THE PLOT LINE
A musical based on the 1886 novella “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” the show follows the classic tale of split personalities embodied in the main character, Dr. Jekyll. Fueled by angst over his father’s mental illness, Dr. Jekyll is driven to perfect a formula to separate the good and evil components of human nature. Unable to find a suitable subject or adequate funding, he feels compelled to use himself as a guinea pig. His research spins erratically out of control when his experiments result in the manifestation of his evil alter ego, which he refers to as Edward Hyde. Hyde goes on a killing spree throughout the streets of London, laying waste to lives without a thought of remorse. His obsession with his work drives away his friends and loved ones and culminates in his ill-fated end.
HOW DID IT PLAY OUT?
I could have done without the first four scenes entirely. Outside of providing a little background information, the beginning of the first act played out like any other campy musical. If you truly enjoy musicals, though, you would probably like it.
Once they brought in the hookers, things got interesting. The music went from cheesy to bawdy and the dark undertones of the play begin to peak through. By the second act, the villainous Hyde was on a rampage, taking over the kind-hearted intentions of Dr. Jekyll. Although the second act was definitely darker and less conventional, the score for the first scene was so mind-numbingly redundant it was as enjoyable as having your prostrate examined. The ending, although incredibly melodramatic, was quite believable (unlike the rest of the story).
HOW WERE THE PERFORMANCES?
The main players were Henry Jekyll (portrayed by actor Cody Gay), his fiance Emma Carew (Christina D’Orta), her father, Sir Danvers Carew (Walter Hook) and Lucy Harris (Kelly Jeanne Grant).
Grant truly stole the show with her touching characterization of a prostitute who secretly longs for love. Her sincere performance upstaged the rest of the cast. Gay, the leading man, gave a convincing performance as a misguided scientist but you can only do so much with a script of this caliber. Little change was discernible in the stark dichotomies of his opposing characters wrestling for control, except for his dress and demeanor. The scenes between Gay and Grant were the most absorbing in the show. The two had great chemistry together, overshadowing the interactions between many of the other thespians. D’Orta played the innocent and slightly clever betrothed of Jekyll quite convincingly, but her saccharine sweetness became tiresome. Hook’s character was equally convincing as a man torn between his loyalty to his future son-in-law and his ties to the medical community, which Jekyll stubbornly struggles to communicate his unorthodox methods to. The rest of the 24-member cast received so little dialogue that it’s difficult to form a solid opinion on their impact.
THE TECHNICALITIES
Because of space constraints in the theater, the walls, ceiling and, of course, the stage were all garbed in period piece ornamentation. Despite other performances I have witnessed at the venue, the lighting was not focused correctly, casting shadows over many of the players. If a dark, foreboding look to add creepy undertones was the intent, they missed the mark here. However, the costuming was very true to character for the entire cast.
HOW LONG IS IT PLAYING?
The show runs at Alhambra Dinner Theatre until March 30.
WHAT WILL IT COST YOU?
Tickets range from $35-46. Call the box office at 641-1212 or log onto www.alhambradinnertheatre.com for details.
WORD OF WARNING
If you’ve ever been to the theater before, you know to be careful of the buffet. Stick with sure-fire entrees like pasta or even chicken.
THE VERDICT
If you enjoy musicals in their pure form, you would probably have a good time at this production. The singing was really incredible, the entire cast included, even though the numbers did seem longer than they really need to be. The songs themselves were a bit inane, save a few real toe-tapping ensemble pieces. The writers tried hard to make this a deep philosophy look at the intricacies of the human mind, but failed miserably. I rate the production at two gavels out of five.
— by Monica Chamness