What did "Dracula the Musical" look like?

[SweeneyPhanatic]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 3:48am

I'm intrigued after hearing a recording of the show, but I've had little luck digging up any production photos that really show off the set. I searched the forums here, but after going back two years and only digging up threads about the concept album, I gave up.

If such pictures don't exist, or can't be found, can anyone describe the look of the show? I've also read about an effect where Dracula became younger right before the audience's eyes. How did they do that?

Thanks in advance!

[CapnHook]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 3:54am

Updated On: 6/22/10 at 03:54 AM

[SweeneyPhanatic]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 4:16am

[no need to leave this here, since clearly no ill-will was intended by CapnHook]

Updated On: 6/23/10 at 04:16 AM

[Radioactiveduck]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 4:22am

It was pretty, but not amazing. Since the plot was such a jumbled up mess, the set design couldn't settle into one theme. The characters were constantly in different locations, so the set had to constantly change.

There were also two set pieces that looked a bit like lattice that slid across the stage (one R to L, the other L to R) with people hanging on them. The show curtain was a creepy mural with a huge face, that was split into 4 different sections of metal that all pulled apart when the show started.

The effect you're talking about has still got me completely baffled. He was old and wrinkly, with a white wig...then he bent down for 2 seconds to bite someone and he came back up with a brown wig and the wrinkles just started disappearing from his face as he sang facing downstage...it was amazing.

The show was a disaster, but I hold it so dear in my heart.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 7:14am

I have no idea what that is, but it totally killed this thread.

[SweeneyPhanatic]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 8:11am

"I have no idea what that is, but it totally killed this thread."

Poor vampires. Even the Broadway message boards don't want them...

"Radioactiveduck", thanks for that. Funny you (and many other people) mention the jumbled plot. From what I can tell, it's pretty faithful to Stoker's novel (if you ignore the telepathic love story). Then again, the novel is a series of diaries and letters, so maybe being so faithful wasn't the best idea.

One thing I've noticed is very awkward pacing in the book scenes. I don't know if it's a bunch of missed entrances, or if the cast was dozing off between lines, but was there some kind of concept happening in those scenes that didn't translate to audio? I recall one scene where Quincey says something, and after a really long pause, Arthur responds, and so on. It just sounds...weird. When I think of "Dracula" in any format, I think of urgency, and tension, not mild-mannered, fireside chats.

I apologize if questions like this have been answered before, or if discussion of the various details of flop shows is generally disliked. Unfortunately, the search feature here isn't terribly useful, and I discovered this show a few years too late to enjoy the initial discussions.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 8:15am

It was a weird show, but it had a few good songs. Especially the ones sung by the then, unknown Kelli O'Hara, and Melissa Errico.

Updated On: 6/22/10 at 08:15 AM

[CapnHook]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 8:30am

I dunno wtf that picture was...definitely not what it was supposed to be...

Google "Dracula musical broadway" and in the first 3 pages there should be 3 promo photos from the show.

[newintown]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 9:28am

Horror and thrills don't tend to make a good musical.

Having seen three disastrous vampire musicals (Dance of the Vampires, Dracula, and Lestat), this is pretty obvious. Dance, at least, attempted to be slightly camp, although it did so in a plodding, graceless, inept way. The other two shows were painful bores.

Take a lesson from Sweeney Todd if you want to write a musical thriller - you need great music, not simply acceptable tunes, and you need an expertly-written book (that knows how to inject humor in the right places), not hack work. Dracula may have stayed close to Stoker, but adherence to the source material is never a guarantee of quality.

[ken8631]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 10:25am

Saw the play twice (first time had front row seats that were bad due to very high stage), remember some sort of rocky looking thing in the middle of the stage where people laid down, and a large room (living room) where scenes took place, also remember a brief nude scene by Kelli O'Hara.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 10:36am

Yeah, Errico also had her chest exposed.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 11:06am

It did have one of the most unusual set pieces I think I've ever seen...

[newintown]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 11:12am

I remember watching that enormous statue and thinking, "that thing is going to move and do something surprising." It never moved.

[Jon]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 12:09pm

Nekkid Kelli O'Hara? I'm betting it looked pretty damned good!

[newintown]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 12:29pm

Adam Guettel never complained.





Until he dumped her.

[philly03]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 1:10pm

The special effects were phenomenal (and the only thing reviewers liked, besides complimenting the cast). In the same song/scene that Tom Hewitt (Dracula) went from old & wrinkled to young & new ("Fresh Blood") he flew straight up the the top of the stage and his cape flung out, with his Vampire girls spinning upward. Tom Hewitt often made his entrances from the top of the stage. Lots of flying on his part.

O'Hara's nudity scene, while honestly, unnecessary, was also done well. I forget if she was wearing a robe or what already, but there was some strobe lighting and literally her clothes just ripped off of her.

There were a lot of big, unnecessary scenery pieces that made ONE appearance. I believe the big statue with Stephen McKinley Henderson posted above was also such.

