THE GLASS MENAGERIE Previews (2017 Revival)- Page 4

[bunnie3]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 1:29pm

If you 're coming to the show tonite, and sitting in the mezzanine, say hello!  I 'll be on aisle 2.  Would like to meet a few of you guys.

Updated On: 2/8/17 at 01:29 PM

[LxGstv]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 1:54pm

Stopped by the box office at around noon and got first row on the left side, BB 1 and 3... are those good seats?! I'm really looking forward to it!

[little_sally]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 2:22pm

Is this running without an intermission?

[bunnie3]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 3:16pm

Yes, and yes.

[AC126748]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 5:23pm

Bunnie, I will be in row B of the mezz tonight

[LimelightMike]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 7:49pm

Please report back re: thoughts on the show and the view from the mezzanine! Enjoy!

[Juggalo12]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 7:50pm

I saw the first night of previews. There are simply no changes they will ever be able to make to prevent numerous bad reviews. They ruined the play. I sat 6th row center. The ways in which this production fails are abundant. I was a great admirer of the Tiffany production, which captured ALL of the emotion and meaning. The actors of that version did it complete justice in my opinion. However, this production is not Williams. I don't know what it is. The fact that Laura is in a wheelchair with a highly "noticeable" handicap is unacceptable to me, because the script indicates many times --in dialogue and description-- that Laura's abnormality is "hardly noticeable." If Tennessee Williams saw his iconic creation in a wheelchair, with a significant physical disability, such as that which the actual lovely actress is challenged with, he would be dismayed. It changed so much about the play. It is simply a WRONG decision. No offense to the actress, of course, who is to be commended for an extraordinary achievement. But this was a bad directorial choice. It goes against the script in every way. Read the play, along with TW's character description. 

The role of Tom should not be played by someone who looks the same age as Field, who looks remarkably young for her age. Joe Mantello is too old for the part. That is not debatable. Also, it took about a full hour before he began attempting to project his voice. NONE of the actors could be heard well, except Whitlock. And I was in the 6th row. I will guess that the barren stage was the culprit. The sound went up, rather than out. I can't imagine anyone in the back rows hearing or seeing anything, especially the poorly lit floor scene with Jim and Laura. 

The lighting was just awful for the most part. Ugliest and most annoying lighting of any play I've ever seen, especially in the final scene, when a whole row of overhead stage lights were suddenly switched on at the commencement of Tom's final speech. (???)  Although I did appreciate the extra lighting provided by the pub sign midway through the floor scene. 

Also disappointing was the way all actors seemed to be lackluster. They all get completely swallowed up by the big black empty huge stage. 

Everything the Tiffany production glowed with is now absent. (Not that anyone needs to compare.) It should be interesting to see what the critics say, because all of them loved that amazing production, which was so true to the playwright.

I had almost ZERO emotional response to the Laura/Jim scene, which should be devastating beyond words. But it wasn't. Both Field and the Laura actress didn't show much devastation, which is what Cherry Jones had in abundance. Probably a director's choice.

And the way the actors enter seemed pretentious. And the entrance applause for Field was just embarrassing. It was very cleverly staged to AVOID such applause, but the idiots did it anyway. Audiences really need to stop this. It was horrifically jarring. Here she was already obviously in the house, standing at audience level up front, but it was not until she crawled up on stage with Laura's wheelchair, not even showing her face, that the audience destroyed the moment with applause. I am certain some critic will mention this shameful moment. 

Overall, Sally Field would be good enough reason to see this, because she has done the role recently in DC, and she knows it well, and she's wonderful to behold in the role. But you had better be in the front row, because you won't see or hear anything in this distant vacuum of a stage. 

This is just another pretentious uninspired production of a masterpiece, threatening to derail the author's intentions every step of the journey. I thought it was a thoughtless mess throughout, all the fault of the director no doubt. If you love it, great. And I hope it succeeds well enough because Sally Field must be the kindest person in the world, judging from the way I saw her greeting and signing. She was the nicest person I have ever seen at a stagedoor. Words can't even describe it. Go see the play just for that. 

