Phantom searches for identity, disappoints, lacks, and turns stale

[astalavista]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 8:39pm

I have seen the Phantom in its various incarnations (Broadway, national touring companies, etc...) and loved it up until last year when I saw it on Broadway with Norm Lewis (at the time). I was shocked to discover some of the casting choices (including Lewis himself, who as a borderline tenor-baritone struggled with the high A-flats), orchestration changes (the addition of cheesy 80s-like guitar riffs), set changes (the introduction of completely unnecessary overdone lightning strikes) and a 'mechanical' performance with little originality, rushed execution and an overall sense of worn-out tiredness by the cast members. 

Keeping a show going for 28 years is no easy task. Some do this incredibly well (the current Broadway run of Les Mis is exemplary and superb from every single angle), others - like the Phantom - try too hard and fail, and end up losing [some of] their magic in the process. Curious if others agree or disagree based on their recent experience. 

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 8:44pm

It's a tourist trap. People talked and took photos every time I've seen it on Broadway. The cast is probably bored out of their minds!

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 8:45pm

Um, the current Broadway production of LES MISERABLES is a reconceived revival - it's not a recreation nor any part of the original 1987 Broadway production, which closed in 2003. 

 

THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA has been playing at the Majestic Theatre since its Broadway debut in 1988.  It's never closed.  

[astalavista]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 8:49pm

Not sure what difference that makes. Sure, Les Mis is more of a hard reset, while Phantom has been a gradual upgrade. The common element is that from the production standpoint you must renew and some do it well, while others fail. Phantom producers (not sure if it's still Macintosh who also did Les Mis), directors and stage and set designers, certainly did the show a great disservice over the last 5-6 years. While Les Mis had not continuously run on Broadway, an 'official' production was always on somewhere - either on tour or in NYC or London. I saw 3 different versions in NYC myself and was never disappointed. Phantom's changes, however, seem to have too much of ALW's touch, which has consistently missed the mark over the last 20 years. 

[astalavista]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 8:49pm

Couldn't agree more!

[Mike Costa]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 9:20pm

" Phantom's changes, however, seem to have too much of ALW's touch" 

You are aware, Astalavista, that Andrew Lloyd Weber not only is the composer of Phantom but has a controlling interest.  Actually, he is the most successful composer in the history of our planet.  If he looks at you sideways at Phantom, Cats or School of Rock you are gone from the theater.

Who do you expect is going to tell Sir Lloyd Weber that his changes to his longest running show in the english speaking world are no longer allowed?

Updated On: 7/13/16 at 09:20 PM

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 9:33pm

I visit Phantom every now and then and personally haven't found this to be the case.

[Telegram Spam]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 9:41pm

Having seen the New York production the night after it opened in 1988, a second time a few months later, and the Tokyo production in 1989, I happened to see the Broadway production again this past Sunday; July 10th. Here are my thoughts:

1. Although a far different Phantom than Michael Crawford, James Barbour is very powerful in the role. His rich baritone gives each number a previously untapped dimension. When he sang, I felt as if I was hearing the score for the first time. (His voice may almost be too magnificent for the role.)

2. Rachel Eskenazi-Gold was a luminous Christine. (Very reminiscent of Sarah Brightman!) And Jordan Donica, as Raoul, often matched Barbour in the new dimensions he brought to this character's numbers. (Mark my words, he will turn up in a production of "Hamilton" sooner or later. Probably as Burr.)

3. I think the story and the staging hold up very well. Phantom still has great emotional pull. Even if the sets and effects no longer have the wow factor of 28 years ago. (30 in London!)

