25th Anniversary Restaged Tour

I hadn't heard this about the new production, but I totally agree with your treatise. Well said.

It does seem strange that you can see the graveyard through the window of the rehearsal set as the synopsis for the tour still has the Wishing scene set in Perros.

operafantomet wrote:
In the newly staged tour, the graveyard is now the neighbor of the Opera. Apparently you can see the set through a window in the background where they rehearse, and the stage turns to display the graveyard when Christine visits there. The reports were a bit unclear on whether it was intentional or not to show the graveyard set during the rehearsal, but if they've bothered to put in a window I assume they want to show something through that window. But when did Palais Garnier get a graveyard as nearest neighbor? Why the urge to make it so literal? Again, had they not tried to put in the physical transaction it would make more sense.

OH FOR THE LOVE OF LEROUX!



Laurence Connor, I may have to summon you to Room 101 shortly. Next time you stage a show set in France, LOOK AT AN ATLAS.

Okay, seriously? What is it with newer versions wanting to make the Opera the Center of the Friggin' Universe? Yes, the building itself is very important, almost as much of a character as any of the human players. But God forbid anybody sleeps or worships or spends any part of their life (or death, apparently) anywhere other than under its roof, or at least within spitting distance of it. It's Erik's unfortunate fate to be incapable of making a life anywhere outside the Palais Garnier's walls; now it looks like everyone else in the story is forced to suffer the same.

~LCD

Scorp wrote:

operafantomet wrote:
In the newly staged tour, the graveyard is now the neighbor of the Opera. Apparently you can see the set through a window in the background where they rehearse, and the stage turns to display the graveyard when Christine visits there. The reports were a bit unclear on whether it was intentional or not to show the graveyard set during the rehearsal, but if they've bothered to put in a window I assume they want to show something through that window. But when did Palais Garnier get a graveyard as nearest neighbor? Why the urge to make it so literal? Again, had they not tried to put in the physical transaction it would make more sense.

OH FOR THE LOVE OF LEROUX!



Laurence Connor, I may have to summon you to Room 101 shortly. Next time you stage a show set in France, LOOK AT AN ATLAS.

Scorp, you have forgotten! This is not the Opera Garnier! This is the magical land of Webber-France, where Opera Populaire exists and graveyards are right down the street from the Opera!

ML6 wrote:

Scorp wrote:

operafantomet wrote:
In the newly staged tour, the graveyard is now the neighbor of the Opera. Apparently you can see the set through a window in the background where they rehearse, and the stage turns to display the graveyard when Christine visits there. The reports were a bit unclear on whether it was intentional or not to show the graveyard set during the rehearsal, but if they've bothered to put in a window I assume they want to show something through that window. But when did Palais Garnier get a graveyard as nearest neighbor? Why the urge to make it so literal? Again, had they not tried to put in the physical transaction it would make more sense.

OH FOR THE LOVE OF LEROUX!



Laurence Connor, I may have to summon you to Room 101 shortly. Next time you stage a show set in France, LOOK AT AN ATLAS.

Scorp, you have forgotten! This is not the Opera Garnier! This is the magical land of Webber-France, where Opera Populaire exists and graveyards are right down the street from the Opera!

But it IS the Opéra Garnier. Well, it was in Hal's production. And it SEEMS it's supposed to be the Palais Garnier in Connor's as well, given the curtain.

I should specify that I'm going by ONE review here. She might have gotten it wrong, they might still change stuff etc. But I've thought that for many a scene in the original compared to other versions, and I think the main thought is valid still. It's only more underlined if the graveyard is as described in the review.

But I'm surprised by the lack of other stuff surfacing. They've had a decent number of previews by now? The only tidbit of info I've found is from the What's On Stage board, where what appears to be a cast member from the tour tells that the idea for the chandelier is that it'll swing from side to side when crashing, and that it'll be spectacular. The rest of the discussion in the forum is whether the tour Buquet was out of line with an unfortunate Twitter remark he had, and whether Twitter is a private or public media...

http://www.whatsonstage.com/board/index.php?/topic/39478-phantom-of-the-opera-2012-uk-tour/page__st__190__p__211742#entry211742

Sorry to be hammering on the same arguments here, but I just discussed this at the POTO forum, and it relates to what I said here previously about the original stage version not contradicting Leroux, while reinterpretations often does.