I will never see another play directed by this director again. Ever. And if anyone wonders what I thought of A View From the Bridge, I thought it was excellent. This TGM is nowhere near that, despite the obvious attempts of this director to copy the general concept. And btw, the no intermission choice here served no purpose whatsoever, except to prolong the whole mess without pause. It is a direct copy of Van Hove's work. No reason for it, other than to imitate and hope the idea contributes to undeserved acclaim. 

Updated On: 2/8/17 at 07:50 PM

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 8:26pm

I thought the absence of an intermission (and I must admit, the play has to be tedious with an intermission - I can't imagine a three hour production of a play half as long as Streetcar, which can easily be done in 2 forty five to three hours) was to make the changes in the staging more shocking and the highten their effect. I can't imagine the shocking change from abstract set to a more "realistic" setting and the special effects (which I won't spoil here) would be as affecting with an intermission. While the play is written in two parts ("Preparations For a Gentlemen Caller" and "The Gentlemen Calls", this is rather unclear in the published script, which just has the seven scenes in succession. And in the playbill for the original production, there is no note that there will be an intermission, while in the original "Streetcar" playbill, it says there will be 2 ten minute intermissions, so this leads me to believe it may have been done without one in 1945.

[broadwayjim42]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 10:15pm

Aw nuts. I was scared away from "The Cherry Orchard" due to bad early word of mouth and now it looks like the same is happening with this. I get to NYC twice a year and need to choose judiciously. Guess I should just let my fond memories of the Jones/Quinto/Kennan-Bolger/Smith revival hold firm and skip this. Will be checking in to see what others think before taking it off my list.

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 10:33pm

dianamorales said: "I NEED A DISCOUNT

 

"

There are... so many discounts for this out there... 

[LxGstv]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 11:32pm

broadwayjim42 said: "Aw nuts. I was scared away from "The Cherry Orchard" due to bad early word of mouth and now it looks like the same is happening with this. I get to NYC twice a year and need to choose judiciously. Guess I should just let my fond memories of the Jones/Quinto/Kennan-Bolger/Smith revival hold firm and skip this. Will be checking in to see what others think before taking it off my list.

 

"

I too was a bit thrown off by some of the negative reviews posted here, but in the end I saw more positive comments than negative so I decided to rush it despite already having tickets. (Some of the positive comments were really good, so thanks everyone!)

I'm not gonna get into details but I'm so happy I got to experience this and I can't wait to see it again, I was a bit thrown off by the staging too, but like it was said in this thread before, it all makes sense. And it certainly did, I was just amazed.

It certainly helped that rush tickets were $30 and the seats were fantastic, having Sally Field perform inches away was just indescribable, I couldn't stop smiling!

[VotePeron]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 11:47pm

UGH.

Been looking forward to this for months, only to have it be one of the most underwhelming and disappointing evenings I've had at the theatre in a long time. I'm a huge fan of the text, Sam Gold, and the company. But this show was so strangely put together, that while I was indeed intrigued, the pay off fell completely flat. 

There are times when concept ascends execution, and what ensues is an evening of pure theatrical bliss. This was the exact opposite. I was so distracted by trying to figure out what the hell was going on in Sam Gold's mind, it completely deterred from the piece. I think the performances suffered from this, too. 

To all those that keep unjustly comparing it to last season's "A View From The Bridge," Ivo Van Hove's goal was to strip away the production of anything "fake" (His words). Gold's minimalist and torn down version of the play simply doesn't work in this setting. I was miserable in the mezzanine - I felt completely disconnected from the action. Perhaps in the orchestra, let alone the front row, you will feel more in tune with the story. But I was never immersed. The actors are not projecting, except for Finn. The lack of scene changes made no sense and were very disorienting, but not in any way that enhanced the play. The lighting was thoughtful, but frustrating when implemented. 

