KING LEAR Previews

[EthelMae]

Thx, poisonivy2. Just checked TDF and it must have come down fast! I”ll keep checking.

[EthelMae]

As long as we are noting Mr. Gold’s hits and misses here, which we know are all subjective, haven’t all directors seen themselves there, even the great ones such as Harold Prince?- (whom I adore, BTW): Prince of Broadway, Lovemusik, Hollywood Arms, Parade, Rosa, Grind, End of the World, Play Memory, A Doll’s Life, Merrily We Roll Along, Some of My Best Friends, Pacific Overtures (one of my all time favorites- saw it 17 times- but was not, shall we say, loved by all), 

I’ve always disliked ad campaigns for theatre and film that uses the phrase: “ Director of..., Writer of...” Sure, one will think, like I do, “Oh, he or she wrote that show or movie I loved and now he or she is doing this?!...”   We are now talking about a new project, and their past successes or failures shouldn’t hold that much weight, IMHO.

, 

 

 

 

[Fordham2015]

EthelMae said: "As long as we are noting Mr. Gold’s hits and misses here, which we know are all subjective, haven’t all directors seen themselves there, even the great ones such as Harold Prince?-(whom I adore, BTW): Prince of Broadway, Lovemusik, Hollywood Arms, Parade, Rosa, Grind, End of the World, Play Memory, A Doll’s Life, Merrily We Roll Along, Some of My Best Friends, Pacific Overtures (one of my all time favorites- saw it 17 times- but was not, shall we say, loved by all),

I’ve always disliked ad campaigns for theatre and film that uses the phrase: “ Director of..., Writer of...” Sure, one will think, like I do, “Oh, he or she wrote that show or movie I loved and now he or she is doing this?!...” Weare now talking about a new project, and their past successes or failures shouldn’t hold that much weight, IMHO.

This is exactly why I've never understood all the Jack O'Brien hate on this board. I know Carousel wasn't beloved by all (I enjoyed it) but Front Page, Only a Play, The Nance, and Catch Me If You Can were all very solid (if not quite at Hairspray level). Everybody goes through a rut, but that doesn't mean they should be written off.
 

 

[Auggie27]

I agree with Whizzer about the Gold "Fun Home." One of the most exquisite stagings I've seen of an intimate musical, and probably the best use of Circle I've experienced -- 've been going since the John Wood/Tammy Grimes/Patricia Elliot "Tartuffe" --. "Fun Home" at Circle was so perfect, it's hard for me to imagine the material fully independent of it. The moment when Bruce asks the observing Big Allison to take the drive in lieu of the college-aged characterization -- a low tech piece of theatrical magic all accomplished only with actors -- still makes me shiver on reflection. I'll never forget the house finally slowly materializing in full from the floor, or the ways Malone's Allison watched the younger iterations of herself without the usual self-consciousness of paralleling younger/older. 

The reports that Gold had help -- was that at the Public, or in the move to the arena staging? The use of the physical space uptown was so breathtaking, and masterfully told a shorthanded story that could be fragmented under less assured guidance. It begin unified, and kept finding new ways to coalesce.  Stunning.

[jmuep]

kade.ivy said: "I know there’s no official policy, but has anyone tried to effectively rush this?"

I rushed this week. $40. Orchestra sides. Partial view but really the only thing I missed was he orchestra some times. 

[JayElle]

A dumb question perhaps, but do they speak Shakespeare verbatim or modernize the language?  I never liked Shakespeare decades ago in school bc I found it difficult to read.  Just wondered.

[Synecdoche2]

JayElle said: "A dumb question perhaps,but do they speakShakespeare verbatimor modernize the language? I never liked Shakespeare decades ago in school bc I found it difficult to read. Just wondered."

They definitely are not modernizing the language–otherwise, it ain't Shakespeare.

[JayElle]

okay, tnx...hell they changed mockingbird so I wondered.

[haterobics]

JayElle said: "okay, tnx...hell they changed mockingbird so I wondered."

They adapted a novel for Mockingbird. Lear is already a play.

[JayElle]

oh, okay...

[bwayphreak234]

I have to agree with pretty much everyone else on here about this production of King Lear. It is an incredibly misguided production that lacks any kind of cohesion. A vast majority of my problems can be attributed to Sam’s Gold direction.

There is no overarching concept that glues the various production elements together. I feel like there were five different directors all working on a production of King Lear, and they all just threw their ideas into a blender and threw it onstage and called it done. I don’t mind a contemporary staging of a Shakespeare play, but it should at least make sense.

The acting was fine, but no one really wowed me, not even Glenda Jackson. Pedro Pascal’s Edmund was the weakest link by far. He seemed to be playing every line for laughs. Ruth Wilson was good as both the Fool and Cordelia. I didn’t understand the point of having the sign language.

The set design is pretty ghastly. Three shimmery and glittery gold walls and a royal purple carpet as well as some furniture. I don’t mind a simple set, but it shouldn’t be this ugly. The lighting was easily my favorite part of the production. There are some really great moments of lighting. The costumes were all modern, but still all over the place.

The onstage musicians didn’t bother me, and I never felt like they were drowning out the dialogue which many people noted earlier in this thread. It’s possible that maybe this has been fixed.

I love Shakespeare, so there is a part of me that enjoyed this just for the story and dialogue. That being said, I have to admit this production drags like crazy after intermission. The first two hours went by pretty quickly, but the last hour and ten minutes felt twice as long. When I walk out of a show, and the only thing that I can really compliment is the lighting, that’s pretty darn bad.

[Storkish]

Interesting to hear about all those negative reviews. I have no problem with the set at all - in fact I'm in love with it. It's what the show needs to be, a trashy golden place, and I am still extremely amazed by how Miriam dealt with her fire curtain. It's genius. The lighting too.

