Theater Review: Dracula

by John Garcia of John Garcia's The Column

Like a flying bat in the cold, eerie night, Dietz's script went all over the place, and only on rare occasion did it land on solid ground. I was however thoroughly impressed with the direction, production design, and performances.

Okay, so you like to wear a billowing cape and a tux with tails 24 hours a day. And you can only meet night. So you talk in a strange dialect that is so strange that all people can do around you is smile and nod. And so what if you cannot eat a roast chicken, but instead your diet consists of doing a hickey on someone and draining them of their blood. But enough about my last match.com date.

I'm actually talking about the prince of darkness, that toothy man himself -- Dracula. When it comes to bringing this vampire's evil journey to the stage, it has been met with such horrific results that it would make a werewolf by a box of hair removal products and go into the witness protection program.

In 2004, I sat in the Belasco Theater on Broadway stifling my giggles as I watched the train wreck called Dracula: The Musical by Frank Wildhorn. Never in my life had I sat at a Broadway show where people walked out throughout the first act. When the second act started, the couple right in front of us whispered to each other and made a dash for the exit as the lights dimmed. The score was just god awful and the show was just so bad, all you could do was cover your mouth from letting out your laughter. You knew you were watching a Broadway musical flop before your eyes when you watched in horror some of the women of the chorus portray hairy male sailors in the dock scenes. Only instead of looking like rough sea loving sailors, they resembled butch lesbians heading off to a military themed gay bar.

Wildhorn's take on the dude with long fangs set to music would last only a paltry 157 performances on Broadway. You would have thought that Wildhorn and his producers would have caught the hint in 2003 with the overblown musical titled Dance of the Vampires opened at the Minskoff. Written by the guy who wrote Meatloaf's songs, it starred the Phantom of the Opera himself, Michael Crawford. This musical would suck (no pun intended) for a measly 56 performances on Broadway. Then there was Sir Elton John's take on the Anne Rice version of Mr. "I vant to drink your blood" in the dreadful Lestat, which opened at the Palace Theater in 2006. This vampire musical would have a stake driven through it and put us all out of our misery after a puny 39 performances.

Take note composers: the dude in the black cape cannot be set to music.

As a play, Mr. "I need dental work or braces" fared a little better (but not much) on Broadway. Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston based their version on the novel by Bram Stoker. It premiered in 1927 and went on to rack up 261 performances. Deane and Balderston's play would go on to have two revivals. There was a 1931 revival at the Royale, lasting a jaw dropping 8 performances. Ouch. Funny tidbit about this flop: Count Dracula was played by an actor named Courtney White. Anyone who names their baby boy "Courtney" is asking for trouble if you ask me.

However, in 1977 they finally got it right. This version was directed by Dennis Rosa and starred a young, tall, and very sexy looking Frank Langella. For this version the eroticism was heightened in the piece and had a sexy actor portraying the Count, Dracula finally achieved true success. This revival received glowing critical praise and played for a robust 925 performances. It would be nominated for five Tony Awards, and winning two, including Best Revival.

This brings us to a new play written about the prince of darkness by Stephen Dietz, who currently teaches at the University of Texas at Austin. The piece is now being produced at ICT Mainstage in Irving, and like all the aforementioned versions, this one too achieves mixed results.

Alas, the major imperfection of this version is Dietz's bloated script. The dialogue gets way too flowery and snooty for my tastes. There are endless monologues with so much grandstanding, but never really expressing raw, to-the-core honest emotions. The script is soaked in Shakespearean "wanna be" soliloquies dripping in flowery composition…and taking forever to make its point -- that is if they even do. It gets to the point where you want to scream from you seat, "Oh just say what you mean!"

Another problematic issue is the endless exposition. Dietz has written exposition that goes on forever, or as the Count says "oceans of time". An example of this is in the second act when the characters have to tell us all about the obstacles they had to overcome to make it to Dracula's castle. Jeez, just tell us "It wasn't easy, but we got there" and move on. All of this nonsensical exposition is such a glaring problem that you do feel like a vampire, in that you shield your eyes from its blinding, eye sore dialogue.

