Riedel on How Dracula got Produced- Page 2

Posted: 8/25/04 at 3:58pm

Wildhorn's brand of impossibly lush high-octane music, which admittedly is not to everyone's taste, is as amazingly satisfying (to ours) as ever. That may be because there is a layer of humor in this American's work that is absent from that of his closest artistic relative, England's Andrew Lloyd Webber.
-The Journal News

In every way, Melissa Errico is ravishing as Mina, her shimmering soprano lending sparkle to the music.
-The Star Ledger

...ok your right it is hard to find the good reviews even though The Journal News practically wrote 'Dracula' a love letter(http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/082004/e0120dracula.html), but reviews aside Jekyll and Hyde and any other Wildhorn show has gotten panned and both Jekyll and Pimpernel lasted a while on Broadway.

Also, on other boards, where people are not afraid of being panned, say that they liked it.

In my opinion I think the critics just hate him because he reminded how little their opinions matter to how long a show will run, may I refer you to Jekyll and Hyde.

But one never knows, personally I did like the show, but I do say there are many things that could have been better. Still I left the theatre with a smile because I was entertained and that is all I ask of Broadway.

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 8/25/04 at 4:15pm

gwapnisky as for your post as to those high schoolers who dont see much theatre... i have seen between 300 and 400 shows on and off broadway since 1983 so I tihnk i classify myself well outside of the high school range (esp since I graduate high school a long time ago).

Please do not be so rude as what you have infered on your previous post. People have different opinions. I myself found dracula entertaining and enjoyable. As to why I found it enjoyable read posts on here there are MANY people who enjoyed it. They found the music enjoyable (as most wildhorn fans are enjoying it), the sets are amazing, the acting (minus stephen) is well done, really the ONLy true negative criticism (besides those who are just being childish) say the book is lacking. Well, lets look around broadway at shows with weak books...Wicked, Mamma Mia, Movin Out,...just to name 3! So before you go posting about the ridiculous nature of others post think about yours and how "high schoolish" you are making yourself out to sound

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 8/25/04 at 4:32pm

Hmmmmmmmm....I wonder, exactly what DOES make someone a Wildhorn fan? What is it about his stuff that you all like? I myself only like one song that he has written so far and that is "Where's the Girl" from Pimpernell...otherwise, to me his stuff is mindless and booooorrrriiiiinnnnnngggggg. None of it stimulates the senses. Give me Sondheim anyday, Possums.

[Ruffian]

Posted: 8/25/04 at 4:42pm

I just saw it

I am not a Wildhorn Fanatic at all...I liked it better than "J&H" but not as much as "Scarlett Pimp" .. but have no desire to see it again. The Cast is excellent, but at a point all the moving set pieces are just distracting. As for the Nudity, much ado about nothing, its no big deal....I absolute LOATHED the ending. Not much of the music scored for me

If you love Wildhorn, go see it

If you love Vampires, go see it

If you are a fan of the Cast Members go see it

But other than those select groups, its not a must-see

I love Vampires AND Hewitt, so I felt I had to see it

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/25/04 at 4:45pm

Critics don't buy tickets, audience members do and thus far, not enough of them have bought tickets to enable any show written by Frank Wildhorn to make a profit on Broadway. J&H, The Scarlett Pimpernel, and the Civil War each lost many millions of dollars during their Broadway runs. Had these shows been produced by typical Broadway producers, none of them would have run more than a few months (and Civil War -- which was produced by a typical Broadway producer, Pierre Cossette -- did only run less than two months, losing its entire $8 million dollar investment). Wildhorn is fortunate to have deep pocketed European investors who are willing to artificially prop up his shows and lose millions on his behalf (one Times article from a few years ago quoting production sources estimated that J&H and Pimpernel had lost nearly $20 million between them).

It would be one thing if these were "audience shows" (a la Mamma Mia) which critics hate, but become big sellout hits anyway because of positive world of mouth. But, Wildhorn's shows don't even have that distinction. Not only has he never had a big sellout hit, none of his shows have ever managed to attract enough of an audience to do much more than break even on a weekly basis.