Like others have said, the show's tone and execution completely shifts for "Act 2." I think I would've enjoyed it more if I had felt there was any palpable connection between Finn or Madison. Sally Field is wonderful in the role, but I cannot BELIEVE how Gold has chosen to stage the final scene with her and Tom, leaving the best line of the show incomprehensible, screamed behind a brick wall.

All in all, it was an evening where the entire time I was 100% aware that I was watching an estranged version of The Glass Menagerie, featuring Sally, Joe, Madison, and Finn, that never elevated to anything more. 

 

[A Director]

Posted: 2/9/17 at 1:41am

Sally D. Plummer - Unless they were written as a long one act, plays were not performed without an intermission in 1945.

In the New Directions edition of The Glass Menagerie, this is the stage direction at the end of Scene 5.

[The sound of the violin rises and the stage dims out.] To me, this suggests the intermission came between Scene 5 and Scene 6.

The 1945 New York Times review states, it's play in two acts.

[A Director]

Posted: 2/9/17 at 1:42am

This production should come with live Footnotes.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/9/17 at 2:08am

The Tifanny production was incredible. I feel there was no need for this.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 2/9/17 at 2:42am

I have to agree, why bring a play that was on Broadway so recently? I won't see this play. But then again I HATED this play when I saw it with Cherry Jones and Zachary Quinto. I found it extremely boring and slow. One play I hope never to see again.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/9/17 at 3:44am

Oh goodie!  This one is apparently longer and slower, so don't go see it. 

[AC126748]

Posted: 2/9/17 at 8:37am

Oh, how I wanted to love this production. But it's an absolutely excruciating experience.

There seems to be a concept at work here, but no direction to speak of. We have four actors who appear to be in four different productions of The Glass Menagerie. Finn Wittrock is giving a very traditional performance of Jim, the kind you might expect to see in a straightforward revival. Joe Mantello's performance is reminiscent of the Stage Manager in David Cromer's Our Town--dry, sardonic, very removed. When he gets angry, he sounds like a whiny queen. It doesn't work at all for the character. Sally Field performs like she's been given absolutely no direction. And Madison Ferris--well, bless her heart. She gives the most one-note performance I've seen on a professional stage in quite some time.

The directorial choices either don't make sense, don't add anything to the experience, or are just plain infuriating. In particular,

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Amanda's dress, which looks like what a four-year-old girl would wear to Disney World. The dress is supposed to look faded and out of style, not cheap and ridiculous. We are supposed to empathize with Amanda, who is lost in the reverie of her youth, while recognizing that there is a ridiculous aspect to how she carries herself now. The dress in this production makes Amanda nothing more than an object of ridicule.

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Amanda's dress. In this production, she wears a dress that looks like what a four-year-old girl would wear to Disney World. The dress is supposed to look faded and out of style, not cheap and ridiculous. We are supposed to empathize with Amanda, who is lost in the reverie of her youth, while also recognizing that her behavior is slightly ridiculous. Here, Amanda becomes nothing but an object of ridicule.

Gold's dramaturgical vision robs the text of all its poetry and nuance. His Glass Menagerie is irrevocably broken.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 2/9/17 at 9:32am

I kept my fingers crossed that the John Tiffany Menagerie with Cherry Jones would get a worldwide cinema broadcast during its Edinburgh festival run; didn't happen.  Is that production now gone forever?  I thought I read that they were bringing it to the National Theatre where it has a more likely chance of a broadcast what with NT LIVE.

That version really was perfection and incredibly moving. 

[Auggie27]

Posted: 2/9/17 at 11:26am

The Tiffany was one of the great nights (or afternoons, for me) in the last 30 years.  The play was reminted without being "re-conceived." I could feel Williams's intentions very much honored, no matter how adjusted through directorial interpretation and (stark but elegant) design.  And it was emotionally wrenching. Having seen most of the major Amandas of the past 40 years, except for Stapleton's, I was besotted with the Jones take.  As a southerner, I felt she managed to get inside the woman in a very era and geography specific way that was innate, not applied like rouge.  I left that production feeling I didn't need to see the play again; that was such a complete experience.   I'll pass on this one, now without guilt.

