NETWORK Previews- Page 4

[JayElle]

Posted: 11/18/18 at 12:27pm

BroadwayConcierge wrote, "With the exception of Cranston’s thunderous “mad as hell” speech, there was no time when I felt enthralled to be part of a live theatergoing experience. I felt like I could get the gist of the show if they posted the live recordings on Netflix."

Bingo.

[JayElle]

Posted: 11/18/18 at 1:05pm

Stagedoor Sally wrote, "A group of us from onstage spoke afterwards, and unlike JayElle's experience, we all really enjoyed being up there."

I compared my experience on stage with that sitting in orchestra, E1 the week prior.  Had I not seen the show from that perspective, it would've been difficult to understand it just from the stage view. It likely depends on the stage location.  As I previously mentioned, this perspective meant watching the back of actors, spotlights in eyes, and sketchy audio.  

BillyElliottFan wrote that the "staging was sloppy and all over the place." Agree, especially true from the stage seat perspective. The folks around me were not happy. The stage concierge asked what we thought.  When we told him the cameras and stage lights impeded the view, he responded that most of the folks complained about that.

I compared this experience with the one I had at Great Comet stage seating which I did more than a dozen times. Sound, lighting, and visual disruption never occurred whether you sat in the bleacher-like seats or at a bistro table.  

As I also previously said, if you want the experience of being on stage talking w/actors, and the ambiance of it, go for it. But don't expect to see the show as you would from orchestra. 

And thank you CT2NYC for the commentary on Tatiana."The elegance and refinement of Faye Dunaway, and Michelle Dockery, for that matter, is not there."    I said the same thing about her haircut and clothing choices. She did not project the venomous snake personality hiding under the svelte, sexy, suave image that Dunaway did which would attract a "craggy middle-aged man."  But then, she's not Dunaway.

And one other minor item from the stage perspective, are all the costumes sewn so poorly for Bway productions other than for Cher Show?  All of the seams of the 1970s style wildly-patterned dress that she wore at the end were so mismatched I wondered if anyone w/dress making experience sewed it or if they just bought it off-the-rack at the Salvation Army. 

[MadsonMelo]

Posted: 11/18/18 at 2:03pm

Funny people are not liking Maslany or calling her miscast.

That’s was the exactly the same response that Michelle Dockery got from UK boards

[CT2NYC]

Posted: 11/18/18 at 2:17pm

MadsonMelo said: "Funny people are not liking Maslany or calling her miscast.

That’s was the exactly the same response that Michelle Dockery got from UK boards"

I'll usually give actors the benefit of the doubt, but I know Tatiana can do better with this role. Any of us who've seen her work on Orphan Black know that's she's capable of channeling "Diana." Hell, her portrayal of "Rachel Duncan" on that show is better than what she's doing in Network. Granted, "Rachel" is a completely different character from "Diana," but it shows that she can successfully play diabolical, manipulative, and amoral, as well as seductive. Even her appearance is more appropriate.



 

Updated On: 11/18/18 at 02:17 PM

[Stephen75]

Posted: 11/18/18 at 3:49pm

MadsonMelo said: "Funny people are not liking Maslany or calling her miscast.

That’s was the exactly the same response that Michelle Dockery got from UK boards"

 

I know I went into some great length of detail about Maslany earlier in the thread, but I'd like to repeat myself because I found myself really into her performance. There's many moments of hers I'm still thinking about a week later. 

It's not false that Maslany is not playing this role at all like Dunaway. The two cannot be anymore different, I think. I will be honest, I was a bit cool on Maslany in her earlier scenes. I did feel like she was just hitting one night, the right one, no doubt, but one note nonetheless. But something shifts with her performance, for me anyway, during the "I'm mad as hell" speech. It's the first time the camera is on her I think, and I really got to marvel at all of the acting she was doing way down below (I was in one of the final rows in balcony.) You could see her coming alive as Beale was falling apart. From then on, I was totally transfixed. The way she played the scene with Goldwyn (you know the one I'm talking about) was incredible to me, and deeply disturbing. Her Diana is not a svelt, witty, temptress type. She is rather an anxious, ferocious, almost distubed  and disconnected individual. I know I said this anecdote before, but I kept thinking about her age in relation to Goldwyn. She completely embodied to me what he says about her: "she's a product of the TV era, she grew up on Bugs Bunny" or something to that effect. While I know the show technically takes place in the 70's, she read to me as a Diana of the 21st century, a frazzled young girl who has seen the politicians and media figures of her day behave like lunatics, who has grown up in the era where violence is so common that she's become desensitized to it. Almost like one of those FOX News girls who have capitalized on the fractured political landscape of our time for fame and notoriety. It's a bold choice to make with the character, but to me, it ultimately pays off. 

