Lord of the Rings musical closing this July

[davem]

If we can believe the Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1794

I haven't seen it, & probably won't now, but I have the cast recording & have to say its some of my favourite Tolkien inspired music. Maybe they'll try & recoup some of their losses by putting out a dvd of the show......

[Sauron the White]

I am not surprised in the least. I saw the production in Toronto and thought it was a disaster trying to put a 1200 page novel in a three hour play. Or, if you prefer, an eleven hour film digested to a three hour play. At its best moments it was mediocre. It advertised itself as a musical and the music was totally forgettable unless it was bad then you tried to forget it. There was that one musical number in Bree which was clearly inspired by Master of the House from LES MIZ. However, it was a pale imitation and the costumes in that portion of the play looked like a combination of DELIVERANCE and DAVY CROCKETT. I could almost hear the banjo picking in the background. When they were not doing number like that we got the Cirque Soliel wailing that passes for singing.

Everyones lines were rushed to get it all in so badly that it seemed like an old 33 rpm record album being played at 45 speed. Nobody under 35 will understand that reference.

This play had to be a huge investment to stage given its complexity and cast size. In the end, it was simply a bad idea.

[davem]

More here http://www.whatsonstage.com/index.ph...Date%2C+19+Jul

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about the music - I'm listening to the cast recording now & I (like all the reviewers on Amazon http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lord-Rings-O...5496825&sr=8-2 ) think its fantastic - though I admit it I didn't 'get' it first time I listened. I've probably listened to it a good couple of dozen times & its one of my favourite albums of all time.

Still, its not the end of the show altogether - a scaled down touring version is heading for Germany & New Zealand. Perhaps if they'd gone for a scaled down version initially they wouldn't hjave struggled so hard to recoup their costs.....

For anyone who doesn't know the show - their website has footage. I can't speak from experience, but it looks more interesting than the movies... http://www.lotr.com/

[Sauron the White]

davem ... I did check out the Amazon site and reviews. Of course, the reviews are from people who purchased the CD because they had heard it and liked it a great deal... enough so to shell out good money for it. That is hardly an impartial or objective review. Those are reviews of the true believers in the concept.

I find this comment by you insightful

though I admit it I didn't 'get' it first time I listened. I've probably listened to it a good couple of dozen times & its one of my favourite albums of all time.

The music was written for a play that most people are going to walk in having not heard it before. They should be able to "get it" on first hearing or else the composer has failed in his job. Is the composer suppose to take the approach that the music is simply so dense and complicated that you have to come back and pay big bucks to hear it again and again until it sounds right to you?

[Bêthberry]

Sauron the White, you say you saw--heard--the production in Toronto. But my understanding is that the music underwent considerable changes for the London show and I believe davem is talking about the London cast recording? I could be wrong, though.

[Sauron the White]

It is my understanding that the changes in the two venues were mainly in tightening up the play so that it ran a bit shorter through the elimination of a character or two and a scene or two. This may have caused the shortening of a song or two - I do not know for sure. However, it is my understanding that the music is basically the same for both shows.

I would welcome the knowledge of anyone who actually saw both shows.

However, regardless of that, my point is that the music failed in its main goal of supporting the play and adding to it. Davem said that he "did'nt get it" on first listen. A first listen is what the vast majority of playgoers have. If they also "don't get it" then the music has badly failed as part of the play.

Everybody has a total right to like what ever they decide to like and there is no right or wrong applied to that. My comments are simply geared to evaluate the success of the play and its music.

[davem]

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/...lord_of_t.html

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/theatre/story...cal-close.html

The music was written for a play that most people are going to walk in having not heard it before. They should be able to "get it" on first hearing or else the composer has failed in his job. Is the composer suppose to take the approach that the music is simply so dense and complicated that you have to come back and pay big bucks to hear it again and again until it sounds right to you?

I can only advise anyone who hasn't heard the music to listen to the album - or just go to the website & watch the videos there. The music - particularly the instrumental/elvish pieces - is awesome.

Of course, maybe the show itself is terrible - I haven't seen it - but I love the designs - especially the costumes, which are far more interesting than the ones in the movie .

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I saw the show in London and enjoyed it very much! I realize that it was changed from the Toronto version, which was apparently a test-drive, and it will be interesting to see what changes are made for the next 'edition'. If it comes anywhere near me in Germany, I will definitely plan to see it there.

