Pauly- a friend had an extra ticket. I am not a director, I am simply a patron. I do not have an answer as to how to plausibly stage this scene. What I can tell you is that I found the way it is currently staged to be over the top and campy. Just as newintown, so aptly put.
I guess I'm late to "Jekyll and Hyde," but count me as one of the ones who is in love with much of its music. "Your Work and Nothing More," "Take Me As I Am," "In His Eyes," and "Once Upon a Dream" are gorgeous. My boyfriend downloaded the OBC and the original concept album for me, and I've been listening to these on a loop. My experience with this musical is limited to these as well as the Hasselhoff DVD (one brief note on this: On first viewing, I kind of had to keep from giggling. The "hair ballet," upon first impression, was kind of funny. But his performance honestly gets better on repeat viewings. He obviously tried very hard, and his voice is actually very nice at times. I would think with some guidance and more training, Hasselhoff could be a very good theater performer).
I have to agree with whoever else thinks much of the original concept album is superior in many ways. And after more thought (and many of your comments) regarding the book, I see what people mean about it being problematic. Emma is such a contradictory character (telling her father she can decide the path of her own life for herself), yet later proclaiming that Jekyll defines who she is (In His Eyes). Additionally, as has previously been mentioned, the setup with Stride (and for that matter, Jekyll's father) never develops/concludes.
I listened to the samples of the new concept album with Constantine Maroulis and Deborah Cox (thanks to those here who patiently described how a concept album differs from a cast recording!). From someone like myself who is neither an industry insider nor a theater pro (basically just a theater fan), the new songs seem very anemic. The orchestrations are very light, and many of the songs seem to have a sort of tango flavor (I hear what seems to be only acoustic guitar on a couple of songs). It's almost like "Jekyll and Hyde Unplgged," and removes much of the power of the original music.
However, I like to think that I'm generous in my judgments, and I do like to give the benefit of the doubt. I'd love to see some incarnation of this version (in person or on DVD), and see what kind of interpretation they've made of this material. And Deborah Cox's comments regarding more changes to come when (if?) this comes to Broadway have me very interested and excited!
LALA, no problem in not being able to answer. Note I was not asking how you would make the scene plausible. Also note I made no assumptions about you being a director or anything more than a patron. You had very distinct impressions of the show, so I simply wondered how you would do it better if given the opportunity.
I still wonder why go see a show you know you will dislike though. I am not the standard by which others should be measured, but I would not set foot in the general direction of a show I didn't like - extra ticket or not. To be fair, perhaps you were just curious as to the changes in this version. Also to be fair, you stated the material was weak and terrible the first time you saw J&H. You likely knew something about this version (being a member here), so why you would be curious enough to spend 2.5 hours with a show you almost certainly know you won't like is puzzling.
I asked this earlier, but it seems to have gotten buried in all the other comments... Are there a lot of set pieces outside of the panels with projections?
"There’s nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music. "
A lot of questions of the past can be answered on the original official web page <https://www.jekyll-hyde.com>. It has a huge history and picture gallery. All the past and present regional and european productions and some helpful links, including MTI which has scene snopsis and clips of the songs.
Pauly - I totally understand your questioning why I would go see this show. I guess I just love professional theater, good or bad. You're correct, I did get a sense of what I was going to see from these boards. It was a chance to spend a night at the theater with a very good friend, watching a show we both view as a guilty pleasure. I don't regret one second of time spent watching the show. I am just a critical person and it's part of the experience.
^^Yup. Not sure everyone understands that the tour doesn't officially open until San Diego. The La Mirada performances were more like constant dress rehearsals, tweaking, changing, correcting, tech stuff, etc.etc.etc. Of course there will be more of that on the actual tour until it hits Broadway next spring, but up until SD it's rehearsals.
Since no one has posted an answer to the mirror illusion, I'll give it a try. "Confrontation". In 1990, it was performed by two people, Chuck Wagner and Dave Clemmons. Clemmons, standing behind a tall mirror in the laboratory, would as Hyde, manipulate Jekyll like a puppet. Hyde's face was just obscured enough so as not to tell it was another actor. At the end, Jekyll would 'throw' a beaker at the mirror and the lights would go to a mirror ball effect with the sound of breaking glass. On the 1995 tour, Cuccioli would play both parts, though one was recorded. Hyde's face showed up as a huge projection behind the lab table, and Jekyll would 'face' his demon, finally 'throwing' a beaker. The image would break apart as if it were a mirror. On Broadwy, Cuccioli played both both parts simultaneously. No mirrors..no projections...no recordings. On a bare stage, Cuccioli would contort back and forth as Jekyll, then Hyde, then Jekyll, and so on. Amazing and exhausting to watch. However, you didn't just watch this show, you felt it.
