Frankenstein: A New Musical review

Frankenstein: A New Musical Review - Broadway musical

The Modern Prometheus – this title gave Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley to book back in 1818, not knowing that her work would become such a hit that the monster of Victor Frankenstein will be even in cartoons for the youngest and as children's toys – that is, will become an integral part of the world’s culture with which people get familiar with from the very childhood. And which is confused with the creator himself, named Frankenstein, in spite of the fact that this is the name of creator, not a beast. Prometheus is because Victor was its creator, and a god Prometheus was the creator of all Mankind, according to Greek mythology.

This musical, despite the fact that the very essence of the story is familiar to all, and films and animated works come punctually on the screens with this monster, has not found popularity and each version kept up to 2 months without giving even a hundred hits on stage. There may be a few explanations for that. First – unconvincing performance. Where a crazy doctor’s creature looks just like an ordinary person, in some cases even as a tramp, besides not having good artistry. In addition, he has always played in the same colors and, despite the plot twists and turns, his inner world and fickle emotions did not find the desired display, which should led to believe that he, though being really a monster, not a simple one, but driven by strong emotions and despite his terrifying appearance and strength, was in fact, frightened and angry child. But this feeling beholder didn’t have. The second explanation logically outcomes from the first – the creators of the various versions of Frankenstein made the beast to be a protagonist, but it does not always bring success to such works (spectacular, but totally morose “I, Frankenstein” of 2014, hardly paid off in a box office, but USD 6 millions of gross income – is the lack of practical net income and negative result somewhere in 10 million, as part of the fees stay with a plurality of rolling intermediaries). The most common options become popular that are either depict the plot in the comedy genre (Hotel Transylvania 1 and 2, where such a character is present among mains), or focus on a tragic component of Victor himself, not his monster (However, “Victor Frankenstein” of 2016 doing the mentioned focus, failed at all, bringing USD 6 millions of gross losses. But, perhaps it is not connected as much with the plot itself, as much with a presence of Daniel Radcliffe in the film – the vast majority of his films except Harry Potter’s franchise, consistently fail at the box office).

Starting from pretty big idea, the creators of this play simply slipped into some weak storytelling, which is slimpsy in small things – costumes, lighting, and the most important ones – acting, for example. The viewer does not have enough right, deep emotions, which in the majority of the songs aren’t smelled. In such a lovely style, which has been selected for such a gloomy story, should rather be the tale of Rapunzel told with her long blond hair, not about the monster, which is bursting with fear, anger and desire for revenge, nor about its creator, who loses his favorite wife from hands of the terrible beast, and then, through a perverted logic, must recognize it as his son.
Last Update:April, 06th 2016