Sweet Bird of Youth in Chicago

[jon5202]

Posted: 9/11/12 at 11:33pm

Sweet Bird of Youth starring Diane Lane and Finn Wittrock and directed by David Cromer opens Friday, September 14 at the Goodman in Chicago

Check out a behind the scenes look at this production

http://www.goodmantheatre.org/Watch-Listen/

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 9/11/12 at 11:45pm

Since he was attached to direct the Kidman revival on Broadway I have to ask, would/could this production transfer? With replacements or otherwise?

[jon5202]

Posted: 9/11/12 at 11:49pm

In this recent interview in the Chicago Tribune with theatre critic Chris Jones, a reference is made to the possibility of this production moving to Broadway. Lane says she is not interested in a Broadway run but does leave the door open a bit.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/theater/theaterloop/ct-ae-0909-fall-preview-theater-profile-20120907,0,1514412.column

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 9/11/12 at 11:54pm

Yeah, my main question was more is this PRODUCTION strong enough to transfer. You can always stick in Julia, Nichole, Julianne, etc etc with a number of A list hunks but I'd still like a solid structure of a production around them.

[ZiggyCringe]

Posted: 9/12/12 at 12:48am

PLEASE. This is my favorite Tennessee Williams show, and there was talk for ages about Nicole Kidman doing it, but Diane Lane is PERFECT casting as the Princess Kosmonopolis.

Please let this transfer.

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 9/12/12 at 1:44am

I'll be seeing this on the 30th, and I'll be sure to share my thoughts. I feel like a transfer may be a possibility, but I think it's not too likely. The last two productions from the Goodman that went to Broadway were Chinglish and Desire Under the Elms, both of which flopped. I think that was what really made producers decide not to transfer The Iceman Cometh, which probably would have probably been more popular than this production, in my opinion. Of course, that's not to say that it isn't a possibility, but if I were a producer, I would have second thoughts about transferring a production from the Goodman.

[chrisampm2]

Posted: 9/12/12 at 3:15am

"The last two productions from the Goodman that went to Broadway were Chinglish and Desire Under the Elms, both of which flopped. I think that was what really made producers decide not to transfer The Iceman Cometh."
What is the evidence for your belief that the 2 previous flops stopped producers from transferring Iceman? Neither of the 2 were considered events, even in Chicago. With Iceman you had significant scheduling hurdles (performer availability and the number of performances per week) and a very large cast.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/12/12 at 3:27am

Thanks for the link--I'm more excited about this than anything upcoming in New York I can think of, except Giant. I'm a big fan of both Lane and the ridiculously named Finn Wittrock (on the soap opera forum, people used to have fun with his name when he was on All my Children). Sweet Bird is in my top three Williams' plays, but also seems to be one that's hard to get right (then again a number of Broadway revivals of his shows recently seem to show a regular problem with getting his shows right). I'm curious if they'll use the multimedia approach Kazan and Mielziner used back in '59.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 9/16/12 at 12:30am

Any word on how the production is shaping up?

[jayinchelsea]

Posted: 9/16/12 at 3:32pm

Where are our Chicago theatergoers? This production was profiled in today's Times in the Diane Lane interview, is being directed by David Cromer and costars hot, hot Finn Witrock. This is news, guys! The interview said it started on Friday night. Anyone see it?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/17/12 at 5:03pm

I've been patiently waiting for reports, as well...

[April Saul]

Posted: 9/17/12 at 5:43pm

This is why God created more than one theater board:
https://www.talkinbroadway.com/allthatchat/d.php?id=2096021

If I lived in Chicago, I'd have gotten a ticket weeks ago

[mpd4165]

Posted: 9/17/12 at 9:33pm

Have to be brief, but I saw it last night. Lane really is perfection in the role, her moments in the third act are just stellar. John Judd as Boss Finely is also great. The set is beautiful and makes great use of projections and video that I would have liked to see more. Highly recommended.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/17/12 at 9:46pm

I was curious if projections and film would be used--Mileziner's original 1959 design was pretty famous for how much it was used (it even changed Williams' writing of the play when he got the set design).