4. Notwithstanding the above, I do think that it won't be very much longer before the show needs to confront the choice of moving to a smaller theatre, or closing. (To return for a big 40th in 2028.) This past Sunday, there were many, many empty seats in the mezzanine and balcony. The Majestic is the crown jewel of the Shubert Organization, and is unquestionably lusted after by many of the shows eyeing Broadway in 2017 and 2018. Although the current weekly gross is hovering in the 80 percent range, it is nonetheless a waste of the Majestic. I realize that there must be a strong temptation to cling to the theatre long enough for a 30th anniversary marketing blitz - and it looks like they have trimmed the size of the cast enough to operate a lean, mean, machine - but I really think the Shuberts should begin to work with the producers on a transfer to a new home. (There is certainly precedent for this. In 1987, "42nd Street" was the tenant at the Majestic. In order to win the New York production of Phantom for a Shubert house, the organization negotiated an exit deal with David Merrick. "42nd Street" moved across the street to the St. James...a Nederlander house! It's time for history to repeat itself with "Phantom..."

If you've never seen the show, or if you haven't seen it in a long time, run to the Majestic and savor the "Hamilton" of 1988...before it's too late!

[Phantom4ever]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 10:12pm

One of the coolest features of the board is the search function. You will find a variation of this thread (Phantom is lame and has grown tired and will close soon) every year or so.  Let's meet up again in 2017 to discuss how Phantom is still tired, nobody speaks English in the audience, it's ready to close, etc.  can't wait! 

[chernjam]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 10:14pm

Looking at the weekly grosses - pretty much faithfully holding at the million dollar mark - I doubt Phantom is going anywhere anytime soon...  Whether people want the Masjestic or not.  If they're desperate for a theatre, Chicago is pulling half the grosses of Phantom.  Would think thats more likely to go

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 10:14pm

Whom do you expect is going to tell Sir Lloyd Weber that his changes to his longest running show in the english speaking world are no longer allowed?

 

"Who" not "whom."

 

[FiddleMeThis]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 10:24pm

You are right. This production is making money hand over fist. The running costs are VERY low compared to almost any other musical running. The aforementioned "changes" are MINOR- this is essentially the same staging that was seen almost 30 years ago. It is well cared for by Prince, Mackintosh and Webber because it is a cash cow. It provides a satisfying experience to its audiences, if not to Broadway snobs. It won't close for a LONG time, and the staging looks especially good compared to overwrought revivals of other shows of the era. I'm looking at you, Les Miz. 

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 10:44pm

"If they're desperate for a theatre, Chicago is pulling half the grosses of Phantom.  Would think thats more likely to go."   I very much disagree.  "Chicago" has endured many ups and downs during its almost 20 year run.  It's not going anywhere.  It is not as expensive to run as other shows.   I do agree that perhaps some changes are in order, to keep the show from going stale.  One clearcut change would be to have a more diverse pool of Velmas.  The fact that the show allows one particular artist to have a stranglehold on the character of Velma is a detriment, I feel.  

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 10:45pm

Is the lightning strike really new? I seem to recall that when I saw it years ago. That doesn't seem like an update. 

[Telegram Spam]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 10:51pm

From the perspective of the Shubert Organization, the debate likely isn't about how much money "Phantom..." is pulling in each week. Rather I think the question is how much MORE money would they be pulling in each week with a new hit at the Majestic, and the ability to sell premium tickets?

If "Harry Potter and the Cursed Child" tells the Shubert Organization that they will only open in a Shubert house if they can have the Majestic, I think there's a pretty good chance that they'll get the Majestic. ("42nd Street" was still doing pretty good business in 1987 when the Shuberts asked it to leave. "Phantom..." wanted the Majestic and there was no way the Shuberts were going to willingly lose the show to the Nederlanders.)

The Majestic is too cavernous for "Phantom..." in 2016. I remember the buzz and the energy when the theatre was packed to the gills in 1988. (In fact, when I saw "Hamilton" last November, I thought back to the excitement and anticipation of the early "Phantom..." audiences.) The show could rekindle that energy with a move to a smaller house where the rows are packed. 

[Harmonium]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 11:22pm

Updated On: 6/17/17 at 11:22 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 11:25pm

Telegram Spam said: "From the perspective of the Shubert Organization, the debate likely isn't about how much money "Phantom..." is pulling in each week. Rather I think the question is how much MORE money would they be pulling in each week with a new hit at the Majestic, and the ability to sell premium tickets?

