really necessary? Repetitive fights, melodramatic deaths, a... chupah (come on, don't tell me that's not what it looks like...)?
The score is a strange mix of simple, haunting, beautiful Irish melodies and epic 80s musical theater with all of the misplaced electric guitar and synthesized organ sounds you could ask for. I would have preferred a score written entirely of the former, but either way, they really should have picked one. The writers haven't written melodies, for the most part -- they have instead written clunky songs, each a boring series of long notes that meander around until the character feels like being done singing. I literally cannot remember the way a single song goes. The lyrics are plagued with clichés; I wish I had brought paper with me that night so I could have made a list. They are direct to a fault and there is not a thing poetic about them.
As far as the show's themes go, it's a shame the show is such a mess, really, because this is where the potential lies. Yet it is all poorly seen through. Does the show really insinuate that just because both Grace and Queen Elizabeth happen to be women, they magically understand each other? Sure, women shared many of the same concerns in a time like that, but the way the two find their understanding is trite and almost dumbs down the themes it purports to advocate. There are too many instances in which it makes history look totally ridiculous, as though it's not sure whether it would like to be a historical account or a musicalization in which the ridiculous should be excusable. Jumping back and forth only accentuates the ridiculous. A decision needed to be made about the execution of the content just as much as it needed to find focus: there are too many things swimming around in the story -- the politics between England and France, the treatment of women, the war, etc., all in addition to the actual stories of these characters. All of it is necessary to tell the story, but detailed focus on all of it is not. The story lacks momentum, and even though the performance clocked in around 2:45, that's probably why it felt way longer: Grace is constantly achieving smaller goals, leaving the audience with questions of "okay, what's next?" as opposed to following one singular arc toward an ultimate goal. Everything builds on itself, but does so a bit too slowly.
Stephanie J. Block is a wonderful talent, and while I did not find her brilliant, I place that at the fault of the show moreso than I do on her. Yet the paradox there is that she may be its saving grace, if it even has one. She's a very present performer with an incredible set of pipes, yet I found her to have a strange tendency to swallow her vowels, from which I think comes the accent question. At times, it sounded like she was using one because of the way she sings: is it there? Is it not? Depends, I guess. Her portrayal of Grace is dignified, yet left me a little bit cold; I found her a disappointingly unsympathetic character. The times I cared most for her character were during the scenes with Tiernan because I wanted them to end up together. Contrary to many opinions, I found Hadley Fraser's performance much the highlight; he made the most of what he had and has a lovely voice. I think we'll be seeing more of him.
The best thing by far about the show is the step dancing. The dancers make SJB look graceless by comparison, but I suppose that's inevitable. They are phenomenally talented, and I could have watched those dance sequences over and over again.
The audience seemed to love it. I wouldn't be surprised if it ran a bit longer than we're all expecting it to, because people love the big sets and all of the... stuff. Maybe the minds behind this were hoping that there'd be so much extranneous stuff on stage that nobody would notice how bad the material actually was. I do have to say, though, I had a really good time when I went to see it. It's not exactly boring -- I was certainly entertained, if only for the wrong reasons.
... and I'm out of things to say. It's long, obligatory apologies.
Curtains shortly.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
The Pirate Queen -- Friday, March 9, 2007
Before I begin, I shall make three disclaimers: I love Riverdance. I could sit mesmerized by Irish step dancing for days. I don't really love Les Mis, and I never saw Miss Saigon.
I can only assume that this production exists mainly to capitalize on the success of Les Miz, rather than to create something on par with what is arguably one of the greatest musicals of all time. It is in short ill-concieved and poorly executed -- an epic mess. I found myself wondering all too often "... what were they thinking?" and then it dawned on me that perhaps it was not thought out, because the truth is that if you slap "from the creators of Les Miz" on a poster, you don't really need a show that's well thought-out to sell tickets. I got the disheartening impression that the powers that be involved with this one knew it would sell tickets on that alone and neglected to do much to help it live up to such a very weighty claim.
Many people, especially those who saw it in Chicago, have been saying that this show has potential. And yes, it does absolutely have potential, but that potential is at its innermost seed. To me, there isn't really anything wrong with the idea or the subject matter -- in fact, I find it quite a fascinating one, and only wish a better musical had been created about it -- but how the creators have gone about telling this story is all wrong and misguided. Having potential is just not good enough; it has to be acted upon. It hasn't been, and the result, as I see it, is a show that doesn't know what it wants to be: a historical account? A love story? A visual-heavy epic that uses its genre to get away with trying to cover up a lack of substance? The show can't be fixed by cutting a song here and changing the blocking there; the problems that exist are so deep-seated that I wouldn't hesitate to call them unfixable. Fixing what is wrong with this show would require going back to the very beginning idea.
