Broadway Legend Joined: 11/23/05
I know the ending has been changed. And I like the Broadway ending a lot more than however the London production ended now that I'm hearing about it.
Well there was a couple of different versions that were floating around which I think showed a major problem with the show (which I by the way loved) - in that it wasn't "finished" - it was still a work in progress.
In London, there was a ghostly reprise of the "Trio" from the end of Act 1 with Marian singing to the tune "Evermore without you" - "Go to Laura now..."
and then I think it ended with Marian alone singing I've got a secret
The Broadway version, which I saw twice changed and the last time I saw it, Marian sang a reprise of "Evermore without you" once Walter and Laura were offstage and then the Lammastide wedding scene concluded it (which I really hated...)
Funny thing - ALW has totally soured on Woman in White. Read his interview on the Whistle Down the Wind Tour site (you have to scroll down) http://www.thewhistletour.com/news.htm
the part I'm referring to:
The Woman in White was the one expected to be your "next Phantom," because it was a romantic thriller with a lush score. But the Broadway run lasted only three months. Was the high-tech production (using projections rather than "real" scenery) right for the show? Was the plot too convoluted?
A: I will say that I felt the first act was as good as anything I've done. But two-thirds of the way through the second act, the story disintegrated and there's no show.
I realized, perhaps too late, that tale is difficult to tell today, because it all revolves around a secret. And in today's world, there's no such thing as a secret. You never know until you've written it and put it on stage. You roll the dice.
It's always a combination of factors. Who knows, if we'd exchanged directors on Cats and Phantom (meaning Trevor Nunn doing Phantom and Hal Prince doing Cats), those shows might have worked out differently.
I never really liked the Broadway ending. When I saw it, they concluded with Lamastide, which just felt so out of place. It just kind of...sat there.
Interestingly enough, I agree with some of what Weber says about the show. However, I believe it was very easily fixable. I thought they revealed the "secret" far too early in Act 2. That should be the show's climax. The problem was, after the secret was revealed, there was still another 20 minutes of the show, which essentially had nowhere else to go.
"I thought they revealed the 'secret' far too early in Act 2."
I'm confused -- what secret are you referring to? The one Anne kept talking about wasn't revealed until late in the show, and the secret of her origns came not too long before that.
I was referring to the secret she discovers while in the asylum.
Ah, ok... but that wasn't THE secret -- the one Anne kept talking about with regards to Glyde. That didn't come until almost the very end.
Too many secrets!!!
I've talked more about this show today than I have in the past three years!
---And glad I am to see a little talk about it. I saw it in London with the original cast and the original ending (the one that was staged, not ALW's preferred one or any of the others). I thoroughly enjoyed it and was sorry it didn't last on Broadway so I could see it again---although I am pretty sure I would have preferred Michael Crawford to Michael Ball.
I wonder just what ALW meant by "It's always a combination of factors. Who knows, if we'd exchanged directors on Cats and Phantom (meaning Trevor Nunn doing Phantom and Hal Prince doing Cats), those shows might have worked out differently."
Of course they would have worked out differently, but I can't imagine just how or if ALW thinks a different director would have done a better job with WiW ---or just a different one.
Videos