It seems such a long time ago since I would enjoy a piece of theatre (or any live performance actually) without the cynicism, disappointment and analytical bloody mindedness that comes with, well, an education in the industry. Of late my literary goings on have been focussed more to film and TV, drawing on but not limiting myself to, theatrical technique. However from time to time I do enjoy popping to the theatre to take in what the world of spotlights and soundboards have to offer. Even just to remind myself of why I traded in stage plays for screenplays. For the moment at least.
Last week I saw Love Never Dies, Lloyd Webber's much awaited (was it?) and eagerly anticipated (really?) sequel to the sublime 'Phantom of the Opera'. I wasn't overly keen on the premise of Phantom being located in America, on the jolly old seaside town of Coney Island as, as one of my friends noted, it's like setting the 'Sound of Music' in Ramsgate. You simply wouldn't do it. But Lloyd Webber, in all his wisdom, had decided that this was to be the case, so I had a little faith in his vision. This man has given us some amazing work throughout his life and although I personally feel it's declined over the last several years (ever since Whistle Down the Wind), I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and enjoy whatever it was he'd decided to do.
Let me start by saying that the first twenty minutes of the show were absolutely stunning. I don't just mean lots of people dancing maniacally kinda stunning, I mean seriously spectacular. The overture soared and really complimented the visuals extremely well so all in all you're prepared for a real treat. I think because of this expectation now looming in your gut, everything seems to fade in comparison thereafter. The amazing effects used at the beginning weren't really utilised again quite as well and it all seemed a bit blocky. I'm not knocking the director Jack O'Brian, I've heard some brilliant things about his previous projects and directorially this was, for the most part, a sound piece of work.
Now I won't go into a blow by blow account of the show as I'm sure I'll give something away (as I'm not that subtle) about the plot or the ending, but I really think Lloyd Webber has missed a trick with this. I found his score interesting, yes, but nothing mind blowing. What really annoyed me was when heard an awful lot of his pervious work simply rewritten into a minor key (something musicians to do make a piece sound 'moody'). To highlight the musical failings, whenever a piece of the original Phantom score is heard you are instantly shown how far superior it was compared to what you are seeing. Disappointingly, this is from a man who created, from scratch, a new format for the stage through hours of beautiful scores who seems to now be selling out to anyone he can. I don't really know why, but I'm not going to speculate, it's none of my business.
After the, fairly damp, climactic scenes (which has some suspiciously pedophiliac undertones if you ask me), I tried to pinpoint why I didn't engage with Love Never Dies as much as I still do with Phantom. I really couldn't define exactly what was wrong which lead me to believe that it was the entire premise of the show. The setting of America simply isn't Phantom. Effects are nothing without a substantial show to back them up. A sequel to a show which was fine as it was. The characters were cyphers to a lacklustre score and reminded you of a golden age of musical theatre which sadly needs to be shaken up as much as Lloyd Webber did in the early 70's. Lloyd webber himself seems to have fallen victim to the same artistic issues he sought to fix in his youth and instead of building on his awesome body of work, he's simply produced a bit of a limp echo of something that didn't really need to exist. All in all a bit sad.
Don't get me wrong, there was some great moments. The effects were lovely and weirdly some of Lloyd Webber's smaller musical motifs were actually incredibly memorable and haunting. The phantom's henchmen looked absolutely stunning (especially the fabulous character 'Fleck' who's costume you should go and see regardless of the show) and the pretext of the Phantom involved in a darkly lit circus was actually a brilliant one, if only it had been used a little more effectively.
Maybe it's that I'm too fortunate to have a few friends who work for ticket companies here and there and I was able to get to see it for free, so I didn't need to feel I had to enjoy it (but if that's the reasoning behind theatre these days it's a small concern isn't it?), or maybe it was due to any preconceptions I might have had, but Love Never Dies simply didn't do it for me. I'll try and go again and give it a repeat viewing, but all in all I think the time and money going into the show could have gone towards a completely new show, devoid of any continuity or expectation.
On the positive side, watching this has kicked me to start work on a musical myself (currently in the very early stages), and has redefined my perspective on live theatrical performance. I'm not completely abandoning it, but I think a little break is in order, if anything to come back to it afresh, with a clear mind. Dare I say maybe Lloyd Webber could consider it as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment