Lord of the Rings: The Musical (No Joke!)

[Estelyn Telcontar]

What horrible timing! I wanted to see it in mid-September; couldn't they wait just two weeks?! Oh well, London's not far, so if I can get bargain flight prices, I'll go see it there...

[Bêthberry]

According to today's news stories in The Globe and Mail, Lal, the mega-not-quite-a-musical is moving to the "Theatre Royal Drury Lane" according to the front page story by Kate Taylor, former theatre critic.

Here's a post mortem by the Globe's theatre critic, who of course was one of the initial nay-sayers and so who is going to defend his position after yesterday's complaints that once again the local critics were harsher than the Brit crits. (Actually, this is a recurrent thread in Canadian cultural life, that local always gets a harsher view than imports. Colonial insecurities still.)

Originally Posted by Kamal Al-Solaylee

The Lord of the Rings CANCELLED
As the panned Toronto production breathes its last gasp, KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE analyzes what went wrong, and if prospects might change across the Atlantic
KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE

For the last few weeks, the question that most theatregoers in Toronto were asking was not if The Lord of the Rings would close, but when. We now at least have an answer: Sept. 3.

Now, let the real questions begin. Why did it close so early after all the excitement that greeted news of its arrival? What failed in its marketing as the guiding light of Toronto's cultural renaissance? How will it fare in London, its "spiritual home," to use producer Kevin Wallace's words, when it opens next June at the Drury Lane Theatre?

Did the Toronto critics, as Wallace suggested in one of his mixed messages at yesterday's press conference, really kill the show's momentum and, if so, is their non-British theatrical sensibility the reason they (and most other North American reviewers) didn't "get" it? The British critics who flew to Toronto for the March 23 opening, Wallace continued, loved it -- a statement that conveniently ignored one of the most acerbic reviews The Lord of the Rings received at the hands of the very British Charles Spencer of The Daily Telegraph.

While there are many questions and almost as many people to blame (at least in Wallace's mind), the real explanation for the show's demise is simple: It failed to connect with audiences on a deeper level than the visual. Despite some innovative stagecraft, The Lord of the Rings, in the version critics saw at least, was a hollow, lifeless affair with no real emotional pull to the storytelling, the music or the acting. The story itself proved confusing to anybody not familiar with J.R.R. Tolkien's trilogy of books. Not even the lengthy synopsis in the program was of much help.

Too much time and energy have gone to the logistics of the adaptation and not nearly enough on its emotional life.

Although Wallace insisted that his market research indicated that nine out of 10 audience members would recommend The Lord of the Rings to their friends, effectively bypassing critical opinion, he and the rest of the producers failed to translate that into a critic-proof phenomenon. Most audience members were literally not buying it. On Broadway as in the West End, many, many musicals (The Phantom of the Opera comes to mind) survive critical drubbings and evolve not just into success stories but social phenomena.

I also believe the marketing of the show was muddled and of no help to audiences who were tempted but needed that final push to get them to part with up to $125 a ticket. From the show's logo to its embarrassing advertising campaigns -- remember the "Reach for the Ringtone (My Precious)" posters on the subway? -- the advertising always suggested a production that's still experimenting with its identity and how to project that identity to the world.

Ultimately, the Toronto production was the very expensive out-of-town tryout for The Lord of the Rings. Tryouts are all about trial and error. In taking the show to London, Wallace will probably also take some valuable lessons on how not to produce megamusicals in the future. (Lesson one: Call it a megamusical.)

I suspect the London run will fare significantly better, partly because the British may look more favourably on a work created by their own, but mainly because the production itself will likely evolve and improve before it opens there or pitches other tents in Europe. We wish it well, but we also have to acknowledge that, despite all talk to the contrary, little Toronto was just a stand-in for big London.

Gee, isn't that last bit what I said yesterday? And they don't pay me what they pay this guy!

EDIT: the theatres

Drury Lane

Princess of Wales theatre

[Bêthberry]

A report today in the Globe claims that there are plans for a German production of the show for 2008. Won't Sharkey be happy!

Originally Posted by Guy Dixon

Gollum to follow Rings to London
Canadian actor earned acclaim portraying a sad creature obsessed with his 'precious'
GUY DIXON

Canadian actor Michael Therriault, acclaimed for his role as the darkly amusing, deeply psychotic Gollum, is among the cast members being asked to join the stage production of The Lord of the Rings when it moves from Toronto to London.

Casting hasn't been finalized and full auditions won't start in London until the fall. But a casting announcement for some of the lead roles could come in September as the producers prepare to stage Rings at London's Theatre Royal Drury Lane, opening May 7.

