Gah. Visually, it does nothing for me. Based on the photos, it looks like they took the movie screenplay and tried to put that on the stage, which means the set has to be so flexible to accomodate the multitude of scenes that as a result it doesnt look like much of anything.
Yes, I know, I'm basing my judgment on the production photos. Well, at least this time around there's more available. But it simply confirms what I said earlier about another revival whose title shall not be mentioned lest I enrage the fanboys once again. There's nothing here. There's no real continuity of style. It's a bunch of hardline graphics that dont convey anything; they just sit there and look pretty in a vaguely 70s kind of way. But do they really say anything about Oz itself? Where's the incredibly demented quality that made the original stage version so damn much fun to watch? My guess is that the design brief for the set designer was to keep the stage as clear as possible for the dancers, and whoever took the job did that in spades.
Unfortunate. The material is so much fun that it almost demands the designers rise to its level of wit and joy. This, from what I can see, doesnt do that. This looks like it's from that school of "Hey, let's put on a revival but not really think about it too much."
Just my 0.02.
http://docandraider.com
