Las Vegas Review-Journal: Rupert Holmes has a thing for twists.
Consider the O. Henry-worthy one at the end of his 1979 chart-topper “Escape” — better known to one and all as “The Pina Colada Song.” (All together now: “If you like pina coladas … ”)
Or ponder the two Edgar Awards he’s won from the Mystery Writers of America.
But that’s nothing compared to the twists Holmes built into “The Mystery of Edwin Drood.”
12 comments:
I saw The Mystery of Edwin Drood a few times when it was revived on Broadway a couple years ago, and I remember every time was so exciting because I did not know how it would end. Though Even though the killer was often the same, usually the lovers were almost always different. Listening to the full cast recording was also very interesting, because it included every different "confession" song from all the different possible killers. Apart from just being an exciting and interesting show, The Mystery of Edwin Drood is very well written. The lyrics are very thought out and there are a lot of differing styles in the songs, which keeps the score from getting repetitive and boring. There are not really any "good" characters, as they all have very obvious flaws. Overall, it is a very interesting show that I would urge anyone to see, since it is unlike most shows in that the audience votes on the ending.
This sounds like such an exciting show, and one that I would jump at the chance to see. This sort of spontaneity and true surprise, both for the cast and the audience, is such a unique element that seem like it could only come from a show structured in this way. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for the cast in a show like this, but this structure must also cause unique challenges for the stage manager and creative team. For example, tracking one character throughout the show for costume changes would be very complicated if the plot was slightly different every night, so they probably had to sit down and decide what would be easiest for each character. Something I was curious about that the article didn't really cover was how the audience expresses their choices to the cast: is it an electronic device, or something connected to their phone? I feel like something using technology would more readily take you out of the world of the play, but might be the best way to effectively do it.
I love the concept of allowing the audience to influence the ending of the show. I completely agree with this article, especially in terms of pointing out that allowing the audience to influence the ending is something that can really only be done with live theater. That being said, I can’t think of all that many productions that really use that potential. I assume that it is partially because it is difficult to write and rehearse all the possible outcomes, but mostly because not every plot lends itself to having that sort of plot device. It works very well with a light hearted murder mystery, and perhaps it could work with many comedies, but I doubt someone could easily have the audience determining the outcome in a serious play, though I’m sure there is a way. I think another factor is that playwrights probably often start writing a play because they have a story they want to tell, and that story probably includes a specific ending, not a variety of endings based on a vote. Afterall,”The Mystery of Edwin Drood” doesn’t exist as it is because a single author decided to write a story with multiple possibilities, it exists because Holmes decided to finish Dickens’ unfinished play, and the fact it was unfinished allowed him to come up with the idea. Presumably Dickens was planning on finishing the story, and if he had “The Mystery of Edwin Drood” would not have audience interaction. I hope that some playwrights decide to start writing more plays that use the idea of the audience being able to influence the outcome.
I like that this show brings something completely new to theatre. There should be that constant growth and change in theatre so that the audiences never get bored with what they are seeing, and this show does just that. I cannot imagine the challenge of constantly having a new ending but I can imagine it is worth it. I would really like to see this show now just to see how well the actors perform under this type of pressure. It would be easy knowing there are going to be just three different endings, but there seems to be hundreds of combinations still being created. I think the goal of someone in theatre should be to constantly make new and improving work. This show just took another step forward that will help theatre become a more unique art form. This article did only talk about the show from the actors and directors point of view, so I would love to be able to have a conversation with a technician. Normally when a show runs many times there will be a groove that everybody follows and hopefully nothing drastic changes, but this show constantly changes. I cannot imagine how hard that would be for a stage manager, especially since this show seems to be open to improve. I would love to see this show now, and I would try to set up a conversation with a technician to see how the show goes on back stage.
One of the first theatre productions I remember seeing was Sheer Madness at the Kennedy Center. The show has a similar style in that it was an audience choice who-done-it. It was in small studio theatre, so even from the middle of the house I felt very close to the stage. That closeness easily lends itself to breaking down the fourth wall. I remember that there was a detective character, who at one point stopped the show an entered the audience and started asking people what they though happened. Obviously, adding the two extra audience choices in The Mystery of Edward Drood makes it more difficult than Sheer Madness, but I was really struck by the fact that it was a musical. The 14 piece orchestra probably has to have a lot of sheet music ready for all the directions the show could go. I would be interested to see how they set up the stage to accommodate the orchestra without creating too much of a barrier between the performers and the audience. While I think that a show of this style would be more difficult for an actor, having to be ready for any number of endings, I think it would also keep the run interesting, because every night would be different.
