Peer Gynt @ CSC

[wolfwriter2]

Posted: 5/13/16 at 1:50am

Saw Ibsen's poetic epic tonight and I have no idea what to make of this mess. I was only moderately familiar with the story, but if you go in cold, I think you will be one of the numerous people I saw sleeping soundly (or reading the playbill, like the gentleman next to me).

This is a 5-act play, presented in the round and adapted by John Doyle who has made it confusing and difficult to follow. As we follow the travails of Peer Gynt, some real, some imagined and some internal, this adaptation makes much of the story convoluted and there are some references to events, late in the play, that I actually had to look up when I got home.

The first hour was painful, but the second hour made the first a bit more clear and understandable. I didn't care for it, but it was better.

The cast sometimes seems as though they are acting in different plays and sometimes it seems they are trying hard just to get through it. Gabriel Ebert as Peer Gynt deserves kudos, just for learning and remember so many lines, with no flubs. He looks good, too, for those that care, in his "period" Calvin Klein boxer briefs. Dylan Baker, whom I admire a lot, is sort of wasted, but I think I would like to see Becky Ann Baker as Violet Weston, in the revival of August: Osage County. Her Southern accent was glaringly out of place, but I think she's very talented. Everyone else was adequate, but struggling to find their characters. 

The lighting was distracting and made little sense when house lights would come up at random times, I guess, to illuminate some point, but it was just odd. The costumes were all over the place and evoked no specific period or time, save the Calvin's. This is the ultimate in minimalism with only a few props and no set.

I place much, if not all the blame for this mess on John Doyle. Directing your own adaptation, is akin to a playwright directing their own work, but it allowed him to incorporate actors playing instruments, so there is that.

I didn't totally hate it, but I felt every minute of the intermissionless two hours and wouldn't want to sit through it again.

Updated On: 5/13/16 at 01:50 AM

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 5/13/16 at 6:45am

Uh oh. I'm seeing this in a month; hopefully they make a lot of changes before then. 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/13/16 at 1:33pm

Who is the guy in the poster? Cause that's an awesome pic.

[LightsOut90]

Posted: 5/13/16 at 1:40pm

hows Quincy Tyler Bernstein, she would be the only thing to get me through the door on this but if shes only in like 2 scenes ill take a HARD pass on this

[wolfwriter2]

Posted: 5/13/16 at 4:06pm

#1Elphie, I believe they've only had a few previews, at this point, so in a month, things might change, but that would be up to John Doyle to fix, from an adaptation and directing standpoint.

I have no idea who is in the artwork. It isn't Mr. Ebert. Despite his nice, trim physique, he doesn't look like that. It's not anyone in the show (although that might have helped :)

As for Ms. Bernstein, LightsOut90, she is as enigmatic as she should be, for the part, and, like all the characters, she is on-stage for practically the entire performance. She may be the one character who never actually leaves. The closing scene, between her character, Solveig and Peer, is quite touching. However, much of her part requires her to sing/chant and be mysterious without saying a lot. If you're looking for her to act up a storm in a more standard performance, you probably want to wait for her next role.

I couldn't help but think that this was Peer Gynt by way of LaMaMa. It has an avant garde feel to it that, I think, does it a disservice and makes it far too heavy-handed to be successful. They have a very talented cast, so, hopefully, they can pull it together by opening.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 5/13/16 at 5:18pm

 I directed a production of this play many years ago and found it to be quite problematic. First off the translations that I was looking at what pretty bad and the whole concept of the play doesn't present itself well to American audiences.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 5/16/16 at 3:02pm

I'm debating between seeing this in previews or waiting until they've sorted it out. How many of the actors play instruments? I think George Abud plays the violin, right?

[JBroadway]

Posted: 5/16/16 at 3:06pm

wolfwriter2 says "John Doyle who has made it confusing and difficult to follow."

 

That's John Doyle's incredible talent. I don't know how exactly he does it. Every production of his I've seen to date (which is only 3, to be honest), has had a very specific sort of confusing bleariness that makes me feel like I'm some kind of bizarre trance -- and not in a good way. 

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 5/16/16 at 3:26pm

^ Then please march yourself up to the revival of THE COLOR PURPLE at the Bernie Jacobs as soon as you can. No production of this show has had more crystalline, precisely drawn direction than this revival. It will change your mind about the Doyle touch.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 5/16/16 at 3:28pm

Someone in a Tree2 said: "^ Then please march yourself up to the revival of THE COLOR PURPLE at the Bernie Jacobs as soon as you can. No production of this show has had more crystalline, precisely drawn direction than this revival. It will change your mind about the Doyle touch."

 

Nope. The Color Purple is one of the shows I was talking about. 

 

[Sauja]

Posted: 5/16/16 at 3:37pm

I have to heartily disagree with you on Color Purple, JBroadway. I know many didn't like his Sweeney Todd, but I found it incredibly affecting and effective. His Company had diminishing results for me. The Visit and Passion were when his work became fully bleak. And while many do love his version of The Color Purple, I found it sapped the life out of the piece--there was no sense of time passing, no emotional connection to the material, and as impressive as the cast (mostly) is, they couldn't bring life to a production that basically has them walking in circles and folding sheets for the duration of the show. Having caught it the day after the Tony nominations, I was astonished by how much I truly disliked it. The novel is a stunner, but this production just has no color.

