How bad was DANCE OF THE VAMPIRES? — Page 2

I loved it...it wasnt very good, but I still enjoyed myself...Wildhorn's "Dracula" was a much bigger disappointment! This wasnt supposed to be serious, watch the film it was based on, but the audience is supposed to be in on the joke, not the characters. That is where the direction and perfs were off, especially Crawford...and no, he wasnt sexy, which would've helped.

I agree that Hocking and McCartney were the highlights along with Ron Orbach, and I found Gonzales charming. I wasnt impressed with Von Essen.

I liked the goofiness of the piece.

---

Melodrama and slapstick/toilet humor just don't mix. Imagine the phantom of the opera suddenly turning into a flying bat puppet and saying f--- every other word. And then return to singing a haunting ballad, and then suddenly introducing his phantom son who is a ridiculously gay fop. It was just so schizophrenic.

And like most flops worth remembering, it had some really fantastic moments and some gems in the score. But for every one of those, there were three or four glorious failures.

Im not sure thats true about Steinman and comedy not mixing. What makes all the Meatloaf music work so well is the utterly ridiculous melodramic style of it all and Meatloaf's utter fearlessness to take it all the way. But still there is always the tongue-in-cheeck knowledge on both Meatloaf and Steinman's part that this music is so over-the-top. But, as I said, instead of acting ashamed by this and resisting it, as Crawford and the rest of this confused production did, Meatload takes it all the way, with very little shame. However the audience takes it from their is their own choice. But just look at the damn singer's stage name: Meatloaf. Now if you dont think Steinman sees any comedy in that, I think we're missing something. This show just seemed afraid to tackle Steinman's music in the over-the-top dramatic Meatloaf/Jack Black Tenacious D style that it should be performed in. And Crawford was obviously a terrible choice for this.

Updated On: 5/20/08 at 10:29 AM

Considering all the similarities that people have pointed out between the original and the Broadway production, all the "It's ALLLL Michael Crawford's fault!!!! Bad bad Crawford!!!" seems more than a bit silly. I don't disagree that it may have been the wrong show for him -- I'm a big fan of his and I didn't want to see it -- but you can hardly put ALL the blame on the new blood (har!) for making the show over-the-top when that's how it was originally designed to be.

I saw it shortly after opening, and remember being utterly dumbfounded. The amount of money onstage was blatant, but every other scene had some cheap throwaway: a phallic sponge, a talking bat puppet, or something equally ridiculous that simply didn't work.

That being said, I couldn't *not* have fun. I have long wanted to *see* it again, just to pick up on all the wonderful things I'm sure I missed the first time.

And whoever said the casting didn't work because Michael Crawford didn't have sex appeal, I have to agree. I'm not sure I pinpointed that at the time, but in retrospect, the audience needs to feel Sarah's temptation. And no one wanted Mandy to succumb to his Krolock.

Well Crawford couldn't sink this all by himself, but he has to take the brunt of blame.
He was adding bad jokes and no one could stop him.

"Having listened to the original workshop recording of Phantom of the Opera recently, it's interesting to notice how much comedy was originally in the show, but which was prudently snipped to suit the overall tone.

The original Phantom was far sillier."

Interesting. I remember a "Tonight Show" (I think) interview in which Michael said that he and Andrew had too much to drink one night and started writing a song called "Boo!" for "Phantom." I always thought he was just kidding, but maybe not.

James Barbour should've played Krolock.

Not a bad choice, but my first choice would have been Marc Kudish. Chuck Wagner would also work.

Considering all the similarities that people have pointed out between the original and the Broadway production, all the "It's ALLLL Michael Crawford's fault!!!! Bad bad Crawford!!!" seems more than a bit silly. I don't disagree that it may have been the wrong show for him -- I'm a big fan of his and I didn't want to see it -- but you can hardly put ALL the blame on the new blood (har!) for making the show over-the-top when that's how it was originally designed to be.

There were similarities in the score and the basic storyline, but the book was entirely rewritten. Producers pushed for more obvious jokes, punchlines and sight gags, which is not how the show was originally written or performed. The German production is not camp. It is gothic melodrama with some underlying humor similar to the film on which it is based, The Fearless Vampire Killers.

And yes, Michael Crawford was given a lot of creative control with the character (wasn't he one of the producers?) and he simply could not pull off the role or the style, which was leaning towards Charles Bush's signature Off-Broadway camp (who I remember being brought in to doctor the book). Scenes and characters were cut, added and changed. Songs were rearranged and I specifically remember an article stating that there were instructions frmo the producers that there should be a joke on every page. Even costumes were changed (there was no enormous ruff or codpiece for Krolock in the German production). A different actor playing Krolock would have significantly improved the show, but it would not have saved it. Quite simply, the Broadway production tried to take an already successful show and turn it into something different for American audiences.

---

CurtainPullDowner-

As to your question about Crawford helping finance the show, that's what I have read. I don't know anyone personally involved and wasn't myself, so I can't swear to it, but several accounts I've read from the creatives over the years about their experiences on the show stated that he was one of the producers. More than that, it sounds like he put up a huge percentage of the total cost.

You mentioned above that he was adding material and bad jokes and "no one could stop him." And from what I've read, that's exactly it. He owned so much of the show that when he said, listen I've done the serious, tormented monster on Broadway before (Phantom), I can't do it again or the critics will tear me apart; let's make this a ridiculous campy mess, they literally couldn't stop him or say no. I'm paraphrasing what Mr. Crawford said above, but that concern was apparently voiced and is what led him to push the show into the realms in which it ended up. The foul-mouthed bat: Mr. Crawford's idea and insistence.

It is TOTALLY worth getting. However, Draussen ist Freiheit/Der Roten Stiefel/Starker Als Wir Sind is not on that particular recording. I however bought that particular track off of iTunes and added it as a bonus track for when my copy of the original cast recording finally came in the mail.

---

Actually, according to Wikipedia, they added Starker als Wir Sind while it was still playing Europe and also the new version of Der Roten Stiefel. And those songs have been in the show ever since.

---

Hold on a sec...there's a DVD AND it was on television?!?!?!?!?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Well, whether it was added for the Broadway production or not, Starker als wir sind is in the show now and I'm so glad there's a legal recording of it.

---

Ok, so how many of his preexisting songs did Jim Steinman use:

Original Sin
Total Eclipse of the Heart
Objects in the Rear View Mirror May Appear Closer Than They Are
Tonight Is What It Means To Be Young

Any others?

---