Tag: Music Mountain Theatre

Show: Phantom

Book: Arthur Kopit

Music and Lyrics: Maury Yeston

Director(s): Louis Palena and Jordan Brennan

Music Direction: Jen Gursky

Where: Music Mountain Theatre in Lambertville, NJ

http://www.musicmountaintheatre.org/

The Show

Last Friday I had the opportunity to see Phantom (by Yeston and Kopit), the inaugural production at the newly minted Music Mountain Theatre in Lambertville, NJ. The production team for MMT is the same team that previously ran the Open Air Theater in Washington Crossing State Park for the past 8 summers. If you’re a fan of their productions, their new venture is on another level. If you’ve never been, this new theater is likely to make a bigger impact on the local community theater scene than the last.

This isn’t the famous Phantom of the Opera adaptation (the longest running show on Broadway by Andrew Lloyd Webber), but it is an adaptation of the same Gaston Leroux novel. A bit of a musical theater historical oddity, this show was originally devised after Webber started work on his musical but before it was announced to the public (although both came after a less ambitious British production in the 70’s). Long story short, Webber was already an extremely successful musical writer and composer, so Kopit and Yeston’s Broadway backers got cold feet before their show could ever be produced.  Since Webber’s version is still playing, the opportunities for this show to be performed to wide audiences have been severely limited.

There are some obvious differences between the two musicals, which I’ll get to, but the main thrust of the plot is similar. The narrative still concerns a young ingénue, new to the Opera, who is the subject of the mysterious Phantom’s desire. If you’re at all familiar with the more famous Webber musical’s story then you’ve got the basic gist. This version does treat the Phantom himself (played by David Tapp) as a as a character with less personal mystique (it’s clear in the first ten minutes that he is just a regular man in hiding, something which is more debatable in the Webber version) and reveals more of his backstory. For instance, he has relationships with characters other than Christine (Lauren Krigel) which actually have significance to the plot. Christine herself is a little less of a blank slate in this version as well, and her contrasting strength and frailty provide some of the most interesting moments of the show.

Full disclosure: I know several members of this cast on some level.  It turns out that if you immerse yourself in community theater in an area you meet people.You’ll probably hear this disclosure from me a lot if you choose to come back for future reviews, but now seemed like the appropriate time to bring it up.

The musical style of this show is much closer to an actual opera than Webber’s. While the latter is a sung through mix of rock and opera, the majority of the music in Phantom really is “legit” classical opera singing. There are even continued references to the amount of training it takes to be a successful opera singer. Christine’s talent is oft referenced, but so is her lack of training, making her unsuitable to even be in the chorus (until she meets her new music teacher, the Phantom, of course). While I don’t have any type of operatic training, it was refreshing to see the amount of necessary effort at least acknowledged in a show all about it. And, thankfully, this cast of principals was probably the most capable of demonstrating that they themselves had the necessary training to pull it off. Frankly, they are likely more capable than some professional regional theaters as well.

The Great Stuff!

The list of highlights for this show is pretty long. Right off the bat, the script has more to it than The Phantom of the Opera, which I appreciated. Christine is less of a blank slate and takes charge of her own fate a few times throughout the show, which is a welcome change. Really, this is true of all of the characters; there are more here with their own stories to tell than in Webber, which kept me engaged throughout. I’ll bring up particular moments from the script (as both good and bad) later.

The leads are universally talented singers. Mr. Tapp is uniquely suited vocally to the role of Phantom, although there are a few awkward moments when he is forced to navigate a script that is difficult to parse. Ms. Krigel, meanwhile, is an exceptional vocalist who never seemed uncomfortable. Christine can be a bit unforgiving as a role because she spends much of the play having things happen to her (as noted above), but she is played here with hope and humanity that made her significantly more endearing than I remember.

Carriere is a deep, dark baritone part and Hallcom commands the stage with his voice throughout the show.  He also made it clear early on through his general demeanor that Carriere was hard a part in the mystery of the show (what there was of it), which made his scenes all the more fascinating to watch. One memorable scene of his is near the middle of act two where he tells the story of his past, acted out for the audience by two dancers (Jordan Brennan and Sharon Rudda) in a ballet as he narrates. This scene caught my attention and didn’t let go. Credit goes to all three performers, because what could have been a boring tangent was instead a beautiful and moving piece of theater. Shelly O’Hare-Tapp plays Carlotta exactly as one would hope. It’s a strange role, because the quality of the character’s singing changes depending on whether is diegetic (happening in the world of the show, where she is a terrible singer) or non-diegetic (happening because this is a musical and characters sing about their feelings, where she is an outstanding singer). She shares much of her time on stage with Louis Palena’s Alain (her character’s husband), and the two of them together become a comic team that is unrivaled by any other set of characters in the show.  There were several moments where they had developed bits between the two characters that were highlights of the show (hence their inclusion in this section).