JOJ is quoted saying this in a new interview:

“Owen-Jones points out that on the opening page of the book (Le Fantôme de l’Opéra by French writer Gaston Leroux) on which the musical is based, The Phantom is a real person rather than a ghost.

I take that on board and make him real. He’s a creepy guy who’s in the basement of the theatre watching the ballet girls getting changed and becoming obsessed with Christine.”
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/showbiz-and-lifestyle/showbiz/2012/03/09/john-owen-jones-prepares-for-the-25th-anniversary-tour-of-phantom-91466-30492016/

Uh.... huh? Did anyone ever think the Phantom was meant to be an actual ghost? And "real" is relative. Leroux, writing in a sensational journalism style, assures the reader that the story is real and the Phantom is real. That he was an actual historical figure, not that he was a real man rather than a ghost. He then mix facts with fiction in the rest of the novel, to underline the feeling of journalism rather than fiction. This is a writer trick, just like Dan Brown's "The da Vinci Code". I don't think Leroux ever considered "Poor Erik" an actual ghost. And I sure don't think the audience ever thought the man on stage was not meant to be of flesh and blood. Therein lies the tragedy, of a human suffering.

But no matter how one interpret the opening line, where in the world does Leroux say the Phantom was spying on the ballet girls? Enjoying seeing them naked? And how does that make the Phantom "more real"? It is soooo out of context it hurts. And again it comes down to a change done in the re-imagined tour as a contrast to Leroux and the original:

In the new UK tour, Christine now shares a dressing room with the other ballet girls. She doesn't have her own, like in the original stage version, and she doesn't borrow Carlotta's as in the 2004 movie. She is seen interacting with the dancers there, and if I've understood it correctly this is also where the Phantom appears. In THIS context it's easy to think the Phantom would be spying on all the ballet girls.

However, in the Leroux novel we learn Christine has her own dressing room. Furthermore, we learn this is where she got her singing lessons from the Phantom: at eight o clock in the morning, for three months, he had cultivated her vocal talents there. In the morning, because no-one else was around at that hour.

That seems to me opposite of the Phantom John Owen Jones is imagining in Leroux. He seeks Christine out when he knows no-one else is in the opera, so they can focus on music, undisturbed. When the Phantom describes his ideas of an ideal life towards the end of the book, he says that "...now I want to lead a normal life. I want to have a wife like any normal man and take her out on Sundays. I have made a new mask that makes me inconspicious. (...) We shall sing for ourselves and no one else, in rapturous bliss."

To me this sounds like a man obsessed with music more than "the joys of flesh". He would take no interest in Christine if she didn't bring his music to life. Equally, he would not take an interest in the ballet girls, cause they would never bring his music to life. They're dancers, and in his opinion bad ones. He rambles about being loved, but I take it more as a desire to being accepted and cared for, not... get laid...

So again, the original stage version does not contradict Leroux. Christine has her own dressing room. This is where she receives the singing lessons. This is from where she disappears, leaving only an empty room for Raoul to find. People has commented on a ballet girl not being entitled to her own room. Though she is presented as a ballet girl in staging, Christine is referred to as "a chorus girl" in the show. This implies a cast member who's both singing and dancing (with roots in ancient Greek drama, where the chorus was the narrators, or the ensemble members, of the play).

In the new UK tour, however, Christine shares a dressing room with the other ballet girls. Chances are the Phantom would seldom be alone with her, or watching the ballet girls as the change, waiting for a chance to be alone with Christine. The Phantom almost tales the role of Buquet. Call it more "real", call it whatever, but don't blame this change on Leroux. It is opposite of what he described.