If "Harry Potter and the Cursed Child" tells the Shubert Organization that they will only open in a Shubert house if they can have the Majestic, I think there's a pretty good chance that they'll get the Majestic. ("42nd Street" was still doing pretty good business in 1987 when the Shuberts asked it to leave. "Phantom..." wanted the Majestic and there was no way the Shuberts were going to willingly lose the show to the Nederlanders.)

The Majestic is too cavernous for "Phantom..." in 2016. I remember the buzz and the energy when the theatre was packed to the gills in 1988. (In fact, when I saw "Hamilton" last November, I thought back to the excitement and anticipation of the early "Phantom..." audiences.) The show could rekindle that energy with a move to a smaller house where the rows are packed. "

The Shuberts couldn't kick them out if they wanted to, and they don't. Frankly this show and that theatre have fallen off of everybody's radar but it's not going anywhere: it is the foundation of the Broadway amusement park. Ripley's and Mme. Tussauds will close sooner. 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 11:35pm

PalJoey said: "Whom do you expect is going to tell Sir Lloyd Weber that his changes to his longest running show in the english speaking world are no longer allowed?

 

"Who" not "whom."

 

 

"

Thank you for knowing that, joey. I believe it's also Lord Andrew not "Sir Lloyd Webber". I don't know why the British use first names for their aristocracy, but they do. And I do know that ALW has been promoted from a mere "Sir".

[astalavista]

Posted: 7/14/16 at 8:15am

It is either "Sir Andrew" or "The Lord Lloyd-Webber". In order to ascend to the House of Lords ALW had to hyphenate his middle and last names when using the title only. Legally, no hyphen is required in his name. 

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 7/14/16 at 8:22am

I worked at Phantom (concession sales) when it first opened in 1988.  Although I had seen bits and pieces of it during its first year on Broadway, I never saw the show from start to finish until August 2014 when Norm Lewis and Sierra Boggess were in the cast.  I was quite surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did.  The show seemed quite fresh instead of tired (which is what I was expecting).  I'm on the fence about the tour that's currently in DC.

The only other shows I have seen at The Majestic are I Remember Mama and 42nd Street.

[AnnieBlack]

Posted: 7/14/16 at 8:23am

Just for sake of discussion, which Shubert could Phantom 'easily' move to? Weren't there issues about the size of theatres back in 1988 that limited the choice to about 3 theatres? 

[Justin D]

Posted: 7/14/16 at 8:27am

It's also extremely expensive to just move a show (especially in NYC as compared to London) so I highly doubt it will move.

and if it did, where would it move to? Phantom needs certain set requirements interms of front of house/proscenium/chandelier space, and many if not all of the smaller Shubert houses dont have that sort of front of house space. (the relationship between the ceiling and top of the proscenium, alot of them are just too flat)

that being said, it was sad when I went back in February to see the house less than half full, but the performance was great and as always the summer makes up for the slow months. But to transfer would really mean building alot of new sets as well as all of the technical equipment. Not to mention all of the ancillary stuff that has gone in to backstage, wardrobe, hair, etc. It's all very cramped back there

[broadwayguy91]

Posted: 7/14/16 at 9:35am

I don't know why but I'm chuckling while reading this thread

[castlestreet]

Posted: 7/14/16 at 9:45am

Phantom is a Broadway landmark at this point, and quite honestly, I still find it to be a rather pleasant way to spend an evening.  I've seen the show in many different cities (my favorite being the Original Toronto stint at the Pantages) and despite changing times, still love the show.  It has its flaws, but what long running show doesn't?

 

 

Phantom, Les Miz, The Lion King and other long runners stay running because their stories and music transcend language barriers and play all over the world.  When those same people come to NYC, they want to see something familiar and accessible to them, and do.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if ten years from now we are still having the debate about Phantom "needing" to close or move to another theater.  

 

Once the inevitable happens and it does close someday, I will be among those who will miss it's home at the Majestic Theater, the same way that Victoria Street in Toronto hasn't been the same for since Phantom shuttered there over ten years ago.

[FiddleMeThis]

Posted: 7/14/16 at 9:58am

The lair set comes from the basement and requires a huge build out, including removing the actual stage and replacing it with a whole new deck. This show would close before it moves.