Of course a stage version that is played on one evening has to be cut down, both time-wise and space-wise, even more than the movie version was. I was able to allow for that because there were some things that I found positive. It will not surprise anyone who knows my preference for the royal family of Gondor that I really liked the way Arwen was portrayed. On the other hand, Galadriel's role was revved up too much for my taste. I could go on like that, but I would like to point out one aspect that I find important - physical presence. There is something about being in the same room with the actors rather than seeing everything on a screen that makes a difference. The personal experience is a factor that shouldn't be underestimated, the third dimension that even today's technology cannot yet offer on flat screens.

I hope there will be all kinds of versions of Tolkien's works performed in the future, keeping the stories alive to introduce new readers to the books. I know of at least one puppet performance which friends saw, and like Smith of Wootton Major, I am not ashamed of the little doll fairy queen if she can awake some hearts to the enchanted realm.

[Mithalwen]

I saw it on the first night and shall do my best to see it again. I loved it.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I saw the production in Toronto and thought it was a disaster trying to put a 1200 page novel in a three hour play. Or, if you prefer, an eleven hour film digested to a three hour play.

Well, it worked for Nicholas Nickleby, didn't it?

Interesting comment here, StW. Which was the musical based on--Tolkien's books or Jackson's movies? I cannot recall reading anything which suggested the musical was attempting to put the movie on stage. It was to be an adaptation of Tolkien's LotR.

Are there aspects of the musical which clearly suggest the movies, such as horse snogging, shield boarding, dwarven jokes not from the books, a mighty-morphin' Witch King? Or is it purely an adaptation of the books for the stage?

Perhaps those who have seen the production can comment on this?

[Mithalwen]

No there was definitely no horse snogging or skateboarding but there were orcs on pogo-stick like crutches - does that count? It gave their movements an appropriately fierce energy but combined with the fact that the elves seemed to be signing makaton to the mortals it did seem to suggest that Middle Earth was populated largely by those with special needs... but that is one of my few quibbles about the production. There was a lot from the books that never madee it to the films - the Ranger's protection of the shire being a good example.

I do hope that Dave might make it down to see it. Treebeard was played as a tree shepherd ...and was very Yorkshire .... no prizes for guessing who he reminded me of

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I do hope that Dave might make it down to see it. Treebeard was played as a tree shepherd ...and was very Yorkshire .... no prizes for guessing who he reminded me of

I'd like to go - from the clips I've seen on the show's site it all looks very impressive. However, I probably won't get the chance, given timescales & the fact that fans of the show will be snapping up the last few tickets.

[Sauron the White]

from Bethberry

Interesting comment here, StW. Which was the musical based on--Tolkien's books or Jackson's movies? I cannot recall reading anything which suggested the musical was attempting to put the movie on stage. It was to be an adaptation of Tolkien's LotR.

I was not at all suggesting that the musical play was based on the Jackson film adaption. In fact, the producers went out of their way to tell the world that they had not even seen the films. My point was only that it took 11 hours of film to adapt a 1,200 page book. I was using the length of the films as a comparison to both the book and then the play.

Mithalwen brought up the orcs on what she called pogosticks- actually they were some space age sort of crutches. I don't remember them as having any bouncing properties to them. They looked absurd and silly as everyone chased each opther around in sort of a Keystone Cops fashion while they dodged rising and falling elevators and hydraulic platforms. And then we had Saruman in a floor length leather coat looking like the twin brother of Otto Preminger in STALAG 17. That was a wonderful casting and costuming idea
In Toronto, Bormir was Black, Aragorn had charcoal marks under his eyes like American football players and the whole thing was like watching a movie using the fast forward control.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by davem

I'd like to go - from the clips I've seen on the show's site it all looks very impressive. However, I probably won't get the chance, given timescales & the fact that fans of the show will be snapping up the last few tickets.

I must book since a daytrip and a matinee is my best chance ... hope they make a DVD or something but you won't get the full effect

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

This play had to be a huge investment to stage given its complexity and cast size. In the end, it was simply a bad idea.

Wow, for once - I agree.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I find it interesting to see that the strongest criticism of the musical comes from a movie admirer who does not tire to remind us that a movie must needs be different than the book - to me, the limits of a stage production are even more obvious, and I am willing to give the producers the necessary leeway.

[davem]

Perhaps the saddest thing about the failure of the musical is that Jackson's take will now be the only one which sticks in the public's mind (for those who haven't read the books). Those who don't know the books will think of LotR as just an 'action adventure' story The more different takes on the story the better - one reason why I take every advantage to play up the radio series. Jackson's LotR is not Tolkien's LotR, but too many people who don't know the books think it is. I wish this show had been more popular http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/346386

& btw I thought the facial make up on the Elves looked quite cool..

[Sauron the White]

from Estelyn ...

