First (Or is it second?) Death of a Salesman Preview

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 2/14/12 at 10:39pm

Was anyone there tonight? How was it? It is one of my favorite plays and I'm very excited. Can't wait to hear reports.

[Play Esq.]

Posted: 2/14/12 at 11:30pm

First word out?


Ouch! Updated On: 2/14/12 at 11:30 PM

[Smaxie]

Posted: 2/14/12 at 11:36pm

Twitter reports are very positive.

@Vanessa Jackman
Just saw a preview of Death of a Salesman on Broadway. The whole cast were brilliant but Philip Seymour Hoffman was breathtaking. Go see it!\Ulku Erucar

@UlkuErucar
Philip Seymour Hoffman is a genius! Loved Death of a Salesman. cc@prknyc

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 2/14/12 at 11:49pm

Wow... They're using the original Mielziner set? Interesting....

I hope to catch it this weekend if I can snag rush or TKTS...

[singer73192]

Posted: 2/14/12 at 11:51pm

I was there this evening. The production is strong overall! I do agree, however, that it still needs some work. It wanted to fly, but just never took off. I really enjoyed Andrew Garfield's performance along with Hoffman! It was hard to believe that it was his Broadway debut while watching his performance! I really do feel though that the potential is there, and by opening I can see this being a hit!

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 2/14/12 at 11:58pm

Thanks! Can you comment on the set?

[Smaxie]

Posted: 2/15/12 at 12:09am

Another opinion from ATC.
Attention Must Be Paid

[Buffyfan51]

Posted: 2/15/12 at 1:42am

I am hoping to go Saturday. If anyone goes between now and then and stage doors it please post your experience. Thanks.

[supersam1026]

Posted: 2/15/12 at 2:20am

Also, did anyone try or are you going to try rush? What time did you get there/ are thinking about getting there? I'm going on Saturday around 8:30 and hope to be OK!

[AC126748]

Posted: 2/15/12 at 9:27am

I saw the first preview last night. I'd agree more with the second ATC than the first, though I'd stop short of full-out raving over Hoffman or Garfield just yet. They're both good--great, even--and after a few more performances and a little extra rehearsal, they'll probably really be something to see. However, as of right now, both performances feel a bit incomplete. Not so for Emond, who's giving a ready-to-open, engrave-the-awards performance as Linda. I never thought anyone I'd see in the role could top my memories of Elizabeth Franz--Emond does and then some.

Hoffman wasn't shouting. He's the kind of actor people vehemently dislike, though, so I'm sure his detractors will find many ways to discredit his performance, whether justified or not.

The orchestra looked fairly full. Not sure about the mezz. I'm going back in a few weeks and looking forward to see how the performances progress.

Updated On: 2/15/12 at 09:27 AM

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 2/16/12 at 12:24am

Saw it tonight and couldn't disagree with you more, AC. I found this to be the most bizarrely miscast production of a play I've ever seen. Not only is everyone far too young (and frankly, I don't care that Lee J. Cobb was too young -- it's odd), but Biff and Happy should clearly switch roles. Biff looks like an emaciated twink compared to his buff, athletic brother.

I'll post more detailed thoughts tomorrow, but I think Nichols has A LOT of work ahead of him.

Hoffman isn't awful. He's almost good. But I thought his memories were lacking the charisma we should see shine through in those moments. His present, however, is mostly captivating.

Some bizarre choices from Nichols, like Biff standing aside, watching Willy's final scene with Ben. (Structurally, this doesn't make much sense.)

And Garfield's inability to cry real tears (and trying to compensate us with some Acting 101 vocal sobbing), along with the constant nervous shifting, the over-the-top Brooklyn boy make him look like a real amateur.

Happy and Linda are the stand-outs without a doubt. Though I did enjoy Bernard as well. Seeing the original set design is thrilling, especially when that first glorious light shift occurs and the stage is sprinkled in autumn. Beautiful.

Glover, who I normally love, seems a little lost, or out-of-place.

I hope it finds its footing. It's a beautiful play. But right now this is a terribly mediocre production. And with Dennehy still searing our minds, it will beg the question "Why did we need this now?" unless it improves.

[willep]

Posted: 2/16/12 at 12:31am

Holy crap, how did I not know John Glover was in this too!? Or did I just completely forget? Hmmm....either way, I was already interested in seeing this, but I just got even more interested. Have been wanting to see him onstage for a few years now, ever since I was introduced to his screen work.

[A Director]

Posted: 2/16/12 at 12:37am

I'm not sure I trust the opinion of someone who thought A Doll's Life was worthing reviving.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 2/16/12 at 12:48am

It was revived for 7 performances, off-off Broadway with a revised libretto. We are trying to re-visit a flop once a year, dust it off and take another look. We're not expecting it to have commercial life. I'm not that stupid. If you're going to insult me, at least have all of the facts. And to compare that to a commercial run on Broadway with Hollywood names is unfair

Back to SALESMAN.

Updated On: 2/16/12 at 12:48 AM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/16/12 at 7:37am

[retracted.] Updated On: 1/30/14 at 07:37 AM

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 2/16/12 at 7:44am

Thanks, Michael Bennett....

Please, let's get back to SALESMAN.

