LORD OF THE RINGS opens- Page 2

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 3/24/06 at 5:11am

Here are highlights of what AP's Michael Kuchwrara had to say....

A lavish yet disappointing version of J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" had its world premiere Thursday. It's a case of imagination overwhelmed by complexity, in this case Tolkien's intricate, ornate and lengthy adventure saga.

Despite the simplification, what's left is a confusing and long evening..... A synopsis is conveniently provided in the theater program, but even that is of minimal help to those unfamiliar with the novels or the three celebrated films by Peter Jackson.

On stage, the battle scenes are, by necessity, brief and surprisingly tame. One exception is the first-act confrontation
between Gandalf the magician, the tale's mystical father figure, and the fierce-looking, red-eyed monster Balrog. Their dustup, complete with a wind machine that drives gusty currents into the audience, suggests where some of the more than $23 million in production dollars were spent. And it is only one of several big battles.

But "The Lord of the Rings" is as much about friendship as it is about fighting, and there are intimate moments in this epic journey as well. Most of those are expressed in song, which brings up a weird disconnect about the show. Its creators have insisted all along that the production is not a musical.
Yet characters do burst into song in a traditional musical-theater way, particularly in the show's few quiet, reflective sections.

The music is an odd amalgam of sounds by Bollywood master A.R. Rahman and Varttina, a Finnish folk group, combined by musical supervisor Christopher Nightingale. It's difficult to determine who did what, but the overall effect is one of anthem pop crossed with folksy New Age music, generic melodies that often swallow the elemental lyrics by McKenna and Warchus.

A circle, usually a large, yellowish moon, is never far from center stage in Rob Howell's elaborate design concept. Gnarled branches fill much of the proscenium and spill out into the theater's side boxes and the auditorium itself.

The main playing area contains a series of revolves and elevators that rise and fall with ease, helping create the various lands our travelers must visit before returning home.
Howell's costumes are occasionally eye-popping, particularly an exotic white number for Galadriel, the mystical Lady of Lothlorien, who aids Frodo in his quest.

As Frodo and his loyal companion Sam sing at the beginning of their arduous journey, "The road goes on, ever ever on." So does this never-ending production.

Cast albums are NOT "soundtracks."
Live theatre does not use a "soundtrack." If it did, it wouldn't be live theatre!

I host a weekly one-hour radio program featuring cast album selections as well as songs by cabaret, jazz and theatre artists. The program, FRONT ROW CENTRE is heard Sundays 9 to 10 am and also Saturdays from 8 to 9 am (eastern times) on www.proudfm.com

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/24/06 at 5:19am

Ouchers, way worse than I expected.

As I said before, it seemed to me like a poor way to exploit the franchise post-movie, but obviously didn't work out too well in the creative side.
Maybe Vegas would have been a better idea for this...

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 3/24/06 at 5:28am

And from the L.A. Times....

By Charles McNulty

Memo to producers of would-be blockbusters: Keep your outrageous production costs to yourselves.

One would have thought that "Waterworld" was enough to teach everyone this basic lesson. Now we have "The Lord of the Rings," the theatrical juggernaut that had its world premiere here Thursday, flaunting its $23-million price tag.

Well, much as the theater may deplore its beer-budget conditions, a colossal bankroll is no guarantee of such legendary status - or, for that matter, a measly standing ovation, which noticeably failed to ignite after the
reviewed performance Tuesday.

If the creators can get J.R.R. Tolkien's mammoth epic down to 90 minutes rom its current 3 1/2 hours, there's even a chance it could one day reach Vegas. And by the looks of Shaun McKenna and Matthew Warchus' bleary adaptation, it's hard to imagine anyone objecting to the cuts. After all, who cares about a few more missing chapters in the contest between good and evil in Middle-earth when there's a humongous jackpot waiting?

Neither a straight drama nor a traditional musical, the new
production succeeds only as a dazzling spectacle. Even so, you'll need to bone up on the books just to follow what's going on, let alone enjoy the ride.

Pity the production can't be judged exclusively on its design - it would be roundly considered a hit. Moonbeams pierce - sometimes menacingly, sometimes magnificently - through lush tangles of Rob Howell's foliage-trimmed set. And when the dark riders on their horses and savage, high-bounding orcs run
amok, the stage shakes with the starkly melodramatic fright of childhood nightmares.