Anyhow, two interesting tidbits from that JOJ interview:

*When the tour arrives in Bristol in May, Owen-Jones will celebrate a landmark performance. “I’ll be celebrating my 2,000th performance as The Phantom,” he says.

*“Neill Gorton, who does make-up for Doctor Who, does it (the new deformity) and it takes two hours but we hope to get it down to an hour.”

I read that interview too...and while I totally understand that being involved with the show that actor(s) want to give it positive buzz, I fear this has gone beyond a visual re-imagining of the story, and that the characters themselves seem to have all new motives, which Im not crazy about. I also read the interview with the set designer, and thought it interesting how originally he said no because he felt "Phantom" was too visually iconic to mess with, and this man hadnt even seen the full show! lol. I also keep hearing from these various interviews how massive and elaborate the sets are, but we've yet to see any evidence of the sort, besides a few pictures of a curtain projection and the very odd looking chandelier which I still say looks half finished, however the article did say there will be a reveal of sorts on or around the opening night, so I hope that means media-related material will finally see the light of day!

They also said the LND set in London was MASSIVE, turned out the 'massive' thing was just the ugly drop for the Phantom's house.

Pics should be out soon I hope

Amen, Anea. Hal, Maria, Gillian, MC, and crew got this. Why re-invent the wheel without source material? I don't mind the idea of the Phantom being able to interact with Christine in multiple locations; it's mysterious. Nor do I mind her not having her own dressing room, but the idea he spies on all of the girls for sexual purposes is not in keeping with the character. Now, he obviously has those urges too, but it isn't his sole motivation or what made him fall in love with Christine. It was her voice.

More on the costumes used in the UK tour - apparently lots of things are changed:
http://kirstymcarthur.tumblr.com/post/19144822533/costume-details-for-the-phantom-tour


Costume details for the Phantom tour.
Now bare in mind that I saw a preview so everything could be changed later on.

So come of the costumes for the tour reminded me of those used in 25. Carlotta’s Il Muto outfit, the wedding dress, Christine’s Masquerade outfit were all like those from the 25th. Also the Phantom doesn’t have his jacket for Stranger Than You Dreamt It, as seen also in 25.

Other alterations were things such as Raoul, Firmin and Andre’s waistcoats, Carlotta’s Prima Donna dress which had some additional parts, Christine’s Point Of No Return dress now has a slit in it where the two different materials join at front side part, Phantom has lost his hat, Christine no longer has silver boots for Masquerade, Madame Giry has a new cape for Masquerade and Meg has a new bottom part to hers, Raoul now has a cape instead of a second jacket for Masquerade and is wearing a mask too. Also Christine’s Wishing cape has lost its red scarf part, and the Phantom’s wig was different. Instead of being slicked back like usual it was kind of loose and reminded me a bit of the Love Never Dies wig. The mask also had more darker tones on it.

But many of the costumes had been changed too. Every other Masquerade had been changed. Firmin and Andre were just wearing suits and everyone else was wearing completely different costumes, costumes I have never seen before. There was no sign of an animal outfit or any of the others from the London production. All the women were wearing varying types of dresses with masks and the guys were wearing suits with capes lined with different colours. The ballet outfits for Il Muto were not the lovely floral dresses but now just white, almost like sheets with some accessories (if my memory serves me correctly). There was also an extra guy in the ballet scene and they were dressed as like fawns or something playing flutes (very Narnia-esque if you ask me). And as I said previously the costume the Phantom was wearing when I saw it for Masquerade was very much like the one from the film (but John told me Red Death was coming back).

The Phantom’s everyday suit and Christine’s Phantom dressing gown look remain intact.


Again, whyyyy don't design something entirely new? I hate the "cut and paste" approach. But according to this blogger, Red Death will at least appear later on. Don't know why he's out in previews, but there ya go. The general changes in Masquerade sounds underwhelming, though - both for the ensemble and the leads. And no Sylphides? Baaah.

operafantomet wrote: (but John told me Red Death was coming back).

That may be the first piece of really good news I've read about the new tour.

