Posted: 6/3/15 at 8:50am
Elements of the original production in London do need updating. The graveyard scene is very cringe now with the pathetic shots of fire, Christines dressing room you can hear coming on from miles away and the Masquarade mannequins are very obvious
Posted: 6/3/15 at 9:11am
"I thought shows had to 'freeze' and couldn't be changed once opening night rolls along? Is there an exception like if a show runs a certain amount of years they can make some changes? Are there things a show can and cannot change? How does that work?"
There's no actual rule about freezing a show. It's a standard practice now that a show is typically frozen during the last week or so of previews so that critics are all seeing the same thing, but even then if a member of the creative team feels the need to make a change they absolutely could.
Once the show is open there are a certain number of limited hours available for rehearsal each week. These will typically be used for understudy rehearsals, brush-ups, or put-ins, but again, if the creative team really wanted to they could use it to continue to make changes to the show.
Posted: 6/3/15 at 11:16am
Don't forget, original run of Les Mis went through changes and cuts after running for a while, so too did Lion King.
JOJ, Peter Joback, Earl Carpenter, and my personal favorite: Ramin Karimloo. I know they brought Norm in, but sadly I didnt get to see his performance.
Regarding bringing in Phantoms, Peter Joback had a 6 month run on Broadway and was dreadful. Ramin (who I personally feel is overated and overexposed) has said he is not interested. Earl, while doing well as Javert at the moment, to quote carlotta "does not have the voice" saw him in Phantom twice and his high notes were abysmal. JOJ, got to see his scream fest about 3 times (2 times too many) also there may be some equity issues to iron out to get those into the role.
I'd much prefer bringing in new people to roles in all shows I like, It always bothers me when so many phans think that those 3 above mentioned are the be all and end all of phantomdom.
Posted: 6/3/15 at 11:25am
I saw the new touring production too a few months ago. It just pointed up problems that have been there all along for me: there's no proper opening number, it's twenty minutes before anything interesting happens plot-wise, the first part is just ALW masturbating with choral arrangements, etc. The physical production is a dud--there's a big clunky center piece for much of it that becomes a tower, the managers' office, etc., and seems to just clog up the stage. It just made it even more obvious to me that Prince really earned his directing Tony for the B'way production.
Posted: 6/4/15 at 9:09am
its like asking if the ocean is wet enough.
Posted: 6/4/15 at 11:37am
Elements of the original production in London do need updating. The graveyard scene is very cringe now with the pathetic shots of fire, Christines dressing room you can hear coming on from miles away and the Masquarade mannequins are very obvious
I recently saw the London production for the first time and was surprised how small the theatre is. Half the stalls can't see the top of the proscenium. I didn't notice anything about the dressing room and the graveyard scene actually had the best fire spitting from his cane I'd ever seen (sometimes on tour it never even worked, you just heard a clicking sound). And the Masquarade mannequins have always looked obvious to me. I saw no difference. The one thing I really did notice that was different in the London production was inclusion of the cartoonish lightning bolts that light up on the back wall of the stage. They look utterly RIDICULOUS. I don't ever remember seeing those before in any other production. They look so out of place, I was genuinely shocked and started giggling the first time I saw them.
Posted: 6/4/15 at 11:13pm
I'm pretty sure the outside of the theatre on Broadway has changed, no? I feel like they've added a marquee or changed the signage? I know the black lanterns have been there, but I love the mood they set for the show.
Posted: 6/5/15 at 1:05am
SPOILER ALERT RE PHANTOM TOUR
I saw the touring production in Philadelphia in 2014. I am scheduled to see it twice in Southern California in the next few months (at two different venues). I also have a ticket to see the original in New York again at the end of June.
I like the new production's decision to use a more scary chandelier drop, but I miss the fun of seeing it shimmy and shake before it rises after the auction scene at the beginning. I miss the angel, I miss the staircase, and I definitely miss the original version of the costumes -- they are nothing like the original designs, except for a few here and there. And what is the deal with the Phantom's new wig? It's completely unruly. The Phantom was NOT Abraham Lincoln -- he NEVER looked discombulated in the original. Instead, he was a natty dresser.
I like that the Phantom is not afraid to touch Christine in the new production -- he even swings her around in a dance during MOTN. However, he physically attacks her by squeezing her neck. The Phantom would NEVER do that -- he put women on a pedestal, except for Carlotta. Also, he spends too much time exchanging punches with people. As a result of the Phantom's engaging in hand-to-hand violence, this production is even darker than the original.