Rumored to be a musical, "LOTR" is really a dramatic epic with orchestral enhancement. Tellingly, the playbill doesn't include the list of song titles and singers that is customary for bona fide musicals.

Unfortunately, the creators weren't content with this less orthodox path, and the show spoils its lovely world-music undercurrents with the most hackneyed romantic ballads, sung by female characters you'd need a flow chart to identify.

Had there been no film, the audience would no doubt have found it perplexing in the extreme. Of course, had there been no book, it would have seemed borderline insane to have sunk so many millions into what seems here like a crackpot chronicle.

Cast albums are NOT "soundtracks."
Live theatre does not use a "soundtrack." If it did, it wouldn't be live theatre!

I host a weekly one-hour radio program featuring cast album selections as well as songs by cabaret, jazz and theatre artists. The program, FRONT ROW CENTRE is heard Sundays 9 to 10 am and also Saturdays from 8 to 9 am (eastern times) on www.proudfm.com

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/24/06 at 5:33am

Wow, this sure is one of the most trashed shows I can think of.

[Tigger]

Posted: 3/24/06 at 9:16am

Yes this is a show critics will love to hate as they did Les Miz and Wicked. And it is so very disingenuous of them. The Toronto Star's critic (Ouzounian the oozing hypocrite) for a fact, reviewed the show from seeing it at a preview performance earlier in the week (a friend of mine sat near him) and then he attended the opening again last night with his wife and two children. For someone who thought the show was so disappointing, why would he put himself through that again?

I attended the performance last night and I can say that the audience for the most part were thrilled by what they saw and heard.

I will not impose a detailed review of my own except to say that this is not an Oklahoma! conventional type of musical or a Julie Taymor knock-off...however if one MUST find reference to liken the show to something that exists out there,like the critics do, because they dutifully have to pigeonhole and avoid any imagination to the fact that one could possibly defy convention by creating a show that exists purely by its own theatrical rules,then yes one can reach and say that certain elements resemble this and that.
However the experience for the average theatregoer (such as I) is what counts in my mind and I can safely say that it blows the majority of them away.

Having said that I also must qualify that I felt that the show is too long and could easily lose another half-hour without any damage whatsoever. I should also say that a central piece of miscasting,namely Brent Carver as Gandalf, doesn't help it either. He does not have the gravitas the part requires, and though magnificent as an actor in the right things, falls into the trap of being too fussy as he is required to play much older than his years. However those are quibbles for what rewards the show does bring.
The show is spectacular in every department and is worth seeing on that strength alone. There were moments when the audience literally SCREAMED in astonishment and broke into wild applause and I haven't experienced that in a theatre anywhere recently including London (except for Billy Elliott) and New York.

From the comments I heard last night after the show, one does not have to know let alone even like LOFT to enjoy this. One simply has to love the theatre and what it can accomplish and LOTR takes you there enough times to make it worthwhile.

It may have been opening night,however the crowd was far from just an inside industry crowd or friends of the cast. The majority of 2000 people jumped to their feet and cheered the cast and creative team lustilly at the curtain call.

If the critics kill it, it would be a shame as it truly is in my opinion, a worthwhile experience.

[firescape]

Posted: 3/24/06 at 11:26am

Hey I have an idea! For those actually SEARCHING and not being just handed reviews there are plenty of good ones out there. Hopefully this will help end just posting negative reviews:

From a Detroit source:
AS GOOD AS GOLD: 'LOTR' stage version is worth every penny

March 24, 2006

BY MARTIN F. KOHN


TORONTO -- Attention, Ontario: Resume breathing.

That show you've been counting on to bring in tourists? It just might do the trick.

The most expensive stage show ever (more than $23 million U.S.), the musical version of "The Lord of the Rings" began its world premiere engagement at the Princess of Wales Theatre right on schedule.

Seven weeks ago, technical glitches made the first preview clock in at 5 hours. These days "LOTR" runs 3 hours and 50 minutes, with two intermissions and a song after the curtain call. It may not be the 3 hours, 30 minutes that producer Kevin Wallace envisioned, but it doesn't feel overlong.