There is also the issue of Dietz going all over the place with scenes popping back and forth, all over London and Transylvania that you beg for a mapquest just to figure out where in the hell you are in the play. Even in Frances Ford Coppola's film Dracula I was confused in its time structure. And this was with film editing on his side and I was still baffled on where we were time wise within its boundaries.

But where I think Dietz failed his work the most is the devoid of any real sensual romance. Remember, this is a blood thirsty creature that falls for a mortal and will do anything to have her. Then there is Lucy. Here Dietz no longer has several suitors fighting for her hand, instead he has one. Lucy tends to be the careless, free spirit that flirts constantly with all the men around her. But in Dietz's, he has her one suitor (Seward) bellowing constantly, but never truly expressing what he feels in his heart and pants. You want to really feel that heartache, lust, and passion they feel for each other. Same goes for Harker & Mina. You want to feel empathy for their battle with this unknown dark lord who is compromising their love with his evil lust. But there is not an ounce of that in Dietz's dialogue. And if it was, it must have been so over layered in exposition or artsy fartsy language that I didn't pick up on it.

I seriously believe that in the wrong hands this production would be unwatchable, but when you have Bruce R. Coleman at the helm, well that's a different story.

Coleman has racked up major overtime with this production by layering the piece with snazzy staging and blocking elements. He has constant flow, movement, and purpose within the direction and staging, with some unique additions. The pace though could use a little more kick though, especially within all that exposition. There are a couple of performances that skate very close to being a tiny bit hammy and over the top, but Coleman wisely reels them back.

I honesty do not know of any other director in the metroplex that directs as well designs his own sets and costumes, all with equal finesse. Coleman's vision of set and costume is dramatic and daring. The set is an ornate gothic piece of larger than life sea creatures of half man/half serpent that appear to swim up from the stage boards. Coleman has wisely designed two sliding platforms that aide so much in trying to make sense of Dietz's script of going all over the map

in his scenes. The middle has two heavily ornate doors that are beautifully crafted and designed. There are stairs all over the set, and to complete it all, a black chandelier that lights up and covered in chains.

The costumes go from Romanian warriors to elegant costumes of lace, satin, and silk, all in dark rich colors. But this is a Coleman show, so you know he will add his own personal touches, which is one of my favorite elements in a production that Coleman directs & designs. For "Van Helsing" he has him all in leather -- pants, vest, and boots. This just gives the character a whole new vibe. For "Seward" it is an elegant black, knee length coat that has gold ornamentation that looks exquisite on stage.

But I must admit, I don't know if I'm still on board with Dracula's costume. Instead of the tux and billowing cape, he is dressed in a long, black kimono with shimmering trim and huge sleeves. At times it made him look like he was about to break into "A Hundred Miracles" from Flower Drum Song in that costume. While I sincerely do understand on trying to steer away from the "We've all seen that before" format -- I honestly don't know if this costume really worked for me. Then again, that could be just me.

Sam Nance's lighting design is superb here as well. From the special moon gobo, to dripping the set in vibrant, dark, and lush colors aided so much in giving the production emotional weight. The production gets a terrific kick off with an energetic, bold, and exciting battle in Romania between various warriors. The fight choreography created by Oscar Steele is riveting and just gives the play the right amount of thrills and chills it requires. The choreography is pulled off with masculine authority by the company as well.

Another element that while I enjoyed thoroughly, I didn't exactly get the meaning, was the second opening dance piece. Here Coleman & choreographer Sergio Garcia created a dance piece involving Seward, Lucy, Renfield, and Harker, but no Dracula or Mina. Thus I really didn't understand what it was supposed to symbolize since the main character was not even involved in the dance piece. But I did think it was choreographed beautifully and danced with elegance and class by the company.

The cast for the most part did quite an admirable job in trying to bring emotion and strength to Dietz's haphazard play. However there were some British dialects that did disappear here and there. Nonetheless, there were a few performances that stood out in my mind.

As "Van Hesling", Greg Jackson brought to the table a strong & highly entertaining performance as the doctor who knows how to get rid of Dracula. The actor's dialect never once disappeared from his characterization. Usually this role is played by a much older, heavyset actor -- not here. With flowing blonde hair, goatee, eye liner, and a costume of leather, the role had a whole rock star homage to it that gave the character much more command on the stage. Jackson provided the role with a muscular, vivid character arc that he successfully achieved. Jackson was really terrific in the production.

