Mad for Musicals Review- Jekyll and Hyde (2001 DVD)

   "Jekyll and Hyde" the musical, like its protagonist, can switch between being bad and being good. Also like the doomed scientist, although it works to ignore that its bad, often the bad wins over the good.
   The "Musical Thriller" is based on the 19th century novel by Robert Louis Stevenson. Although the novels actual plot tends to be forgotten, what has made the story so famous is its main premise: a doctor named Henry Jekyll experiments with himself in an attempt to separate the bad side of him from the good. What results is the birth of his uncontrolled split personality, the sinister and murderous Edward Hyde. The idea of the story is to explore between the duality between the good and bad in every person, so the main premise has been adapted to screen numerous times, even though the plot of the novel itself  is pretty forgotten. It was adapted to the Musical Theatre stage in 1990 by Frank Wildhorn, who composed the music along with Lewis Briscale and Steve Ludgen writing the book and lyrics. After a few productions here and there and a lot of tours, it came to Broadway in 1997. Despite some Tony nominations and some adoring fans ("Jekkies"), the show was condemned by critics and after more than 1,500 performances, closed, deep in debt. The plot of the show is the split personality of Jekyll and Hyde with a few characters from the original book and some  unnecessary Musical Theater stock characters, such as the ingenue, tart with a heart, concerned widowed father, etc. and a plot that also follows in theatricality (but we will get to that later). A DVD was released (on the day of 9/11) and its biggest marketing campaign was that it got an experienced, mature, serious, talented actor to play the complicated title role...