The show will run only in Toronto until at least 2007; the next production would be in London. Any New York production won't take place until 2008.

For Detroiters, is it worth the 4 1/2 -hour drive and tickets that top out at $107(U.S.)?

It is.

There's more good news. The local tourism association and the province of Ontario are among the show's backers. Although some performances are sold out, under an agreement between the show and Tourism Toronto 200 tickets for each performance (the theater holds 2,000) are set aside for out-of-towners. If you call for tickets and they tell you none are available, ask for the Tourism Toronto seats. You may be in luck.

Frodo lives, as do Sam, Gandalf, Strider, Arwen, Gollum and a raft of orcs, ents, elves and hobbits in a show that's lavish, lively and, although not really for kids, the most family-friendly theatrical event since "The Lion King."

Leave children younger than 9 at home, though, unless they know J.R.R. Tolkien's epic and have long attention spans. There is even a 15-minute show before the show, a lovely scene of rustic hobbit life, with folks dancing, singing and catching fireflies (tiny points of light) that appear as if by magic.

The tranquillity is short-lived. That's what happens when the future of the world is at stake. Frodo and his companions must journey far to destroy the titular ring that would make Sauron, the evil one, invincible if he had it.

At least three epic battles are fought. In one, Frodo and company face a dragonlike creature whose mighty breath blasts the audience. In another, the fellowship fights an army of orcs, actors on spring-loaded devices that send them somersaulting in midair. These scenes are spectacular.

By the third battle ... well, never mind. The production, directed and cowritten by Matthew Warchus, has two audiences to please: the legions who have read the books or seen the movies and might feel shortchanged if a major battle were left out; and the multitudes who enjoy musicals but know nothing of Middle-earth, where "LOTR" takes place.

The latter group is up against the opera factor -- the urge to ask, "Who's he?" or "What's happening now?" You'll have a better time if you know the story. At least read the synopsis in the playbill.

Visually, "LOTR" is stunning. Roots or branches seem to grow from the stage and along the walls of the theatre. Elevators and turntables makes the stage rise and fall and spin. Actors on stilts become convincing horses and riders; actors on higher stilts become the impossibly tall mythic herders of trees, and when characters fly, their wires really are invisible.

Musically, "The Lord of the Rings" is an improbable hybrid that works, composed by the folk band Varttina, from Finland, and A.R. Rahman, from India, known for movie scores and the Broadway musical "Bombay Dreams." Musical supervisor Christopher Nightingale put it all together.

The music is atmospheric and engaging, not necessarily at the same time. Among the more atmospheric is the haunting, healing lullaby that Arwen (Carly Street), sings to the injured Frodo (James Loye). Among the more engaging and hummable are "The Cat and the Moon," a kind of Hobbit hoedown, and "Now and For Always," a sweet and plaintive song by Frodo and his sidekick Sam (Peter Howe).

The cast is vast -- 55 actors -- and admirable. Loye, Howe, Street, Brent Carver as the wizard Gandalf, Evan Buliung as Strider and Dylan Roberts and Owen Sharpe as hobbits Merry and Pippin, are all excellent. Michael Therriault, as sinuous, sniveling Gollum, seems a creature from a world all his own.

Toronto's "Lord of the Rings" is a creation all its own, too.

Contact MARTIN F. KOHN at 313-222-6517 or [e-mail]

[firescape]

Posted: 3/24/06 at 11:37am

Here is another a Canadian based review:

Musical debut ends 4-year wait

By JACK BOLAND - Toronto Sun


The Lord of the Rings cast belt out their final number at last night's gala opening at the Princess of Wales theatre. (David Lucas, SUN)
TORONTO - Toronto is Hogtown no more - Welcome to Hobbittown. The Princess of Wales Theatre was the centre of the universe - or rather Middle Earth - last night with the unveiling of J.R.R. Tolkien's stage adaptation of The Lord of the Rings.

The much-anticipated $27-million epic quest opened in Toronto as the black-tie set Hobbit-knobbed with the likes of Arwen, Frodo, Gandalf, Gollum, Smeagol and the occasional orc.

