The New York Times on Dracula- Page 2

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 1:34am

I'm actually quite disappointed they didn't surprise everyone and pull it together. I want Wildhorn to have a success, but I want it to be for something that deserves it. This is my theory for what went wrong here.

The score might have been a step up for Wildhorn musically in terms of writing something more "musical theatre" instead of a series of pop anthems, but this project could really have used something more melodic to hold it up.

With J&H and SP he filled a niche with the music he wrote. He might not have been the most respected composer in theatre but the music style in those earlier shows was clearly where he is most comfortable and capable, and they fit well into the book and staging. Not the case here.

You can't blame the man for wanting to expand his horizons and explore new musical territory, and Dracula may have been a great opportunity to do it if only he had better collaborators. i don't think any single group is to blame for the show's probable failure. all of the pieces just fell together the wrong way. If Wildhorn was going to write a more mature, classic score, he needed to be met with smarter, more sophisticated lyrics to stay consistent with the tone. Instead he was given the worst lyric job of ANY of his 4 shows, and that is saying something! and if he abandoned the Top 40 approach to structuring a score so he could go with a flowing recitative, there needed to be more going on with both the language and the staging to keep it interesting.

2 GOOD RULES OF THUMB--

The less catchy the score, the more substance and importance the lyrics should have.

The more you structure a score to serve story movement purposes, the more the story needs to move.

[Plum]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 1:37am

Was his lyricist really just given to him? You'd think he'd have at least some say as to what projects he chooses and who he works with. The failures of the show aren't entirely his fault (especially because the base of every musical is its book), but he needs to choose his co-workers more carefully if he wants to raise his artistic profile.

I wish him luck. :)

[RagtimeRay]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 5:01am

I saw the show on Tuesday night, and quite frankly I could see all these negative reviews coming.

Going into the show, I may have been the only person in America who did not know the Dracula story. Unfortunately, when I left the theatre I felt as if I still didn't know it. I enjoyed Wildhorn's music in J&H. But his Dracula score never soared for me. It wasn't that I thought it was bad, it just wasn't good. I did know (in advance) that Dracula involved sucking blood, but Sweeney Todd was far more successful in drawing blood and emotional impact than this show.

On the positive front, I thought the look of the show was stunning. By the second Act I figured that the designer's work might never get recognition because the show will have closed and been forgotten long before the 2005 Tony Awards. Technically, there were a number of how-did-they-do-that moments (i.e. Dracula's instant transformation from old to young, the much-talked-about clothes coming off of the Lucy character, Dracula disappearing and reappearing almost instantly on the opposite side of the stage, and him disappearing into a hole in the stage), but the beautiful look of the show only served as a temporary distraction for what wasn't happening with the rest of the production. NOTE: The Belasco seemed the perfect venue for the show.

I had read the reports of standing ovations (What show doesn't get a standing ovation these days?). On Tuesday night, I was well-aware that there was very little in the way of audience reaction to the lines (including those that may have been meant to be funny), that the applause at the end of musical numbers was only polite, and that fewer than two dozen people stood at the end of the show (and that after an overly long curtain call that made it hard to tell if those standing were enthusiast about the show or merely stretching their legs before heading for the subway). Ah, but now I've resorted to sarcasm like Mr. Brantley, which I hadn't intended to do.

Honestly, I think the question for today is how many weeks this show will last? I know I certainly hoped for better.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 7:49am

well, i'd like to thank dracula for at least accomplishing one thing: forcing brantley to write a readable review that actually made me feel something other than, "how does a person this incoherent get the job of theatre critic for the ny times?" it may not be the best review i've ever read, but it's the funniest review he's ever written and that goes a long way for me.

[ken8631]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 8:35am

My wife and I saw the show the night before it opened (Wednesday night). We actually enjoyed it very much, although the second act was much better than the first. Saw Mr. Wildhorn standing in the back, plus Mr. Ebert was in the audience. Mr. Wildhorn stayed afterwards to sign playbills/posters, asking us to "spread the word". The music reminded us of similar music in Jeckyl & Hyde and the Scarlet Pimpernel, which of course we also both enjoyed. We have seen quite a few plays in the past few years, and would definitely go see this one again (many we have not). Good luck to the show, hopefully audience word of mouth will keep this show going a long time, as it certainly did for Boy From Oz, which also had bad reviews. It did get a solid standing ovation on Wednesday night (well-deserved).

[the-one-you-want]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 12:52pm

Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

[Peter]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 1:12pm

Yes papa, Brantley's review is funny in a cynical, bitchy, snobbish-queen sort of way. If that makes for good theatrical criticism is open to debate however. Updated On: 8/20/04 at 01:12 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 1:28pm

hey, i never said it was a good review, just much more entertaining to read than the ****e he usually churns out.

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 1:28pm

yes brantley's review was funny and readable but it didnt actually review the show. I think brantley is done. I'm a huge fan of his reviews as I usually agree with them, but in this case what's there to review all he said was it was boring. WOOHOO! anyone can say that and make a joke here or there!

[BT]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 1:41pm

perhaps the story is just a little long in the tooth...

ba dum bum

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 1:43pm

It's a really sophomoric review. Even if the show is as bad as he says it is, which every other critic has said as well, there's a way to present it and this isn't it. This is downright childish.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 1:48pm

"Wildhorn would be the ugly girl with bad acne that everyone picked on. Ha!"

Hey, maybe he should do "Carrie: The Musical"...aw, POOP! It's already been done.