Nikolai David Kiselov had the most difficult role, which of course is "Dracula". It is almost impossible not to escape the trappings of falling into the patterns of past actors in that role: Gary Oldman, Christopher Lee, & Bela Lugosi. And there are moments when Kiselov does hit those vocal inflections and acting patterns as those men, but Kiselov still does achieve in creating his own portrayal of the Prince of Darkness. A young, handsome actor who commands the stage superbly, he glides across the stage with whispering effect. His best acting scene is when he transforms himself as the very old Dracula, complete with his body all disfigured and twisted; it's a marvelous transformation to observe. It's a tough challenge for any actor to overcome the kitschy, pop culture homage and images of past Draculas, but for the most part Kiselov rises to the challenge. He's an actor to watch for in future productions around the metroplex.

As "Dr. Seward", Shane Hamlin at first was a bit wooden and seemed not to connect with the subtext or his characterization arc, but midway Act One he did and in return provided a very satisfying performance. I think once he truly digs deeper into the subtext (he needs to find his own as Dietz obviously provided none for him to find), the performance can become richer and fuller. Regardless, Hamlin shines in the piece as well.

Julie Reinagel hits all the right marks as the flirtatious "Lucy". With a gorgeous mane of blonde hair, she gives the right amount of school girl exuberance the role requires. But the actress truly earns her acting gold stars when she must dive into the darker portions of her characterization when she transforms into a vampire herself. She is the only one on stage who truly "gets" the eroticism of the play, using her body and voice to bring out the sensuality and hypnotic stage that Dracula causes her to be. She is fascinating on stage.

For me personally, it is actors who take huge, artistic risks in the craft of acting that earn my deepest respect. Even if they fail, they had the guts to take that challenge. To play the same type of role over and over again never shows growth within an actor. It shows no artistic risk. No challenge. So when I see a thespian do that, attention must be paid. That can be said of John de los Santos.

This pretty boy actor is primarily cast around town as a principal or featured dancer, and at other times as the hot boy. He has done some outstanding work in several gay themed plays as well, such as Mambo Italiano and Valhalla. But for this production, he has taken a huge artistic risk in tackling "Renfield", the lunatic whose diet consists of insects.

Normally the role is played by a character actor who tends to sound like Dwight Frye in the original 1931 film. You know the one with that odd laugh and all those "yes master" lines. Not de los Santos. The actor almost creates an operatic, larger than life characterization that segues from quiet remorse to shrieking hysterics. The actor literally attaches himself to Renfeld's horrific, demented mind & skin as he sits in the asylum, which results in a bone chilling performance.

Watch his body and emotions explode when he discovers that he was just a toy for Dracula's needs and then simply discarded. De Los Santos uses his handsome face and eyes to disappear completely and literally transform into a grotesque gargoyle. Sure, there were moments when the performance did hit a few over the top moments, but that was rare within his performance. But for Mr. De Los Santos to tackle such a totally different role than what he has ever done before, well that shows a true actor who will take the challenge-and the end result is that he succeeds superbly here.

Rounding the company in delivering audience pleasing roles include William Lanier as "Harker" and Esther Selgrath as "Mina". A round of applause must also go the hard working mini-ensemble that work their butts off throughout the evening: Daniel McCalip, Heather Sims, Katy Smith, Andrew Worley, and Raven Garcia (no relation to the editor).

I must also compliment the ending as well. The idea of costuming the ensemble and Renfield in today's clothing gave the piece a really terrific button -- like it was a full circle of time we traveled. Another fantastic idea from the mind of La Coleman!

Like a flying bat in the cold, eerie night, Dietz's script went all over the place, and only on rare occasion did it land on solid ground. I was however thoroughly impressed with the direction, production design, and performances.

Kudos as well for ICT Mainstage for not succumbing to another paint by numbers Dracula production we've all seen a thousand times. Instead they opted to produce and create a totally fresh new approach to the well known legend-that for the most part paid off handsomely here.

DRACULA plays through November 17th in the Dupree Theater at the Irving Arts Center. Make reservations online or by calling 972-252 2787.

GRADE: B+

• Staff
• Verified User
• Anonymous