As celebrities and dignitaries - including former governor general Adrienne Clarkson, actresses Cynthia Dale, Shirley Douglas and Douglas' daughter Rachel Sutherland, as well as Barenaked Ladies frontman Steven Page and mayor David Miller - exited the 31/2-hour premiere most were spellbound and even speechless.

At a loss for words was Louise Pitre of Mamma Mia! fame, a successful long-running Mirvish production, who stood, mouth agape, searching for words and a limo.

"Wow! Overwhelming. It's more like a movie than a piece of theatre," said Pitre, herself no stranger to the Princess of Wales stage, before switching to French. "I just adored the music. And Michael Therriault (who plays Gollum/Smeagol), incredible."

Before the show Barenaked Ladies' Page was a bit skeptical and recalled reading the book in Grade 5 and said "it was just a bit too much for me at the time" with a dead-pan look.


After the show Page had turned a page.

"I didn't know what to expect. It was world class. There was some great adventurous staging done," said Page. "I've seen plays in the west-end (London) and Broadway and have been disappointed. I wasn't with this."

Others like Danielle Iversen, a Toronto publicist, were also brimming with enthusiasm after the show.

"For a Canadian production it was very extraordinary. It was very New York and that says something for Toronto," said Iversen.

This would clearly be music to Kevin Wallace's ears.

Wallace, co-producer of LOTR, said he was feeling "highly emotional" and somewhat nervous in anticipation of the final product.

Asked whether the play would be as popular as the book and movie trilogy, Wallace said "the audience will decide that."

Those watching previews of the play since Feb. 4 have been amazed by the way the massive show is contained on the stage.

Director Matthew Warchus confirmed that Tolkien's granddaughter, Rachel, was in attendance. Her father helped design the maps for the original books.


Updated On: 3/24/06 at 11:37 AM

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 3/24/06 at 12:12pm

Tigger - In Richard Ouzounian's defence, the Mirvishes did request that the dailey reviewers cover one of this week's previews (with an embargo on publishing the review until after opening night.) More reviewers will see the show this weekend.
I also suspect that since The Star did major pe-opening publicity, Richard and family were among the invited guests for last night's gala.

Firescape - Thanks for putting The Sun article up, but it is not the actual reviewe. It is an opening night feature story. John Colborne did the review and gave it * * * 1/2 (out of five)

Another review comes from The Boston Globe:


At first, turning 'The Lord of the
Rings" into a megamusical -- and with a budget of
$23 million, the British-led Toronto production
that had its world premiere last night is the
most mega musical ever -- seemed like an idea
only the dark lord Sauron could love.

But the specter of kitschy, can-canning hobbits
that many J.R.R. Tolkien and musical-theater fans
feared has not materialized. The show's
international creative team has created a stage
epic that is surprisingly smart and visually
stunning, and does not feature Frodo singing
about a few of his favorite rings.
Instead of having characters break into song to
express their thoughts and feelings, the
composing fellowship of India's A.R. Rahman,
Finnish folk group Värttinä, and Britain's
Christopher Nightingale has put together
Middle-earth songs that hobbits, elves, and men
sing to keep their spirits up when they miss the
Shire or their loved ones or to comfort one
another as they fall asleep, as well as
atmospheric music that underscores the entire
play. The trade-off for this classy integration
of music and drama is that you won't walk out
humming any of the tunes.

While 'The Lord of the Rings" leaves behind most
Broadway musical conventions -- though Saruman's
send-off of the orcs to capture the hobbits does
conjure up a certain Wicked Witch telling her
monkeys to 'Fly, fly!" -- Tolkien-heads will be
pleased to know that the stage show hews very
closely to the books, more so than Peter
Jackson's movies, and leaves little out. Less
reverent audience members will wish that more had
been left behind, as the show stretches to 3 1/2
hours with two intermissions. Bilbo Baggins
speaks for many when he asks, 'Don't adventures
ever have an end?"

And even at this length, Frodo's journey to
destroy the 'one ring to rule them all" feels
rushed. The climactic scene atop Mount Doom is
over before it begins, while the romance between
human Aragorn and half-elf Arwen feels
perfunctory. Many of the minor characters --
Éowyn, Legolas, and the dwarf Gimli -- are just
outlines that you must fill in with your prior
knowledge.

