caligula- what the...?

[choreomuse]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 1:01pm

The friend I was sitting beside said, as many around us stood in ovation, "I'm losing my mind.' His meaning was that there is no way to comprehend how anyone would stand at the end of the boring, meaningless piece of "emperor's new clothes' theater we'd just witnessed. I applaud the team of creator's for shining the stuff up as best they could...but I left wondering why they began it in the first place...was it just so they could tittilate with nudity onstage and a few terrifc singers? And what does the glam rock era have to do with the Roamn empire....is ther any significance? And if there are political statements being made about current affairs, what ehn does the glam rock styling serve? So many 'kitchen sink' trappings that seem only to keep you from realizing that there is no good story to tell.

I am losing my mind. Yes, I get that sometimes popular theater is not always well-crafted theater....but these days the lines of distinction are blurring in a frightening way. Musical theater is becoming as banal as most televison.

[GirlfriendFromCanada]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 1:41pm

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]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 1:51pm

Actually, I think the idea of using the glam-rock era wasn't a bad one. The glams were all about eccentricity, debauchery and were a very vain and selfish group. They were the Bohemian sect of the "me generation" of the 80s that combined attitude and art. I think the closest thing we could get to the glams in recent memory would be the club kid ravers, but the music associated with that group is simply too monotonous to create a score. At least the glams provided more musical diversity in their era.

[GirlfriendFromCanada]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 2:01pm

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.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 2:31pm

Well, please remember that this is a WORKSHOP of the show. Perfection is rare at this stage in the game. However, I felt the show was in damn fine shape.

[EffieWhite]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 3:26pm

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.

[GirlfriendFromCanada]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 3:34pm

I basically kept in mind that it is still a workshop. A friend of mine saw the reading of it during the spring, I believe, and said that it has improved immensely since that reading. For the first performances since that reading, I was impressed. Plus, I found it unique. Not entirely in style, or entirely in book (obviously, since it's based on history) but in it's own way.

[supernaturalist]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 4:13pm

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.

[choreomuse]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 4:26pm

How can it be that everytime I looked around at faces in the sudience they seemed bored? I certainly was bored... plenty of time to be looking around since littel was happening story-wise onstage. I wish the creative team well in theri rewrites. but again I question: what about this story wants to be a musical? What is the journey about and who's journey is it really? When the main character is insane from the top of act 2, what can change? Nothing. Lots of nothing. Oh so much nothing, and then he gets offed by another unsympathetic character who we've never see doubting the maniac's mental facilities early on, but instead has pledged his fealty to the killer...wouldn't a moment of foreshadowing be good storytelling? As it is written, I hated the chirf of the army character who kills Caligula for NOT STOPPING him sooner....I think I'd probably get into a story about someone who has made a promise to protect an emperor and then has his own integrity to struggle with when he realizes the emperor is mad...that's classic conflict...in Caligula as it stands...there is no conflict, just ugliness that from the outset has no possibility of being resolved. Snooze.

[Craig]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 4:41pm

"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.

[EffieWhite]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 5:23pm

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

I ain't got no agenda. I just hate bad theatre. And it doesn't matter if its a reading or a workshop or a showcase---bad writing is bad writing.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 5:33pm

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.

[AlienOnBroadway]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 5:44pm

Oh how I love that theatre is a subjective artform.

Obviously choreomuse, you are entitled to think it was a piece of crap, but you cited a standing ovation the night you were there. I saw one myself on the night I was there, suggesting there are a great number of people who do not agree with you. Perhaps this type of show isn't your cup of tea. I suggest you waste no more time thinking about it or talking about it.

I personally think once the book is tightened up some, it will be a great show. I think choosing the glam rock "genre" was inspired, given the material.
I think it definitely has promise and I was thouroughly entertained by what I saw and heard.

[midtowngym]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 5:48pm

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

[SammyGal]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 7:16pm

Thank you Craig!!! You nailed it on the head!!

Eric is very talented and I LOVE the score.
The book needs tightening and it has been getting progressively better since the first show.

The story is TRUE so it's not like they can make up a whole new ending or stop him earlier... that's not his story.
Charea really did kill Caligula, after he went insane and killed all those people...

I think adding the glam music to it makes it much more marketable and fun to watch. It adds to the time period and the incredibly awesome costumes and make up.
It's fun and astounding at once.

I LOVE IT.
It's all opinion, but give it a chance!

[buddha2]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 7:41pm

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

[SammyGal]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 11:14pm

$15 to be exact.

[EffieWhite]

Posted: 10/9/04 at 10:32am

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.