Yahoo! News: "Unlike lightning, Andrew Lloyd Webber's 'Phantom' does strike twice.
More than 23 years after 'Phantom of the Opera' became a worldwide sensation, the British composer has delivered a sequel in 'Love Never Dies.' As handsome as the original and filled with infectious melodies, startling images and wonderful performances, it's running through October 23 at the Adelphi Theater."
5 comments:
It's interesting to me the critic is raving about this "brilliant sequel" when the plot just sounds so hokey. It seems to me that it has more plotholes than the new star wars film did. Christine sharing a passionate night with the phantom? The phantom opening a show in New York City. It's weird for me. Poor Gaston Leroux is probably tossing and turning in his grave. I really think that Andrew Llyod Weber is destroying stories that I love just like Walt Disney loved to destroy the wonderfully dark Grimm's fairy tales that i loved. Really i'm being totally bitter right now, but this plot just sounds like a corny romantic melodrama (Though i can't say that Phantom wasn't one either) Oh well, my standards were never that high for it anyway. I'm sure the visuals are amazing though, that in itself might be worth buying a ticket.
The observation that concerns me the most is that to author of the article states that the plot is melodramatic and simple which allows Weber to concentrate on his music. This sounds like there is even less plot in the sequel than there was in the original musical. In addition, I don't know that ALW's composing is strong enough to hold the show on its own without a plot. In addition, the plot it does have sounds improbably and forced. Musicals are not daytime soap operas (at least, the shouldn't be). Like Mary said, I am sure the visuals are wonderful and the show looks beautiful. From what I am hearing it sounds like the show has met expectations, which is not saying a lot at all.
As I have stated before, I don't know how I feel about this [particlar piece of theater. The orginal Phantom is a iconic piece of theater that has been around for years. My concern was if Webber would step up to his name and make a good enough sequel. As for this article, I find it hard to base my views of theater off someone elses observations. I need to see the show for my self to determine if it is good enough to make it on Broadway.
I feel that their seems to be some odd disconnect between Love Never Dies and the original Phantom. Sure the characters are the same, but at the end of Phantom the Phantom has vanished and lost the girl of his dreams. For some odd reason, I don't find myself thinking that a reunion followed by an accidental night of passion really could come from that kind of ending, especially after the Phantom went on his murder spree. Beyond that, why Coney Island? Sure their are few places in New York as creepy as Coney, but seriously, an amusement park? Has the Phantom changed from misunderstood lover of the arts into The Joker?
Weird, I would never have imagined this would receive good reviews. To me, adding another production will only increase its following for a while, as die hard fans come to see, and it ruins the timeless-ness of the original production in the end. I wish people who have a good thing know when to leave it alone. I for one am not interested in listening to more Weber. If the author of this article truly feels the plot is so simple, then really you have the same structure as the first. At the end of it, I just have a bad feeling about the long term results
Post a Comment