There is one more lead role, Philipe (played by Karl Weigand) who has less lifting to do when it comes to singing. I didn’t include him above because he carries much less of the show vocally, but he is still able to project both arrogance and concern in equal measure when appropriate. Ultimately there is a lot to be said for an actor who can fit into any scene and make it work. These are the people who are easy to work with and Mr. Weigand accomplishes that throughout the show.

Beyond the leads, the ensemble also does a great job. I’m aware just through exposure to their shows over the years that MMT’s board has significant overlap with a local dance company, and their deep roster of dancers is on display here for anyone who was looking for it. The show does offer less choreographic variety than more modern musicals, but both ballet and court dancing are done well here to bring the audience into the world of the show. I think in future reviews I’m going to make a point to pay more attention to how dance integrates into the story, because this production was a great example of that, even though I lack a lot of the vocabulary to describe it.

I’m realizing now that my review could turn into a short book rather than a blog post, so I’ll summarize several other things about this show that were great: scenic design and construction was great and immersive, the use of backdrops to quickly change scenes was a nice touch.  Costumes were outstanding (the various masks looked great). Some lighting issues when people were lit from behind the scrim (a curtain that is see through when lit from behind and opaque when lit from the front), but the use of lighting to enhance the mood of the scenes was expertly done.

The Not Great Stuff…

The list of negatives for this production are smaller, but not non-existent. It’s also more interesting to write negative criticisms, because one can point out flaws and (dangerously) suggest how they might be addressed, because it takes a lot longer to do than just say someone was somewhere on the good-to-outstanding scale. I’m adding that last sentence because, as you read on, you’ll find that this section has a much higher word count than any of the others, even though my ultimate review for this show is positive. Also, full disclosure part 2: I have to admit that I don’t care for any version of the Phantom of the Opera Story that I’ve seen or heard.  While this version does have some compelling ideas and scenes not found in Webber’s, I’ve always found it difficult to find the Phantom particularly sympathetic. As I’ve gotten older I can understand the appeal of the love triangle, but I mostly haven’t been moved by it in the way I know others (e.g. my significant other) have. That’s not the fault of anyone on the production team, but I think it’s more fair to get that out of the way early, so you’ll know to potentially take my criticisms with a grain of salt.

The majority of the emotional narrative falls on three sets of shoulders: The Phantom, Christine and Gerard Carriere (played by Donald Hallcom). The latter two characters (and actors) bring a lot of consistent emotional satisfaction to their parts in the story, but the character of the Phantom himself suffers from several tonal problems. In his first scene he kills a man for intruding on his domain, but then in his second scene he pleads, almost to the point of dark humor, with Carriere that he only did what he had to do and that Carriere knows he’s never even hurt anyone before. There’s a bit of meta-narrative involved in these scenes, because the more famous version of the Phantom is most recognizable for his inscrutability, but the juxtaposition between this Phantom’s initial repulsion to violence and the other’s propensity for it turned this one almost into a parody.  Of course, in some way this criticism isn’t exactly fair; the story wasn’t written with the knowledge of Webber’s and they couldn’t have completely anticipated the contrast. Still, both are based on a horror story, and the Phantom’s squeamishness is a bit like a Dracula who is afraid of blood.  It removes most of the threat presented by the Phantom almost right away, even when it will be reintroduced at a later time in the story. This, in turn lead to emotional confusion for me as an audience member, which I don’t think is intended. It is possible that there is meant to be an undercurrent of rage in his character throughout, but I didn’t see that in the performance.

