The Lord of the Rings Musical - My review

[Alatar]

Galadriel revisits the Lothlórien theme in her song "Wonder" which can be heard in the following clip:

http://www.lotr.com/sights_sounds/showf ... opup_1.php

I love the sentiment here, the theme of fading Lothlórien brought through strongly.

Shine forever
Beacon of light
Blaze in the air
Vanquishing night
Live forever,
Held like a breath
Deep at the core
Blossom in death.

My Golden leaves will fade and fall through branching years
Though sweet the song yet sweeter still shall be the tears
The night must come, the shadows grow, the dark descend
And all we love and all we know must reach an end
Lothlórien
Though worlds will die and worlds will grow.

Out of death, life
Out of night, day
Glory from sorrow
Out of grief, joy
Out of storm, come
stremgth for tomorrow
Out of dust, gold
Out of fire, air
Comfort forsaking
Out of rage, calm
Out of loss, find
Glory awaking

[Alatar]

Cast signing tomorrow at Dress Circle in Monmouth St!

If anyone is attending please pick me up a Laura Michelle Kelly signed CD and I'll send on the money!

The stars of The Lord of the Rings will be at Dress Circle on Saturday 9th February 11:30am – 12:30pm to sign copies of the eagerly awaited cast recording of Lord of the Rings.

Come and join Laura Michelle Kelly (Galadrial), Rosalie Craig (Arwen), Jerome Pradon (Aragorn), James Loye (Frodo), Peter Howe (Sam), Michael Therriault (Gollum) at Dress Circle.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks for sharing the audio and particularly video clips, Al. It's great that this exists for those who like it. After watching the video clip, I can say pretty categorically that it is not my cup of tea. (I also think that Tolkien would have been outraged, although that is certainly no reason why the endeavor should not have been pursued.)

[Alatar]

Would you like to explain why you think he would have been outraged V?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I thought you might ask that. I can try.

First of all, there is his well known distrust of visual adaptation of works of literature. As he said in his essay "On Fairy Stories":

The radical distinction between all art (including drama) that offers a visible presentation and true literature is that it imposes one visible form. Literature works from mind to mind and is thus more progenitive. It is at once more universal and more poignantly particular.

In particular, it was the sight of Galadriel spinning around while dropping from the sky and singing that I was reacting to. I think he would have considered it an ostentious spectacle and not at all an accurate visual representation of what he wrote. However, I fully recognize that I could just be imposing my own visceral reaction on to him. Needless to say, it is impossible for any of us to truly predict how he would have reacted to any of the adaptations of his work that have been done since he passed away. All I can do is express my own opinion, based on my own knowledge and experience. I certainly didn't intend any offense.

[MithLuin]

I can certainly see Tolkien making some comment like "Elves don't fly!" in the margin of the script . And he would quibble over Legolas' use of the word "magical." Spectacle is an appropriate word for what they've done here, and I think it is fair to say that Tolkien never gave much indication that he was into such things.

On the other hand, I thought having the elves descend was to give some feeling of verticality...how else were they to suggest a land in the treetops? In which case....what is being represented here are the rope ladders (straight from the text ). Also, the very minimalist use of props seems very much in line with the spirit of literature Tolkien was so enthusiastically praising in On Faerie Stories.

In Toronto, Galadriel did not make this entrance. We saw the Fellowship climbing a rope ladder, and then we came out on the top, where there was a canopy of lit branches that opened up. She also did not have this song. So, they very much reworked her scene for London. I think the new version is stronger and more powerful, but that may be in part because of the actress playing Galadriel (she has both an amazing voice and stage presence).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In Toronto, Galadriel did not make this entrance. We saw the Fellowship climbing a rope ladder, and then we came out on the top, where there was a canopy of lit branches that opened up.

I think I would like that a lot better. And I recognizing that I really can't judge the show based on one short video clip.

[yovargas]

I just saw this. It's the 1st time I've seen clips from the show. Remember when those early pics from the films where coming out and so many of us fans thought *gasp!* It looks just right! Umm, I don't get that one teeny bit from those. Nothing in those clips "looked Tolkien" to me. That and my general dislike of musical theater (sorry, Al!!) and I think I'd pass on this...