I find it interesting to see that the strongest criticism of the musical comes from a movie admirer who does not tire to remind us that a movie must needs be different than the book - to me, the limits of a stage production are even more obvious, and I am willing to give the producers the necessary leeway

.


Lets me fair here. if you are going to criticize something I said please keep in mind that I have not compared the musical play to the movie and evaluated it using that scale of comparison. I criticized the musical play on its own merits and compared nothing in it to anything in the films. I mentioned the length of the books and the films to show that the length of a 3 hour play based on such material was going to have its serious drawbacks. I never said "I hate the play because its not the movie or the book". That is the basis of my repeated criticism of many here who love to compare apples to cinderblocks and then expect the Nobel Prize for announcing that "yes indeedy folks, apples are tastier and cinder blocks are harder".

And yes, I am a "movie admirer". But three decades before that happened, I was a "book admirer" and still am.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I mentioned the length of the books and the films to show that the length of a 3 hour play based on such material was going to have its serious drawbacks. .

But the point of the argument that books & movies are different is that inevitably things must be changed or omitted in the translation of one into the other. The question is whether in that translation the spirit of the work is communicated, & it hardly matters whether the film is two hours long, or ten, or a thousand. You, I think, would be the first to acknowledge that a massive amount of the book has been lost in the translation to film. I suspect that if the script of the movies was published, including 'stage directions' (or whatever the film equivalent is) the text would run to probably a couple of hundred pages compared to the 1100 pps Tolkien wrote.

The question here is whether, despite the cuts & changes made, the spirit of the book came across. I don't know. I liked the music, & some of it I think is beautiful, but I'd have to see the show to know whether it captures the spirit of the book. The point is, I don't rule out the possibility that it could capture & communicate the spirit of Tolkien's story simply because it is only three hours (or whatever) long.

[Eönwë]

I was going to start a thread on this myself. I saw the show, and liked some parts, but was disappointed by a lot. They just cut out so much! But its not their fault. And I'll not even mention the Balrog. Shelob was quite good, and yes, the orcs did do back-flips on futuristic pogo-sticks. I had a mixed opinion.

And I can't get the "Lothlorien" every five seconds out of my head.

But as far as adaptions go, it wasn't as bad as some I've seen. You try to do better with the same actors/resources.

[Sauron the White]

davem ... I will be very honest and frank with you here. In the last few years I have heard many people bring up "the spirit of the book". I am sure that they know what that means to them. I find it difficult to impossible to discuss if anything is faithful to the "spirit of the book" because that is an impossible thing for me to quantify or measure or evaluate based on what it means to you.

My point about length is that making a three hour play about something which cannot possible be done in that length of time is simply a bad idea on its face. I would have no problem if they decided to dramatise a smaller portion of the larger tale, but it was folly to take something that long and make it that short. A seven foot two man cannot wear a suit made for a man five feet six inches tall. The tailor may have used quality materials and a great deal of his skill and craftsmanship. The color may have been matched beautifully to the wearer. But its simply the wrong length to cover the subject properly.

In this case, the length is a very germaine criticism of the play as a medium in and of itself because it forced lines to be delivered at breakneck speed, forced complicated and lengthy expository and historical explainations to be shoved at the audience with no time at all for consideration, and completely elminated altogether the idea of the pause, restful consideration, or poignant break to let things settle in.

That was a function of the director who simply had too much on his plate, could not pare it any further, and thus decided to pace the entire thing much to fast. Were that not bad enough, the time that could have been used for better things was wasted on music that added nothing to the storyline.

Lets compare apples to apples. Listen to the music from most Andrew Lloyd Webber plays and examine the role of the music in the play. It is vital and important and helps advance the storyline completely. The opposite was true in the LOTR musical. Whatthe heck did all that Cirque Soliel wailing do to advance anything in the play? The composers could have learned something from other play musicals.

But that was but one of my objections. All of my comments were directed to the failure of the play as a musical play. I made no other comparison or evaluations to the books or the movie or the radio-play for that matter (and how long did that take speaking of proper length to cover the subject?).

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I mentioned the length of the books and the films to show that the length of a 3 hour play based on such material was going to have its serious drawbacks.

Originally Posted by StW

My point about length is that making a three hour play about something which cannot possible be done in that length of time is simply a bad idea on its face. I would have no problem if they decided to dramatise a smaller portion of the larger tale, but it was folly to take something that long and make it that short.

I suppose this takes us back to my point that Dickens' Nicholas Nickleby was very successfully adapted for the stage--and we all know how long Victorian novels are! We also have the example of the successful stage adaptation of Pullman's work before us.