"Amazing and exhausting to watch. However, you didn't just watch this show, you felt it." ...and often ridiculously funny! The "hair ballet" as we called it made for some interesting unplanned action...like the time Rob Evan blew out the entire crotch of his pants prior to the Confrontation. He calls it "the exploding pants" story and was thankful for biker shorts. So many other unplanned things happened on that Plymouth stage. Ah, live theater.
I much prefered the pre-Broadway mirror Confrontation.
^I thought the Broadway version, despite the "hair ballet" was the least campy incarnation of "The Confrontation," but part of me also feels like it's Jekyll and Hyde and therefor inherently camp to a certain degree, and I don't understand why directors shy away from it or why critics criticize the show for being so. If it's not a little campy, it's not right in my book.
Campy or serious ?, imo, that's always been the reason some people loved and most critics hated it. Some of the songs/scenes are meant to be deep/dark drama then you've got this crazy monster sneaky around bopping people with his cane, strangling Lady Spencer and setting people on fire...the whole time he's got this "sh*t eating half angry smirk" on his face. How can you take that seriously? It's macabre/ cultish/campy/Sweeney Todd stuff that we saw over and over because it was such an adventure to see what each actor would do with the role. Some of them were extremely talented ...some were simply not, imo.
I can't imagine how the new tour would re-invent this. If they are looking to add a romantic/sexy side to this...well that will really make this "interesting" and again, imo, the press might explode on this.
"Cox gave an interview that had me a little confused, something to the extent that they were re-introducing the show to the fans on tour, then "we will arrive on Broadway with a completely revived show, it will be reintroduced with a whole new twist. The sentiment and foundation of the story and music will remain intact, but the costumes and direction will be completely different—we want to set a new standard for the show."
WoW. Suddenly every producer's heart bleeds for the fans and general audiences enough to gift everyone with a "REINVENTED" production of this and other musicals...that appears to be reductive, more than anything else.
General comment sparked by this discussion and past reinvention horrors, not commenting on this production, this musical, or its composer. Ass cover.
And I'm sincerely hoping my theatre community isn't suffering from a Madonna reinvention complex.
If that's the case, Frank Wildhorn is the least of our problems.
Recreation of original John Cameron orchestration to "On My Own" by yours truly. Click player below to hear.
"The gods who nurse this universe think little of mortals' cares. They sit in crowds on exclusive clouds and laugh at our love affairs. I might have had a real romance if they'd given me a chance. I loved him, but he didn't love me. I wanted him, but he didn't want me. Then the gods had a spree and indulged in another whim. Now he loves me, but I don't love him." - Cole Porter
I thought Deborah sounded wonderful. She can hit those big notes so effortlessly. I was talking to someone at intermission who thought she sounded a litttle raspy. She said the last time she had seen the show she thought her voice was clearer. Maybe because of the matinee? >>>crazy monster sneaky around bopping people with his cane, strangling Lady Spencer and setting people on fire...the whole time he's got this "sh*t eating half angry smirk" on his face. It wasn't at all like that. Constantine was the perfect "mad man"
I caught the last show at La Mirada this afternoon. The performances of the leads have improved since I show on opening night three weeks ago.
There was definitly more contrast between Constantine's Jekyll and his Hyde and he was in better voice than he was the last time I saw it. Deborah Cox's take on Lucy was more consistent; her voice still sounded a little breathy, but she really opened up during 'A New Life'.
Teal Wicks continues to amaze me with her Emma. There was a minor snafu during the last scene when her dress got caught on something on the stage.
"You drank a charm to kill John Proctor's wife! You drank a charm to kill Goody Proctor!" - Betty Parris to Abigail Williams in Arthur Miller's The Crucible
Basically after 'Someone Like You', the flat with Lucy's bedroom on it moves all the way upstage. During the following scene, Lucy is visible in shadow. The scene with Nellie and the bishop takes place downstage, as does the ending where Hyde murders the bishop with his cross.
"You drank a charm to kill John Proctor's wife! You drank a charm to kill Goody Proctor!" - Betty Parris to Abigail Williams in Arthur Miller's The Crucible
^When was the Broadway act one finale ever staged with a light on Lucy? Lucy wasn't even in that scene. The first "Alive" ended with Hyde and Lucy, but not the act one finale reprise.
