Jekyll & Hyde (Broadway Previews!)- Page 8

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 10:07am

p.s. the other day I remembered when Rock of Ages first opened, and someone here said it was crap that only appealed to the dregs of the earth.

I was thinking about that as well and some of the comments here specifically reminded me of that conversation. I do think there is a level of bitterness involved when people are considered "morons" or somehow lesser for enjoying something one person does not. That's when it becomes unnecessarily nasty and trollish. It's not because they didn't like the show. It's because they are acting like a douchebag.

...what songs in Jekyll and Hyde have earned the "classic" label? The show's not even twenty years old.

The show and the original concept album debuted in 1990.

[newintown]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 10:15am

Every time I come to look at this thread, I feel like I'm entering a really gay sandbox.

[JBC2]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 10:16am

I never saw a production of J&H before seeing the current one, but I have long owned the CD with Anthony Warlow singing Jekyll/Hyde, so I was familiar with the songs.

I saw the show primarily because of Teal Wicks. I had no idea who Deborah Cox was, and neither liked or disliked Constantine Maroulis.

When I saw the show early in its tour schedule, I enjoyed it, but was aware of problems that, IMO, needed more than just tweaking. I did not, however, think I had wasted my money, as to me, anytime I can see/hear Teal is an evening well-spent.

I saw the show again at its final tour venue, and was pleased to see what I considered quite a few improvements....in characterization, pacing, and what I refer to as stage business choices, for lack of knowlege of the appropriate terminology.

I've read all these J&H threads, and been perturbed by comments such as.....it's pure crap....don't waste your money, etc. A show doesn't exist that every audience member enjoyed, much less raved about. My advice on seeing the show is to think about what you would be going for.....if it's for elaborate sets or great storytelling, I think you'd probably be disappointed. If you are going to hear some great voices, you'll get your moneys worth.

How those who actually see the show evaluate it will, IMO, do so based on their own priorities in terms of what makes their theater experience enjoyable and worth the ticket price. For me, I will be seeing the show again next week, as I found the songs lovely and beautifully-sung, the acting enthusiastic and energetic, and was able to put aside the lack of cohesiveness in the way the storyline unfolds.

[Kelly2]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 10:30am

"..if it's for elaborate sets or great storytelling, I think you'd probably be disappointed. If you are going to hear some great voices, you'll get your moneys worth."

Since it's a musical and not a concert, I'd say great or at least competent storytelling is practically a pre-requisite. If people want to spend a lot of money to go see Constantine Maroulis and Deborah Cox sing (and they have both had considerable success as singers so I know they have plenty of fans) then that's great. I've certainly gone to see shows purely to hear a performer sing, even if the show was dreadful. There's no shame in that.

But let's not pretend great voices make a great show. It's a Broadway show, not a cabaret. The point is to tell a story.

[Jane2]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 11:14am

I'm a little different than what you've described, Kelly2. I will go to a show purely to see and hear a certain performer, regardless of the story.

For instance, I will see Nathan Lane in anything, I will go to see and hear Raul sing in anything, I may still go to Breakfast at Tiffany's to see Emilia Clarke, and so on. It doesn't matter to me what the story is.

[newintown]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 11:33am

Better get to Tiffany's soon, Jane, 'cause that unattended snoozefest has got to close soon. This weekend, the wind was whipping through the empty seats.

That said, Clarke is not doing a bad job, although she's fighting an inert script and what looks like a lazy director.

Updated On: 4/11/13 at 11:33 AM

[Kelly2]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 11:36am

"I'm a little different than what you've described, Kelly2. I will go to a show purely to see and hear a certain performer, regardless of the story.

For instance, I will see Nathan Lane in anything, I will go to see and hear Raul sing in anything, I may still go to Breakfast at Tiffany's to see Emilia Clarke, and so on. It doesn't matter to me what the story is."

I agree with you to an extent. There are certain performers who I will see no matter what they're in. But my enjoying that person or the fact that I'm willing to pay to see that person doesn't necessarily mean that the show they're in is great, even if that performer is. That was more my point. I'm sure if you love Deborah Cox and go see this, you'll be happy to have seen someone you love singing songs in great voice. But that doesn't necessarily make Jekyll & Hyde a good show on the merits of its storytelling.

Per example, I went to go see Cinderella recently purely to see the lovely Victoria Clark who has always dazzled me onstage. She was wonderful and hearing her singing Rodgers & Hammerstein made my heart very happy. But I still found the show to be absolute dreck and I wished I could've seen her in a vehicle more suited to her gifts.

[DAME]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 11:53am

Maybe I am way out of touch. Could be. I am amazed anyone except tired, over 40, gay, ex circuit queens know who Debora Cox is. Not a dig. As I am one of those tired queens. Just curious at to the general age of posters on this thread?