I always feel like when it comes to an Ivo production, there's the performance that an actor would give in a show, and then there is the performance they would give in an Ivo von Hove production of a show. He's shows are so completely their own beast, and he is so disinterested in convention, that you have to rise to whatever specific themes or ideas he's trying to highlight. So maybe in a regular staging of the show, Maslany wouldn't work at all, but I think in this production, she is completely in tandem with what Ivo is trying to achieve, for better or worse. 

Sorry for writing an entire essay on Maslany's performance, I know some of you probably don't think it warrants it (which is completely ok to think.) But to me, she really got under my skin and made me very uncomfortable, in the best way. I do hope she finds some variation in her earlier scenes, and I look forward to returning to the production again to check. I also really enjoyed seeing her in Mary Page Marlowe this Summer, and I'm thrilled she's becoming a fixture on the NY theatre scene. 

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 11/18/18 at 5:45pm

Wow, CT, I would not have known that was the same actress!!!  Now THAT'S Diana!

[carolinaguy]

Posted: 11/18/18 at 9:54pm

I think the reason Maslany didn’t really work for me lies in the script. I’d have to go back to the movie for more specifics (I haven’t seen it in a while) but the Max/Diana relationship felt crucial to the humanity of the film. The humanity is dumped (I assume deliberately) in the play so the plot feels like a device. Goldwyn also didn’t work for me, possibly for the same reason. Every line of his just felt so damn declamatory.

[Glittergrrl]

Posted: 11/18/18 at 11:35pm

Quoted from JayElle..

The glaring spotlights blinded us at the tables and we could only see the backs of the actors 80% of the time. So we had to watch the screen. The actors carrying the mobile film cameras also blocked our view.  Many stage sitters were ticked via their facial expressions and post-show comments to staff. I could see more from center orchestra 4th row on my first visit than I could this time & I was in 1st stage row next to sofa. Sound was sketchy  as the amplifiers r in the orchestra/balcony areas. For many scenes we could hear voices, but not see who was talking. The folks in the 3rd stage row (bar) looked bored and ticked. You couldn't have anything on table other than food/drink for appearances.  “

 

I’m so happy someone mentioned the spotlights. I’m pretty self aware and I know I can be high maintenance, but those lights were blinding. I thought they were awful. We were sitting at the first table in the front - I think seats A4 and A5. I couldn’t watch any of the action at the front of the stage directly. Either the camera people were blocking my view or the lights were burning out my retinas. I watched most of the show on the screen. I’m a huge Cranston fan, but if I wanted to see him on a screen, I could have stayed home and watched Breaking Bad for the hundredth time. 

[ChildofEarth]

Posted: 11/19/18 at 7:37am

Sad to see so many aren’t like Maslany in this - she is so insanely talented. I can’t wait to see it in a few weeks - has anyone been able to get standing room?

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 11/19/18 at 8:36am

I don't want to come across as the consummate defender of the onstage seating experience, especially when I enjoyed it immensely and some people are reporting displeasure with it, but a few things should be pointed out.

In re: lighting: The seating is on the stage. The lights are bright. They are bright for the actors. They are bright so the audience can see what is going on. That is part of of what makes the experience unique. I'm not sure what people expected from sitting on the stage, perhaps a dinner theater experience? I guess my husband and I are quite lucky our retinas didn't get burned out.  

In re: food: Here is the menu (which also includes alcohol and soft drinks). Plate of three appetizers - Shrimp Roll, Corn and Scallion Empanada, and a small slice of Peruvian Blue Potato with Caviar and Creme Fraiche. The main course was steak salad, three slices of beef tenderloin over a mix of vegetables - including kalamata olives and tomatoes. There was a spicy aioli on the side. Pre-dessert - Shot of pink prosecco with a dab of lime granita. Dessert - Slice of Chocolate Mocha Dobos Torte with a small dab of raspberry sauce... and a small dab of either chocolate or caramel sauce, I can't remember which, except that the dessert was delicious. There was also an alternate vegetarian entree available.

From a review I read about the London production, the food was timed deliberately for effect. For example, the sound of the silverware touching the plates was meant to be heard in the outer audience.

If you are on stage, you are part of the show. If that experience is not for you, you would be better off in center orchestra. From private messages I've received, there are plenty of others who said they would enjoy the onstage experience, lights and all.

[Anthony12]

Posted: 11/20/18 at 2:10am

Is Cranston expected to be on everyone for the run?

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 11/20/18 at 5:20am

Anthony12 said: "Is Cranston expected to be on everyone for the run?"