So the question is that the LotR adaptation should have followed a similar path, been a "two parter" theatre experience?

I don't think the drawbacks of the production were necessarily related to the length of the book and the length of time an audience will sit still on its collective duff.

At least for the Toronto production, much was made in the PR about the stage mechanics--the number of stage elevators, the massive size of the set, the stilts, the extension of the forest into the main floor orchestra pit. I seem to recall news items about how the historical Drury Lane theatre also had to be reconditioned from its authentic features and adapted for the mechanical theatrics. It seems to me that theatre has also sufferred a glut of special effects frenzy similar to what computer animation has done to film: how to do something bigger, better, more dramatic than the helicopter landing for Miss Saigon?

I had the feeling that LotR was chosen not only because it is much beloved and had the potential to be a blockbuster, but because it was "big enough" to provide opportunity to use all the gadgets and gizmos and razzmatazz. If you build it, you must use it . . .

And it was this theatricality which took up so much time, a theatricality which in fact became something akin to Tolkien's hatred of "machinery."--it was used for its own purpose and not necessarily to further the story.

jmho!

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Mithalwen brought up the orcs on what she called pogosticks- actually they were some space age sort of crutches..

I actually called them "pogo-stick like crutches" .

From the way the orcs moved I assumed them to be "sprung" in some way else they surely would have injured the actors. But funnily enough I didn't mug one of the orcs to get the exact construction mid performance....

[Nerwen]

This musical sounds very odd indeed. Why were the Orcs on crutches?

[Sauron the White]

Why were the orcs on crutches? Thats a really good question. I aksed myself the same thing when I saw it since it looked really weird and seemed to serve no purpose although Mithalwen suggests they may have been spring loaded to help them in backflips and other moves. That could very well be the case. If so, I did not realize it when I saw the play. When I saw it I simply thought they were crutches and gave them a type of "on all fours" look. It reminded me a bit of the Flying Monkeys from WIZARD OF OZ when they scurried on the ground fighting the good guys.

here are some links so you can see the actual stuff

An Overview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ngg7wcbwEU

Arwen Evenstar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS3LN5TUPHc

The Ringwraiths: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPF_Xiv7Dlw

Lothlorien: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxS_k_0eu_4

Star of Earendil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft0GNgdVz0A

The Final Battle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td8QWBpYIlA

Flight to the Ford: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIqY66cP13s

Epilogue: Farewells: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si6LAl6XhCw

Finale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJrsb6_6nfo

The Road Goes On: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3yA7gRDgqE

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

This musical sounds very odd indeed. Why were the Orcs on crutches?

I would guess that it harks back to the fundamental problem with Tolkien that you have humans playing humans, elves, dwarves, hobbits and orcs. In film you can play around with CGI, on radio you can use different voice types, in the flesh you are stuck with humans. In "Grand Opera" there are certain conventions linking vocal ranges and types to types of character - but with the different demands of musical this is not so possible. So you just have to somehow
make humans seem less human.

I think the crutches were to extend the limbs (Treebeard was a shepherd on stilts ) and give the orcs move a bit like chimpanzees - not human but not
totally alien. It was certainly quite scary ... and they were very agile. though not as impressive as Golum's head first crawl.

[Nogrod]

The music is going to be released in Finland the next week... So we're just waiting for a few days more... But looking at the clips Sauron provided it sounds good indeed. Or at least to my Finnish ears as I can clearly make out the Finnish themes from there...

From what I have heard of it the Toronto-show was more or less bad but the London production was somewhat better. So I do join the many here to see the next installment where it's better than in the two first ones...

But just talking of links aren't those links provided by Sauron the White as illegal as Davem's links in the "Microphones..." -thread? I mean in no way do I wish to see them go. Vice versa. I'd like to see all possible links come back.

Just asking...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But just talking of links aren't those links provided by Sauron the White as illegal as Davem's links in the "Microphones..." -thread? .

I think some of them are legal - but you can access a selection of perfectly legal clips on the Show's website: http://www.lotr.com/sights_sounds/

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by davem

Maybe they'll try & recoup some of their losses by putting out a dvd of the show......

Here in Finland we're promised to have a choice of a CD with the music only and then a DVD with some stills and videos from the production... nothing more than that.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Here in Finland we're promised to have a choice of a CD with the music only and then a DVD with some stills and videos from the production... nothing more than that.

The one that's been released here is a standard cd plus dvd with stills only in a hardback booklet with pics & lyrics. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/c...ndex=2#gallery . No video on mine - unless its some kind of 'easter-egg' thingy. I suspect there might be a problem releasing a dvd of the show due to New Line owning the 'movie' rights - of course, I may be totally wrong in that.....