Updated On: 4/11/13 at 11:53 AM

[broadwayboy101]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 12:42pm

Saw the show on Monday - was excited going in, as I love Jekyll & Hyde. Spoilers throughout, but I'll try to keep them to a minimum.

The set was pretty disappointing - the first 15-20 minutes all occur with the board of governors sitting in a Cell Block Tango-esque formation telling Jekyll repeatedly that he is a madman; occasionally they get up and wander aimlessly, but for some reason, they feel the need to tell him he's crazy over and over again, which leads to an incredibly slow start. The laboratory was incredibly disappointing; aside from two rows of giant test tubes that descend from the rafters, there isn't much else.

Deborah Cox was fine - not revelatory by any means, but nowhere near bad either. Her voice is incredible; 'A New Life' got the most applause of the evening and deservedly so. I didn't hear any sort of struggling to hit notes as some other posters seem to have noticed. I agree with whoever said that we need more of an introduction to Lucy; as it is now, our first introduction to her is her singing 'Bring On the Men,' which just isn't enough to rope us into caring about her just yet.

God bless Teal Wicks, who is the best of the 3 leads acting-wise. Her 'Once Upon a Dream' was a major highlight.

Constantine was all over the place. Yes, his voice was incredible, but vocal acrobatics do not make up for a complete lack of characterization. He had his hands in his pockets for 25-50% of the show (not an exaggeration), switched bad accents in every scene (Irish to Scottish to English back to Irish...), and completely dropped what little character he had every time he opened his mouth to sing. The icing on the cake was during the final scene when he fixed his hair as he was plunging the sword into his heart. Fixed. His. Hair. The people around me all snickered and a man in front of me turned to his wife and clearly remarked "Did he really just do that?"

There was an incredibly vocal group in the center orchestra who kept cheering wildly after every song, but for the most part the audience reaction was average - applause after every song, louder applause after big solos.

[Kelly2]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 12:52pm

*SPOILER*

"The icing on the cake was during the final scene when he fixed his hair as he was plunging the sword into his heart. Fixed. His. Hair. The people around me all snickered and a man in front of me turned to his wife and clearly remarked "Did he really just do that?""

Thank you for this visual, it completely made my morning and I cannot stop laughing now.

Updated On: 4/11/13 at 12:52 PM

[theaternut]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 1:00pm

"Constantine was all over the place. Yes, his voice was incredible, but vocal acrobatics do not make up for a complete lack of characterization. He had his hands in his pockets for 25-50% of the show (not an exaggeration), switched bad accents in every scene (Irish to Scottish to English back to Irish...), and completely dropped what little character he had every time he opened his mouth to sing. The icing on the cake was during the final scene when he fixed his hair as he was plunging the sword into his heart. Fixed. His. Hair. The people around me all snickered and a man in front of me turned to his wife and clearly remarked "Did he really just do that?" "



And this is broadway people! GARBAGE. PURE GARBAGE. DO NOT DRINK THE KOOL AID!

Updated On: 4/11/13 at 01:00 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 1:06pm

If this production is as campy as I'm hearing, then fixing his hair sounds just right.

[newintown]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 1:23pm

It's Jekyll & Hyde. If he didn't stop to fix his hair, I'd be surprised.

This show is to theatre as a double-wide is to architecture.

[deborahfan]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 1:49pm

Could we get back to just talking about the show in an honest way and stop bashing each other and calling names? It's just a show, not the end of the world. I bet we might even have some interesting opinions to pass along.

Someone here said they would go see Nathan Lane in anything. I saw "Adams Family," with high expectations. Beebee N in it, too. I didn't think it could fail. I didn't hear one good song and I thought they completely ruined the play, because where was the fun relationship between Morticia and Gomez? Worst play I've ever seen on BW. But, I didn't leave at intermission. Even though some people I know liked the show, I didn't ruin their enjoyment. I didn't come on here and trash it. Different strokes for different folks.

I don't think age has anything to do with it, but I'm 34. And I have better manners than I've seen on this board.

I really like the set. It's kind of minimalistic, but I like that. I do think the beginning kind of drags, while they're all telling Henry why they don't agree with him. I was glad later on when they all get murdered. :)

Like the laboratory, but something is always going wrong. The bottles spill, all kinds of ****. Sound issues a LOT. Do they have their own sound people, or are they at the mercy of the theaters? And if I can hear the sound problems, why can't experienced sound engineers??

The ending is not good. It isn't believable and it's the weakest part of the show. A lot depends on where one is sitting. At the front, you can clearly see that the sword isn't really going through his body, and where oh where is the blood? Halfway back, it looks okay. But something isn't really right in that scene.

So those are the flaws I think this play has. I thought they would be ironed out by now.

