Love Never Dies

Last night I had the unexpected pleasure of going to see Love Never Dies (Love Should Die, Paint Never Dries….you’ve heard it all before and frankly that’s pretty boring now) as a friend of mine had a colleague who had won tickets through a Dewynters competition that he could no longer use.  Theatre is always good when it is free.

The visit coincided with the first performance of the new cast.  I must say Sierra Boggess leaving the show had downgraded this from a “must see” show to a “when I have the spare cash, if someone takes me or if I get a freebie” category.  Added to which the role of Christine is now played by Ceila Graham whom I saw play Christine in Phantom Mark I a few years ago and utterly condemned for her poor voice and over-the-top acting.  Interestingly according to some forum users, I was not alone in this.  I wasn’t looking forward to this.

Reactions from friends to my ticket acquisition had ranged from “good luck” to “let me know what you think” to “take a good book”.  My overall response was “not bad”.

In fact, it was pretty good.

I could talk for hours pulling apart the story and exposing the inconsistencies, plot holes (some of which are original and some of which have been put there by what I assume is some energetic hacking by Bill Kenwright who was sat across the isle from me coincidentally) and other problem elements with the storyline.  It’s all been done before and I can’t really add much to that debate.  There is still a sense that there is a really brilliant show inside waiting to get out or that the show is suffering from an indentity crisis.

True to most of the reviews I have read, the music is really lovely.  I don’t care if Andrew Lloyd Webber borrows from himself or even borrows from others on occasion – he still knows how to write a memorable, emotionally-charged melody and where/when to use it.  The orchestrations sound great even in the theatre and I think enhance the score.  The small references to Phantom Mark I do, however, serve as a painful reminder about just how good that show was!

I disagree with the reviews that say this is London’s most lavish show when it comes to design.  In fact quite a bit of it looks small-scale and tacky.  I appreciate Coney Island is supposed to be a bit kitsch but there’s retro-tacky and contemporary-theatre-tacky which this strays into far too often, particularly during Beauty Underneath.  This sequal really lacks the class and splendour of the gothic original which heightens the melodrama and romance.  I’m sorry but I can’t take neon lights and automatons which look like they have come from a 1970s low budget sci-fi seriously.  What is done well however is the use of projections which really tell the story well although I can’t help feeling like the moving pictures from the newspapers are borrowed a little too directly from the Harry Potter movies.  The lighting by Paule Constable is also strong, particularly in the final scene with the glistening water at the end of the pier.  I see that Paule also did the lighting for the 20^th Anniversary Les Miserables touring production, which was also very evocative.

Ramin Karimloo as the Phantom; well, what hasn’t been said before?  He really deserves the nominations for best actor, although I do think that his power as a performer lies in his voice.  Again, it is not like he is working with challenging (or at times, logical) material when it comes to acting but his voice really does soar, making the show.  Having said that, he does inhabit the Phantom’s physicality well (he has presumable had a lot of practice from years across both shows) and the show’s direction does permit him to introduce many of those gestures that apparently Michael Crawford copyrighted all those years ago.

Ceila Graham was pretty good.  Actually she was better than that given the amount she had to win me over.  I still think her voice is thin in places.  She doesn’t have the smooth transition between the different registers that Sierra Boggess seems to have (although admittedly I have only seen and heard recordings of Sierra singing).  There were also moments where I was reminded of the “rabbit caught in the headlights” distraught acting of years ago, but these were fleeting.  Also, don’t think I didn’t notice you turning to face the conductor when you needed to be cued in – hopefully that will bed down as the run of the new cast progresses.  Her performance, particularly in the second half was very well delivered, particularly during the Before the Performance section.  She also struck me as very maternal in Act I which I think is very important to explain her transition and the motivations for some of the character’s acting.  I have to remind myself that no one on this show is working with the best material.

As has been commented on discussion boards and blogs already, Hayley Flaherty really stands out as Meg.  She reminded me (in terms of look, but also acting) of a young Jane Krackowski.  Of all the performers, I think Hayley most successfully combines the original character with the new character.  Audience members have commented that she retains the innocent, child-like quality of the original character which more thoroughly explains her reaction and motivations in the climatic scene.  I agree with this, although you do wonder why someone wouldn’t change after 10 years in a completely different environment.  This is the show’s fault, not Hayley’s.  Not having seen Summer Strallen in the role I can’t compare them but I thought Hayley did a great job.

Liz Robertson is unremarkable as Madame Giry and does well enough.  She doesn’t play the role as french as Sally Dexter did in the cast recording, which I quite liked but can’t really justify given that none of the other characters speak with a french accent!  I wasn’t a major fan of her voice but she did the power-hungry business woman well.  Interestingly I saw Liz in Phantom Mark I and thought she was very good and very much enjoyed her on the album, so I am not sure whether it is just a case of being more suited to the original show or whether something else isn’t working here with the new direction.

David Thaxton as Raoul was also very good and managed to steer his performance away from the stereotype drunk husband that this could so easily fall into.  David gives a sense of a man who has lost his way and is in trouble, needing help as opposed to a lost cause.  I think this is important in explaining Christine’s dilemma.  If Raoul is played as a complete loser, her agonising wrestle with the choice to sing for inspiring Phantom, really becomes a bit of a no-brainer (although when did Christine ever have one of those?).  In some senses I felt that he is underused in this production.  In Devil Take the Hindmost you get a glimpse of what is a powerful voice which easily matches Ramin’s Phantom, but most of his Act I work is confined to shouting at Gustave and Christine.  Again, not the performer’s fault.

The rest of the cast handle this show well and the orchestra also sounded great.  I wouldn’t necessarily see it again unless it was substancially revised, but I was glad I got the opportunity.