LESTAT - The New Carrie!- Page 9

[WaltSummersPI]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 11:42am

For the record, I went in with no working knowledge of Ann Rice or her novels/characters.

I don't think Lestat is an EVIL character, or at least not as Hugh is portraying him. Rather, I thought he was a tragic character who loses the people he loves (Nicholas, his mother, Louis and Claudia) because of who he is. The fact that he's a vampire is almost incidental. What he *wants*, almost from the moment the curtain rises, is to find out who he is. Lestat's an archetype, no different from Odysseus.

[fishergirl819]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 11:44am

I think one of the main problems with the show (and I can only speak for the NY production, but I can assume it was probably the same w/ SF, judging by what everyone's said) is that I don't think they spell things out well enough. They present these issues - Lestat having the fire in him to kill the wolves, Nicholas' reaction to being turned, Lestat's purpose, etc - but they don't explain them enough. Exposition and explanation are there, but there isn't ENOUGH there for the majority of the theatre to pick up on. I, like Walt, was able to pick up on what Lestat wanted and such over the course of the show, though I can most definitely see how other's couldn't...however, when Nicholas was turned, I had NO FREAKIN' CLUE what was going on, and my friend had to whisper a quick explanation between songs.

I'd like to think that with a bit more revision to the book, that's a fixable problem, but I honestly don't know.

I still want to know why the hell he had that fire in him to kill the wolves. Stop TELLING me, and start EXPLAINING it to me, dude!

Don't remember if it was in this thread, or in the thread about the first preview, but I believe someone asked if there is still the bit about Lestat scribbling Marius' name across walls in Europe in blood, and yes, that's still there, and very funny.

I really, really hope that all the problems I found with the show and the problems others have seen are fixable, because I really, genuinely enjoyed myself when I saw it Saturday night, and I'd like it to succeed at least a bit.

[ken8631]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 12:01pm

Overheard a guy in the back of the theatre before the performance, telling others about making the cell phone announcement, saying they should start doing a standard one, but it could wait until the next performance. Seemed like a director/producer type, kinda short, grey hair.

At the end, noticed he was sitting in the last row in left orch, but he just stayed sitting there as people left and didn't look too happy. I remember after watching "Dracula", Frank Wildhorn was standing in the back after the performance, seemed a lot happier!

Just an observation....

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 12:06pm

I was referring to InfiniteTheatreFrenzy's well-written review of the show, where SHE said, "What DID Lestat want?"

And again, that's the same question I had about the SF show.

I felt the SAME WAY when I saw the show in SF. It appears this aspect has still not been changed. And I think it was the major problem in SF and continues to be a major problem in NYC.

[rock00]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 12:43pm

I had no idea what Lestat wanted throughout the show, but I know I wanted my 65 bucks back (sadly, neither of us got what we wanted).

[jimnysf]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 12:47pm

Be happy it only cost you $65 but I'm with you! There were no discounts in SF and the total was over $100 with service charges. I wanted my money and the three hours of my life back. This made "The Mambo Kings" look like the best show ever!

[Anastasia_Beaverhausen]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 12:50pm

It's funny cause it's true. What a mess of a show (in SF anyway..just want to be clear...didn't want to get attacked)!!!

[jarretSF]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 1:51pm

Hey Jimnysf, if your in the city at all when tickets are on sale, go to any of the 3 theatres when you buy tickets, avoids all the fees. I usually walk over to the Curran on my lunch break, or go down to the Orpheum on the weekend to get tickets to aa show. For Lestat, I had waited a little while before I got tickets, but was flexible on my dates, the person behind the counter was extremely helpful and helped me find front row center mezzanine. The great seats were the best thing about the evening, and I didn't have to pay Ticketmaster fees!

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 1:58pm

And from most places in the Bay Area, it's actually cheaper to take BART and walk to the Curran than to pay the Ticketmaster fee!

[Juhgail]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 2:12pm

Well, You are all comparing this to carrie. I havent seen Lestat, but im gonna throw in an alternative to Carrie and its three words...


"In My Life".

Nuf said.

Posted: 3/29/06 at 2:31pm

From my experiences with the SF production, I understood Lestat's wants just fine, although I thought that the book needed the most work of all things. So here's my understanding of the story and theme. I thought that Lestat was always dealing with his need for companionship and sense of belonging. He dealt with this conflict from his days with his dysfunctional family all the way to his troubled relationships in France and the New World. Perhaps that's why he wanted to be an actor because he felt loved by the audience. And being a vampire also added to this conflict since he didn't know where he belonged... dead or alive...good or evil...or under the guidance of God or the Devil. Lestat's pretty much stuck in this limbo throughout the whole show and the events in his life helps him to come into terms with that. Lots of LONLINESS. If you think about it, it's rather deep and metaphorical. Now I'm not sure how the current Broadway production resolves this in the finale (because I've yet to see it), but it seems to me that Lestat always had the strength in him (surviving the wolf fight, being chosen by Magnus, and even surviving all those heartbreaks). So, he realizes this in the end and decides he can and will live forever.

I could be wrong, but that's my interpretation. Kind of reminds me of writing an English paper in college. LOL! :)

~Rosalynn

[Shawk]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 2:34pm

I'd have to agree that in SF I wasn't really confused as to WHAT was happening (and how could I be, when they'd talk about doing something, sing about doing something, and then have a voiceover saying they had actually done it) but WHY it was happening. (In Act I, anyway; Act II was pretty clear.)