The one time i saw this show i felt that the gimmick of the voting process played too much into the overall theatrics of the piece. it may have just been the version that i saw but it seemed that they show lacked majorly in some other areas. putting that aside i absolutely love the idea of the show. it plays flawlessly into the concept that theater is a living art and it changes constantly.that being said i would love to see another version to cleans my palate of the old one
I’ve never seen this production, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt (I’ll certainly see it after reading this article, given the opportunity.) I appreciate the unpredictability of the choose-your-own-adventure format, but I don’t know if it will become more prevalent because, oddly enough, I think this version of the choose-your-own-adventure is limiting. Sure, the audience influences the outcome at a couple of points, but beyond being a novelty… what does that really do for people? It’s still pretty traditional story-telling with a reasonably linear plot and people are used to voting in entertainment situations now (at theme parks, on TV, etc.) Maybe they feel they can come back and see the production again because there might be a new ending, but maybe not.
If there’s any significant future for choose-your-own-adventure, I think it's in ambulatory/immersive productions like the work of Punch Drunk. With those productions, there are endless outcomes because you choose who to follow. And it asks complicated questions: how does anonymity make you act differently, what is the line between performer and audience, what does non-linear storytelling do, and on and on…
I have seen The Mystery of Edwin Drood a few times, at a few different theaters and have loved it every single time. I think as an audience member the unpredictability adds to the experience tremendously. I also think that it makes the audience more attentive knowing that they are going to have to choose the fate of the two previous hours they invested in the show. I also want to note that the show was well ahead of it's time. Right now we are moving into a time of more interactive theater, where the audience has a say and where the show is not locked down. Drood was doing that way before the world was, and I think it's really impressive that it's stuck around long enough for it to be prevalent again. I will say that I agree with Rachel that there is something about not having the same experience as other audiences that might turn people away. Something special about theater is that when you go see a broadway show, for the most part, it does;t matter what night you go, the songs are the same the lines are the same and nothing changes. There is a peace and sense of comfort in that that Drood does not have. Either way, I adore the show, I think it's fun and really smart and I can't wait to see it again.
When I was first reading about this play I thought wow this seems so interesting. The next thing I thought was wow, how hard it must be for the swings to learn the show. Also how hard it must be teach replacement actors the show. Than I started to wonder about the tech side of these things. Does each ending have a different set of cues? Do they have to build specific costumes for different endings? Also during tech which scenes do they chose to do since they said they could have over 300 different parings by the end. This would be fun to see multiple times since each time will be a different ending. This could be good for tickets sales since you can market the show in that way and have more people come and see it. For one thing I would love to do this show. I am sad I missed it when it was on broadway.
I haven’t thought about this show in so long. But when my brother was in high school a friend of his was an ensemble member in a production at a local theater. I went with my family and I remember wondering if there were actually multiple endings or if the audience voting was just fake and we really had no effect on the outcome. Asking the performers to memorize multiple endings seemed like so much to me as a child that I was both fascinated by it and didn’t believe it. Now, of course, I’ve seen a lot of crazy stuff attempted in different productions but that was the first show when I remember be completely captivated by a stunt. I made my mother take me back to see it again just to see if the ending would be different. It was. I still really love going to shows and even still enjoy seeing production more than once, but I have enough knowledge of theater now that I don’t know if I will ever be able to replicate the way Edwin Drood was able to engage both my brain, trying to figure out what they were really doing, and capture my imagination.
What a wild and exotic concept for a piece of theatre, it's no wonder that the show is being reviewed so well. I wish that I had the opportunity to go see this show because I have this feeling that no matter how in depth and descriptive this article was, it's difficult and near impossible to truly understand and comprehend the astounding effect this type of theatre produces. There are parts of me that are a little concerned that the production might come off a little too "murder mystery dinner theatre" but for some odd reason these thoughts seem to be satiated by the reviewers various insights.
I think it's funny that when I read the title if the article I initially thought that the show had different light plots instead of different script/text plots. Which would also be a great concept- allowing the audience to choose and experience the various effects that lighting has on a show by choosing alternate lighting schemes and ideas.
Audience participation is always a great way to make your show engaging, and this is something that "The Mystery of Edwin Drood" elevates to its highest possible level. By allowing the audience to choose exactly what happens every you keep the audience invested and bring in a great element of surprise. It must be a huge undertaking for the actors in the show, as they probably all have to memorize almost every different possible scenario. It's not just about learning the lines, but rather learning that your character could have completely different motivations. I'm sure this monumentally changes how they play the part every night. My only concern with this show is that it could come off as a little gimmicky to an audience who isn't willing to completely embrace it. Without an invested group of people it seems like it could quickly fall apart. Personally I think it sounds like a really fun show to be a part of, and it's something that I'd love to see.
Post a Comment