While this year will see Broadway taking over London theatreland with the arrival, in turn, of Movin’ Out, Footloose, Avenue Q, Spamalot and Wicked, the biggest West End opening of the year has just taken place, paradoxically, 3,500 miles away in Toronto last night, with the world premiere there of an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings that has been brought to the stage by an almost entirely British creative team.
This was, of course, originally due to open at the Dominion this year — but when We Will Rock You refused to stop rockin’, the producers heeded the advice of the Village People to “Go West”. Toronto fought hard to get it, too — it’s a city with a strong theatrical pedigree for originating musicals (the Hal Prince revival of Show Boat and the original production of Ragtime both began there in the days of producer Garth Drabinsky, now criminally indicted and not able to step foot in the US anymore following charges of fraud), but it has lost its edge in the last few years and wanted something to put it back on the map. The Lord of the Rings has certainly done that in PR terms.
But some of the attention it has been getting today may be less than welcome: the reviews are now in, and many have been blatantly hostile. My own review will appear this weekend in the Sunday Express, and though I don’t want to pre-empt that, I have to say that I am rather shocked by the vitriol of some of the criticisms. For this is a big, bold, lavish piece of popular musical theatre, and on its own terms — delivering a knock-out visual and aural experience — it certainly delivers.
I fear that once again, as in Sinatra at the London Palladium, either I am seriously out of step with my critical colleagues or they are seriously out of step with the public they serve. No, of course a 3.5 hour stage version doesn’t have the breadth of the books or the film trilogy; but as a distillation of those cult books, it is a lavish and compelling treat.
But as well as overcoming the hostile reviews, the producers also have a larger difficulty in playing in Toronto, where the local population isn’t huge, the tourists aren’t as plentiful as they used to be, and the theatre seats 2,000.
"the producers also have a larger difficulty in playing in Toronto, where the local population isn’t huge"
Not sure what you WOULD qualify as huge, however Toronto is the most populous in Canada and the fifth most populous in North America (after Mexico City, New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago), with the population estimated at 5,304,100 in 2005. We kept "Phantom" running for a decade and "Cats", "Miss Saigon" and others as well. If this play were worth seeing, I'm sure that Toronto's population and tourist status could easily keep it afloat.
Mark
I would like you e mail address.
I represent the Sinatra estate...
Robert Finkelstein
310 289-0153
Dear Mark,
I have tried to find your review of Lord of the Rings. You mention in your Friday, March 24 article that it was to be published in the Sunday Express that weekend. Would you be kind enough to direct me to the review?
Thank you
I've always wondered why Toronto? Why haven't they put it on London stage?
I agree that the show is a fantastical work...it's not the books, it's not the movies, it's a new beast entirely. Remember "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"? Every incarnation was different, new and fresh. That's what I love about LOTR...every time it comes around, it is given a different sheen...