What I DID like were the sets. I thought it was modern. I liked the rock feel. It was fun and campy. I LOVE the music and while some of you don't think the singing is important, it's important to me and it doesn't disappoint. I thought the acting was great! I thought the chemistry between Deborah and Constantine was really hot. Loved the costumes and just the whole show. The problems with it kind of make it more interesting.

I would never sit in the mezzanine, no matter what show it was. So if nobody sits up there, who the hell cares?

[darquegk]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 2:05pm

One of the central flaws with Jekyll and Hyde is that no one has yet managed to make the piece de resistance of the "one actor as both characters" concept work- the Confrontation is almost always a sudden descent into camp at BEST.

A double in the mirror, with lip-synced or actual vocal? Didn't work- got replaced.
The notorious "hair ballet?" People are still making fun of it to this day.
Projected visual? Apparently stops the show cold.

Just about the only thing left to do would be to revise the show to make the roles MORE separate, and have two actors alternate the roles, a la Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller in "Frankenstein."

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 2:15pm

Kelly2 and Deborahfan, may I offer the friendly suggestion of adding spoiler warnings to the tops of your most recent posts? Kelly2, i know the comment you added isn't a spoiler but you quoted a pretty major one without warning at the beginning of the post. I have seen it on tour but am thinking about someone who hasn't who is reading the thread to decide whether or not to go.
Cheers!

[jekyllforever]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 2:19pm

Ok. Sorry. Never gave that a thought.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 5:24pm

The Confrontation is up on Youtube if anyone wants a good laugh.

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 5:26pm

Personally, I CAN'T WAIT for this to open! That way I don't have to scroll/page down through 25 GIANT pics and 8+ pages of whatever you call this post!

Please, OPEN J&H, so someone can start a new "Jekyll & Hyde Opens!" thread. (please no more prod. photos!) Thank ya!

Hi Matt! Nice to see you again... xo

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/11/13 at 5:29pm

Projected visual? Apparently stops the show cold.

It worked beautifully in the pre-Broadway tours when it was projected on the mirror in the laboratory. But it was just a creepy projection of his face singing Hyde's part without all the extra visuals they added for this production.

[jekyllforever]

Posted: 4/12/13 at 8:23pm

It is sold out tonight!

[AntV]

Posted: 4/12/13 at 10:25pm

Most of the mezz and rear orchestra sides were still for sale on Ticketmaster an hour before the show. So I find that hard to believe.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 4/12/13 at 10:28pm

Jekyll FOREVAH!!

[Owen22]

Posted: 4/13/13 at 1:30am

The oddest thing about this thread is that there are people who actually think the ORIGINAL production was anything but mediocre at best.

For the most part, its not a terribly well-written show. Yet it does contain two brilliant theatre songs and three very good ones. But its way over the top, it's melodrama verges on camp and it tells this familiar story in quite a rote way.

Yet I enjoyed this new production SO much more than the original. I loved the rock/pop arrangements and found Maroulis's sometimes acid rock voice for Hyde a great way to distinguish him. As for the rest of his performance, I liked him way better than I thought I would. I thought his understated line delivery interesting (and dare I say it) sorta sexy. Yes, his accent isn't completely grounded, but it was more secure than other posters on this site would have you believe. And hearing "This Is The Moment" sung by a power rock tenor is damned thrilling.

I was impressed that the show felt of a whole. The entire steam punk design added to the rock vibe. Calhoun seems to have embraced the melodrama instead of being scared off by it.

J & H will never be a great show. It might never even be a good show. But this is an enjoyable revival that serves the piece much better than the over-earnest original did.

[Kad]

Posted: 4/14/13 at 2:06am

Saw this tonight and thought it was ridiculous. House seemed pretty full- some pretty dedicated fans in attendance, cheering everything from the time the lights dimmed.

The show is absurd and poorly written. So much happens- for no reason. The lyrics are laughable and the songs so generic they can apply to any person in any situation. The women are especially dealt a bad hand.

My friend assured me this production is an improvement over the original, overall. I suppose climbing halfway out of a pit is an improvement over being stuck at the bottom.

Everyone sounds great. Dialects are... varied. But there isn't much there to support any convincing acting choices.

The direction tries to play against the patent absurdity of what's written, to everyone's benefits. But it doesn't help the show. It's crummy. It's silly. The second-act opener is still an uptempo song that plays murder for laughs.

The finale is...wow. Constantine literally thrusts a sword into his chest as he sings "Once Upon a Dream"- it's not tucked under his upstage arm, but it sure looks like it!

And the confrontation! He's taunted by what looks like satanic "Weird Al" Yankovic, live via satellite from Mordor.

The design adds nothing. Found it funny that the only thing that distinguished the prostitutes from the maids/ladies was that they showed about 5% more skin.

Just an absolute mess of a show. How it found a following at all is beyond me.