When asked about Mr. Therriault continuing as Gollum, producer Kevin Wallace confirmed by phone from London that "you would be right to speculate that I would be having a conversation with him."

Mr. Therriault, who grew up in Oakville, Ont., recently won a Dora Mavor Moore Award for the physically demanding role as the ring-obsessed creature. Spitting lines on stage night after night since The Lord of the Rings began previews in Toronto in February, Mr. Therriault has been consistently praised as a showstopper.

As announced this week, the Toronto production will close Sept. 3. Although the $28-million show hasn't continuously attracted sell-out crowds in Toronto as hoped, another reason for the closing date is to allow enough time to transport the heavy, elaborate stage and sets to England to be reworked and fitted into the Drury Lane theatre.

The London production is expected to take on an even more British flavour. The cast will be mostly local actors, in large part because of British actors' union rules. However, many of the leads in the Toronto production have been played by British actors, including James Loye as hobbit hero Frodo. Mr. Wallace said discussions with some of the Canadian cast will start this summer and a few actors and stunt people could remain with the production.

A similar situation will occur in Germany, with a predominantly German cast playing most of the parts, when a third production of Rings is staged in that country beginning in 2008. The actual city has yet to be announced, Mr. Wallace said, because the arrival of Rings in Germany will mark the departure of another production, and those involved don't want to make that publicly known yet.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Sorry to hear this. I was hoping for a great success eventually followed by a touring company.

It's interesting... We rant and rave at PJ (myself included), but the one thing he could certainly do was put bodies in the seats. Admittedly, it's a far cry from a mass market movie audience to a $120 ticket for a stage show. But, whatever the medium, any work of art must have an audience.

I just wonder how much of this "failure" was the difficulty that JRRT identified--the problem of condensing such a long tale into a single production. So far I can't remember a single instance of the LotR being successfully adapted into a single film or play. If anyone else can, please let me know. Even Ralph Bakshi ended up truncating the production, ostensibly for monetary reasons.

Thanks Bb for passing on this news. Even before I read this post, I noticed on e-bay that a few folk were "dumping" their memorabilia from the play. I just don't have a good feeling about the long range fate of this production, but I hope I am wrong.

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

Ok, so I saw the musical about a month ago... and here's my shortish SPOILERISH review:

Hobbits: The Hobbits were handled the best out of any of the characters. They took some time in the beginning to set up a little background about them and to give you a good idea of what kind of people they were. Their spirit and care free nature was well shown. Frodo and Sam's relationship didn't get explained much in the beginning, but they were the best represented characters in the whole musical. In Mordor they had a great song about that tied into the part in the book where they are talking about the great stories and wondering if they'll ever be in one. It had a sweet melody and great lyrics... I got teary... they tied Gollum into it well, too, and showed how he used to be a Hobbit. Merry and Pippin were ok, but rushed. However, when they first joined up with Frodo and Sam they all had a great traveling song to the theme of "The Road Goes Ever On and On." Merry and Pippin did meet Treebeard, and the Ents were sort of cool, but their time on stage was brief. One thing that made fans happy too... The Scouring... it was there... but Bill Ferny played the role that Wormtongue would've otherwise played.

Elves: The second best represented. Lothlorien was great in that the whole Fellowship was blind folded (for Gimli's sake)... which was left out of the movies. Galadriel, however, was odd... it was mainly her costume. She had a lovely song about Lothlorien, though... but I think it was a wee bit too long. Arwen was handled nicely... in fact, I think the romance between her and Aragorn showed better in the musical than it did in the movie. I got teary from that too!

Men: The world of men was poorly handled. Aragorn was underdeveloped, Boromir was kinda of one dimensional, Theoden had no depth, Eowyn was there but they didn't mention any relevance to the fact of her killing the Withcking, Faramir and Denethor were non existant because they never went to Gondor. There was only one battle that was kind of a combination of Helm's Deep and the Black Gates. It was handled ok, but still... no depth.

Technical stuff: The puppetry was great! Shelob was handled very well... the Black Riders were awesome looking... The Balrog had nice effects, but had it not been for the effects I think it would've looked like a giant pinata.

Other characters: I didn't like Gandalf. Brent Carver is a fine actor and I've always wanted to see him in something, but he wasn't Gandalf... but I could've told you that when he was first announced as being cast in that role. Legolas and Gimli were just there because they sorta had to be... nothing much about them.

That's it, in a nutshell... I'll be happy to answer any questions anyone has about it.

[davem]

I notice that the book of the stage show is published tomorrow.

here

[Mithalwen]

yesterday when my darling god-daughter showed me her birthday present form her uncle which was a pair of tickets for the first night in London and said "Do you want one of these?"

I think youcan guess the answer....