Writer Shaun McKenna and director Matthew Warchus
have given the relationship between the
ringbearer Frodo (James Loye) and his constant
gardener companion, Sam (Peter Howe), the stage
time it deserves, however. Their passionate
friendship and platonic love, beautiful acted by
the two British actors, give the show a
much-needed heart, all Brokeback Mount Doom jokes
aside.

Of course, their scenes are stolen by the
corrupted creature Gollum, played as a
rage-filled rag doll by Michael Therriault, one
of Canada's best and -- now we know -- most
supple actors. The character looks and sounds
like the blue-tinged animation from Jackson's
films but is infinitely more amazing incarnated
by a real live human. (He doesn't really sing,
though he does hiss a few bars.)

Tony-winning actor Brent Carver, the biggest name
of the production, is less comfortable as
Gandalf, here a wizard who is always one spell
away from the edge.

The absolute star of the show, however, is the
morphing, Celtic-inspired set designed by Rob
Howell, and this is likely to be the most
influential element. Sections of rotating floor
can rise out of the stage, almost all the way to
the ceiling. The floor can shape-shift into a
castle, a mountain, stairs, just about anything,
while the actors roam over it and hop from one
elevated platform to another like live-action
Super Mario Brothers.

In the battles, as in the rest of the show,
Warchus and Peter Darling, the award-winning
choreographer for the London musical smash
'Billy Elliot," have chosen highly theatrical
movements. The orcs, for example, are played by
acrobats, who flip about marvelously on
pogo-stick shoes. Other theatrical traditions are
thrown in: The prologue tells the story of Gollum
and Bilbo through shadow theater, the Black
Riders and other evil creatures are giant puppets
as in 'The Lion King," and the stilt-walking
ents are straight out of Cirque du Soleil. It's a
mishmash of styles that somehow pulls together in
a spectacle-filled evening that will win over
droves of 'Lord of the Rings" fans, but may
leave the unconvinced unconvinced.

It's still not exactly a rave, but it is more positive than many of the others.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 2:29am

With the print reviews being mixed to negative, it is interesting that the local television media focussed mainly on the celebrity audience. None of them offered a formal review. Morning show hosts gushed about how exciting the opening was and showed interviews with Toronto mayor David Miller and other special invited guests.

Of course any publicity is good publicity and the show got prominent mentions in all of today’s papers and on all local (and some national) newscasts.

One tidbit that emerged is that the London opening is set for March 2007, but no word on any other North American productions.

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 4:16am

It's going to open in London with those reviews? Well, that's a brave move...

[Tigger]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 6:58am

Luckily those reviews are no deterrent to many of those who have seen it. I have just bought more tickets for in a few weeks to take a nephew and friends for his birthday and can't wait to see it again. Had I believed in the reviews for Wicked I wouldn't have gone to see it either.

[bare_nakedlady]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 10:08am

If you're looking to site good reviews, Don't site anything from the DETROIT FREE PRESS. MARTIN KOHN hasn't written a bad review in his life. He's not very credible. And judging from this review in particular I'd say he read a press release and wrote the article having not even seen the show.

I'm sure there are good reviews, but don't count his as one.

In my opinion though, I can't see this show really taking off. They rely too much on the audience knowing what is going to happen and having read the books or seen the movie. I don't see anyone seeing this show twice. (or at least not until they have some huge discount) I took four people to this show of various backgrounds. And not a one would go again. All were glad to have seen it though. But I think that is the biggest flaw. The audience should want to go again.

[firescape]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 10:21am

I WOULD GO AGAIN! Drove 32 hours round trip for a preview the first time and I would go again in a heart beat. I must add that I am also not a raging tolkien fan! I have only seen each movie once, never read the books. My friend and I just love theater. Everything made sense to me and although we notice some flaws, we still enjoyed it incredibly! I dont care what some hardboiled critic says! They mostly disagree with whats massively popular anyway. I have seen many Broadway shows where they ripped apart the show and yet the public disagreed and kept it alive. Unfortunately there are those occasions where a show, as good as it may be, can not survive a series of bad reviews. It would be a shame if this were one of those.