As you said though, everything else seems like needless and usually detrimental tinkering - both in terms of concept and design. It's as if they're taking away everything about the show that's made it successful and iconic and replacing things with changes that are either underwhelming given the original or inappropriate given the context.

It's as if the new creative team doesn't understand the nuances of why Hal, Maria, etc. made certain choices with regard to the material. With the original production, every little thing meant something and was intended to contribute to the overall picture. Here, it seems like changes are being made in isolation - without regard for overall cohesion and character.

I mean, yes I realize the thing is still in previews, but from what I've read there's far too many things that strike me as mishandled with the redesign. A few pre-opening night changes might not be enough to fix.

Bah.

~Madame~

Reading another review as we speak, a review written by one who knows the original well. It's fairly positive, and well balanced throughout. Interesting read.

ACT 1: http://cdicill1.blogspot.com/2012/03/phantom-of-opera-tour-observations-act.html
ACT 2: http://cdicill1.blogspot.com/2012/03/act-2-andre-does-not-have-skeleton.html

It hurts like crap to see the UK tour has been changed to be closer to both the 2004 movie and the sequel, though. I don't know why, but it really hurts. I'm not opposed to changes per se, but I dislike when people change a original to fit later versions. Should be opposite. *goes off to pout*

(but really, the review is interesting, and points out good and bad things. Act 2 also has some rehearsal photos)

wait wait wait.

all i ask of you it's snowing.

do they still have the '6 months of relief' line in masquerade? and are we still to think masquerade is the usual new year's party?

so is it normal to have snow in July in Paris?

I know this also happened in the movie but I never paid close attention to the lyric changes in the movie.

never mind, i'm now reading act 2 to see it is 12 months later, rather long i must say, like you i think i will go sit in my little corner and have a cry.

justin-from-barbados wrote:wait wait wait.

all i ask of you it's snowing.

do they still have the '6 months of relief' line in masquerade? and are we still to think masquerade is the usual new year's party?

so is it normal to have snow in July in Paris?

No, the reviewer commented that Christine's horror over the Phantom's return at the masked ball was even more understandable because he had been away for 12 months instead of six. I don't know why they changed it to 12 months. Probably because they wanted snow at the rooftop, like in the movie, but they remembered how much people giggled about snow in June. The masked ball is new year's even, and if we're talking 6 months later, as it originally was, it's mid summer. Not a good season for snow, especially not in Paris.

ETA: saw you beat me to it. I'm not sitting in a corner, crying, though. I'm just pouting.

The most painful part was reading about the loss of the Masquerade costumes.

I just have so many feelings right now.

justin-from-barbados wrote: like you i think i will go sit in my little corner and have a cry.

Can I join you?

I really don't understand why they want to make a 25th anniversary tour look like a film that is itself eight years old. The phrase 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' springs to mind - they seem to be removing everything that makes the show what it is. Spectacle is one thing, but if it's all you have what happens when people see through that and find nothing underneath? *sigh* I suppose it's symptomatic of today's culture: everything has to be in your face with no room for subtlety.

Viscountess wrote:The most painful part was reading about the loss of the Masquerade costumes.

I just have so many feelings right now.

The Masquerade costumes. And the sylphide costumes. One person described the new, white "Il Muto" ballet costumes as "sheets". I get the feeling they've attempted to make the sylphides into willis? That is, the spirits of brides dying before their wedding, dancing in the forest at night, preying on every unlucky male who happens to pass by, as made famous in Giselle (here from a San Fran production):



If so, why? Whereas it is considered one of the grand ballets today, and whereas it premiered at the Parisian opera house in 1841, it wasn't on their repertoire between 1867 and 1910. So suddenly sticking it into the story of Phantom, which takes place in the second half of the 19th century, doesn't make sense. I might be wrong in the intention of the tour, have that in mind. But forest nymphs in costumes looking like white sheets sounds at least as an intentional nod to "Giselle". And if so: FAIL! On so many levels.

And the Maria Bjørnson foundation has approved of these changes?

operafantomet wrote:

And the Maria Bjørnson foundation has approved of these changes?