If I had been confused on behalf of and with Lestat, that could have worked, but instead it just seemed like the endless bullet points of Lestat's life where I wasn't exactly clear why anyone was doing anything. Lestat would be angsting over killing someone one moment, and the next moment, not appear to care. If you are going to make the case that this is one man's journey through time, we need an actual journey and motivations that make sense, not just random events punctuated by songs.

The sad thing is that I think they were trying to do this, it just didn't work out. There were hints of it, but just not enough. It doesn't really sound like they have fixed this problem.

Updated On: 3/29/06 at 02:34 PM

[dented146]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 2:49pm

Thank you ITF for the thoughtful review. It is interesting that so many of the experieced talented people in theatre have such difficulty with this subject matter. It seems to me that if the fine line between success and failure on this subject is laughter then it might be much more productive, fun, and bookwise easy just to go straight to something like Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

[EAD1974]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 3:07pm

Broadwaybaby81;

I think you pretty much nailed what the themes are; the problem is that all of that is SUBtext, and maybe what the show needs is, well...TEXT. Making it clearer to the audience that it's all a metaphor for something else. However, I'm really not sure how one does that without hitting you over the head with "This isn't REALLY about vampires, it's about being gay/addiction/loneliness/ WHATEVER." People need to bring their own ideas about what the metaphor means, and maybe you need something more straightforward to work on stage. I dunno.

oh, and dented146;

Don't be surprised about there being a Buffy musical on Broadway one day...Joss Whedon has made noises to that effect before in interviews. And I certainly think that would be more popular, as their is more tounge in cheek humor there.

Posted: 3/29/06 at 6:54pm

EAD1974: Yes, meeting half way would be nice. Dramas like Lestat are great because it makes you think of a deeper meaning, but I do agree that some things need to be clearer and more apparent onstage. Granted this is hard to do because of the subject matter. It needs to be dramatic enough for people to take the themes seriously, but not be too heavy that the audience shuns away from it. Lestat also labels itself as a "non-vampire, vampire musical", so it doesn't have the advantage of the humor, fluff, or even gory horror that may appeal to some theatregoers. I'm hoping that the creative team finds the right balance.

~Rosalynn

[the.hard.part]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 7:16pm

I actually cannot wait to see this, I think it will improve before it officially opens

[EponineThenardier]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 8:30pm

The hard thing about doing Vampire musicals (I feel) is that there will almost always be a certain amount of cheese in the show.

Also for me I think the show has a disavantage of having some truly awful lyrics. Some are great, but a lot of the lyrics make some really great sounding songs just plain silly.

Someone mentioned the shy Chinese painted fans line in Crimson Kiss. Also some of Claudia's lines in "I'll Never Have That Chance" are really lame. Such a gorgeous song (probably my favorite in the show) and then poor Allison has to sing the word "moist" because it rhymes. Yeesh.

I know Bernie Taupin has worked forever with Elton John, but his lyrics really aren't that great.

And I can't help but wonder how this would have faired if John Doyle had directed. I know he was busy with Sweeney and he'd likely NEVER take this job, but with such a great production team, good music and cast; I think under a truly groundbreaking director, this would have been a truly magnificant show.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 8:34pm

For those who saw it in NY: Is the play the vampires are putting on, still there? With Nikki Daniels as the damsel in distress and Joseph Dellger as the stereotypical Bram Stoker-type vampire?

I always figured that part was there to address the cheesiness that comes with the show (as you just said, ET), except in some ways, it was a highlight of Act 2.

[Shawk]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 8:42pm

Aw, Nikki Renee Daniels. I laaahve her.

I wish she had more to do in the show, because her voice is lovely.

[fishergirl819]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 8:44pm

Is the play the vampires are putting on, still there? With Nikki Daniels as the damsel in distress and Joseph Dellger as the stereotypical Bram Stoker-type vampire?

Yes, and its absolutely hysterical.

[EponineThenardier]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 9:22pm

I still love the show, but this cracked me up.


For those of you who saw "To Kill Your Kind" in SF. One reviewer described it as Michael Jackson's "Thriller" on crack.

[EAD1974]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 10:14pm

LOL Thriller on Crack...kinda true, but I actually really like that number; sadly, all I have is the Noseworthy version

I also really got a kick out of the Bram Stoker-esque play in the Theater of the Vampires in Act 2. I wish they had replaced "The Origin of the Species" with an 18th Century version of that play, or something really similar or equally funny. The whole "Morality Play" thing about Marius saving humanity sounds way lame. I still don't get why we need a long drawn out explanation of who Marius is aside from A: He's Armand's maker and B: He's the oldest and wisest ( as far as this show is concerned ). Maybe they'll change it.

[EponineThenardier]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 10:20pm

I can't help but think that there must be at least ONE person involved in the show who reads these boards you know?

"all I have is the Noseworthy version"

Bummer. It was great. Allison Fischer has this moment where she backs into Armand and he gives her this look of death. She comes up to Drew's waist practically and he had this craaaazy look in his eyes like he was gonna step on her like a bug.

I don't care what anyone says, I love that song. :)

[EAD1974]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 10:40pm

Yeah, I've seen the Drew Sarich version..I thought he was great! That's why I'm bummed that all I have is the other version ( You know what I mean...that thing I'm pretty sure I'm not supposed to talk about on these boards..well, that's what I'm talkin' about. Ok, movin' on...

[rock00]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 11:25pm

For the record, I actually liked the morality play about Marius in Act I. Granted, it had no business being in there given that Marius' role turned out to be little more than a cameo, but I thought the use of the masks was cool (then again, I was dying for anything that was remotely interesting at that point)...