Jekyll & Hyde (Broadway Previews!) — Page 9

I had a similar opinion to all the Negative Nancys on here, just based on photographs and the badly produced new cast recording.

"Cheap" being the most common opinion here, it's exactly the impression that made me rant about this months ago without having seen it.

Sometimes cheap doesn't need to be seen live in order to know it's, well, cheap. Not that I expect every production to be a 15 million dollar version with enough bells and whistles to fill 28 semi-tractor trailers like the old, long gone, original Phantom 3rd national tour. Ah, those were the days. At any rate!

Minimalist and cheap aren't actually the problem. A Chorus Line is a dirt cheap show to stage compared to most and is virtually performed on a bare stage and its orchestration has no string section, yet I find it to be one of the single most thrilling--orchestral and theatrically--shows I've ever seen. It's because it honors and even builds upon innovative staging and theatre art in a way that is inspiring even today. Most productions these days aim to shun all theatricality in favor of this boring realism trend. Bah!

And when they try to be theatrical, they miserably fail, and are just silly instead. But this projections trend, seriously, has GOT to go!! It's like double lighting...overkill and tacky.

---

I am not the one to here and write awful things about shows. In fact, I haven't written anything in ages.
The extend of my disappointment brought me here, though!
I was really really really excited to see this show. I quite enjoy the original story, original production and even the production with Hasselhof (sp?) guy, so I don't consider myself as though to please.
I purchased a full price ticket and there I went, with a dear friend to witness what I call the butchering of a show.
I had not read any reviews before going in, so I didn't really know what to expect.
I saw Constantine in RoA a couple of times and I liked him then. Don't get me wrong, he has the voice, but his style didn't fit the show IMO. Even a couple in front of me commented that he's too rock n roll for the part.
Teal Wicks was great - no, I'm not one of her fans - but she was the best part of the show.
Deborah Cox... I don't really know what to say... She lacked the sweetness I would expect in Lucy. Also, whoever said that they didn't notice any difficulty in her singing, should get their ears checked. She can belt the hell out of the songs, don't get me wrong, but the other 95% that is meant to be sing softly sounded almost like a whisper. I may have caught her on a bad day, but I can point out dozens of better actresses/singers who are waiting tables at Ellen's.

Also, I absolutely hated that they replaced some songs, eliminated Now there is no choice and BUTCHERED Dangerous Game. What the heck was that pop-porn going on? Also, the confrontation was mediocre to say the least.

I'm glad I saw the show, but as I wrote this, I'm listening to the original cast recording to try to erase from my brain what I just heard :)

Ticketmaster has opening night tickets for sale, nearly the entire rear mezz is still available.

This is amusing to me... Classic songs are those that TRANSCEND the theater piece or record they came from. When "This is the Moment" has been recorded over a THOUSAND times - and sung by artists like Sammy Davis Jr. and Johnny Mathis, no less - played at the Olympics and Superbowls - and been recorded in languages around the world.... THAT is a classic. So the fact that someone criticized that the songs could apply to any situation or person, it amuses me because that is the very aspect of these songs that allow them to ENDURE. They make you feel. They draw you in. They apply universally, not just in the context of one singular moment. That defines a classic, a STANDARD... going all the way back to Tin Pan Alley days and the music of Gershwin and Irving Berlin.

Also, someone commented on disliking Deborah's whispery tones, so I want to address that point. It is that sensitivity and warm tone in her lower and mid registers that make her unique as an artist - not generic or pure sounding like everyone else. It sets off her powerhouse vocals at the big points. I found it refreshing to hear an actual artist on stage instead of the typical voices that try to mimic that in shows.

The show works because it brings a classic story into relevance TODAY - production wise, vocally, and musically. It's not trying to be holier than though, inaccessible, or erudite - if you are looking to find that - you will not. But if you are looking for a moving story and stellar voices singing songs that will still be recorded 100 years from now - you will be thoroughly satisfied.

If I had to sit in the mezzanine, I wouldn't go see the show.

Why not..?

---

For a musical theatre song, no. It is not good that the song is so lyrically generic and vague that it could fit into any situation.

Wildhorn writes fine pop songs. His songs give the chance for a performer to belt their tits off and show their vocal skill. But as musical theatre songs, they're bad. You can easily swap out one of his ballads for another in any of his scores and get the same effect. You get the feeling he just wants to write standards and not tell a story.


If someone is emotionally moved by this show, fine. I know people moved to tears by ads for jewelers. I was not moved.

---

For a musical theatre song, no. It is not good that the song is so lyrically generic and vague that it could fit into any situation.

Then you'd probably hate most of the classic scores of the golden age and before.

His songs give the chance for a performer to belt their tits off and show their vocal skill. But as musical theatre songs, they're bad. You can easily swap out one of his ballads for another in any of his scores and get the same effect.

You mean like You'll Never Walk Alone and Climb Every Mountain? And we've already had examples of how easily Porter and Gershwin songs can be rearranged and dropped from one book into the next.

---

Musicals have also developed a great deal since the midcentury.

---

Just saw the weekly numbers for J&H...which nights were "sold out" and "packed"?!?!

---

SO nice to see you Waymon sharing your thoughts here. xo

I hope a new generation of jekkies enjoy this production. I know how happy Frank & co. are to revise this production with fresh new voices, sets, direction etc. There is nothing shabby about Frank's music and he will never be at a loss for credible people to sing his scores.

IMO, Jekyll and Hyde the musical has never truly captured the thoughts, emotions etc. of the novel in any staged production. It HAS produced a campy, creepy, macabre, tongue-in-cheek, love it /hate it production.

Having seen several versions, I still have the same opinion about this one and I am reasonallby sure the critics will have the same opinions about J&H 2013 as they did with J&H 1997. But the show will run and the fans will come.

https://pennsylvania.broadwayworld.com/article/BWW-Reviews-JEKYLL-AND-HYDE-The-Only-Thing-Constant-is-Change-20121229

Pati b.
BWW "Philly"

---

Very true, WW. Wonder what our pal Norm Lewis would do with this?! LOL.

Looking back to the "J&H in Concert" production with Rob Evan, Kate Shindle (Lucy) and Lauren Kennedy (Emma), there were no sets, little to no staging other than chairs, very little dialogue, no Bd. of Gov. no Facade, NO UMBRELLAS! The music told the story and it was clearly understood and it worked.

Wouldn't it have been amazing if Warlowe, Eder and Carmello had done a staged concert version of the complete works.

---

"The show works because it brings a classic story into relevance TODAY - production wise, vocally, and musically."

I'm sorry, but this made me laugh out loud.

A it's set in a specific time period, and the songs are not, which is one of the biggest problems with the script and production. It's all over the map, and this production doesn't make it any more TODAY than the original production did.

---