It's a very odd phenomenon -- critics don't like him at all and audiences obviously don't like him very much or at least not in numbers significant enough for his shows to ever run profitably in NY. The only reason his shows even exist in this country apparently is because some European billionaires want them to be here. I suppose they want the cache of the Broadway brand name, which makes the shows easier to sell in Europe (which is where they make the Broadway losses back).

Updated On: 8/25/04 at 04:45 PM

[Ruffian]

Posted: 8/25/04 at 4:46pm

The Daddy Deep-Pockets syndrome

[Corine2]

Posted: 8/25/04 at 4:57pm

Wildhorn is lucky. Wish I had a Daddy with deep pockets.

Then I would Produce and have a great time! Updated On: 8/25/04 at 04:57 PM

Posted: 8/25/04 at 5:44pm

Gwapnisky: Yes I may be in Highschool, but that does not mean I have not experienced legit theatre. I have exposed myself to anything I possibly could, I have enjoyed shows from The Rocky Horror Show to Caroline, Or Change (was not my favorite, but found it very powerful and moving, I bought the CD to let the music grow on me). And in my opinion Dracula was a very professional and entertaining show, and since you are so very insistant on an explanation why, let me tell you:

I must admit Dracula is no Les Mis or Phantom of the Opera, but only so many musicals of that caliber can be made. Unlike so many others I do not walk into a broadway show expecting it to be the next Broadway classic, all I want is to be entertained. Dracula entertained me, and seemed to have entertained the whole audience, by the sudden standing ovation in the beginning of curtain call.
Dracula had a steller cast on board. Tom Hewitt flew around hauntingly and made his songs sound much rounder and richer. The everstunning Melissa Errico, not a stanger to the Victorian era, was as elegant as always and her stunning soprano enchanted my ears. Best of all, I believe, was Kelli O'Hara as the flirtatious Lucy.
This is Frank's most sophisticated score to date, even though he was plagued with bad lyrics and a not so steller book. Frank tried something different and I applaud him for not copying his past work. Instead of the many power ballads he likes to include in his shows he used more haunting ballads such as "The Mist" (although "Before the Summer Ends" was very powerful")
I was stunned by every technical aspect of the show. There were dreary pictures on the curtains, flying vampires, sets rising like the vampire themselves, and much more.
My one complaint was the book, it did leave parts of it to be...as the critics put it, boring, but the actors and entcing music and special effects kept me awake!
This would not go down as one of my favorites, but I do not think it deserves the panning it has been recieving!

There, I hope that explained enough of why I liked the show, now please lets not start a political debate here, I have my opinion and respect your opinion of hating the show, I personally think this show is one of those that you either love it or hate it!

Thankyou for your time, don't be afraid to hate or love anything!

-Zach

P.S. Sorry for any spelling or grammer mistakes, I am really rushing. Updated On: 8/25/04 at 05:44 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/25/04 at 5:56pm

"'Dance of the Vampires' is still playing in Hamburg, and 'Jekyll and Hyde' was popular in Madrid.

That's a double bill that should undermine once and for all any notion that Europeans are culturally superior to Americans."

Are we to assume Riedel saw these very different productions and can make this statement on personal authority. I doubt it. As usual, Riedel prefers to be known for being mean, not accurate. Why on earth does The Post pay this man?

[Plum]

Posted: 8/25/04 at 6:02pm

Why not pay Riedel? The Post is neck-deep in the gossip business already- moreso than just about any other New York daily. Riedel doesn't exactly lower their standards.

And I wish better writers had a Daddy Deep-Pockets.