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 9/18/12 at 11:22am

"Is it a well-known-enough play and actress to get a commercial Broadway run?” Mr. Falls asked aloud, noting that Broadway revivals tend to star celebrities to justify production budgets of $3 million or so. Referring to Broadway plays in the last several years, he added: "I know Al Pacino sells tickets. Daniel Craig and Hugh Jackman together sell tickets. I was not surprised that Julia Roberts sold a lot of tickets. But after them?"

http://theater.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/theater/diane-lane-back-onstage-in-sweet-bird-of-youth.html


It's an interesting question. I think you could actually argue that Lane has more box office pull than someone like Kidman in movies where she's one of the stars, but I don't know if that would translate to the stage or not.

http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=dianelane.htm

http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=nicolekidman.htm

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 9/18/12 at 1:30pm

If its a stellar revival of Williams, it will find its audience.

Producers need to just get over the whole celebrity name thing. I don't think the consumer's Pavlov-ian, Stockholm Syndrom-ian reaction to celebrity is as vital a factor to the success of any production as they think, despite several recent examples (PROMISES, PROMISES comes to mind). If anything, I think people are tired of having celebrity detritus shoveled down their throats and are getting less interested in celebrity and more interested in flat-out storytelling. Or maybe its just me. But secretly I doubt it. NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT is not a big hit because there is such a volcanic demand for seeing Matthew Broderick live (although having his name attached does give it a kind of pre-approval), its a hit because there is a huge demand for Gershwin and the light, elegant, romantic entertainment NICE WORK advertises itself to be.

This plus the fact that I see people getting more of a yearning for personalized melodrama, and that ranges from the success of AUGUST: OSAGE COUNTY to the success of Tyler Perry's movies. Williams provides personalized melodrama by the truckload with his poetry, unforgettable characters, and flat-out genius as breathtaking bonuses.

SWEET BIRD has always been a loveable, magnificent Greyhound with only three legs. If Cromer has found a way to get the ol' girl to full gallop ME. WANNA. SEE!

If any potential producers are reading this: If this production is as good as they say it is, quit being such goddamn hand-wringing pussies and give us the f**king STORYTELLING already! If all you are interested in is profit, might I suggest other, more solid avenues of interest beyond the theatre.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/18/12 at 5:17pm

""Is it a well-known-enough play and actress to get a commercial Broadway run?"

I think it is--especially with a star in it, which seems so important for these revivals on Broadway. While the show is probably in my personal top three Williams (which would also include Orpheus Descending and maybe Camino Real--yes, I probably love them so much partly because they're kinda underdogs), it's not quite up there in audiences' minds with Cat, Streetcar, Menageri or even Iguana and Suddenly Last Summer. But it's still a very recognized name, I think (and come on--if New York could handle a subpar revival of a less known WIlliams work that has never been a hit, The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore, this seems a no-brainer).

"SWEET BIRD has always been a loveable, magnificent Greyhound with only three legs. If Cromer has found a way to get the ol' girl to full gallop ME. WANNA. SEE! "

Totally agreed.

[jon5202]

Posted: 9/19/12 at 12:35am

I attended the Sunday (9/16) preview which was the 4th or 5th performance since previews began 9/14.

I was not fully immersed in this production as it seemed that there were a few line reading miscues nor was I as enamored of the set or at times the staging. Cromer has decided to place the play in a somewhat abstract setting with much open space, minimal set pieces and often making use of low level lighting. He does make use of video projections both prefilmed and live at times but they seem rather disjointed and not as charismatic as they could be. And he has occasional pinspot lighting on charaters at times.

The third act set makes use of a revolving stage which rotates during some scenes (whether necessary or not) and unless the technical aspects had not yet been resolved there were occasions when stage hands came on stage to remove or place props.

Beyond the technical aspects, the overall acting was fine and Lane and Wittrock acquited themselves perfectly well. I must admit that I walked into Youth with not that much knowledge of the precise storyline. I had seen snippets of the film version and actually had seen the Irene Worth/Christopher Walken production back in 1975 in Chicago though I had little recollection of it. Lane handles herself very well and neither oversells nor undersells the performance. Wittrick is certainly the right look for the role but from my perspective could have used a little more swagger and smugness for the character. The remaining cast members are all well used Chicago and Goodman based actors.

