The New York Times on Dracula

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 9:48pm

"And here it is, looming like a giant stuffed bat on a stick, the easiest target on Broadway. "Dracula, the Musical," which sets the familiar tale of old snaggletooth to the familiar music of Frank Wildhorn, creaked open last night at the Belasco Theater with all the animation, suspense and sex appeal of a Victorian waxworks in a seaside amusement park.......

"Dracula, the Musical," which features a book and lyrics by Don Black and Christopher Hampton and is directed by Des McAnuff ("The Who's Tommy"), isn't simply bad, which is an aesthetic state of being that is kind of fun if you're in the right mood. (Gee, remember the ripely terrible "Dance of the Vampires"?) It is bad and boring."
http://theater2.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/theater/reviews/20DRAC.html

Posted: 8/19/04 at 10:01pm

Is NO ONE going to make a comment?

[Matt_G]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 10:02pm

I just don't know what to say. How could this show have gone so wrong from what I saw at La Jolla?

[EddieVarley]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 10:06pm

I loved the cast, I wish them well.

[BrdwyThtr]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 10:06pm

We saw it coming...

Posted: 8/19/04 at 10:07pm

As Margo pointed out, it is the audience reaction that will count.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 10:08pm

I don't really like Brantley's review. Although no doubt Dracula looks like a dud, Brantley's article blumbers as much the show he pans. At least Linda Winer had tact.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 10:11pm

Review after review keeps calling it "boring" which is hard to do with this material (but then the creative team seems to have avoided the typical camp route and played it straight, which sounds deadly -- even the non-musical Langella revival of the play back in the '70's had an undercurrent of camp which kept things interesting).

Then again it echoes what various friends of mine have said about it -- that even the flying effects get monotonous very quickly. The old rule of musicals seems to be in evidence here -- it's very difficult, if not impossible, for a show to overcome a badly written book.

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 10:20pm

These critics suck!

Posted: 8/19/04 at 10:22pm

Apparently Dracula didn't - at least not entertainingly enough.

[Plum]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 10:23pm

How incisive, bronx. Care to elaborate? People who disagree with you don't necessarily "suck," you know.

[Peter]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 10:24pm

Brantley is true to form here. Not a fair and balanced review in the least.

Yes, the show has its problems, but the music is not as pop-sounding as he says. As most of the other critics I've read so far have pointed out, Frank has gone a more theatrical route this time. Also, as Ive predicted, Melissa Errico is someone he favors and of course her lackluster performance here is none of HER fault.

The NY Times is in the promotion business these days. It's like they get together in a committee and decide which performers/composers are their "stars", and then they give love letters to them for merely good or even passable performances, bring their names up any way they can and tip-toe around any criticisms. Heck, if all McDonald or Chenoweth did was to march on stage, finger the audience, and take a leak, Brantley would put a positive spin on it. Sondheim of course is another one they favor and promote, so Brantley tip-toes around his criticism of Bounce.

J&H had similar problems to Dracula I thought, but the performance of the original cast to me at least provided some sparks of magic. Certainly Brantley didn't write love letters to them though since apparently they didn't make his "list".

Wildhorn is a composer Brantley hates, so what does he do? Lays the majority of the blame for the show squarely on his shoulders. Everyone should be equally responsible IMO. Updated On: 8/20/04 at 10:24 PM

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 10:25pm

I havn't even seen the show yet! That was my sense of humor! Why is everyone on this board always so serious?!

[Plum]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 10:28pm

It's hard to tell when you're being sarcastic. Maybe the combination of the fact that the Internet can't convey tone and that your sense of humor is unusual, to say the least, combine to make it hard for people to tell when you're joking. Sorry 'bout that.

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 10:31pm

Yes, that's true. I try to rememeber to put a "lol" when I'm just being stupid.

[Peter]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 10:31pm

"The old rule of musicals seems to be in evidence here -- it's very difficult, if not impossible, for a show to overcome a badly written book."

Margo, I really think that old rule is a major reason why this show doesn't work. That plus certain directorial decisions made here.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 10:42pm

Look, I'm not a Wildhorn fan, but it's clear that his collaborators are at least equally to blame for the shortcomings of this show. For chrissakes, there have been literally hundreds of successful film, stage, radio and tv adaptations of the source material -- how pathetic do you have to be to mess up the story of Dracula when you have a $7.5 million budget? They obviously spent far more time concentrating on getting the endless flying effects to work (which explains all of the delays and postponements at the beginning of previews), than they did making sure they had a clear, coherent, entertaining book for the show. With all the time they had (and the hundreds of examples of how to properly adapt the Stoker novel), it is absolutely inexcusable that they didn't get it right. If this show fails, it certainly won't just be Wildhorn's fault.

Updated On: 8/19/04 at 10:42 PM

[Testing1232]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 10:44pm

I am reading this AFTER I just posted about the opening. Last thing I said in my "review". I find it very boring. Dont know how they managed to make this show boring, but they did !!

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 11:39pm

Oh well... so much for "Dracula". What show should we start ripping to shreds next? Afterall, that is what this baord is all about, isn't it??? It's amazing that so-called "theatre-lovers" would get so much gleeful satisfaction out of bad-mouthing a show and rooting for its failure! How sad.

Updated On: 8/20/04 at 11:39 PM

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 12:31am

Brooklyn is next.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 12:47am

Oh well... so much for "Dracula". What show should we start ripping to shreds next? Afterall, that is what this baord is all about, isn't it??? It's amazing that so-called "theatre-lovers" would get so much gleeful satisfaction out of bad-mouthing a show and rooting for its failure! How sad.

That's true only because a show closure would mean unemployment for the cast and crew. Otherwise, when schluck gets put up onstage, I just keep thinking, "People are paying good money for quality theatre, and they ain't gettin' it."

Also, happy happy pat-on-back boards are never as fun as vicious ones.

[the-one-you-want]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 12:49am

Who needs the olympics when you have Ben Brantley playing at the top of his game? I love the NY times when they get dirty; it takes me back to high school (all of one year ago, but still.) If this WERE high school, however, Brantley would be the beautfuil gossip queen with a troubled home life and Frank Rich would be the uber-popular jock who hazed freshman in the hallway.
Wildhorn would be the ugly girl with bad acne that everyone picked on. Ha!

[lna]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 12:54am

Theater lovers don't root for a show to fail, or, for the most part, gleefully rip a show to shreds just for the hell of it. Most (okay, not all), are really disappointed when a show doesn't do well, and some express that disappointment in an extremely vocal manner.

And some people really do like to figure out why something didn't work. Sometimes it's more of a "what were the producers thinking?" kind of thing, because it's a bad sign for the future if the producers make certain mistakes.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 1:21am

Who was it that said that the worst offense an artist can make is to bore his audience. Be bad, be over the top, be too loud or too shrill JUST DON'T BORE!

[Plum]

Posted: 8/20/04 at 1:32am

The thing is, Dracula isn't even being ripped to shreds as much as I thought. It's less awful than it is boring. Though as Sueleen said, sometimes that can be the most awful thing of all.