I like the decision to focus more on what is happening around the theater. We see Don Attilio in a very different light, as well as the bass who portrays him in "Il Muto." I like that Buquet's body does not drop on the stage, but falls backstage instead. (The Phantom would not disrupt one of Christine's performances by hanging Buquet onstage.) I do NOT like Meg's holding the cloak to shield the Phantom from the police -- it's difficult to tell that she is protecting him rather than trying to keep him from escaping. More importantly, how would she know that she could help him escape through a hidden trap door if she held up the cloak?
I thought the circular set was brilliant, but I did miss the travelator. However, as someone else pointed out, the managers' office was too cramped for the "Notes" number.
I'm glad that the new production is not "Phantom on the Cheap." It takes a bunch of trucks to haul everything, and the new chandelier is impressive. However, the staircase and angel should have remained, as should the chandelier's rise.
In many ways, the audience has the best of both worlds -- two very different interpretations running at once. In the case of a revival, the old, beloved version of a show is gone for good.
I have seen the Broadway show experiment with a few changes. Mme. Firmin (or is it Mme. Andre) is usually a bland person. I saw one performance where, instead, Firmin had a young bimbo on his arm who silently managed to show that she was not a member of high Parisian society. Those changes were very funny. Also, I saw Mary Margaret Patterson, as Christine, give the Phantom a longing look back as she left with Raoul at the end. That one look said a lot.
I definitely prefer the original production, and wish that it had gone on tour again. However, it is time for a few minor changes: Don't have the chandelier crash at Christine's feet. Instead, retain the "wow" factor of the new show by having it plunge towards the audience. Also, keep the enhanced Don Attilio role -- that is very funny. Most importantly, modify the Phantom's refusal to touch Christine; "turn your face away from the garish light of day" is ALWAYS accompanied by the Phantom's seeming to shove Christine's face to the side without touching her and, frankly, it's weird. Finally, I'd get rid of the one thing that makes NO sense -- something that I think Norm Lewis modified, but that other Phantoms keep: "Pity comes too late, turn around and face your fate" is accompanied by the Phantom's turning Christine to face AWAY from him so he can affix the veil, and then spinning her back on "an eternity of THIS before your eyes." When he tells her to "turn around and face" her "fate," she should at first be facing away, then he should spin her to face him.
After I see the tour version again, I'll report back on my latest impressions.
Posted: 6/18/15 at 9:50pm
Saw the new version of Phantom last night. I had a hard time NOT comparing it to the original production and just felt it lost a lot of the grandeur of the original production. A few really good voices, and a couple that made me wince.
The technical aspects of the show range between some really cool automation, but then some of the smaller scenes were done on little roll on sets. Christine now is in the chorus dressing room and it looks like a community theatre set. Why ...put a door with glass in it, in a dressing room?
The Phantom speaks with a VERY Midwestern accent, and his once beautiful layer is now reduced to a smaller organ and a bed. Oh and an odd metal palm tree you would see in a nightclub in Boca. The boat just goes across the stage from left to right, and the candelabras are all gone.
Masquerade is sad now. No grand stair case, just a bunch of mirrors (I'm assuming the scene was being reset in the Hall Of Sighs) and the original costumes are all gone. It looks like a period prom with too many people in black.
No Red Death costume, he just walks out in a military uniform. And I couldn't see his dis-figuration, even with opera glasses. So, if you go and see it you MUST keep an open mind and not compare it to the original production.
Posted: 6/19/15 at 4:44pm
"I'm glad that the new production is not "Phantom on the Cheap."
This is exactly what I thought it was.
Posted: 6/19/15 at 5:02pm
Sounds like when they came up with New Coke and everyone was less than impressed. I wonder whether the tour will ever go back to Classic Coke -- er, Phantom. Of course, it wouldn't be easy to do . . .
Posted: 6/19/15 at 5:11pm
Why? I am sure the old tour set is in storage somewhere. They will bring it back at some point to make more money. You know' THE ORIGINAL IS BACK!
Posted: 6/19/15 at 5:42pm
""I'm glad that the new production is not "Phantom on the Cheap."
This is exactly what I thought it was. "
It was originally thought that the whole purpose behind this tour was to send out a cheaper version than the original (similar to the new Les Mis tour). However, it still ended up being something like 17 trucks, and it's still under a full Production Contract, so ultimately, no matter what it may look like, it can't be that much cheaper to have out there than the Hal Prince production.
