1 Comment
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tom Donoghue/DonoghuePhotography.com
LaRaf’s Triumph at Las Vegas Hilton.
Published Monday, Feb. 28, 2011 | 2:58 p.m.
Updated Monday, Feb. 28, 2011 | 2:58 p.m.
The buzz around town about "Triumph ..." at Las Vegas Hilton was consistent and uniformed: "See it before it closes."
So it is that the multimedia entertainment event that opened in December at the Hilton has closed, it was announced this afternoon. This, less than a week after a hastily announced media preview night.
The show was a pie-in-the-sky effort from the illusionist team of Larry Fischer and Rafael Palacious, known as "LaRaf," who brought a happy blend of music, illusion and dance to the Hilton stage. But that blend came at a price, and one of the more elaborate set pieces was too expensive to put into the show.
The production also raced through (by my count) three different publicists, and its relationship with Emmy Award-winning set designer Andy Walmsley fell apart during rehearsals. Entertainers in town who did see the show giggled at what was set loose onstage, promising it would not last through the spring.
Even amid the disassembled production, there seems hope "Triumph ..." will reappear, somewhere. A news release issued today reads, "the creators of 'Triumph' look forward to the next venue in which they can showcase this magical production and sincerely thank the Las Vegas Hilton for the opportunity to premiere the show."
"Triumph ..." was intended to introduce Steampunk to Vegas audiences. This is an antiquated effect where images of steam power are applied, Victorian-style, amid dancing and traditional illusions.
But in the end, the greatest illusion was the show itself. In this time when even great shows are challenged to fill theaters, "Triumph ..." had not nearly enough steam.
Follow John Katsilometes on Twitter at twitter.com/JohnnyKats. Also, follow Kats With the Dish at twitter.com/KatsWithTheDish.
I respect the opinions of reviews like the one here from "the Kats Report"; however, it is strictly an opinion. I have seen the show Triumph and didn't see the same show Mr. Katsilometes saw. I disagree with the "pie in the sky" analogy. What reviewers like Mr. "Kats" fails to realize or mention is all shows go through a "preview" process. During this time shows try a multitude of ideas and options in an attempt to discover the best performance options possible. This process can appear disoriented and sloppy at times. It takes time, input from the consumer, constructive and objective self evaluation, and most importantly money to create a successful and entertaining show. Many changes of personnel, stage settings, lighting, etc. will take place during the review time and seldom does a show take its final appearance until months after starting the initial review performance. One of the most popular Broadway shows ever, Wicked, opened to previews in San Francisco to horrible reviews condemning the show for its story line and performance rating. However, the show had the full support of NBC/Universal and weathered this storm to become the huge international success it is today. This example is not intended to place "Triumph" in the same caliber as "Wicked"; however, it does define a common denominator, a "quick to judge" review. The show opened in November and was completing multiple ongoing changes in script and staging. This time is an evolution for any show and unfortunately in this economy, this particular show suffered the inability to obtain sufficient house receipts to keep open. The unfortunate media backlash in my opinion is uneducated and unfounded. The choreography and direction by Mr. Chet Walker was professionally done and the very talented dancers performed this choreography to perfection. The illusions by Larry and Rafael had progressed and were continuing to improve. The storyline was beginning to take shape and was closing in on its identity. The production simply ran out of its current resources to complete its journey. Cirque and other well funded/supported productions (like Wicked) have the resources to go through this process. Even if they are scrutinized they have the monetary support to withstand it. Smaller productions like Triumph are not provided the same opportunity. There was room for improvement all around in this show to be sure; however, no one should expect anything less (or more if you will) while ANY show is in preview. It is extremely unfortunate that the media would choose to lash out about something that they may not have a true understanding of. The "greatest illusion" of this article is Mr. Kats perception of what it takes to make a show successful and his obvious lack of knowledge about the "review" process. I fully expect the show to "reappear" and continue to develop in magnitude and quality in spite of the negative media it received in this or other misinformed articles.