[Alatar]

Thats ok guys. I have an approach to Tolkien that isn't purist, revisionist, or even pragmatist. I simply adore to see this story told, in many different ways, and to see the different approaches people take to that. Every production I've experienced, from Theatre Sans Fils, to the Symphony, from the BBC to Bakshi, from Rankin Bass to PJ, I've found something to love in all of them. Every new presentation is a challenge to took at my preconceptions and maybe say "Hey, I never thought of it like that".

The fact that I adore the Theatre surely helps in this case, but that aside, I really believe there's a lot that is Tolkien in this. To compare with criticisms levelled at the film, this is a Hobbit-centric movie, not Aragorn-centric. The Ents make the right decision. There is no emphasis of kewl battles, comedy dwarves or Fart jokes.

In a 3-hour show they have distilled the story to its essence, which in itself is an achievement, but they have also chosen to point up several strong themes that were only mentioned in passing in the movie. In the play, as in the book, Lothlórien is our representation of Elvendom at its height. They even go so far as to draw the parallel with a child, so that we will understand that the loss of Lothlórien will be like Galadriel losing her child, but that she makes this sacrifice for the good of the world. This theme of fading and loss is played up far more strongly in the stage show than the Movies.

I suppose what bothers me is the suggestion that somehow "Tolkien would not have approved". Firstly, we have no idea what preconceptions he may have had based on a few comments made in letters and essays. Secondly, we have no idea how his own preconceptions may have been challenged, maybe for the better. Finally, there's no such consideration given to Tolkien's imagined approval or disapproval of the movies. Why the distinction?

It seems rather to be a case of "I don't think I like this, so it mustn't be 'Tolkien'"

And that in itself is not "Tolkien"

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

I received my CD (and accompanying DVD) this afternoon and am enjoying it very much.

[Pearly Di]

I suppose what bothers me is the suggestion that somehow "Tolkien would not have approved". Firstly, we have no idea what preconceptions he may have had based on a few comments made in letters and essays. Secondly, we have no idea how his own preconceptions may have been challenged, maybe for the better. Finally, there's no such consideration given to Tolkien's imagined approval or disapproval of the movies. Why the distinction?

I could not agree more, Al. That was a great post.

As artistic works judged on their own merit, I enjoyed the films more than I enjoyed the musical. The LotR musical is thoroughly honourable and noble in its intentions but failed for me overall as a cohesive work of art. But that should not disguise the fact that it is actually much more 'puristy' in some respects than PJ's films.

PJ really took some truly shocking liberties with the material at times. And I think that the makers of the musical have understood the main themes and elements of LotR better than PJ did, in many instances. The Fading of the Elves theme, for instance, is done far more justice on stage than it was in PJ's films. It is really beautifully done in the musical.

I am quite sure that Tolkien, bless his perfectionist heart, would have found many things to disapprove of in the three adaptations of LotR that I regard as having merit: the excellent BBC radio adaptation of 1981, PJ's movies, and this new musical.

I also like to think that some things - in all three versions - might have really chuffed him.

I think I will buy the CD, for sure.

Sorry I missed the thing last week about the signing. I am not in here often enough to check.

[Alatar]

Thanks Di.

I'd happily agree that as a whole, the movies were far more moving and closer to my "minds eye" of Middle-earth, but, as the limitless abundance of varied art styles used to illustrate show, there are so many visions of Middle-earth different to mine. Rather than say, "Mine's right, and the others are wrong", I find it interesting to allow myself to explore them through someone else's eyes. The same is true of the LotR Online game I'm playing these days. There's much there thats not canon, but every now and then I get a geeky thrill when I round a corner to see Gaffer Gamgee telling off a Nazgûl, or find a charred rock with a G3 rune on top of Weathertop.

In the musical, as in the game, there was a difficult challenge. To deliver a Middle-earth that was Tolkien, but wasn't PJ. Now, since most of us grew up with artwork by Howe and Lee, PJ pretty much had us at the first shot of Hobbiton. Everything, as yova said, just looked right. How do you achieve that again with something "different but the same"? Its tricky. So rather than try to compete with the vision of the movie, where everything is laid out before you as a visual feast, the Stage show highlighted certain styles and looks and attempted to present them in a stylised fashion. Hence the fluid hand movements of the Elves "sign language". Its not Tolkien, true, but its an attempt to differentiate people based not on hair colour and pointy ears, but instead in body language and costume style. You KNOW you're looking at an Elf, and not a Man.