THIS GUY!!!!
   David Hassellhoff!!! The shows advertising claims it to be a sexy, exciting, heart ripping Gothic thriller...but all of these praises the show itself cannot rightfully claim.
   So what worked and what didn't?
   Well, the set- mechanical platforms and simple bareness with the exception of Jekylls house, helps to die down the shows "grandeur", giving it some much needed clarity instead of showiness. The blocking takes advantage of the screens, steps, platform, and especially the scrim. In fact, the geometry and concept of the choreography and blocking can be fun to watch. For example, at the end of "Someone like You", which is sung by Lucy, the Tart with a Heart, the ensemble members all walk past her, from either ends of the stage, to make it look like an ordinary scene in a London street. This gives the impression that the song, which is about Lucy's hope for a relationship with Jekyll, an interesting dimension. That these are merely her thoughts as she is walking around town, an individual mind in the midst of the general population. The supporting cast I actually found to not be that bad, mainly with the two main ladies, despite their uselessness to the main plot. Colleen Sexton, who played Lucy, with her  expressive facial and physical expressions, tender head voice and confident chest voice, portrayed a Lucy who, unlike other "Good Tarts" remains optimistic, despite her circumstances. However, she add some theatrical touches that are a bit much, but this was early in her career and she was only in her early twenties, so I won't condemn her too harshly. Andrea Rivette, as Dr. Jekyll's ingenue fiancee, Emma Carew, is not at her peak with a spread vowel and not needed improvisation here and there, but her acting is pretty believable. She's at her best in her scenes with Jekyll, she is so fiercely loyal, despite her ignorance of his condition, that the tragedy that befalls their romance is actually sad to watch.  Mr. Utterson was probably the weakest link of the supporting cast. The pitches and rhythms in his speaking are repetitive and he seems pretty stiff, but he is not bad. In fact, the rest of the supporting cast are not really bad, they are either passable or just okay. It could be because their characters just are not as developed. It could be that they simply did not work hard enough, but I can't really recall if any of their performances stood out for me.
   The Act I finale- don't worry, its not much of a huge spoiler, was three minutes of pure adrenaline. What happens is that Mr. Hyde confronts a Bishop from the council that rejected Jekyll's proposal to experiment with human nature after the Bishop...does things I would rather not think about (think news media Catholic priests). Not only does Hyde chide him and sing about how good it feels to be evil. Not only does he beat the Bishop with a cane. He lights his body on fire onstage. Being involved with theater myself for a while, I could probably figure out how they got it to work, but though its short, boy, is it scary, impressive, and memorable to watch!
   Some songs I find myself singing all day. This is a Gothic Thriller Musical, and boy, does it show with the chromatic isms, motifs, and power chords. The best songs here include the emotional and powerful "Facade", "Take Me As I Am", "A New Life," and "Confrontation." But since every bit of music in this show works to be dark and powerful, I found myself enjoying the two milder songs "Sympathy, Tenderness" and "Once Upon a Dream", both, in the midst of a show trying to take the torch of Phantom, are a breath of fresh air.
   And that's where my praise of this production in particular stops.
   There's an old saying in Theater that if anything goes wrong, the writer is always to blame. This show, looking at its lack of success on Broadway, is a perfect example. To begin with, the script and lyrics are just plain bad.As pointed out by another Musical Reviewer, Paw, instead of exploring Humanity's dual sides and exploring themes that would be relevant to both life and people, the show merely brushes off righteous people as hypocrites who deserve punishment. It claims to be deep when there is only a thin and fragile layer. Its predictable, "Sex-ified", and romanticized to the point of eye rolling. Whats worse is that none of these elements really help the plot, only gives stupid and immature audience members what they want to see.
   The story of Jekyll and Hyde works as a mystery, a character study, and a horror study, but due to Hyde not appearing too often, the show itself is a melodrama, and with its premise, the genre of melodrama simply doesn't work, like you can put an apple into a salad, a pie, or a juice, but you cant put it into a steak. Its unbelievable to think that the book got nominated for a Tony at the time! Was there really absolutely nothing that year? Also, the lyrics can become miraculously stupid, and just as predictable, silly, and needlessly complicated as the plot. If you think logically, the lyrics of Lucy's showgirl song, "Good n' Evil", work as a metaphor for chastity vs. Free Love (and the staging hints this), but Jekyll tells Lucy that the song "made him think" and if you look at the lyrics and take it literally, which talks about doing evil is actually good and vice versa, it doesn't make sense and you will wind up arguing philosophy and psychology to your computer screen (which I may or may not have done).
   The Lyricism here not only can be nonsensical and non-poetic when its not just decent, but repetitive, boring, and juvenile. A mere few memorably bad lyrics include "To Kill outside St, Paul's/requires a lotta balls", "Forbidden pleasures I'm afraid to make mine" (interesting, coming from a prostitute), and the crown prince of the stupid lyrics- "Nay! Nay! Nay! Nay!" Also, as Peter Shaffer once penned, there are moments in the score where there are "too many notes." There is so much background music, that it can be distracting and obnoxious. It fails to realize the beauty of silence.
   But wait, I forgot to mention, what about Jekyll and Hyde himself?
   Oh, Hassellhoff. You could have been much worse than you already were, but you are still 2nd worst. Your biggest problem with your acting is your superficiality. Nothing about Jekyll or Hyde seems honest or genuine, it sometimes seems that you are parodying your own character.You fail to realize that when you open your mouth to sing, you are not in your world of eighties pop, you are in Show tune World, and, David, my dear,  the score might sound like your cup of tea sometimes, but at its heart, these songs are show tunes and you just don't have the right training for the style. Sweet, sweet, darling David, if I ever need to laugh, I will think of your performance during "This is The Moment" when you "Power Walk" and twist your hips while bending your knees to do some jazz hands as your house becomes your lab behind you. I will giggle like a madwoman when I recall you transforming, squiggling like a worm with a seizure with a staccato inspired line "oh-dear-God-what-is-this?" The show insists that I should be scared for your character, but I often found myself bored and...not caring. Yes, you are sometimes good as the childishly mischievous and vengeful Mr. Hyde, yes, you can switch between the two personalities, which is the number one requirement for the role,, and yes, I actually liked you during "The Way Back" and found you to be honest and me to be worried for you...but you just did not do a good job and Robert Cuccioli and Anthony Warlow will always be the best performers in this role.
   Just be glad you aren't the walking American Idol head Constantine Maroulis. You severely wounded the show, David, my dear. Constantine murdered it. With the rope. In the study.
   Jekyll and Hyde can be enjoyable with the right cast and staging, or at bare minimum guilty pleasure, but when it doesn't have either of these, it shows how incredibly lame of a show it is. I guess with this production, if you are a fan of the Gothic horror genre then you can find something here, or if you yourself like the show, then you will enjoy it. There are a few enjoyable scenes and songs here and there, but just as Jekyll was unable to control Hyde, even a few good things cannot save the show from its condemning book and lyrics. And when it is especially obvious, as it is here, no one can realize how likable the show can be. There was simply not a good enough cast to save the show from succumbing to its own evils.I would recommend to listen to the original Broadway recordings, if you want to experience a part of the show at its best.

Mad for Musicals Review-1776 (1972 film)

