|
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.
|