He’s above the title and is easily the main draw of this show, so yes. If there are any scheduled absences, you mean, then Telecharge or the show website would have that listed.

 

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 11/20/18 at 7:39pm

Two words for this one from me... pretentious dreck. What could have been a slick and quick play is a bloated and overstuffed mess that left me cold from beginning to end.

The direction is full of Ivo Von Hove gimmicks that are overused to death during the course of the two hour run time (which actually feels more like four). Scenes happen outside of the audience’s view, but are filmed and shown on the giant screen that dominates the stage, which I found to be extremely frustrating. The onstage restaurant was incredibly distracting and added absolutely nothing to the show. Oh wait, it did add plenty of annoying sounds of cutlery clanking against plates during quiet scenes! Once again I feel like Ivo Van Hove’s decisions were not justified, and were just “bold” and “weird” for the sake of it.

The play itself is also just a chore to sit through. The dialogue is so repetitive and the audience is just beat over the head with the same ideas over and over again. I did not find any of the actors outside of Cranston to be engaging, and, quite honestly, I wasn’t too blown away by Cranston either.

This is definitely towards the very bottom of my list out this season’s offerings so far. I think this is a play that you either love and “get”, or you just feel like an outsider looking in. I’ve never been a huge fan of Ivo Van Hove’s work, but even for me this was a new low point for him.

[EthelMae]

Posted: 11/20/18 at 9:10pm

I love the movie. I haven't seen this production. Can someone explain, without spoilers I guess, why people are eating dinner on the stage?? I can understand stage seating, I've loved it in other shows during the years, but eating? In Network?

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 11/20/18 at 10:54pm

EthelMae, it makes no sense why they have diners on stage at all. The only part of the show they "help out" with is in the first scene when Howard and Max are speaking together at a bar. The camera is placed on stage so the diners are positioned behind them and it looks like the characters are at a crowded restaurant. Aside from that minute-long scene (and one moment later on when the audience wrangler for Howard's show interacts with a random diner), the diners are utterly meaningless. It felt like a total cash grab. 

[WhoCanITurnTo]

Posted: 11/21/18 at 1:59am

Chayevsky wrote in a very specific style.  His screenplay of Network is as arch and satiric as a 1940's Rosalind Russell/Cary Grant film.  The sad news is - four of the lead actors are so miscast/ mis-directed that their head-scratching performances grind this production to a halt.  Hackett, Ruddy, Hunter, Christiansen and Schumacher are fast talking television news producers/network execs.  Their dialogue has to bounce and ping and hit all four walls of the theater at a breakneck speed. This brilliant film script falls completely flat when the actors become precious and plodding, milking their moments, pausing for no reason or speaking their lines like it's a voice exercise. This genius satirical parable quickly becomes a crashing, indulgent bore. The diners onstage became much more interesting to watch, especially this one millennial who was having none of it. 

Cranston's brilliant performance is electrifying as he channels Peter Finch, but you can see the frustration in his eyes with the actors around him as they indulge in their moments, grasp at lines and drag the proceedings down.  It's a welcome relief when Frank Wood, Nick Wyman and a few of the supporting cast deliver that cracking Chayevsky dialogue in the style it was meant to be played, and their performances pop. 

The tricks with the video are sometimes gasp-inducing, but unless the director speeds up the dialogue and directs the lead actors on how to play satire, this show will drown in its own pretentiousness and just make you angry that you spent $300 to witness the guy from Breaking Bad busting his ass to justify the ticket price -  because he's getting very little help from his supporting cast or his director.

Updated On: 11/21/18 at 01:59 AM

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 11/21/18 at 7:50am

I've seen a number of shows in previews and by the time they opened the kinks were worked out. I don't know how this show can be fixed, when one of the main problems is with the cast. It's sad because Cranston is pouring his heart out.  

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 11/21/18 at 8:02am

BroadwayConcierge said: "EthelMae, it makes no sense why they have diners on stage at all. The only part of the show they "help out" with is in the first scene when Howard and Max are speaking together at a bar. The camera is placed on stage so the diners are positionedbehind them and it looks like the characters are at a crowded restaurant. Aside from that minute-long scene (and one moment later on when the audience wrangler for Howard's show interacts with a random diner), the diners are utterly meaningless. It felt like a total cash grab."

 My thoughts exactly, BroadwayConcierge. I also found it to be super distracting to have waiters coming and going during the show bringing out and taking away food. And, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, the clanking of silverware during the quiet scenes was distracting. The onstage restaurant literally serves no purpose.