There are other scenes that almost turn into self parody, but that are at least internally consistent to the Phantom’s character. After the Phantom kidnaps Christrine (SPOILERS…but seriously if you didn’t know that already I don’t feel bad), the character, famously known for being emotionally deep, pontificates about the brilliance of the poetry of William Blake. While sincere, the script makes him sound like high school kid who just discovered a new band that is somehow simultaneously extremely deep and speaks to the teenage experience. In a way, this scene in particular humanizes the Phantom and does highlight his sweet naivete, but it made it difficult for me to empathize with his self-professed deep love for Christine. Either he is a deep, brooding lover that inspires equal parts disgust and admiration from the audience, or he is a sheltered boy incapable of recognizing his personal failings. But it’s almost impossible to be both, and I don’t think that the script successfully threads that needle. Thankfully, the scene ends with a particularly satisfying emotional moment from Christine that sets the show’s climax into motion. SPOILERS: Whoever had the idea to have Christine plead her love for the Phantom in order to get him to show her his face was a genius. Her ultimate revulsion to his appearance is all the more heartbreaking and was one of the two best moments of the show.

Unfortunately, all of these flaws fall to one man to navigate. I can’t fault the effort Tapp puts into his vocal performance; I can’t think of anyone involved in the show that could do the Phantom better justice. But, ultimately, he wasn’t able to overcome the script’s dialogue problems.

I’m going to take a step back and do what I do best: make things about me. In a lot of ways, my reaction to Tapp’s performance is the most difficult to describe, because I know that I couldn’t have done a better job myself. This middle ground reaction is tough mostly because I know how easy to is to tear someone down when they are at their most vulnerable, and a large part of acting (especially in a role like this) is embracing that vulnerability and showing it to the audience. I’ve read unfair criticisms before of both myself and friends who are doing their best to entertain an audience (when we aren’t getting paid), and it sucks. If I thought he didn’t give it his all then it would be easy to criticize because it meant he didn’t care enough about the audience to try. But I do think that Tapp gave his all, so coming up with some funny wordplay that puts him down (which too often passes for interesting analysis) wouldn’t just be mean, it would be unconstructive. If I thought he just wasn’t good for the part at all (and the part was masterfully written, which it isn’t) then I would tell you that he couldn’t sing it and move on to my notes on direction, but I don’t think that that’s true either. Moreover, there’s a saying in the creative arts: if someone tells you that something is wrong with your work of art then they are probably right, but if they provide a solution then they are probably wrong. And I think that’s true for me too, but hey, we’re here to examine this piece of art together. If you don’t like my thoughts now then hopefully I can use this experience to improve future writing.

The fact is that the show jerks the audience between comedy and melodrama quite often, but usually not within the same scene or with the same characters. Carlotta and Alain are inherently funny characters and are played that way,  Carriere is inherently serious and is played that way, Christine and Phillipe are romantic and are played that way. But the Phantom is meant to be a complex character that is in charge of the roller coaster. He’s not presented in the script as actually complex, but the writers imitate complexity by making him often contradictory. I can’t completely fault them for that either, since I haven’t read the original book, but at best they failed to elevate the source material. As an actor, all of this makes it hard to figure out the narrative core of the character throughout the story or even within a scene. I don’t know Tapp personally, but I think that he probably experienced this difficulty when learning the dialogue and possibly hoped that the script would speak for itself. Unfortunately, the Phantom carries much of the show and the script isn’t good enough to speak for itself.

As a test, because writing problems often masquerade as acting problems, I went to Youtube to watch the William Blake poetry scene done in one of the more prominent professional productions.  It’s certainly not a fair comparison overall, but I wanted to see if this scene, which I still found interesting in MMT’s production, was less emotionally confusing with actors whose livelihood depends on their performance.  The answer is a mixed bag: the dialogue wasn’t really elevated at all by actors who are paid money, but the scene is less confusing when played with more of a straightforward emotional buildup. Once that Phantom takes a step up the ladder to high drama he doesn’t really take any steps back down. It’s still not as romantic of a scene as it’s meant to be, but I could at least glean his “real” emotional state throughout the scene. This make it easier for me to interpret his part in the scene as sincere. I could understand the Phantom’s charm, even though I mostly think he’s a creep who needs help.

MMT, like its predecessor at Washington Crossing State Park, puts up its shows on a two to three week rehearsal schedule. This is not the norm in community theater (which usually puts up a musical in two to three months) or professional theater (where it varies, but would probably take at least a month of full work days to stage the show with more lead time to memorize lines). Now, as a critic and actor I do need to take this lack of rehearsal time into account when making criticism of people’s acting choices, but at the same time the timeline was chosen by MMT’s executive committee. I know for a fact the company could not have worked harder to put up this show (while they were building the theater itself at the same time), but more rehearsal time could have allowed them more opportunity to spend time with actors on character work.

