PLENTY previews

[Relevance81491]

Posted: 10/5/16 at 12:48am

Please share your thoughts on the new production at The Public 

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/5/16 at 7:15am

Agreed.  The revival I'm most excited about (going in two weeks).  

[jonlow09]

Posted: 10/5/16 at 9:13pm

I was at the first preview last night. Pacing was a little slow, but I'm sure it'll tighten. The standby line was enormous. Weisz is luminous and is up to the task of carrying the entire show in this monster role.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/6/16 at 8:00am

Stoll?  Jennings (in a jewel of a role, Darwin)?  I think this productions appears exquisitely cast.  How are the designs?  It's epic, and the original staging had an almost operatic, elegant formality.  Any thoughts?

[dave1606]

Posted: 10/6/16 at 1:27pm

I saw this last night and sadly have to say I was quite disappointed. The best thing about it is Rachel Weiz. She has a beast of a character to play, and has been having such a year of wonderful performances (The Lobster, The Light Between Oceans are two that I loved).  It’s a meaty part and does a nice job with it.  

But sadly this play left me cold. I loved Skylight, and I think part of the fault is the production.

It’s a technically ambitious production which I was impressed by, but I think too much time is spent watching the sets take shape. It’s a turntable set with 3 movable walls that spin and do much more than I expected they would. There are neon lights lined in the walls that light up as they move which was interesting.  There's a lot of time spent in between scenes watching the set spin around and take shape.  Last night was very much a first preview with missed lighting cues and sound queues that occasionally came in and out of the show at the wrong moments.  I’m sure lots of this will be tightened as previews move along and actors will fall into their parts more, but I’m not sure I’ll ever really care for this production.

My real issue is that this epic journey that we follow this character on doesn’t quite seem worth it in the end. I never understood her motivation. Was she just genuinely crazy? Her decisions and behavior often never made sense. I like to think I have a good head around theater that I see, but I just couldn’t connect here. The supporting cast was fine though I found Corey Stoll a bit over the top. For me it was worth it to see Rachel Weiz (certainly much better here than in Betrayal), but it was quite a long evening.

[jayinchelsea]

Posted: 10/6/16 at 1:33pm

I love this play, paid Stubhub prices to get tickets, and think Ms. Weisz should be fantastic. Hope it will be in good shape by Sunday's matinee.

[nycgiraffe212]

Posted: 10/8/16 at 12:35am

DISCLAIMER: The Public Theatre mission statement says they "produce Shakespeare, the classics, musicals, contemporary and experimental pieces in equal measure." From the announcement, this felt like a Broadway production. Rachel Weisz is a star. Plenty debuted at The National Theatre. The American premiere was a transfer of that production at The Public, and then it went to Broadway. It was revived  at The Almedia with Cate Blanchett. Meryl made the movie. I don't know if anyone agrees, but it seems strange to me that after Fun Home and Hamilton, The Public would agree to such an obviously commercial production. Please tell me if I'm wrong. 

REVIEW: David Hare can be a great writer. I adored Skylight on Broadway (Not so much The Vertical Hour). He is famous in England for writing "State of The Nation Plays" at The National Theatre. That seems fair.

Plenty is such a British play. It takes place over a number of years and is about a woman, Susan, who served valiantly in WW2, but is disenchanted by the political fallout in England and ultimately goes mad. If this sounds like an interesting premise, I agree with you, but the play (or at least this production) is incredibly boring. Maybe if you are British and understand every reference and joke, you'd love it. But I can't think that an audience in 2016 will get such a 1978 ladened play. 

I'm sad to say this. I love Rachel Weisz. I didn't care for Betrayal on Broadway, but I thought she did a good job with a very slim part. I was excited to see her take on a starring role, especially after she won an Olivier for Streetcar at the Donmar. But oh no. She just disappeared into the bad production.

There are so many problems with the production.  As dave1606 said the set is a distraction, after every scene it took a good two minutes for those bright walls to swing around for us to see... another dull set. The play never built up any momentum because the scene transitions took so long. 

The lighting design keeps everything in shadow. Why was that girl naked in that one scene?

I heard a couple complaining behind me that they never knew what year it was. Another person at intermission criticised the costumes because they never revealed the time period.  As we walked out of the theatre people complained that they didn't understand where the first scene fit into the narrative.

Sadly, I agree with all of them. 

 

 

Updated On: 10/8/16 at 12:35 AM

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 10/8/16 at 8:44am

My goodness, The last thing I would ever describe this play as is COMMERCIAL. It is a wordy, very challenging, very British piece of theater. It would be an extremely limited audience for this on Broadway today. The Public Theater always does absolutely first rate productions when it comes to production value and casting.  That should not be confused for Broadway intentions-- this is exactly the kind of play a not-for-profit theater should be producing.