Posted: 6/19/15 at 8:19pm
The stage is much smaller. They used 2 large tabs on both sides of the proscenium to make the stage smaller. It felt cramped.
The commercial just played and it says, "Critics are saying it's bigger and better than before". I'd really like to know who said that because it isn't. At all.
Posted: 6/25/15 at 4:13pm
I saw this last night - mostly out of curiosity. The Pantages was about 95% sold in the afternoon according to Ticketmaster, so it does not appear this touring version is having any problems selling tickets - at least in LA.
I had seen the original on six different occasions, the last of which was maybe 15 years ago. I went from being wow'd at the first experience to pretty bored in the last two to three. Going in to the revamped version, I had pretty low expectations.
Through much of the first act, I was either not disappointed (meeting low expectations) or bored or both. However I did like the way they staged "The Phantom of the Opera" scene as it was quite impressive seeing so much on a smallish stage move and transform, both into and out of that scene. The orchestra was fantastic, which was a cool surprise - and the performances, I thought they were OK to good. I did see understudies for Christine and Raoul though. But, the 2nd act was much better. Expecting to be very underwhelmed by "Masquerade", I was actually impressed. I liked it, and I did not really miss the staircase. The understudies' version of "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again" was excellent and easily got the loudest applause all night. The ending was very good as well, and Chris Mann's final scenes we're excellent too.
By the end, I was glad I got to see this version and think it's a very decent reboot overall. Had I never seen the original, I think I would have been wow'd by this version. But like the original, I would be mostly bored on subsequent visits.
Posted: 6/27/15 at 4:05pm
Saw the revised tour last night and for the most part, I loved the sets. The transitions were very fluid and the cylindrical piece was effective. The sets were more gritty and real. On one hand, I liked that; the managers' office and backstage areas looked worn and unglamorous as they usually are in real life. On the other hand, I missed the theatrical pictures the original production created. Maria's curtains were so sumptuous and distinctive, they were sorely missed but difficult to top for any new designers. And while the cylinders were great for the indoor scenes, they felt confining for the outdoor scenes such as the rooftop and cemetery. I loved the new rooftop scene more than the original but I wish it had been opened up a bit more. The effects in the new production were improved too although I did miss the use of trap doors.
The worst part of this production were the three leads. The two men had nasal voices. The Phantom over acted... He looked like he was having an orgasm when Christine hugged him. I don't know what Raoul was singing. It seemed like he took all the notes and jumbled them around, so off key and unable to hold the same note. The stand out was Carlotta.
I would see this production again for the sets and staging alone but it would be a better experience with leads that can sing and act well.
Posted: 6/27/15 at 10:50pm
I saw the tour last week and last night. Same 3 leads. It's just your personal opinion, but for me and everyone at the stage door: We LOVED them. Especially the Phantom: Chris Mann.
I loved this new production. It looked so expensive. There's not many tours that have such high quality of BIG sets. They went all out. The new staging was great. I have zero complaints.
If I could I would go and see this tour a 3rd time. Don't miss it!
Posted: 6/28/15 at 12:05pm
Of the three leads, Chris Mann fared best. However, having seen at least 10 different actors in the role, he was far from my favorite. Anthony Crivello is still my least favorite one (that I've seen) but loved him in Spider Woman and Les Miz so being a bad Phantom does not necessarily mean they are bad performers.
Likewise, while the audience gave them the obligatory standing ovation, I saw far more people stay in their seats than I normally do. See this version of the show for the sets, but if you happen to like the leads, then you'd enjoy the experience more.
Posted: 6/28/15 at 7:32pm
I got to see Phantom in New York this week. James Barbour was superb and sexy as all get-out. His MOTN probably affected every female in the theater, and a bunch of males as well. I saw Kaley Ann Voorhees and Kyle Barisich (I have seen him before) as Christine and Raoul. They're listed in the Playbill as two of the leads, instead of Kaley's still being the alternate Christine. She is adorable and innocent-looking, and does a great job. Comparing Barisich and Hays, I think I like Hays's interpretation a bit better but Barisich is a great Raoul. The cemetery trio is gone, perhaps because Barisich left the show before it was added to the NY version.
I think I caught a few updated lines. The one that stands out is Monsieur Lefebvre saying, "Some of you may have met Monsieurs Firmin Richard and Gilles Andre." I don't think Lefebvre used to introduce them till he announced his retirement later in the scene. I may be wrong, however.
I will see the touring version (for the second time) in Los Angeles in two weeks. Of course, the original will still be fresh in my mind. I'll report back on my comparison then.