[newintown]

Posted: 2/9/17 at 1:54pm

I've been mulling over the reports of a disabled Laura, and rather than find fault with that, why did they not also exaggerate other character traits from the script?

1) Tom is clearly supposed to be gay; frequent trips alone to the movies, and finding "companions," and all. Why isn't he portrayed with a lisp, floppy wrists, and a scarf? Several characters also call him a dreamer; isn't that code for a narcoleptic? Perhaps he should nod off frequently throughout the evening.

2) Laura refers to her nickname for Jim: "Freckles." Why not paint enormous Howdy-Doody-style red dots on his cheeks?

3) Why not paint Amanda's face green and put her in a large pointy black hat? Tom does call her a witch.

Gold clearly has trouble sticking to an approach.

Updated On: 2/9/17 at 01:54 PM

[LucyEth]

Posted: 2/9/17 at 2:35pm

SPOILERS

Add me to the list of the unimpressed.  While not a complete disaster, this production adds NOTHING to our understanding of the text in any way, shape or form.  It's bewildering to leave an audience sitting in silence for a full minute as Field and Mantello lift impaired actress Madison Ferris onto the stage.  Given that she turns out to be a not particularly skilled actress makes her casting more stunt than inspiration.  It's a choice that's heartbreakingly unfair to her and robs the audience of a fully realized interpretation of the role.  But then, bewilderingly, characterization doesn't seem to be what director Sam Gold is going for.  I agree with the earlier poster who observed that each cast member is giving us a completely different style of performance.  Wittrock's is the most traditional and successful approach -- not to take anything away from him, but Jim is a somewhat fool proof role -- Mantello is way too contemporary urban, Ferris's whiny Laura is pure high school drama class, and Field is...well, I'm not sure what she's doing.  Gold has stripped her of ANY Southern accent and mannerisms, so she's pretty much just being Sally Field up there.  Of course Sally Field is a superb actress, so she has many wonderful moments, but she hardly transforms herself into another person, least of all Amanda Wingfield.   But then, this is barely a production of "The Glass Menagerie" as written by Tennessee Williams.  It's pure imposed concept from beginning to end, and while I had flashes of thinking "Oh, that's interesting," for the most part I just sat there squirming, thinking "WTF?!"  Particularly during the play's final monologue, which is a disaster.  Had there been an intermission, I guarantee that half the audience -- obligatory standing ovation aside -- would have high-tailed it out of there.  And why is it so freaking hot in that theater?  Skip this.

Updated On: 2/9/17 at 02:35 PM

[Robbie2]

Posted: 2/9/17 at 4:03pm

little_sally said: "Is this running without an intermission?

DURATION 2hrs, 5mins 0 Intermissions

 

telechargeoffers.com

CODE: GMTC916

Balcony $39

 

[cknick]

Posted: 2/9/17 at 4:22pm

Can someone PM me details about the final monologue?  I'm curious as I won't get to see this. 

[bjh2114]

Posted: 2/9/17 at 11:27pm

I was there tonight, and I have to say that I loved it.  (And I'm in the camp who LOVED LOVED LOVED the John Tiffany production).  For me, the whole thing was a rousing success with one exception.  I thought that Finn Wittrock portrayed Jim completely wrong.  He was too smarmy and self-aware.  It felt like he was actively seducing Laura during the candlelight scene rather than him being seduced by her "uniqueness".  I would find it hard to top Brian J. Smith's portrayal from the last revival, but to me this didn't even come close.  I thought Joe was magnificent.  I honestly don't get much of the criticism I've seen about him here.  He had me in the palm of his hand from the very first line.  I thought Sally was great, and I enjoyed her take on Amanda as really needing the gentleman caller for herself more than for her daughter.  And is Madison Ferris the best actress ever?  No.  But I actually thought she did incredibly well considering that she doesn't have much control over her facial expressions.  I still felt pity for Laura, and it WASN'T because she was in a wheelchair.  I actually think this will get pretty good reviews from the critics.