[MatthewM]

Wow....I looked at those clips on YouTube, and I must say...what in the world were they thinking? What were they attempting? Did you SEE those actors? Those costumes? WOW. I am very glad I did not see this mockery.

The one and only thing that sounded cool was one of the musical scores. That's it.

[Mithalwen]

that while many of the critics admitted they hated Tolkien and so were prejudiced from the start, and clearly some are prejudiced for other reasons, I know I am not alone in having enjoyed the Lodon production and I am sorry it is closing. However I think it is too simplistic to say it could never work...

It is not a great time for the West End

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/theatre/d...139843,00.html

The strength of the pound and the fact that tourism has never really recovered from the aftermath of the atrocities of 11th September 2001 mean that the theatres are getting very cautious. It says a lot that the Rings is going to be replaced by a production of "Oliver!" with the eponymous hero and Nancy being played by the winners of the latest BBC "audition by television" show, a follow up to the highly successful contests for a new Maria (Sound of Music) and Joseph (and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat). Dont' get me wrong, I enjoyed both the shows (and my favourites won through .. .) but it is a worrying sign for the longterm health of the industry if the only things that can get put on are tried and tested pot-boilers starring people who have had huge tv exposure.

[Brinniel]

I saw the musical on Friday and enjoyed it very much.

I thought the first half was depicted very well. All the best scenes were left in, and the parts that were changed had good reasons for change (after all you're cutting down a trilogy to three hours). The hobbits were well done (loved Pippin) and I was particularly pleased watching the number "The Cat and the Moon" as I really love that song in the book.

The second half was alright too. I found the death of Boromir touching and the ending was well done. The only thing that really bothered me was how they seemed to combine Rohan and Gondor and merge Theoden, Denethor, and Eomer into one character. I understand that stuff needs to be cut down, but that really just confused and frustrated me more than anything. I think it would've been better off if Gandalf came to Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli in Fangorn (like he's supposed to), and then have them ride off to save Rohan (and Gondor), but leave it there and not show any of it (until they arrive at the gate). That or extend the musical another 45 minutes. But I think it's better to cut out an entire part of the books then to include some and butcher it up. That's really my only major criticism. Though less importantly, the hand movements of the elves bothered me after awhile. It was overdone and exaggerated...like a really bad interpretive dance.

But I think what made the musical so fantastic were the special effects. The balrog was a great way to close the first act with smoke coming everywhere. The Black Riders were absolutely stunning. And Shelob was superb...she really managed to freak out the audience (as did the orcs who wandered into the aisles). And really, the list could go on...

The music was wonderful too. There were no songs that stood out to me above the rest in ways that songs in some musicals do, but still it was all very beautiful. I'll have to get the soundtrack if I can find it cheap somewhere...

Anyways, when I first heard LotR would be a musical, I admit I thought it a bit ridiculous. But after it came out I became more curious and when I found out I was going to London I decided I really wanted to see it. I still wasn't sure about how good it would be...I thought some of the clips on the website depicted the musical as a bit cheesy and overdone, but of course I had to see it for myself and I'm glad I did. Really, pictures and videos don't do the musical justice...things may look overdone but that's how all musicals are because they have to be seen from a distance (while usually they are filmed up close). It was only a few days ago I saw the first ads about the musical closing (though I was aware of it before), and I'm sad to see it go. Take my advice: anyone and everyone who has the opportunity to see LotR before July 19 should go and see it. Despite the changes, it'll be worth your money...trust me.

[Kath]

I've been to see it twice now and have pretty much the same opinion as Brinniel. Gollum, the Black Riders, Shelob - all fantastically done. The Elves hand movements - incredibly irritating.

Ah the orcs, there's a subject of debate. Alright, if you're watching a video I suspect the pogosticks do look silly, but when you're there and they're flinging themselves around Saruman and after the Fellowship it works very well. In addition, when they come out into the audience and flippin' well terrify you it really, really works. Trust me. My name is Kath and I have been terrorised by an orc.

As for the music. Well, clearly I can't speak for all but I enjoyed it. The voices were fantastic for the Elves and the hobbits were just the right mix of good voices but relying on the acting to get the point across. The woman playing Galadriel had a beautiful voice and when she was singing Lothlorien the audience was just spellbound.

I didn't mind the mixing of Rohan and Gondor into one because it takes out all the going one way and then back and then another and back and then another. It worked. Cuts out confusion, especially for any theatre-goers who didn't know the story.

All in all I have to say I loved it and would happily go again. I may well!