The show felt like it was about a month long. I hope some serious cuts have been made since the preview I saw. "Boys Will Be Boys," if it hasn't already, needs to go. Not only could the scene have staged itself based on its copy-cat nature -- it's little more than a mix of "Lovely Ladies" and "Master of the House," so sure, just go stage it like the mix that it is -- but it stands as a perfect example of the poor execution this material is subject to. It yields important information about the "threat" people see in a strong-willed woman (and that Grace's husband-to-be is a jerk). That all does need to be portrayed, but while I didn't find the song personally offensive, I found it unnecessarily crude and certainly not the best way to drive the points home.
The show is what it is -- a big epic musical complete with slow motion fight scenes, melodrama to the max and a score with orchestrations stuck in the 80's that can't quite decide what it wants to be. I had heard wonderful things about Galati (and saw, though I barely remember, Ragtime), so I was looking forward to his direction, but I was disappointed to see the tired, overused epic components like movement so unified that it is completely unrealistic and the aforementioned slow motion. For example, if a scene is taking place downstage and there are side conversations going on in the ensemble in the background, it looks ridiculous to have every pair moving in the same way at the same time. But what else could you really do with this type of musical? I suppose it calls for a certain type of direction, which at this point isn't exactly innovative or enjoyable to watch.
There is entirely too much going on on that stage -- you know something's wrong when a mast gets stuck in someone's hair (yes, this is the performance that was stopped). The set is busy and distracting... and since when does elaborate have to equal ugly? I say that most especially with reference to the costumes, but I found very little about the design to be beautiful in the least. Perhaps the best example is whatever mockery has been made of Queen Elizabeth (who made the decision to dye her eyebrows bright orange?). Her costumes are hideous to the point that I wasn't sure if she's comic relief or not. It seems like that's her intention, yet nothing she does is actually funny, so it falls flat. And if it's not the intention, I'm not sure which of the two possibilities is a bigger problem. Personally, I'm not sure the point behind making a mockery of one of history's most respected figures, but I'll gladly be enlightened. As far as the set goes, I found it overdone. The visuals are well-crafted, but is a boat on fire really necessary? Repetitive fights, melodramatic deaths, a... chupah (come on, don't tell me that's not what it looks like...)?
The score is a strange mix of simple, haunting, beautiful Irish melodies and epic 80s musical theater with all of the misplaced electric guitar and synthesized organ sounds you could ask for. I would have preferred a score written entirely of the former, but either way, they really should have picked one. The writers haven't written melodies, for the most part -- they have instead written clunky songs, each a boring series of long notes that meander around until the character feels like being done singing. I literally cannot remember the way a single song goes. The lyrics are plagued with clichés; I wish I had brought paper with me that night so I could have made a list. They are direct to a fault and there is not a thing poetic about them.
As far as the show's themes go, it's a shame the show is such a mess, really, because this is where the potential lies. Yet it is all poorly seen through. Does the show really insinuate that just because both Grace and Queen Elizabeth happen to be women, they magically understand each other? Sure, women shared many of the same concerns in a time like that, but the way the two find their understanding is trite and almost dumbs down the themes it purports to advocate. There are too many instances in which it makes history look totally ridiculous, as though it's not sure whether it would like to be a historical account or a musicalization in which the ridiculous should be excusable. Jumping back and forth only accentuates the ridiculous. A decision needed to be made about the execution of the content just as much as it needed to find focus: there are too many things swimming around in the story -- the politics between England and France, the treatment of women, the war, etc., all in addition to the actual stories of these characters. All of it is necessary to tell the story, but detailed focus on all of it is not. The story lacks momentum, and even though the performance clocked in around 2:45, that's probably why it felt way longer: Grace is constantly achieving smaller goals, leaving the audience with questions of "okay, what's next?" as opposed to following one singular arc toward an ultimate goal. Everything builds on itself, but does so a bit too slowly.
Stephanie J. Block is a wonderful talent, and while I did not find her brilliant, I place that at the fault of the show moreso than I do on her. Yet the paradox there is that she may be its saving grace, if it even has one. She's a very present performer with an incredible set of pipes, yet I found her to have a strange tendency to swallow her vowels, from which I think comes the accent question. At times, it sounded like she was using one because of the way she sings: is it there? Is it not? Depends, I guess. Her portrayal of Grace is dignified, yet left me a little bit cold; I found her a disappointingly unsympathetic character. The times I cared most for her character were during the scenes with Tiernan because I wanted them to end up together. Contrary to many opinions, I found Hadley Fraser's performance much the highlight; he made the most of what he had and has a lovely voice. I think we'll be seeing more of him.
The best thing by far about the show is the step dancing. The dancers make SJB look graceless by comparison, but I suppose that's inevitable. They are phenomenally talented, and I could have watched those dance sequences over and over again.
The audience seemed to love it. I wouldn't be surprised if it ran a bit longer than we're all expecting it to, because people love the big sets and all of the... stuff. Maybe the minds behind this were hoping that there'd be so much extranneous stuff on stage that nobody would notice how bad the material actually was. I do have to say, though, I had a really good time when I went to see it. It's not exactly boring -- I was certainly entertained, if only for the wrong reasons.
... and I'm out of things to say. It's long, obligatory apologies.
Curtains shortly.
Updated On: 3/18/07 at 12:07 PM