That was something I was wondering about, too, Anea. From the original tour announcement, I remember them saying that the show would feature Maria's costumes, with a new set design. It just seems the more I read about the changes, the less I'm seeing utilization of Maria's costumes - so I have some questions as to whether Cam Mack et al have really stuck to the spirit of any sort of agreement with the Bjornson foundation. I highly doubt Maria herself would approve of such haphazard use and modification of her designs. :-/

~Madame~

operafantomet wrote:Reading another review as we speak, a review written by one who knows the original well. It's fairly positive, and well balanced throughout. Interesting read.

ACT 1: http://cdicill1.blogspot.com/2012/03/phantom-of-opera-tour-observations-act.html
ACT 2: http://cdicill1.blogspot.com/2012/03/act-2-andre-does-not-have-skeleton.html

It hurts like crap to see the UK tour has been changed to be closer to both the 2004 movie and the sequel, though. I don't know why, but it really hurts. I'm not opposed to changes per se, but I dislike when people change a original to fit later versions. Should be opposite. *goes off to pout*

(but really, the review is interesting, and points out good and bad things. Act 2 also has some rehearsal photos)

Oh the reviews sounds very interesting. It sounds like a mix to be more like Leroux and closer to the movie and the sequel.

operafantomet wrote:

Viscountess wrote:The most painful part was reading about the loss of the Masquerade costumes.

I just have so many feelings right now.

The Masquerade costumes. And the sylphide costumes. One person described the new, white "Il Muto" ballet costumes as "sheets". I get the feeling they've attempted to make the sylphides into willis? That is, the spirits of brides dying before their wedding, dancing in the forest at night, preying on every unlucky male who happens to pass by, as made famous in Giselle (here from a San Fran production):

I thought the writer was trying to describe more of a Greco-Roman look, ie "nymphs" in the mythological sense (which would fit the male dancer(s) faun costumes). In any event, it's hard to judge costumes without pictures (where are they?)...

~LCD

LadyCDaae wrote:I thought the writer was trying to describe more of a Greco-Roman look, ie "nymphs" in the mythological sense (which would fit the male dancer(s) faun costumes). In any event, it's hard to judge costumes without pictures (where are they?)...

~LCD

Of course, I'm only going by hearsay here, so I cannot pass an actual judgement till I've seen the costumes. But the "sheet" comment was from another review, and the only thing I got out of it was the classical veiled willi look.

Whatever the case, the ballet dancers are supposed to be forest nymphs, unless they've changed the subject for the ballet. "Sylvan" means "forest" in Latin - as a random association Transylvania means "beyond the forest". Forest nymphs are traditionally depicted in green, or with elements of nature - flowers, leaves, wings etc. If they've added a faun I would expect them to play up the forest element even more, not draw on the willis.

But hey, press night is tonight, we'll soon enough see pictures. Break a leg to cast and crew!

operafantomet wrote:The Masquerade costumes. And the sylphide costumes. One person described the new, white "Il Muto" ballet costumes as "sheets". I get the feeling they've attempted to make the sylphides into willis? That is, the spirits of brides dying before their wedding, dancing in the forest at night, preying on every unlucky male who happens to pass by, as made famous in Giselle.

If so, why? Whereas it is considered one of the grand ballets today, and whereas it premiered at the Parisian opera house in 1841, it wasn't on their repertoire between 1867 and 1910. So suddenly sticking it into the story of Phantom, which takes place in the second half of the 19th century, doesn't make sense. I might be wrong in the intention of the tour, have that in mind. But forest nymphs in costumes looking like white sheets sounds at least as an intentional nod to "Giselle". And if so: FAIL! On so many levels.

And the Maria Bjørnson foundation has approved of these changes?