I am curious to see how this will be reviewed next week (opening night is Monday, September 24).

Could it have New York in its future? I am sure that attempts will be made to bring in NY critics/producers for a look see so those reviews could make or break a move possible with or without Lane/Wittrock. I don't see a long run but perhaps a predetermined short run would be a success.

[jon5202]

Posted: 9/19/12 at 12:35am

I attended the Sunday (9/16) preview which was the 4th or 5th performance since previews began 9/14.

I was not fully immersed in this production as it seemed that there were a few line reading miscues nor was I as enamored of the set or at times the staging. Cromer has decided to place the play in a somewhat abstract setting with much open space, minimal set pieces and often making use of low level lighting. He does make use of video projections both prefilmed and live at times but they seem rather disjointed and not as charismatic as they could be. And he has occasional pinspot lighting on charaters at times.

The third act set makes use of a revolving stage which rotates during some scenes (whether necessary or not) and unless the technical aspects had not yet been resolved there were occasions when stage hands came on stage to remove or place props.

Beyond the technical aspects, the overall acting was fine and Lane and Wittrock acquited themselves perfectly well. I must admit that I walked into Youth with not that much knowledge of the precise storyline. I had seen snippets of the film version and actually had seen the Irene Worth/Christopher Walken production back in 1975 in Chicago though I had little recollection of it. Lane handles herself very well and neither oversells nor undersells the performance. Wittrick is certainly the right look for the role but from my perspective could have used a little more swagger and smugness for the character. The remaining cast members are all well used Chicago and Goodman based actors.

I am curious to see how this will be reviewed next week (opening night is Monday, September 24).

Could it have New York in its future? I am sure that attempts will be made to bring in NY critics/producers for a look see so those reviews could make or break a move possible with or without Lane/Wittrock. I don't see a long run but perhaps a predetermined short run would be a success.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/19/12 at 12:43am

Thanks for your report! I do admit that it would only really make sense to bring it in for a predetermined run, as you say.

I'm curious to see more of the set. Mielziner's original design actually is a lot like how you describe--but of course he was a genius (as was Kazan) and the staging was pretty groundbreaking at the time, and would probably be less so now. I hope they do post some clips online.

I do have to wonder if there are people who grew up with Brooks' film who will go to it and be pretty shocked at how much was changed and censored (even more than Brooks' film for Cat--Brooks being, due to his moral highground, the wrong man to adapt Williams anyway, but of course a lot of it was censoring due to the Hayes code--at least we got some of the original actors on film).

(And the less said about the beyond campy cable TV movie version Liz Taylor did in the late 80s--even if it kept the ending largely intact--probably the better).

[customsay]

