Review: "The Phantom Of The Opera" At The Pantages
Comments (5)
Tim Martin Gleason as the Phantom and Trista Moldovan as Christine Daae (Photo by Joan Marcus)
Like its title character, “Phantom” covers up its defects ingeniously, but we must do like Christine in the final act and rip off that mask. Then, we can see “Phantom” for what it really is: one great big exemplification of the modern musical’s shameless endorsement of style over substance. We might also add: dramatically incoherent, romantically childish and thematically impoverished.
But wait, surely this can’t be. Everybody loves “Phantom.” You can’t see it without being stricken with a compulsive need to belt out “The Music of the Night” in the shower for the next month. This is very true, so what gives?
Everything becomes clear once “Phantom” fails to be seductive. This is, sad to say, the case with this production. It’s like starting off the show with a barefaced Phantom. Suddenly all the defects are on full display, with nothing on hand to hide behind.
It begins and ends with Webber’s score, the backbone of the show. Convincing enough as actors, Tim Martin Gleason as the Phantom, Trista Moldovan as Christine and Sean MacLaughlin as Raoul — each of them a corner of a disturbing love triangle — simply can’t carry it off.
Pitch isn’t the problem; the big notes are all spot-on. It’s vocal quality. In some respects, it’s a shame that Sarah Brightman and Michael Crawford created these roles. Vocalists of a classless order, they made it impossible for these songs to be improved upon or reinterpreted.
Moldovan is the best of the group, but her soprano is breathy and too soft. Nonetheless, her “Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again” is easily the standout performance of the night.
Gleason’s and MacLaughlin’s voices are nearly indistinguishable — not surprising, since Gleason rose to fame playing Raoul, not the Phantom. MacLaughlin’s booming baritone seems ill-suited for the role and often overpowers Moldovan, with whom he generates barely-there chemistry. Gleason could be a lot more expressive.
The second act is a vast improvement over the first. In fact, the chilling final scene nearly redeems an otherwise bland production, which Kim Stengel as a scene-stealing Carlotta does her best to keep afloat.
There’s nothing to say about the set, lighting and costumes that hasn’t been said before. Yes, they’re perfect — but nothing more than masks for underlying problems.
But maybe, just maybe, Andrew Lloyd Webber is really playing us all for fools with this one. Maybe he set out to create something that plays into our collective weakness for outward appearances. As Christine is seduced by the Phantom, so too is the audience seduced by the show.
It’s certainly an attractive idea — but for it to work, the seduction needs to be effortless. No doubt, for many people, it is. But in this case, the final leg of the national tour, no such seduction takes place, leaving us staring blankly at the naked hull of this much-beloved but substanceless piece of spectacle.
To reach Senior Arts Editor Jason Kehe, click here.
Comments
I totally agree. I've seen Phantom 10 times now, most recently at the Pantages, and true that no one can compare to Brightmam and Crawford. I was really disappointed with this show.I didn't feel that any of the performances were powerful. I didn't walk out of there thinking, "Wow, ____ sang amazingly". They were all just sub-par. I guess if you've never seen the play before, and having nothing to compare it to, you'll get a different feeling..after all, it is the story and music that makes it magical, but it's just so much more amazing when the cast can actually give you chills when they sing.
correction... i saw the "Phantom..." Fri., 10/15/10... despite my dislikes of Moldovan's Christine...I highly recommend it and glad I went.
I saw the "Phantom..." last night, 10/17/10 and walked away enjoying Gleason and MacLaughlin. Moldovan for me butchered all of her songs except surprisingly for her solo in "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again". I felt that there was very little singing distinction between Stengel and Moldovan... in the "Hannibal" opening act version of Stengel "Carlotta's" "Think of me"... when the character clearly intended to sound bad. I was not convinced between Moldovan and her romantic connections with her onstage beau's. In scene 4, "The Labyrinth underground... while Moldovan was "in trance" with Gleason... her movements/ "acting" on stage were as graceful as her choppy singing... and her rooftop scene with MacLaughlin was over acted and unconvincing again by Moldovan... it reminded me of your description of the HS rendition... I couldn't wait to rush home to listen to Sarah Brightman to forget Moldovan's version. I have to say that for me Gleason owned it and I connected to me to the Phantom's pain and loneliness. I think Hess' tone would've been a better version of Christine... why not a mature Christine? Thank you for your review. I enjoyed reading it.
Just saw the show. AN absolute disaster, of which I am sure Andrew Lloyd Weber would NOT be proud. No intonation, no depth of vocals by all the leads. And who pray who taught Mr. Gleason to sing? Why of why do we have a saliva slurping fool as the phantom? All I could hear every time Mr. Gleason sang was him sucking in his saliva. This is my 8th occasion watching Phantom and easily the worst. It was very much like a high school production which Mr. Keke hit right on the head. For the first time in my life I found myself loudly booing the leads as they came out to take their bows. Shame on this production for damaging the reputation of this show.
Having just seen the Pantages Phantom performance last week, I would have to disagree with some of this assessment. True, in my opinion, Brightman and Crawford can never be matched; however, I think the standout of the night was Gleason, not Moldovan. Gleason has a powerful voice and performed the role admirably. Moldovan was good--maybe even excellent in some scenes--but I couldn't help thinking, "she's no Brightman." Also, Kehe gives no basis for his harsh judgements: just how, exactly, is the current performance "dramatically incoherent, romantically childish and thematically impoverished?" Or is this an indictment of the all Phantom performances? I am no art critic but to me, it was a great book and a great musical. I will say that I preferred earlier performances' seriousness and mystery to the current performance's attempts at lightheartedness and comedy. The most glaring example of this was turning Piangi into a comical character. I much preferred him as an arrogant persona. Regardless, I did enjoy the performance last week and think it was well worth my time.