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 11/21/18 at 9:25am

The restaurant seems to have a quite a bit of metaphoric significance. I thought it was clever and essential. It's mileage with you will vary, I suppose. 

It has little to nothing to do with the plot. 

Updated On: 11/21/18 at 09:25 AM

[WayTooBroadway]

Posted: 11/21/18 at 10:11am

No answers yet, but any chance anyone has succeeded with standing room? Or know if they've offered SR to the general public?

[lostphantom]

Posted: 11/21/18 at 11:04am

They do offer standing room tickets when the show is sold out. The tickets are $35. We got standing room tickets last saturday night performance (I heard that they also had standing room tickets for the sat matinee as well).

Here's my experience. We went to the box office earlier the day and was told to come back about an hour before show time to see if they offer standing room tickets. The standing room line started forming at round 6pm (for 7pm show). At around 6:20, they told us that there are still 2 tickets left that they need to sell. At about 6:40, they started selling the standing room tickets. 

[VotePeron]

Posted: 11/21/18 at 11:44am

Network, much like King Kong, has so much potential, that it's hard to feel fully satisfied when it's over. It's an interesting evening. The ensemble & Cranston are great, and I think it's something new and fun to see. The concept very clearly was design first, substance second. That makes for an entertaining evening, but not a specifically memorable one. (And when you see Bryan Cranston as Howard Beale in the stage adaption of Network, how can that not be the highlight of the season?!)

I sat in the Balcony, and felt the view was actually great. There are flatscreens everywhere throughout the house, so you can always refer to a monitor if you need, and there's a Jumbotron on stage. The set is - weird. Why they have the dining room taking up as much space as the newsroom is beyond me, but over I loved the environment they built, and I personally never rejected the design. I accepted that there would be times I couldn't see things, but that's truly for any seat in the theater.

The show is not as heavy as I imagined it would be. It's more or less just...bleak. It's pretty one-note in tone, which I think contributes to the fact that it feels like it drags on forever. Cranston is great, but like, this role will not kill him. He could do this until June if he wanted. 

I really enjoyed the cinematography and the ensemble work. It was so wonderfully choreographed, it felt like a ballet of sorts. Unfortunately, that all comes to a screeching halt every time there's a book scene. First, the scenes are underscored (with the music up WAY too loud), and second, the book scenes aren't written very well. The monologues are great, but the book scenes are so cookie-cutter it takes you out of the world.

On top of that, I'm so conflicted on Tatiana Maslany & Tony Goldwyn. I genuinely can't tell if they were directed poorly, or if they just aren't performing well. Tatiana's brief interview in the Cranston NYT article from this morning shows she has a great understanding of the character, but her explosion at the end of the show is completely and utterly unearned. I'm leaning more into the idea that Ivo is asking them to play the roles stiff and with extreme resistance, but they are acting like robots. It feels like a stylistic choice to contrast Cranston's wild, bombastic Howard, but it doesn't click here.

So all in all, I'm torn. Ivo's A View From The Bridge is one of my favorite things I have ever seen on a stage, and I really enjoyed Crucible. But this is material is not Miller. And it shows. 

 

Side note - can you imagine a woman playing Cranston's role? How amazing would that be? So many wonderful actresses could take that role and do WONDERS with it. Now that would elevate the material. 

 

[WayTooBroadway]

Posted: 11/21/18 at 12:08pm

Thank you, lostphantom!

[sppunk]

Posted: 11/21/18 at 11:04pm

Saw this tonight and will mirror many other posters. 

Cranston is terrific. I think his performance alone is worth the price of admission and enjoyed the evening. So with that out of the way ...

I HATED Joshua Boone’s performance/character. It felt out of place, overacted and from a different environment. It really bugged me. Almost to the point of anger

I couldn’t have give less of a damn about the Max and Diana storyline - I gathered zero emotion or connection from them. I am a big Tatiana Maslany fan but the role isn’t good for her imo.

The cameras and screens didn’t bother me like others, but I can definitely see why some would have an issue with them.

I guess overall I think Network is better as the sum of all its parts than the parts by themselves. 

[JayElle]

Posted: 11/21/18 at 11:19pm

I agree with CT2NYC....Tatiana in that photo comes across seductive yet intensely determined. I guess it's the heels, clothes, haircut.  It's classier.  It draws the eye.  The current Network wardrobe might've been capturing the awful 70s style...(Lord, I remember that terrible disco style & "no-near-open0-flame" polyester fabric that was so thick it could stand w/o a hanger)...but that pic would seem to draw a middle aged man away from his wife. Oh well, Happy Thanksgiving.

Just saw Ferryman.  Don't see how Network will beat Ferryman for Best Play.