As for the play itself, I saw the original with Kate Nelligan and the  London revival with Cate Blanchett. Having grown up in Britain, I likely have a greater connection to the story and it's themes, but I agree the play itself is never as satisfying as I want it to be; and can rather leave the audience as exhausted as it central heroine by the end.  As I recall, the scene changes are long mostly because the playwright infuses them with patches of radio announcement. At any rate, that's not A pacing issue exclusive to this staging.

it has of course proven to be an excellent  showcase for the woman playing Catherine. Nelligan and Blanchet were both superb. Their performances were ultimately the reason to see the productions, as I'm sure Rachel Weisz is going to be the real reason to see this.

That said, I rather wish it had been the Donmar production of STREETCAR that had made an appearance in the states, because that was truly was Weisz in an exquisite performance that would've been more accessible for American audiences.

Updated On: 10/8/16 at 08:44 AM

[brian1973]

Posted: 10/9/16 at 4:48am

QueenAlice said: "My goodness, The last thing I would ever describe this play as is COMMERCIAL. It is a wordy, very challenging, very British piece of theater. It would be an extremely limited audience for this on Broadway today. The Public Theater always does absolutely first rate productions when it comes to production value and casting.  That should not be confused for Broadway intentions-- this is exactly the kind of play a not-for-profit theater should be producing.

As for the play itself, I saw the original with Kate Nelligan and the  London revival with Cate Blanchett. Having grown up in Britain, I likely have a greater connection to the story and it's themes, but I agree the play itself is never as satisfying as I want it to be; and can rather leave the audience as exhausted as it central heroine by the end.  As I recall, the scene changes are long mostly because the playwright infuses them with patches of radio announcement. At any rate, that's not A pacing issue exclusive to this staging.

it has of course proven to be an excellent  showcase for the woman playing Catherine. Nelligan and Blanchet were both superb. Their performances were ultimately the reason to see the productions, as I'm sure Rachel Weisz is going to be the real reason to see this.

That said, I rather wish it had been the Donmar production of STREETCAR that had made an appearance in the states, because that was truly was Weisz in an exquisite performance that would've been more accessible for American audiences.

 

"

Yes she was a remarkable Blanche DuBois.

The London revival of Plenty with Cate Blanchett was wonderful. She was senseational and the last scene change took my breath away. The late Maria Bjornson pulled off wonder after wonder with that design.

 

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/9/16 at 8:35pm

I'm 100% with Queen Alice here.  It's a gorgeous, challenging, at times difficult play.  But such a journey, and such powerful look at idealism, and the price paid for its loss. 

Susan Traherne is, admittedly, maddening to follow and parse emotionally. Her idealism is only briefly established in the second scene, the first flashback to the resistance in France, and yet the entire play is built on her inability to handle the consequences that ensue: the stark difference between the (fantasy?) England she envisions and the slow-to-revive-morally England she finds herself mired in. The play's brilliance -- the character's metaphor for England -- is also its trickiness. You can find Susan's eccentric personal decisions hard to relate to, and her selfish brutality toward those who care about her -- finally nailed in the penultimate scene with Brock -- is scary. But what a character nevertheless. The play just doesn't give us nooks and crannies to feel comfortable in. It's demanding. We have to stick with this woman's journey, even as it buoys through alternating bouts of white-knuckle survival and self-destruction. I love the play's gnarly indifference to traditional root-for traits. But at nearly three hours, it's not a play for everyone. 

Can't wait to see this production (10/21).

[Boston Friend]

Posted: 10/9/16 at 10:56pm

I saw Saturday evening (Oct performance.  Audience applause reaction was respectful but muted. 

[mariel9]

Posted: 10/10/16 at 4:23pm

Auggie27, I will be very curious to hear your thoughts on this production. The play you describe sounds wonderful, but I saw Plenty on Sunday and mostly found it tedious. I appreciate a play with a female protagonist who is complicated and selfish and difficult. But it just didn't work for me. I think the scene transitions were a big problem, but having never seen the play before I don't know if that's a fault of the production or the play. Just when I would start to get interested and invested, the stage would rotate and 2 minutes later I didn't know where or when we were. The scene where she's suddenly married and possibly crazy also felt like it came out of nowhere. It maybe just wasn't for me.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 10/11/16 at 9:50am

I saw it over the weekend as well, and wish that I had read it first. I found it hard to follow in terms of time period, and given her mental state, the reliability of Susan as the narrator was hard to decipher. Rachel Weisz was wonderful, but it was really a puzzling choice of play and production. Not up to the Public's usual standards, IMO.

The cast was excellent, particularly Stoll, Jennings & Bergl (as well as Ms Weisz). I have to agree that the design was confusing and distracting. Updated On: 10/11/16 at 09:50 AM

[LightsOut90]

Posted: 11/24/16 at 12:02am

i saw this last night and man what a mess, the first show in 6 years ive seen at The Public that i left at the intermission, it is MASSIVELY misdirected and laughably bad in spots (some of the actors were trying to hide that they were breaking in the last scene of Act 1), i feel bad for anyone suckered into this at full price, STAY AWAY