This morning, the same feelings stay with me. It is such a beautiful play and I guess what shines through most is that this play shouldn't need stars. A play like this should sell itself. But not only is Garfield miscast (a comment I heard e
all through intermission, but he is out of his league.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 2/16/12 at 7:45am

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 2/16/12 at 7:59am

I'm beside myself with excitement for this show, so I'm gobbling up all of these reports. Thanks, everyone, for reporting back as you're seeing previews.

theatertrash, if you feel Garfield was out of his league because he's giving a weak performance, that's certainly valid, but I'm more intrigued as to why you say he's miscast. Could you elaborate on that a bit? When his casting was announced, I remember thinking what a perfect fit he is for Biff.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 2/16/12 at 8:12am

He may have been fine had they chosen a different Happy. Physically, Biff looks all wrong next to him. Happy is chiseled, athletic, a beautiful guy, while his brother looks tiny. Never the one you'd known would be the star athlete.

On top of it all he and Happy are doing very heavy Brooklyn accents while their parents are not. I suppose an argument could be made that they grew up in Brooklyn, but it stands out and seems a bit over-the-top.

It's an oddball family. The ages are completely off. And no one seems to really match one another.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 2/16/12 at 8:13am

P.S. I, too, was very excited. I wasn't hearing enough from the boards, so I had to get there myself. Stat. I coughed up a Broadway Box code and price yesterday, even though I was going to wait for the weekend. I couldn't wait anymore, so I jumped.

It's still wonderful to see this play. I could see it a thousand times. But it's a fairly disappointing revival.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 2/16/12 at 8:51am

Hmm... well, two things to keep in mind -- and, as I've not seen the production and so can't speak to his interpretation of the role, I'm most interested in your issue with Garfield's physical self, which seems to be why you feel he's miscast --

Remember that quarterbacks and receivers are typically the most lithe members of any football squad, and, more importantly, that athletes of the 1940s were not the pumped-up, gym-chiseled athletes we see today. I'd say Andrew Garfield has the exact build of a high-school quarterback of that period

And secondly... is Biff really a star athlete, anyway? That's, of course, what he is to Willy, but as we know, Willy's grasp of reality and the way it interacts with and colors his memories is dangerously tenuous.

I think there was some discussion on this when the casting news broke a few months ago. It intrigues me.

And what seems off about their ages?

Updated On: 2/16/12 at 08:51 AM

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 2/16/12 at 9:07am

Hoffman looks about 45 and Linda says he's, what? 63? Happy looks older than Biff, and they book like they're in their mid-to-late 20's.

I think that Biff's athleticism is the only thing we can rely on as truth. None of the other characters deny it, though they deny Willy's other fabrications.

As I said, I don't think that his body type makes it impossible for him to play the part. But when you put him next to Finn Wittrock as Happy, who looks a great deal more athletic and older, it seems an odd casting choice. I don't think it's necessarily JUST Garfield who is miscast. I think that it relies a lot on who Biff is paired with. Another actor (though Finn truly is the best Loman, in my opinion) may have made Garfield seem more like a Biff.

I'm curious to hear what you think. I didn't go in expecting him to be bad. In fact, I expected him to be pretty serviceable. But with casting decisions and his inauthentic performance really changed that for me. There was a lot of "schmacting" going on whenever Garfield was onstage.

Side-note: They've got trap doors in the beds so that Happy and Biff can disappear when they go to sleep and return for the memory scenes without us seeing them exit/change/etc. It's a smart device and I didn't notice for a while. But at one point, I caught Happy disappear in mid-air out of the corner of my eye and spent the next 20 minutes returning to that spot to make sure my eyes hadn't fooled me.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/16/12 at 9:07am

One creative decision that has to be decided when casting any production of DEATH OF A SALESMAN is what age to cast the principals, since the play floats a 17 year time difference.

Most productions cast the leads on the older side, with I think the correct assumption that having actors that actually closer to 60 (Willy) and 35 (Biff) illustrate the tragic-pathetic loss of lives wasted to greater effect than when the roles are cast younger.

This production has gone in the opposite direction: Hoffman is 44. Garfield is (a very young looking) 28 and whether or not that was a good decision (beyond the obvious box office appeal of these actors) is I think is something that will probably be debated and mentioned in reviews.

Updated On: 2/16/12 at 09:07 AM

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 2/16/12 at 9:09am

I agree completely. The patheticness seems lost when they're so young, so the punch isn't quite so strong.

I should also say: in the simonizing and punching bag memory sequences, the costumes are not helping. They've got a horizontal striped, tight shirt on Happy, with his muscles bulging, looking like a fine piece of man. Next to his twinky brother in the oversized letter sweater....

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 2/16/12 at 9:22am

While I can't say that I'm on board with your reasoning, (or maybe I don't have a notion of what "a Biff" should be, nor do I think his athleticism [or possibile lack thereof] should necessarily be contextualized by how he looks next to Happy), the costume choice you describe above sounds too extreme not to be deliberate. That's not to imply that it's a choice that works. But perhaps these notions are being deliberately toyed with. It does make me wonder.'

Objectively speaking, I can't say I've got any problem with the ages at face value. But if it looks jarring, as you imply, or if some of the pathos suffers because of the choice to skew younger, that's a problem.

I'm unavoidably reminded of Hoffman's character's production of DEATH OF A SALESMAN in "Synecdoche, New York," where he uses actors in their 20s to play Willy and Linda. In rehearsal, he tells the actory playing Willy, who has just "ambivalently" wrecked the car -- "Try to keep in mind that a young person playing Willy Loman thinks he's only pretending to be at the end of a life full of despair, but the tragedy is that we know that you, the young actor, will end up in this very place of desolation."

el oh el

Updated On: 2/16/12 at 09:22 AM