'Phantom' Arrives in Vegas
10:43 AM PT, Jun 26 2006
On Friday night I saw "Phantom: The Las Vegas Spectacular" and was surprised how much I really enjoyed it. I am going to avoid the issue of the artistic merits of Andrew Lloyd Webber's show as history has already rendered a verdict, and I am not on the winning side.The short version: I liked "Jesus Christ Superstar," but not enough to see much more by the same guy. So in one way I was not a perfect test audience, except that there was no chance on earth I was going to be upset that 30 minutes from the original production on Broadway were cut out.
The funny thing is that with all the loose ends brought on by the cuts (What happens to Christine?) the artistic work that results is probably more lifelike and richer from being more ambiguous than the original. Not that art was the goal in the cuts; it is more like in an over-plotted Hollywood movie where the big finale has such wow factor that no one notices that one or two storylines never found an ending proper. Still, as I said, the loose ends don't matter: the story is as old as the ocean floor, and the "Phantom" fans already know the score. No one will leave "Phantom" scratching their heads.
When I interviewed Andrew Lloyd Webber for the Buffet, I asked him if he thought "Phantom" was too dark for Vegas. He told me that in the end it was just a love story. Now that I have seen the show, I guess my question is, whose love story? And as for the sets, think '80s Goth scene: lots of skulls and candelabras. It all feels very far from Las Vegas, and yet as a work of theater it
could take place nowhere else in 2006. Where else could you create a $40 million show like this (and that is not counting tens of millions also spent building the showroom)? "Phantom's" approach to the failure of other Broadway/Vegas ventures is instructive: instead of recreating the show, the producers have focused on creating an experience you could not have anywhere else — only in Vegas.
could take place nowhere else in 2006. Where else could you create a $40 million show like this (and that is not counting tens of millions also spent building the showroom)? "Phantom's" approach to the failure of other Broadway/Vegas ventures is instructive: instead of recreating the show, the producers have focused on creating an experience you could not have anywhere else — only in Vegas.And, that is why "Phantom" will have a fighting chance in Las Vegas too. This show falls far closer to a Cirque experience than a Broadway one. The sets, the costumes, the theater, the orchestra and, most of all, the special effects keep "Phantom" overheated from beginning to end and it is almost secondary that the entire package comes all wrapped up in the comfort food story with the well known music.
"Phantom's" triumph is in neither having the look nor feel of a Broadway musical; it would be more accurate to say Phantom is based on a Broadway musical. Though far more expensive, this move I suspect will prove the thing that works in this market where "We Will Rock You," "Avenue Q" and "Hairspray" have all fallen in quick succession. "Phantom" has managed to be an alternative to Cirque without imitating Cirque. And that is just what someone needed to do.
Bookmark it:   |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/532456/5188984
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Phantom' Arrives in Vegas:
maybe you could tell us where it's playing. also, price of tickets
Posted by: peter fischetti | June 27, 2006 at 10:56 AM
"Phantom" is at Venetian. And, prices range from $75-$150. Yrs., Richard
Posted by: Richard Abowitz | June 27, 2006 at 02:53 PM