The Next Coming of Cher--Frank Wildhorn!

[Theatreboy33]

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.

[zoran912]

Posted: 9/12/04 at 9:16pm

Do you believe in life after love?

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 9/12/04 at 9:26pm

With you, I do.

[lc1965]

Posted: 9/13/04 at 12:02am

I think Dracula doesn't quite succeed (although I enjoy, if not love, it) for the same reason Phantom fails for me as well as any number of other shows -- I just don't care what happens to any of the characters except may Lucy's suitors, all of whom seem like pretty nice guys, & maybe Jonathan Harker! They are not central to the story, though, so they don't count. Successful theatre is largely about moving people's emotions. Theatrics, well, that's a different story altogether. And Dracula is not short on theatrics. They're quite impressive, btw, & that's not bad. But, it seems the director spent too much effort working of the effects & not enough on character development. And, now, Theatreboy, we shall both get skewered for beating a dead horse by most who bother to respond! :) Cheers.

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 9/13/04 at 12:35am

"There's no point in beating a Dead Horse... but there's no harm in it either."

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 9/13/04 at 1:11am

Theatreboy... Don't you think if someone were to come along who could capture a little of what Anne Rice captured in her Vampire Chronicles; the sadness, loneliness and isolation of being a vampire, that the story would/could work better? I think Coppola's "Dracula" came the closest by adding a prologue linking Vlad the Impaler to Count Dracula. Establishing that Vlad's true love commits suicide, thereby leaving him alone in the world for all eternity, and then many centuries later, having Dracula see Mina as his soul-mate and the woman he once loved and lost, makes him a more sympathetic character. I realize that these themes were not present in the book, but bringing them out might make for a better story on stage. That being said, I enjoyed the show more than you did. I guess I went in knowing and accepting that it would be a truncated version of the story, and that the book was probably it's weakest element. But, for the most part I enjoyed the music and the performances and I loved the set design, costumes, lighting, and effects. It's definitely not high-art, but IMO it was a fun and entertaining evening.

Updated On: 9/13/04 at 01:11 AM

[lc1965]

Posted: 9/13/04 at 4:55am

Actually, CurtainUP, STOKER based Dracula on Vlad the Impaler & his bloody deeds. Having said that, I never saw the film, so don't know how Coppola linked them in the story.

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 9/13/04 at 5:13am

Oh? That's interesting. I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. Then that's where Coppola must have gotten the idea. Well in the Coppola film Vlad the Impaler and Count Dracula are one in the same. Vlad is cursed with eternal life during the movies prologue sequence. Centuries later he's assumed the identity of the Count. That's when he becomes aware of Mina, sees in her the woman that he once loved and lost, and begins pursuing her.

[buddha2]

Posted: 9/13/04 at 9:31am

I enjoyed the show even with it's obvious flaws. I am looking forward to see what Elton John is going to do with Anne Rice's Lestat musical for next year.

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 9/14/04 at 5:24am

Jim Steinman's original Tanz der Vampire was everything you wanted, but then Michael Crawford came along and reduced it to pure and utter ****

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/14/04 at 11:14am

Yes yes we know. Of all the things that have been said before around here, that's been said the beforiest.