 

So after years of feeling diminishing returns each time I saw another production that he helmed, I think it's finally time for me to just back away. I love Ibsen. I love Ebert, Baker, and Bernstein. But I can't sit through another muddled John Doyle show. Or, for that matter, another muddled CSC show. Come to think of it--it makes a lot of sense that he's taking that theater over. I'm not optimistic that it will do much for me as an audience member.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 5/16/16 at 3:44pm

Sauja said: "I have to heartily disagree with you on Color Purple, JBroadway."

 

Did you mean to say that you AGREE with me? Or am I completely misunderstanding the point of your post? 

In any case, I realize I am in the minority when it comes to The Color Purple, and I certainly do have respect the for the larger choices Doyle made. There's just something about his style of directing that makes it difficult for me to latch on. 

[Sauja]

Posted: 5/16/16 at 4:59pm

Woops! I did completely agree with you, JBroadway. It was SomeoneInATree2 that I was disagreeing with. I am, it would seem, a dumdum. But glad I'm not the only one left cold by this Color Purple!

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/16/16 at 5:02pm

I have to agree JBroadway. While I really enjoyed the performances in Color Purple, and I do enjoy a minimalist approach, I just don't think it quite works for a big Broadway musical. Sweeney worked for me because it's a creepy show, and I really liked the styling of it. But Color Purple is fully dramatic and there didn't seem to be a lot of emphasis on the story telling. I had no clue time had passed until the last like 2 minutes. And The Visit was so stagnant. 

[PJPan]

Posted: 5/16/16 at 5:17pm

I wanted to like this, I really did. But good lord, what a boring slog this was to get through. I saw an amazing college production in 2004 that enraptured, engaged, and amazed me with Ibsen's language and colorful, fun, engaging, and introspective performances.

There was so little energy or fun on the stage. Gabe Ebert did his best, and there were sparks of joy from Becky Ann and Dylan Baker, but minimalism does not suit this show at all. This was a bit of a failure of imagination on Doyle's part.

[wolfwriter2]

Posted: 5/16/16 at 6:10pm

VintageSnarker said: "I'm debating between seeing this in previews or waiting until they've sorted it out. How many of the actors play instruments? I think George Abud plays the violin, right?

 

Two violins are played. The other by Jane Pfitsch.

I agree that minimalism does not suit the show and is rather alienating. But, one never knows how things can evolve, so maybe check in, with it a bit later, when they've had time to work on it.

 

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 5/29/16 at 12:04pm

Any updates? Has anyone seen this play recently?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/29/16 at 1:16pm

I can't think of a show with as little going for it. If I were on CSC's board, I'd be second guessing the choice of a new artistic director. This is his first gig there that's within CSC's wheelhouse and it is inept. (And unlike some, I like Doyle, and I like some of the actors.)

[Pippin]

Posted: 5/29/16 at 1:28pm

Saw this last night (May 2. While it seems though it has been improved from the first previews, It is still very convoluted. I know Doyle's thing is minimalism, but sometimes too much of a good thing, you know? There were a few people sleeping in the front rows, and I felt bad for the actors, who I agree are all doing a wonderfully admirable job trying to make sense of what they've been given, but it looks as though some are acting in a different play, and a few are "all at sea" alltogether.

I'm also a "hot and cold" Doyle guy. Sometimes, I think when all of the right starts align for him, he creates such affecting theatre, but this is one of my "cold" moments. Given the stage, which is basically a rectangular platform, and the style of minimalism he was going for, all I could think of was that he was trying to pull his own "View From the Bridge" reimagining, and all I was wishing for was that Ivo Von Hove was directing this. 

[Dollypop]

Posted: 5/29/16 at 9:39pm

I actually directed a production of this many years ago. It was very dull.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 5/30/16 at 11:10am

Ibsen was very clear that the play was not meant to be performed, and having appeared in it myself, it's clear why.

[roger42]

Posted: 5/30/16 at 12:52pm

Peer Gynt may well be a play that defies productio at least in the minimalist fashion, but on Saturday afternoon Gabriel Ebert was really clicking in the role. There was one early walkout from the front row, but otherwise I didn't detect a bored vibe, most seemed absorbed in Ebert's remarkable performance.

Updated On: 5/30/16 at 12:52 PM

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 6/4/16 at 8:52pm

Does anyone know the current running time? 

[Emmaloucbway]

Posted: 6/4/16 at 10:02pm

It's about two hours with no intermission.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 12:54am

This is one of those times, I'm glad I ignored the board and saw a show anyway. Maybe I'd feel differently if I knew the source material but I really enjoyed what they presented. It was funny. The acting was engaging. And I felt like it touched on the themes it was concerned with relatively well while sidestepping what felt like unsavory elements in the original. Perfect? No. Entertaining and worth seeing? Absolutely. I've seen countless off-Broadway plays that were much worse than this, including CSC's own Mother Courage.