Some songs had moving scrims of color behind them, which gave the effect of four chairs in the middle of the stage (two facing each other) the look that they were moving, but then I remember the chairs actually moving on their own?

The costumes were also very good. The physical production was beautiful. I would certainly say it had that spectacle-feel.

As for the show, get the Graz-Austria Recording which is the only legally released one. It's worth it, if you know start to know the words / the orchestrations are really cool. The Broadway production had a whopping 6 piece orchestra, which consisted I believe of something like 3 synthesizers, a keyboard, drums & a flute. I assume all the money went to the production physical looks, since I doubt Frank would have wanted that orchestra... As usual, most the music was good, but the lyrics either copied Wildhorn tunes ("Deep in the Darkest Night" is "Into the Fire") or the lyrics gave such bad context about who characters were singing about (Mina's "If I Could Fly" .. Dracula or Harker?).

[Chrysanthemum62001]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 1:28pm

I agree that the show was boring, except for Tom Hewitt and Chris Hoch, who were both delicious. The thing I found about this show was that after a second and third viewing, it sort of grew on me.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 3:48pm

I'm still boggled by some of the special effects used in the show. I did love the one that I was able to figure out - where Dracula jumped into the orchestra pit.

[ErinDillyFan]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 4:17pm

There seem to be still along with music on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQKeDjGxIMY

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 4:24pm

That's from the production they did a year later in St. Gallen, Switzerland...Lord knows the orchestrations were ten times better than that rinky dink six-piece band they had that was half-comprised of three synthesizers!

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 6:00pm

I'll never understand how they did Dracula's transformation from old to young. I'm probably complicating it in my mind, when in reality it likely has a very simple explanation, but however they did it -- it looked great.

[darquegk]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 6:03pm

It could be a lighting effect, with the "aged" makeup being painted in such a way that it only shows up under certain qualities of light. As he walked downstage, he would appear to get younger because that light would, gradually, no longer be shining on him.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 8:56pm

"O'Hara's nudity scene, while honestly, unnecessary, was also done well. I forget if she was wearing a robe or what already, but there was some strobe lighting and literally her clothes just ripped off of her."

She was wearing a night gown and a g-string. Dracula appeared in the window outside, there was a split-second blackout/lightening strike, her gown was yanked off from under the stage, and Dracula was suddenly standing next to her bed. Hewitt quickly shielded her from view with his cape.

"Yeah, Errico also had her chest exposed."

That actually happened very rarely. She did it whenever she felt like it, which wasn't very often.

There were many trap doors on that set. One number had Harker running from door to locked door, all of which popped up from below the stage. A carriage came up and disappeared from another trap. A giant door (to Dracula's castle) did the same. There were three glass coffins that held Dracula's women, which filled with blood after they got out. Dracula's castle had a giant bookcase, stairs, and a large dinner table.

"Some songs had moving scrims of color behind them, which gave the effect of four chairs in the middle of the stage (two facing each other) the look that they were moving, but then I remember the chairs actually moving on their own?"

You're talking about the train car that the group takes to follow Dracula back to his castle. They tracked on and off, as did Mina and Harker's chairs and desks in "Whitby Bay", but otherwise, as you say, their "movement" was indicated by scrims.

The set for the insane asylum that Renfield was in was amazing. The afore-mentioned latticework set pieces were on either side, but it was full of cages that he kept birds, rats, spiders and flies in.

Overall, it was a beautiful show to look at, really nice sets and lighting. Great cast. The book was awful.

"It could be a lighting effect, with the "aged" makeup being painted in such a way that it only shows up under certain qualities of light. As he walked downstage, he would appear to get younger because that light would, gradually, no longer be shining on him."

Good guess, but no. If you don't want to know the magic for this one, stop reading now. As CATSNY supposed, the effect was a simple one. Hewitt was wearing an old man half-mask with the white-haired wig attached. He leapt on the coffin, an ancient man, then crouched over Harker and began to drink from him, his head mostly behind Harker's and facing upstage. The female vampires danced and sang as a distraction while Hewiitt quite simply pulled the mask and wig off, bit into a blood capsule, and leapt to his feet, young again, rejuvenated by Harker's blood. I believe Hewitt"s hair had been dyed black for the show, so the hair that was revealed was probably his own, not a wig.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 9:20pm

Well remembered (or informed), ghostlight!

I went to this with an open heart. I love Dracula in all (well, theretofore all) incarnations, and I'm really not a musical snob. But I was bored to tears.

The special effects were defintiely eye-popping. Maybe even worth the price of admission. But boy was the musical a disappointment.

[2ndBalcony]

Posted: 6/22/10 at 10:33pm

Actually, he was wearing two wigs, a long black one with a long white one on top. We used to have a blog group for this and Tom visited and talked about this piece. It was a real challenge because he had only a few seconds to make a bite, shed one wig, put in his teeth and bloody his mouth. He was always afraid he wouldn't be able to find the blood bottle in the brief time he had, but it always seemed to work well.

He shed the black wig in the next scene to continue with his own dyed short black hair for the rest of the show.