#1
Posted: 9/12/04 at 8:57pm
I'll start this by saying, I havent read many posts on Dracula yet, so I appologize if any of my sentiments have already been expressed. So...saw the matinee performance of the suck-man today. From the moment the odd (though impressively interesting) curtain/scene framer device opened, I was both entranced and appauled. Stricken with a gasp, and a laugh. The show begins with a scene on a carraige with an upbeat number sung by the young man who goes to visit Dracula (the question "why" which is never quite explained in the show). At first, it is an exciting, striking scene...that is until it gets going and you notice that while the young man is sitting perfectly still, his carraige driver is bouncing around like a Jeep Wranger on a cobblestone test track. Adding to this strangely comic scene is the addition of a whip crack that, upon each crack, lights up the stage with lightning and the loudest whip crack effect one can possibly imagine. Already, we've gone cartoon. It's too bad. I had high hopes. Unfortunately they were dashed within the first twelve or so seconds. As for a more general analysis, I found that the show failed because of three basic elements. The first being the set design. Watching this show, one can't help but liken the stage manager to Burt's one-man-band appearance in "Marry Poppins." Im unsure if this set, its curtain, or its actors are ever stationary (and by this, i merely mean grounded on the stage) for more than two minutes. Watching vampires fly horizontally, vertically, upside down, and rightside up while the set pieces hydrolically changed themselves as the scene frame/curtain moved into place, I could only imagine the living hell the stage manager must put him/herself through every night. They are truly the star of this show. The second reason for failure as I see it is our pal/nemesis (whatever you consider him), Mr. Wildhorn. I must say, for much of this show, he avoided being...well...himself. Much of the music was interesting/unpredictable, and atypical of the usual pseudo-pop ballads his shows are so often enfused with. That is---until the act one finale, "Life After Life." Listening to this song blasted at full volume here, and of course, at the show's curtain call, I couldn't help but slowly transform my vision of Tom Hewwit into a decked-out Cher belting, "DO you believe in life after love, after lover, after love...." The show's music besides that was decent, but alas, Frank couldn't help being Frank. And thus, the show is built entirely around its central weak spot. The third, and final reason I believe this show failed could simply have been helped from day one. The story of Dracula doesn't make for quality theatre. Beloved Broadway musicals center around love stories and messages that evoke a triumph of the human spirit. Dracula does neither. of course, one can argue that the very idea of vampires is sexy, seductive, and ultimately extremely theatrical. But the reality is, Dracula, more than love, is about lust. And stretched into a two and a half hour form of this just doesn't interest people past a few short numbers. What I've always found so beautiful about the other monster musical, Phantom, is that, although taken from a horror story, Phantom is essentially a love story, about a man whom the audience can feel for. He does what he does out of a wanting for acceptance. Dracula does what he does out of a lust for power. So who do we feel for? A good many Dracula incarnations have come already, and a great many more will surely come, but in my honest opinion, the central idea itself, when placed in a theatrical setting, is essentially flawed. It's not a mystery of who can finaly solve Dracula. I dare say it never can be so.
Alright, you are welcome to argue away as you will.
Alright, you are welcome to argue away as you will.