I do believe Sam Gold's concept is not consistent, but it's definitely not misguided. A Shakespeare doesn't need a concept, at least in my opinion, enough concepts have been tried and there is nothing wrong playing with some crazy ideas. Personally I am intrigued by how the show would change over the next month, and I may even go back and see it again.

Overall, it's extremely experimental and not a typical broadway show. The acting however was the most disappointing link I found, since Jackson, despite her amaze, is still using her British shakespearean training, that definitely didn't go well with the rest of the cast.

But Gold was never an actor's director, and to be honest this is a lot better than The Glass Menagerie to me.

[Jazzman714]

SPOILERS AHEAD

An exhausting production in more ways than one. The first act is exactly 2 hours and it felt much longer. (It also does not help that all the ushers continually warn us of its length AND that you will not be allowed back into your seat if you leave for the bathroom. This Rudin policy is very irritating.)

Emasculation and impotence. Those are the themes of this production of Lear. To further this message, Gold has cast women in three of the pivotal male roles and has given most of the men playing male characters "weaknesses" which are not in the text.

1.) The Duke of Cornwall is deaf and must rely on others to help him communicate. There’s also the very deliberate choice of having him wear a kilt. (No offense - but since he’s the only cast member to wear one, I assumed it must be a specific choice to “feminize” his character.)

2.) Oswald is overtly gay and struggles with a pronounced speech defect.

3.) Earl of Kent is “demoted” to a lowly delivery man (complete with green uniform, cap, and dolly).

Continuing the impotency theme, stationary flagpoles stand erect in the back of the stage (which feels like a great golden meeting room at the Hague) and are periodically toppled, lain to the ground, and allowed to remain there throughout the show. Leaving the poles on the ground is a deliberate choice since most of the props (endless dishes, glasses, wine bottles, cutlery, etc.) are moved/removed throughout the play.

Also, the Fool makes several penis jokes and at one time breaks off the end of a carrot he has just used to imitate a penis. 

These themes are very definitely part of the text of Lear and I get what Gold is trying to do, but the choices do not land. They distract from rather than support the themes.

And at times the production feels very amateurish. Several cast members are making their Broadway debuts and it shows. The lengthy storm scene is played in front of a metallic gold wall that allows the actors only about 5 feet of stage to play with. As a result, they do not move much and since there is no real wind or rain (just a lot of stage thunder and lightning tricks) the scene is surprisingly static. And while Lear is bellowing into the storm, Kent, Edgar, and the Fool lay on the ground as if they are waking from a bad drunk. No tension at all.

Placing this Lear into modern dress and times does not help Gold's gender juxtaposition theme because in 2019 gender and gender roles have never been more open or fluid.

Also, duct tape?  Really?

I have to say that I was underwhelmed by almost everyone in this production including Jackson. In keeping with the themes of emasculation and impotence, Lear is supposed to be old, mad, and feeble -- which Jackson is not and her Lear is not. Throughout the evening I always felt that she had the biggest penis in the room.

[KJisgroovy]

I thought this was tremendous. 

To be honest... I'm not sure there are a ton of "gimmicks" so much as the main gimmick that strips the production of basically any trapping and just lets the actors act. The stage is a gold room (that reminded me much more of Trump Tower than it did The Hague) that is adorned with stuff but the stuff doesn't have much effect on what the actors are doing. It may have well been set on a bare stage... though I liked the set and the "stuff." It felt like I could focus almost completely on what the actors were doing with the language and their characters... with some lovely lighting to highlight everything. 

I thought all the actors delivered... either playing really good versions of my understanding of those characters or interesting new variations for me to consider. I was really taken by the cruelty of Jackson's Lear... and how very little sympathy she was attempting to garner. Even after the storm... she seemed less pathetic and more... resigned. Even in the final scene... she still had an air of "this sort of thing shouldn't happen to people like us" than a real understanding of how awful she'd been. Anyway. It made me think a lot.

Aisling O'Sullivan, Elizabeth Marvel, and Pedro Pascal were all more blunt in their performances but I thought their acting was wildly delightful. I giggled with delight during the blinding scene... it was so very intense. All three were quite wicked but also quite human. Pascal was pretty funny and more than a little bit sexy. 

Ruth Wilson was deeply soulful in both performances... though to be honest I'm not quite sure what to make of the dual role. At first I thought it was just sort of... you know... just because (and because perhaps the roles were originally cast that way)... but it did seem to call attention to itself like I was supposed to get more from it... and I didn't. 

Jane Houdyshell was the only real disappointment. She seemed pretty uncertain for much of the first act. Repeating and searching for lines... not terribly specific in her choices... all around not ideal. Once the character was blinded I thought she found her footing... which lead to a very touching reunion with Lear. 

I'm not really interested in commenting on others comments... we all bring our prejudices and aesthetics with us... but... Russell Harvard and Matthew Maher are both terrific actors and both are fantastic in the roles... bringing a lot of color and definition to roles that aren't always so special. For me, their performances make a strong case that they were simply the best actors that auditioned for the roles. Russell Harvard is a deaf actor and his deafness is woven into the production in an essential way. He signs, he has a translator, but he also speaks and signs untranslated. He felt like a whole human being and not a "cause" or a diversity hire. Or even that the director was trying to say something with his casting. It just seemed like a deaf actor was playing a deaf character with only minor modifications. As it should be. Matthew Maher was just speaking in his own voice. I don't think they way he speaks, which I guess some folk think is effeminate and with impediment. Again... it just felt like a whole person. 

That's my take. I basically loved it and I'm sad I won't be able to return in a few weeks to see what has grown.