Before you start mentally castigating me for overstepping my bounds, I am aware that it’s not my place to tell anyone how to run their own company, and I think that MMT presents a unique opportunity for area artists to take part in a fast paced environment. Because of this, what I perceive to be their biggest weakness is also the unique strength of this theater organization; they have an incredibly deep and dedicated roster of talent to choose from who will keep coming back for multiple shows in a season, which I suspect is at least partially because of the low time commitment and the high audience satisfaction level. That said, it’s always going to lead to the same problems: actors who are given exceptionally difficult parts with little time to rehearse are going to be flying by the seat of their pants, which doesn’t lead to layered, thoughtful performances.

Next on my list here is a much bigger nitpick, but some of the smaller scenes with just a couple of actors onstage ended up with some strange blocking and character choices. One moment near the end comes to mind, where an actor could have made a bigger choice and it would have been more effective. SPOILER: Carriere turns out to be the Phantom’s father.  As his son lays dying, Carriere goes to comfort him, but Dr. Hallcom stayed standing rather than go to the floor right away.  It seemed like a strange choice in the moment and was rectified shortly after, but I think a director with more time would have picked up on the issue (as might have Dr. Hallcom if he had more time in the part himself). Mr. Palena clearly does have an understanding of how to command the stage himself, as his scenes (especially those with Mrs. O’Hare-Tapp) clearly showed. The same could be said of Mr. Brennan, who took on a smaller role but still was able to eke out the available humor. But there were definitely some moments where even the most experienced actors could have benefitted from more time with and adjustment from the directors.

Most other criticisms that I can think of are minor. The sound popped, dropped out, or had feedback at times, but that is always an issue in community theaters with this many seats and a big stage. There are some theaters in the area that have been established and winning awards for over a decade that still have terrible sound, so if MMT can improve upon that throughout the season then I’m not one to complain. The background music is also a canned track rather than pit musicians, but that’s par for the course when compared with the Open Air Theater, so it wasn’t particularly surprising as an audience member.

The Shining Stars

I’m stealing this part of my review process from a podcast, The Worst Idea in the World, where two friends watch the same movie every week for a year. In that podcast, they pick out things happening in the background that were particularly effective or satisfying that one might not notice on a first watch.  In this show, the shining stars have to be the three dancing girls originally introduced as Philipe’s entourage.  They appear throughout to give commentary, but the three actresses playing them never failed to commit and they were a lot of fun to watch.  By the end of the performance I was waiting to see what they would do whenever they showed up onstage.

The Verdict

See this show. Phantom is a great first show for Music Mountain Theatre and a great production in general.  If you have a love of musical theater, then you should see this particular show for its place in theater history. If you like the Phantom of the Opera then you have every reason to go see this show. If you don’t then the improvement on the characterization of the side characters and several outstanding performances are enough to recommend it. Yeston and Kopit’s Phantom runs through October 22, Fridays at 8 pm, Saturdays at 3 and 8 pm and Sundays at 3 pm.

The Venue

If you want to know about the musical, then I’ve reach the end of my discussion on that already. But as a person who loves theater, I also love theaters, so I wanted to take a couple of paragraphs to discuss each new venue that I revue. I’ll probably place these reviews at another place on the siteMusic Mountain Theater is a converted warehouse which houses a 250 seat audience, a large proscenium and a large backstage area.  The entire facility is brand new, so any part of the building that the audience can see will be in great shape.  Since we went to the opening performance for the entire theater company there was a gala afterwards that took place mostly in the lobby, which is beautifully constructed and decorated with strong colors, 4 large lighting sconces and with concessions and box office on opposing sides.  The rest of the theater boasts a lot of storage space as well as classrooms off to the side of the backstage.

Their current season is 16 shows, plus another 14 children’s shows, so if you miss one production there will be another right around the corner.  In years past they have done almost exclusively musicals, but this year they seem to be branching out a bit with a few plays on the docket as well. They are able to accomplish this abundance of theatrical output by having a two to three week rehearsal schedule for their productions (as discussed above) the shortest I’m aware of in community theater. I expect to be writing about many more shows in the future at MMT, since their season dwarfs that of almost any other theater in the region (with the possible exception of the Kelsey Theater, but I don’t think even that will have 30 shows this year).

Some things to look out for: There is no center aisle, so if you are seated in the center you’re going to want to go to the bathroom before the show starts.  The air conditioning is quite loud at times (this is a common problem in found spaces, unfortunately). Not a deal breaker, but it is noticeable when it comes on during a song.