Woman in White by Andrew Lloyd Webber

December 28, 2005

Palace Theatre, London, UK

IMG_4888.JPG
Originally uploaded by dwri.

“I have a secret,” said Andrew Lloyd Webber, late one night to his friend over a few beers. His friend sat patiently, wondering when the secret would be told. Hours passed, and a few beers later, Webber finally revealed his secret. He continued, “I took all of the compositions that did not make their way into Phantom of the Opera and threw them together to create The Woman in White.” Of course this dialogue did not truly occur, but this is how I was left feeling by intermission. But here’s the kicker, the book by William Wilkie Collins that goes by the same name which he used as the basis for these compositions was a best-selling phenomenon with immediate impact. Which, are unfortunately (and hopefully) accolades and overall audience and critical impression that this musical will never garner.

I’m not sure what I disliked more, the unconventional scenic design or uncreative compositions. Fortunately, I don’t have to decide, because neither worked and the show suffered from the first scene forward. Sure there was decent vocal talent from most actors, specifically the roles of Marian Halcombe (Ruthie Henshall), Sir Percival Glyde (Michael Cormick), and Walter Hartright (Damian Humbley). The play’s bright spot was the portrayal of Mr. Fairlie (Edward Petherbridge), humorous, fitting and well-developed.

I’m not a huge fan of Webber’s work, but I’m comfortable with some of his earlier musicals such as Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat and Jesus Christ Superstar. But from there, he decided to be progressive, and he should have stopped while his stocks were up. The measurement of the success of the technological implementations is where my interpretation diverges from most of the class. While my peers view the use of the projected images as a movement forward, placing the theatre in close company to film, I view this as a step backward, confusing the true beauty of cinematography. While the use of moving screens and projection technology is seemingly a move toward the future, it actually underplays the magic and variety that live theatre accomplishes. Live theatre and today’s film cannot be measured using the same instruments. Film is successful because it shows true human interaction in realistic spaces, highlighting the intimacy of communication. In film, close-ups cause us to be closer to the truth of subjects. Theatre is the opposite. Unit sets are successful because the audience fills in the gaps of what the room would truly look like. The use of projected images and limited hand props causes the realism to be one step further removed, because now you have actors standing in front of intangible items. This is the exact opposite of film, and thus, in my eyes, is a move in the completely wrong direction for a live performance to make a mark on an audience.