[Ruffian]

Posted: 8/25/04 at 6:36pm

"Dance of the Vampires" is totally different over in Europe. I am afraid it was quite the mess here in NY

LMAO....we all could use a Daddy Deep-Pockets

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 8/26/04 at 1:47am

gwapnisky... you're truly full of hot air! I'm far from a high-schooler, having most likely graduated before you were born. I see an average of 2-3 shows per month, both on Broadway and Off, and have been doing so for as long as I can remember. And I LOVED 'Dracula'! And I'm not even a big Wildhorn fan. I liked, but didn't love J&H, I walked out of SP at intermission, and I had no desire whatsoever to see CW. But I repeat... I LOVED 'Dracula'! What did I LOVE about it you ask? I LOVED the sets! I LOVED the costumes! I LOVED the lighting! I LOVED the staging! I LOVED the effects! I LOVED the atmosphere created! I LOVED most of the performances! I LOVED the music, albiet the lyrics were a little weak, and I felt the book was somewhat weak as well. But overall... I LOVED IT!!! I saw it the week before it opened and I bought full-priced tickets to see it again next month. Now what part of "I LOVED IT" don't you understand? Did I explain in enough detail for you what exactly I LOVED about the show?

And just to give you some idea as to how my taste runs... and limiting myself only to musicals...

Shows I didn't like, or that disappointed, or IMO are over-rated: (in no specific order)
Mama Mia
Bombay Dreams
Avenue Q
Little Shop of Horrors (Revival)
Hairspray
Chicago (Revival)
Fiddler on the Roof (Revival)

Shows I LOVED (or at least enjoyed):
The Producers
Movin' Out
Rent
The Boy From OZ
Wicked
Aida
Caroline, or Change
DRACULA (Did I mention that I LOVED it!?!)

All-time Favorites:
Follies (Original)
Les Miz
Miss Saigon
Rent
The Producers
The Who's Tommy
Company
Hair
Evita
Funny Girl

...just to name a few off the top of my head.

Updated On: 8/26/04 at 01:47 AM

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 8/26/04 at 2:33am

RICH MAN, POOR SHOW

By MICHAEL RIEDEL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email Archives
Print Reprint



August 25, 2004 -- IT is theatrical lore that ever since his death in 1931, Broadway impresario David Belasco has haunted the the ater that bears his name. But I'm not sure he's there anymore.


FENRIS: Oh really? And where's your proof then? Me and Dave are good friends and he told me he fled because he saw you


I saw him fleeing the theater right after the first act of "Dracula, the Musical" the other night, and I'm pretty sure he didn't return for the second, for if ever there was a show that could exorcise his ghost from the Belasco, it's "Dracula."


FENRIS: Contradiction. He said he's 'sure' he didn't see him, so that means he doubts it. If he doubts it that doesn't mean he was exactly exorcised. Reidel's contradicted his point


This musical is so plodding and anemic, it would bore to death even the dead.


FENRIS: I've been dead for five years and I enjoyed it


Snoozing through it, you might, when awakened by a blast from one of the synthesizers in the orchestra pit, wonder why anybody would put money — about $7.5 million, if not more — into it.


FENRIS: Because they had a different point of view. Everybody has PERSPECTIVE and a REASON for doing things, you MORON!!!


It didn't, after all, come with what you could call a stellar pedigree.


FENRIS: I'd like to see you do better


It was dismissed by the critics when it debuted in La Jolla three years ago, and its creative team is remarkable for being made up of people who could form their own little Flop Club, they've all had so many.


FENRIS: You call Tommy a flop? You call Jekyll and Hyde a flop? You call Dangerous Liaisons a flop?? ARE YOU ON DRUGS???? These are classic works of American theatre!



One of them — composer Frank Wildhorn — has replaced Andrew Lloyd Webber as the critics' favorite whipping boy, having taking repeated shellackings on "Jekyll & Hyde," "The Scarlet Pimpernel" and "The Civil War," all of which failed on Broadway.


FENRIS: Jekyll failed on Broadway? It re-couped half of its investment, and was successful for four years. It has played everywhere in existence. There's even a production in EGYPT!!
Carrie was a failure, so was Capeman, and neither of them have gone onto international success. Do some research


So, who, then, financed "Dracula" — and why?


FENRIS: Why not? Wildhorn's the most successful new face in theatre today


The answer: Joop van den Ende, a Dutch entertainment mogul, who, it's said, put up most of the money.

His reasons for doing so tell us a lot about how Broadway works today — and why so many bad shows make it as far as "Dracula" has.

Van den Ende is one of the richest men in Europe, having made, according to Forbes, about $1.3 billion in stock from the sale of his company, Endemol, to Telefonica in March 2000.