In short, although there were more moments in the 12 hours of PJs movies that moved me to tears and made me say "He nailed it", there were still plenty in the 3 hours of the Musical, and in different places for the most part. In fact, contrary to popular opinion, Galadriel and Lothlórien are for me some of the least satisfying moments in the film, despite looking great, cause the heart of it is wrong. The vague threat at the beginning, the nuclear Galadriel and the hurried leavetaking (at least in the TC) were disappointing for me. In contrast, Laura Michelle Kelly's rejection of the ring is a pure acting performance and powerfully delivered. Sam and Frodo's "Now and for always" on the Steps of Cirith Ungol, and the final destruction of the ring in mount doom with Galadriel's "Out of death, life" serving as a backdrop to the falling Gollum. These are wonderful moments which I would never have experienced if I contented myself with the movies.

Sure, the Ents are a bit goofy, but there's no fart jokes. Sure, the Rohan and Gondor storylines have been combined, but we get to hear Gimli sing "When Hammer on Anvil smote in high halls of stone". Aragorn never takes a cliff dive, and Glorfindel saves the Fellowship instead of Arwen.

Isn't it nice to have the best of both worlds?

[kams]

[Pearly Di]

In contrast, Laura Michelle Kelly's rejection of the ring is a pure acting performance and powerfully delivered.

That was one of the highlights for me. A wonderful scene. I adore Blanchett's Galadriel but the stage version of Gladys's temptation was much better than Nuclear Galadriel ... far, far closer to Tolkien's conception of it, IMO, none of the movie histrionics.

And I thought Laura Michelle Kelly was absolutely splendid as Gladys: she was golden and glorious and had all of Galadriel's charisma and gravitas. A very worthy rival to Cate!

And Sam and Frodo's song "Now and for always" is sheer hobbity perfection. Essence of Frodo and Sam and their beautiful friendship.

Isn't it nice to have the best of both worlds?

Absolutely!!!

[Ophelia]

Thats ok guys. I have an approach to Tolkien that isn't purist, revisionist, or even pragmatist. I simply adore to see this story told, in many different ways, and to see the different approaches people take to that. Every production I've experienced, from Theatre Sans Fils, to the Symphony, from the BBC to Bakshi, from Rankin Bass to PJ, I've found something to love in all of them. Every new presentation is a challenge to took at my preconceptions and maybe say "Hey, I never thought of it like that".

That's pretty much my take on the issue, too. The more adaptations the merrier.

It so happens that the stage show works for me in a way the films just didn't. (It happens). I don't really find the films moving, which is why I don't really have any interest in the upcoming Hobbit film or in anything else PJ is likely to do.

Where LOTR dramatisation is concerned, I'm a radio play and stage show girl. Now and for always.

[Primula Baggins]

I hope the stage show will be made into a DVD at some point. I'd love to see it someday, but can't afford a trip to London, and it definitely isn't the kind of show that tours the provinces.

[Ophelia]

I'd probably donate at least one of my limbs if doing so meant it could be made into a complete DVD, but I wonder if stage rights preclude the rights to film the staged product.

[Primula Baggins]

That seems likely, alas, or surely there would be many DVDs of shows, at least of major hits that have finished their runs.

The one note of difference in this case, though, is the lack of touring companies and regional and local productions, which are a major income source for more conventional shows that might be choked off if people could watch the London or Broadway production in their living rooms. Or perhaps even this show could be retooled to work in smaller venues.

[Alatar]

I suspect it will be filmed for posterity. We have already seen professionally filmed footage on the website, so it may already have happened. In a case like this, the show is so heavily financed that they need to keep their options open on recouping that investment. I suspect if the show finishes soon, as seems likely based on the dwindling audiences, we may see a DVD shortly thereafter.

As for a scaled down version, it seems unlikely right now, but Les Mis is doing very well on the schools circuit without a revolve or Barricade.

[Primula Baggins]

But has LotR ever been that kind of hit? (Yet, anyway?)