caligula- what the...?

There are quite a few threads about Caligula already, and it is getting mixed comments. I, personally, LOVE the music and the performances, but feel the book could use some work. Which, it's been getting since it's first NYMF performance and through this extended run.

Obviously, the glam-rock era has little to do with the Roman Empire, but I applaud Eric Svejcar for going forth with what he wanted to do. I love how the songs fit the material. Since when does the musical structure have to fit the time period?

Mister Matt, I'm glad you mentioned that, because I never really knew that. I don't know a lot about glam rock history, so I wouldn't have even thought that the people of the period could actually be compared to those in the Roman Empire. Really gives me something to think about.

As the friend who was sitting next to Choreomuse and said "I am losing my mind" I thought I should chime in. I feel that the bar has now been set so low on new musicals that really bad pieces like this are getting good word of mouth, extensions and possible full productions. Excellent cast aside, this piece has NOTHING to offer. A lead character that is impossible to care about, a score that sounds like second-rate, re-fried Lloyd Weber in his "rock years" (if only it really were "glam-rock")and an overlong and boring story. Its time for musical-goers to understand that there is more to musical theatre than a bunch of talented singers belting their lungs out at the audience.

---

Oh Caligula!

I have had the opportunity to see this show twice, and it is an exciting and mesmerizing piece of new theater. The piece is constantly changing and evolving (opening and two nights ago were drastically different) and I feel that it is changing for the better. On the topic of glam rock... Glam rock is not necesarily a musical style, but more of a musical attitude Bowie, T-Rex, Labelle, Queen and other different artists all can fall under the glam rock umbrella. The composer has combined many difference styles (which is the essence of glam) I do think the show still needs work, the book needs to be tightened up and the language could be more obscure and poetic like Bowie's Hunky Dory or Alladin Sane. The performances are strong, but the ensemble lacks direction (which could be the fault of the director) I think that it is great to see a main character who is not at all a nice person, someone who is disgusting and insane, but I do believe that there is a soul beneath the piece that has yet to emerge. If anything this play reminds me of a mix of Pippin and the film Velvet Goldmine. Euan Morton is phenomenal, he brings more depth to the role of Caligula than is written into the script. Gilles Chiasson is fantastic as well, but there could be a bit more to his character, the same goes for Alan Green's soldier. I think there just needs to be one more song early in the second act where Caligula expresses how his mind is unravelling. but i think the show is fabulous and it will only get better.

"littel was happening story-wise onstage."

My opinion is that there is quite a full story there. You see the rise and fall of man who had the potential to be a great leader and wa a victim of his environment.

"he gets offed by another unsympathetic character who we've never see doubting the maniac's mental facilities early on"

Doubting? Of course he doubts and this is obvious from the getgo. But at the same time, he is the captain of the guard. He is torn between duty and what he knows is right. He also has witnessed first hand the journey Caligula has taken and wishes nothing more than to see him reach his potential. THAT is why he stays there. He states his reason quite clearly in song and in the text that he feels he can change caligula into the man he should be.

As for conflict - it's not overt - and certainly with a piece about history, not going to be manufactured. It's the story of a man. A man of power and a victim of his own madness. We (or at least most) know the outcome even before we walk into the theater. It's history. The journey to the end is what is important and I, for one, feel that Eric has done a great job with not only creating a cohesive piece, but also in retooling it throughout this whole process.

What's funny is, you have to remember - this ISN'T a full scale complete production. In fact, I think the (wrong) assumption is that this piece is further along than it is.

I saw the show the very first night when it was over 3 hours. I saw it again the other night and roughly 30 minutes have been cut. The cuts and changes were excellent, and with a creative team so willing to work to make the piece the best it can, it will only get better.

But your total dismissal seems overly (to me) unjustified/agenda oriented.

---

Listen--I see plenty of crappy new musicals--a lot of em on Broadway. Some of them praised to tears on this site. I know the difference. This isn't one of them.

You will have to face that most people liked it. You are entitled to your opinion--but this push for your opinion to become the last word is what makes it come off as agenda driven.

---

This thread has received such passionate responses. Most people left the theater blown away. Just wait until it's ready for opening night.

---

Considdering the tickets were only like 20 bucks, what a deal, plus it was entertaining.

Okey-dokey kids -- pinky bet. I say that we have seen the last of CALIGULA -- that with a cast of 21 it is unproduceable Off-Broadway and that they will never raise the millions that it would cost to produce it on Broadway.
And JRB_ACTOR -- enough with the "personal adgenda" stuff. People can express their personal opinions, even unpopular ones, without having an agenda.

---