   1776 is a musical that was first released in 1969, with music and lyrics by Sherman Edwards and a book by Peter Stone. It details the historical events surrounding the founding fathers trying to debate weather or not to break from England and become a country, and the creation of the Declaration of Independence. Two Tony's, three years, and 1217 performances later, a film version was released, directed by Peter Hunt and produced by Jack Warner, to mixed reviews. It seems odd that many people either highly enjoy this musical or completely forget about it. So is it dreadfully dull or an underrated classic? Time to put on your breeches and tricorner hats, because we are about to find out! 
   Let's start, as always, with the acting, which, for the most part, is not too bad. Its believable with some theatrical, signature flourishes of the characters. William Daniels portrays a feisty and stubborn, but passionate and determined John Adams. In the film, Adams appears to be the most focused and mature of the congressmen to the point where any lollygagging grinds his gears. He is fiercely patriotic and deeply wanting to help form a country, but he soon learns to listen to others and to compromise his own wants with the wants of others in order to form the country he so desperately wants to see. My favorite among the cast also plays one of my favorite characters in history-Howard DeSilva as Benjamin Franklin. He brings all of the elements of the character to the role that you would imagine Franklin to have-wit, bawdiness, charm, and wisdom. His delivery of some of the shows best lines -both the funny and touching ones- are dead on. There's a twinkle in his eye and a happy bounce in his head that immediately wins you over, Ken Howard is in tune with the quiet, talented, and lovesick Thomas Jefferson, but his singing is, to say the least, sometimes weak ("Mr. Adams, leave me aloooone!" hurts my ears). But thankfully, he does not sing much. Virginia Veltoff is a joy as Abigail Adams and there is a bright chemistry between her and her on-screen husband (as well as great vocal blend). Despite the distance between them, the Adams help each other and trust the other one to listen to their thoughts and feelings just as the real couple did (research John and Abigail Adams, its actually a very heartwarming love story). There are more minor characters whose acting range from solid to mehhh decent. The most...theatrical (and annoying) is Ron Holgate as Richard Henry Lee, he was too loud and boisterous to be considered a real person!! 
   As for the music itself, there is a range, like the acting, between fantastic and meh. A lot of it is styled after the classical era of music (which occurred during the 1770's) which aimed for a clean sound with lots of patterns and symmetry, with only a few frills here and there. Let me just say that in vocal music, men's groups of three or more are always a goldmine. I was charmed by the operatic choruses of "Sit Down, John" and the trio harmonies in "The Egg" (even Jefferson blended!). The only parts of "Cool, Considerate Men" I enjoyed were the choruses and to see them dancing the minuet (a popular dance of the era. There is almost no choreography in the show-try doing a high kick in those clothes!), the solo parts are actually forgettable. Beyond the chorus songs, "Molasses to Rum to Slaves" is almost the most haunting moment of the film. The song includes dark imagery in the lyrics, a wide range of instrumentation from strings to drums, a minor that actually sounds threatening, dark red lighting in the Congress hall, and a chilling performance by John Cullum, as Edward Rutledge, but sometimes the words are hard to make out and the song goes on a bit too long for my taste. Like I said earlier, I loved the John and Abigail Adams duets, for the harmonies, and romantic mood-without being too sentimental. Before I even listened to "He Plays the Violin" I was told that it was to be a very seductive song, but Blythe Danner performs it as more of a celebration of love and the wedding bed, yet it works perfectly well. Never the less, the happy progression, violin instrumentation, and soaring melismas won me over. My favorite song, hands down, was "Mama, Look sharp"-the ballad of a courier who recounts the last thoughts of a friend who was killed on the battlefield. The soft minor, tear jerking lyrics, added voices at the end, and dark lighting with faces near lighted candles sent shivers up my spine. My least favorite was "The Lee's of Old Virginia." Although it is not performed terribly and the tune is catchy and peppy, the repetitive lyrics are really, really, really annoying and childish. Here's a fun game, when listening to the song, punch yourself for every time he says "Lee", chances are, you will wind up at the hospital before the song has even ended. 
  
 The costuming is very characteristic and straight to the point, but sometimes exaggerated. The plaid doublet Thomas McKean wore was just hammering the scottishness in. Martha Jefferson's skirt looked way too full to be historically accurate, but was only there to add movement to her choreography during "He Plays the Violin." Some hairstyles are believable, others are quite obvious wigs-but weather these were wigs for the characters real hair or wigs on purpose for them to wear as a part of men's period fashion is up in the air. 
   But what about the most important element-the story? The film handles the plot as seriously and realistically as it can. We can read all about the Declaration of Independence and how it was founded in our textbooks anytime, but we tend to overlook how difficult and even frighting it was to do so. America was, at the time, just a frail string of colonies that was being unfairly treated by its possessor. Their enemy was an empire of rich history and vast amounts of power that could easily crush anyone who stood in its way. Was it treason to go against the hand that fed them? If they decide to form a country, will it survive on its own? The writing makes this conflict and tension very, very clear. In fact, the dialogue far outweighs the music and there are long periods of time with the congressmen discussing and debating that one can forget that the burst into song. It doesn't feel like a traditional musical-it sometimes feel more like a film with songs in it. The story itself centers around these conflicts and debates. This is not a movie you can mindlessly stare at. In order to enjoy and appreciate it, you have to be awake, alert, and ready to think and focus, if not, chances are, you will be confused and bored. But if you do pay full attention to it, your eyes will be opened to how incredible a task forming the country was and how brave these men were. Though the film and even the musical itself is not entirely historically accurate. Part of it is due to the fact that is wants to make history entertaining and the other part is that the events surrounding the forming of the declaration are unknown since the congressmen kept windows and doors locked for privacy. What we know about the story, we know from letters and memoirs of the men. But the inaccuracies are never outlandishly far. 
   Overall, I actually enjoyed 1776, despite the half of critics who condemn it and I'm thankful to have watched it. I will admit that its not perfect-a song or two encourages snoring and there are some stretches and distortions and a few moments are misses instead of hits. But there is some great music, acting, and above all, a superb story that makes and not breaks the film, just be sure that you have had enough sleep prior to viewing. I would also reccommend that you view it if you are interested in American History, if this was your least favorite subject in school, well, proceed with extreme caution. 
P.S. "JOHN, YOUR'E A BORE"