At Endemol, van den Ende created reality television; one of his most popular shows was the European prototype for "Fear Factor."

But van den Ende has said his first love is theater, especially Broadway musicals. He's produced several. Most of them, however, were terrible and lost money, at least in New York.

His first show — "Cyrano" in 1993 — was a $10 million fiasco that he ran at huge losses for almost six months.

Other clunkers he put money into were "Footloose," "High Society" and a revival of "Into the Woods."


FENRIS: Footloose won the Tony Award. Hardly what you would call a 'clunker'


He is also the chief investor in the splashy but charmless revival of "42nd Street," which is said to have cost $16 million, as yet unrecouped.


FENRIS: But popular and running...


Except for "Cyrano," van den Ende has produced all these shows with New York-based Dodger Stage Holdings, of which he owns 50 percent.

"Dracula" is on Broadway today because van den Ende wanted it there.

According to production sources, he saw a workshop of the musical last spring, loved it and told the Dodgers (who do the actual grunt work of producing) to take it to Broadway.

So "Dracula" is, on one level, a rich man's whim.

It doesn't matter that the critics don't like it; that audiences aren't rushing to see it (it took in just $40,000 the day the reviews came out); that, by any objective measure, it is junk.

Joop likes it and, as he did with "Cyrano," he can prop it up for quite a while.

"He's got money to burn," says one Broadway producer.


FENRIS: Ironic. That's one of the lyrics in Jekyll's FACADE.
Could Riedel be a fan?? But... that would suggest he's inventing his own quotes. Now what critic in their right mind would do that?


But van den Ende isn't just a dilettante with questionable taste.

He is also one of Europe's most powerful theater owners.


FENRIS: He's powerful for a reason. You just DON'T get rich. It's all about struggle


After he cashed out of Endemol, he created a company called Stage Holdings, which owns theaters and neighboring restaurants in the Netherlands, Germany and Spain.

Van den Ende needs shows to fill those theaters, so he appears to be using Broadway as a kind of testing ground for Europe, where there's a taste for gothic schlock like "Dracula."

"Dance of the Vampires" is still playing in Hamburg, and "Jekyll and Hyde" was popular in Madrid.


FENRIS: Dance of the Vampires is a successful OPERA that preceded the Broadway show, and the Broadway show was like seeing the body of a murder-victim. Jekyll and Hyde is popular (or 'famous') in a lot more countries than Madrid. This fool hasn't done his research


That's a double bill that should undermine once and for all any notion that Europeans are culturally superior to Americans.


FENRIS: They are culturally superior. The French Les Mis is legend, full of spirit. The English is just story. Tanz der Vampire is a phenomenom and a masterpiece of eclecticism. It shouldn't be called a flop, because the American version was misconceived. And all the shows to have ever opened on Broadway, from my experience, were ten times as better in Europe. And none of those 'flops' he's alluding to were actually flops.


"Dracula" doesn't even have to be particularly successful in Europe for van den Ende to make money.

As long as it — or any show, for that matter — is in one of his theaters, he'll make a pile on the restaurant next door, the beverage sales at intermission, the merchandise, the handling fees charged on credit card sales.

Says one theater executive: "If you're a theater owner, there are so many other ways to make money, it doesn't matter if the show doesn't."

A producer with deep pockets, middle-brow taste and theaters to fill.

Looks like Frank Wildhorn and everybody else involved in "Dracula" will be in business for a long time to come.


FENRIS: Nice sting, you prick! You may have tried to have stopped Steinman, but not Wildhorn! SALUTE BATMAN!! SALUTE CAMILLE CLAUDEL!!!!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/26/04 at 9:21am

Well actually, Footloose never won a Tony award. It ran less than two years and was nominated for four Tonys, but didn't win anything.

Tanz der Vampire is not an opera, but closer to a pop opera. Sung-through does not really mean "opera". All the shows he mentioned were financial flops on Broadway (with the exception of 42nd Street, which will most likely close at a profit). Some of them were hits in Europe or ran more than a year on Broadway, but they were all financial flops.

Still and all, I hate Riedel.