 |
Unmasked
By Chris Davis
NOVEMBER 10, 1997:
When I was a bright-eyed
and idealistic young student studying theatre, we had a special
way of letting our peers know when their work was laden with
glitter and short on substance. "When does the chandelier
fall?" we would ask. Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom of the
Opera was still fairly new then, and none of us had seen it
yet, but we had read all about it, and although the voice majors
were busy learning songs from its soundtrack, we, the
"artists," donned our finest sackcloth and wailed,
"The end is near!" Sure, we were all closet Jesus
Christ Superstar fans (who isn't, right?) but after ALW's Cats
left the world mouthing the eerily Stepfordian chant, "I
want to see it again and again" beneath the
"ching-ching" vamp of merchandising mania, the line was
drawn. If the theatre was going to survive in this country as
anything more than an e-ticket ride in Mousetown, Webber had to
be stopped. Nine years, and God (read: box-office receipts) only
knows how many fallen chandeliers later, Phantom of the Opera
still packs the house at Broadway's Majestic Theatre, and on the
eve of its touring company's Memphis debut, I have gone to New
York to find out why this show is such a big damn deal.
The Majestic Theatre is
remarkably like The Orpheum (newly renovated to accommodate the
monster sets of shows like Phantom), though in many ways
less grand. It lacks The Orpheum's gilded detail, and the area
surrounding its proscenium has been painted flat black. The set
looks like it might have been designed by Cristo, with its large
wrapped objects and draped curtains. Even the proscenium is
wrapped haphazardly in gray cloth. The only clue as to what might
lie beyond the fabric is one word stenciled on the large covered
object down center "Chandelier." What ever could this
dangling signifier mean?
Minutes into the first act, there is a
flash of light, a puff of smoke, and the draperies fall away,
revealing golden angels and demons intertwined about the
proscenium, while the much-vaunted chandelier (looking for all
the world like a giant, beaded gravy boat) is hoisted into place.
Let the cheap theatrics begin! In the post Star Wars: The
Director's Cut world, the effects in Phantom seem
weak, laughable even. We look for David Copperfield to run a
steel ring around the levitating lion, and defy us to guess how
he did it, but David is not there, and without the magician's
challenge there is little if any magic. Even as I wince from the
searing heat of the flames that burst from the stage near the
show's climax, there is less wonder than concern for those singed
unfortunates with pockets deep enough to drop more than $75 on a
seat.
Webber's Phantom is but one of
the story's many stage and film avatars. The plot is ingrained in
our cultural consciousness, and Webber and Co. bank on this.
Grand set changes replace logical transitions, and the
relationships between the characters are so thinly drawn that
there is no tension save that created by the luminous object
suspended above our heads that flashes and strobes to inform us
when something dastardly is about to happen. The text, which is
mostly sung, becomes an unfathomable morass of high notes and
garbled syllables whenever more than one idea is being expressed
at a time. This lack of finesse is like something right out of Waiting
For Guffman (The Bad News Bears do theatre?) and might
be expected from a community playhouse, but in the cradle of
excellence for American theatre, it is embarrassing. Much of the
blame can be placed on the text, which encourages mugging as well
as stereotyped performances, and moves in a series of lyrical
expositions where the characters tell us what they think and feel
rather than allowing the satisfaction of revelation through their
interaction. The Phantom pleads for us to look at the dark side
of life as he rows across the foggy candle-strewn river to his
lair, but this only shows us the beauty around -- not within the
malicious beast. When near the end (and I don't think I am giving
anything away here) the deformed monster declares that his
murderous actions stem from a lack of maternal love accompanied
by unrequited adolescent yearnings, it is too little too late;
and the vacillating affections of the lovely ingenue Christine
between the Phantom and the handsome (and extremely tall) hero,
Raoul, smacks more of somnambulism than confusion or enchantment.
In fact all the performers, and most disconcertingly the dancers
move with the lumbering gate of zombies and robots. This is most
likely due to nearly a decade's worth of cast changes plugged
into director Harold Prince's original staging. Even when the
chandelier makes its fabled descent to earth at the end of the
first act, it falls in jerky slow motion with all its rigging
visible, while the actors run about the stage screaming in real
time. What a letdown.
The utter lack of
precision and framing keeps this Phantom earthbound. No
isolated moment seems more or less important than the moment
before, eliminating the possibility of surprise or insight into
the characters' motivations. Even in the frothiest of musicals
(especially in the frothiest of musicals) attention must be paid
to pacing and structure for the audience to suspend its disbelief
and be swept into its fanciful world. It would be easy to blame
the lack of oomph on the director, but Prince has proved himself
a master of the dark side of the musical spectrum with his
spine-chilling production of Sondheim's devilishly clever romp
into Brechtian turf, Sweeney Todd.
Certainly there was laughter and
applause, but it was by no means universal. Nary a titter or clap
escaped the French-speaking couple in front of me, and although I
could not understand their words, the Japanese tourists who left
at intermission holding their noses made their point accessible.
A rotund lady draped in rhinestones nasally declared, "Well,
that really stunk" to her companion who was hailing a cab.
So what is the big damn deal? It is hard to say. Since Cats
appeared in the early '80s, the trend toward musical juggernauts
blending extravagant spectacle with insipid plot has been the
norm. The helicopter landing in Miss Saigon topped the
overrated plummet of Phantom's gleaming gravy boat, and
the massive mechanical sets of Les Miserables were more
than enough to bring audiences to their feet. As a result of this
gaudy and expensive one-upmanship, the Broadway stage is no
longer a place for native New Yorkers and theatre lovers
world-round to go and enjoy exciting, important new works. At
best it is a bizarre museum, and at worse, as signaled by Cats
and sealed by the appearance of Disney animations Beauty and
the Beast and The Lion King brought to life, a
terrifying vision of hyper-reality.
|


|