[Tigger]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 2:23pm

The following is Canadian Press article. It pretty much explains why its on schedule to go to London and not New York. Also, overheard today on the radio by a commentator who saw and loved the show "...Had it been called "Frodo sings Sondheim" or "Lord of the old musical revivals" maybe the critics would have like it more.

TORONTO (CP) - The producer of the Lord of the Rings mega-production remained optimistic Friday, insisting the general public will embrace the show - despite the harsh words of many theatre critics.
Kevin Wallace suggested the $28-million production has enough ticket-buying momentum that it won't be slowed by the mixed reviews from theatre critics that followed Thursday night's black-tie, red-carpet premiere at the Princess of Wales Theatre.
"You'd like everybody to like the show (but) it is going to inevitably generate a degree of controversy because it doesn't fall into a conventional category," said Wallace.
"We have faith in our audience and it is important now for us to continue to communicate to that audience."
Wallace said ads for the production will publish positive quotes from the likes of the London Times and Time magazine and various electronic media reporters who were "clearly celebrating the experience they had in the theatre."
The reviews that followed Thursday's official opening ranged from gushing to devastating.
"A lavish yet disappointing version . . . a case of imagination overwhelmed by complexity . . . a confusing and long evening," wrote Michael Kuchwara, drama critic for The Associated Press.
But Sam Marlowe of the London Times said theatrical magic won out over the production's weaknesses.
"Its best moments are, like the ring, an intoxicating enchantment."
Before the gala, many theatregoers who had attended preview performances expressed positive opinions in Internet blogs. VIPs in attendance Thursday also praised the show - including Rings author J.R.R. Tolkien's granddaughter Rachel Tolkien, who said it was beautifully done.
"Everything that, to me, is the most important and the most moving in the books is on the stage," Tolkien declared. "I think it's an amazing feat."
But is that good enough to see the production make its way to London's West End as earlier planned?
Wallace noted that London reviewers, from the Times to the Daily Mail, have been very positive.
"So the London production is on schedule for the spring of 2007."
Asked if there might be any tweaking of the Toronto production after the criticisms, especially of its 3 1/2-hour length, Wallace said no stage production is ever finished and that it will be looked at in a few weeks' time.
Meanwhile, a cast CD is scheduled to be released in October or November.

[Colle]

Posted: 3/26/06 at 9:10am

I feel better that there has been some positive reviews. It just sounds like that there needs to be some improvements for it to be the best show possible. Glad to hear some news about a cast recording, it looks like I already know what I want for my birthday this year.

[Tigger]

Posted: 3/26/06 at 9:47am

No question that there is room for the show to improve. A new Gandalf and a good trim in the second act would help. Nevertheless what there is for the moment is still unlike anything you will see or hear anywhere... and though awesome is a word I rarely use, it best describes this spectacular show.

I hope there is a cast recording CD as there are two gorgeous songs that are haunting. One is the Fellowship Of The Ring anthem and the other the travel song that Frodo and Sam sing together and that is touchingly and pathetically reprised by Gollum.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 3/26/06 at 10:35am

I have yet to find a good review......I am SO glad I did not spend the $1500 to get us there and get us tickets that I considered........Why do I think this may even be a bigger flop than Napoleon? And I MUST be the only American alive with the original Canadian highlights cast recording of that........

[JRTO]

Posted: 3/26/06 at 10:57am

napolean has good music though...

[Tigger]

Posted: 3/26/06 at 11:05am

Good Lord! Napoleon WAS horrible!

LOTR is not nearly anywhere as bad.You might like to check out the review from the Times in London. You can even hear a piece of the music (not a cast recording) which underscores the moment Lothlorien,where the elves live, appears on stage. The visual is breathtaking in the theatre and the music suits it nicely too.

go to:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14936-2100281,00.html

[chriswin]

Posted: 3/26/06 at 5:35pm

I don't understand why people put so much weight on the words of a few people who probably have no more passion for the theater than you or I. What qualifications do critics have that we don't? I would think that if a show looked interesting to me I would go and make up my own mind. If I don't like the show, it's all part of the theater experience. But I'd rather spend the money and make my own decision than trust someone who I don't even know (and I don't care how much you read a certain critic's review, how well do you really know him/her?) I'm travelling from Maine to see the show in May, and whether it's good or bad for me at least I had the experience and that to me is what theater is all about.