Dont forget that there were the ballets La Sylphide and Les Sylphide. Of course the latter didn't come to light until around 1907. La Sylphide, however, first premiered at the Opera House in 1832 staring Marie Taglioni (pictured below) It was choreographed by her father, Fillipo, who thought her arms were too long so he choreographed everything with bent arms. That's were we get that style. The addition of going up on the "new" hardened pointe shoes came with these ballets (Giselle, La Sylphide, La Sonnambula, ect.) so the dancers appeared to float like the etherial creatures they were portraying. There was a revival of it at the Opera House in 1872, which puts is closer to Phantom's story line. But I digress, cary on with the topic at hand.

meglett wrote:

operafantomet wrote:The Masquerade costumes. And the sylphide costumes. One person described the new, white "Il Muto" ballet costumes as "sheets". I get the feeling they've attempted to make the sylphides into willis? That is, the spirits of brides dying before their wedding, dancing in the forest at night, preying on every unlucky male who happens to pass by, as made famous in Giselle.

If so, why? Whereas it is considered one of the grand ballets today, and whereas it premiered at the Parisian opera house in 1841, it wasn't on their repertoire between 1867 and 1910. So suddenly sticking it into the story of Phantom, which takes place in the second half of the 19th century, doesn't make sense. I might be wrong in the intention of the tour, have that in mind. But forest nymphs in costumes looking like white sheets sounds at least as an intentional nod to "Giselle". And if so: FAIL! On so many levels.

And the Maria Bjørnson foundation has approved of these changes?

Dont forget that there were the ballets La Sylphide and Les Sylphide. Of course the latter didn't come to light until around 1907. La Sylphide, however, first premiered at the Opera House in 1832 staring Marie Taglioni (pictured below) It was choreographed by her father, Fillipo, who thought her arms were too long so he choreographed everything with bent arms. That's were we get that style. The addition of going up on the "new" hardened pointe shoes came with these ballets (Giselle, La Sylphide, La Sonnambula, ect.) so the dancers appeared to float like the etherial creatures they were portraying. There was a revival of it at the Opera House in 1872, which puts is closer to Phantom's story line. But I digress, cary on with the topic at hand.

That's a good very point. And LadyCDaae, reading further comments it does indeed seem like they are going for a Greco-Roman look with a white chiton/peplos/toga look. A person who saw the show on Monday said they are not wearing tutus at all, rather long white robes.

As press night was last night, I assume pictures are to surface very soon.

Now, let me go back to my pouting corner.

Fingers crossed this works because I've never put an image on here before but I screen grabbed this from the interview Cameron Mackintosh did with the BBC as I knew most of the forum users wouldn't be able to watch on iPlayer. This was the only image shown and there was a brief clip from curtain call which really should how "free flowing" The Phantom's wig is now, it was all over his face pretty much.

The interview itself didn't reveal anything new, just that he chose Plymouth to open as it had a fantastic stage and that the chandelier only arrived on the Monday (which we were aware of.)

Thanks for the screencap. Finally we get to see some costumes from the redesign.

Wow... um. I gotta say, that Masquerade is really underwhelming.

I dislike how it seems like the men are basically 'too cool' to wear fancy dress and instead just wore simple masks with their tuxedos. The women's costumes are just so stripped down - they look like Bjornson costumes that were cut up or something. Seems like the custom footwear that went with each costume has been reduced to black pantyhose and pumps, and those white gloves really bother me for some reason. The lack of a staircase takes away from the grandeur of the scene.

It just looks a lot cheaper, really. Which I guess was the point.

*sigh*

~Madame~

Yeah, I do wish the men would dress up too--it would add more variety to the scene, plus now Raoul kind of sticks out like a sore thumb in his Hussar outfit. What I can see of the women's costumes looks okay (apart from the ubiquitous opera gloves). But I think what I miss most from this is a sense of "theme" in the costumes--the whole point of a fancy dress party is to disguise yourself as someone or something else. Even something as simple as different kinds of masks would fix this. It's still an improvement on the film Masquerade, though, if only for the more vibrant colors.

I will say I like the hall of mirrors, though--it's not the Grand Escalier but it still evokes the opulence of the Garnier for me.

~LCD

Masquerade looks a little bit strange! Hmmm..!