Posted: 9/19/12 at 10:05am

I saw the second preview on Saturday night. The show still needs a lot of work, and it will tighten up and get better, but I wasn't a big fan of the production. Cromer's a great talent but I think he tends to excel at intimate, naturalistic, ensemble-driven shows like OUR TOWN and TRIBES and his stuff for Writers' Theatre. This is the second production of his I've seen done on a larger scale, with a big budget and stars. The first was HOUSE OF BLUE LEAVES on Broadway with Ben Stiller and Edie Falco. I love that play but Cromer's production was a real dud. Almost all of the humor fell flat and none of the actors shone in their roles. That's pretty much my big note on this production as well. This SWEET BIRD sorely lacks humor (which in this play should be sexy and ironic and biting), and the lead actors don't come through as I hoped they would. I was rooting for both Wittrock, who was so good in SALESMAN this year, and Lane, who's been away from the stage for so long and who seemed well cast as the Princess and poised to reveal a new ripeness and depth in the role. But Wittrock feels too young and lightweight as Chance. He doesn’t convey the character’s magnetism or desperation, and he doesn't exude the sexual confidence of a greedy, charmingly manipulative hustler. His rapport and gamesmanship with the Princess in act one is nowhere near as potent and entertaining as it should be. This is partly due to Lane’s fairly modest, low-key interpretation of the Princess. There’s nothing “monstrous” or extreme in any way about the character as Lane portrays her. Her Princess is womanly and sardonic, and she convincingly embodies the character’s state of nervous exhaustion, but I think this is a role that calls for a certain amount of flamboyance, eccentricity and style, and Lane seems too grounded and controlled to deliver that kind of performance. And, again, humor. The absurd, mordant vein of comedy running through the play hasn’t been tapped at all. Does anyone know which version of the text is being used, or if it’s a cut and paste job of several different drafts? It’s definitely an oddly constructed show that’s not well served by its three-act structure, at least as presented here. At the Goodman the first act runs about an hour, the second act roughly twenty minutes, and act three slightly over an hour, with two full fifteen-minute intermissions. If they can find a way to manage the scene change between acts two and three with a brief hold rather than a full intermission it will cut the running time significantly and also help the dramatic flow and momentum of the piece. Technically the show felt unfinished Saturday night. Act three was way too dark, some of the staging was unfocused, and there were small gaffes with a curtain that runs downstage. The use of film projections is lovely but inconsistently deployed, and the slow rotation of a turntable during an extended sequence near the end of the play was an unnecessary distraction. Of the supporting cast John Judd makes a fine Boss Finley, but Kristina Johnson registers as too old for Heavenly and the play doesn’t give her much opportunity to make an impression (the role was expanded slightly in the film). I want to stress that these are notes on a second preview and I’m certain the show will improve significantly during the run, but I was hoping for revelatory performances and a truly “visionary” (as the ads tout Cromer) production, and for me this isn’t it. It’s worthwhile but not a watershed.

[jon5202]

Posted: 9/19/12 at 10:11am

I agree with all your observations here. Let's hope that some changes are in the making before opening next week.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 9/19/12 at 10:12am

I don't think the cuts in the Youth film hurt it nearly as much as the Cat film. Tennessee sometimes went overboard with his dramatic effects. The messing up of Chance's face instead of being castrated works fine for me.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/19/12 at 1:54pm

Midwest, you could have a point. Cat is gutted thematically as a film, but Bird isn't as much--although the change in what Chance "did" to Heavenly does change things significantly IMHO (particularly how an audience--especially back in 1962 or whenever the movie came out would see the character of Chance). Bird is a hard play to do in the more literal medium of film, and the castration would prob never work (and is hard to work on stage), but I just hate how it ends with Chance and Havenly pretty much escaping to freedom on a speed boat--they coulda gone for a bit more fitting ending in the re-write...

Customsay, I assume they're using essentially the '59 Kazan/Williams text. While Williams often did make minor changes in different published (and performed) versions of his scripts, Bird basically has the one standard version, unlike say Cat which is often now done in a script closer to the 70s final version Williams wrote but often cuts and pastes elements from the myriad of slightly different versions done over time (or other plays which were more drastically re-written).

As much as I love the play, I freely admit that it's oddly constructed (I think it would make sense, for an audience, to join Act II to either the first or second act, as you mention), and pretty abrupt in some of its changes. It's more unwieldy than Williams' major plays that preceded it (Camino real being the obvious exception), and sometimes awkwardly bridges the gap between his much harder to perform, and less successful (but IMHO worthy of study) post Night of the Iguana plays--with its obvious symbolism being a problem in many stagings (including that ending). Heavenly is barely a character, just an ideal in the play--as you say she was expanded in the film to make it more of a romance.

House of Blue Leaves is a fave of mine, as well, and it seems from all I saw and read that Cromer simply completely got the very tone and direction of that play wrong from the start. While the humour of it is quite different, IMHO, from Williams' humour in Bird, so much of Bird is intimate that I thought this would be a better fit (besides which Cromer has gone on about wanting desperately to direct this for 20 years, or something). But it certainly isn't naturalistic, and maybe it's not really the best fit.

As for ages, Finn is the right age as written, but the role is nearly always played as older (Paul Newman was at least five years older on Broadway--and Finn seems to read a bit younger than he is anyway, but I may be biased because he played a high schooler just a couple of years back on All My Children. Certainly age is different for a role like Happy where the actor has to play him both as a young teen and as a 32 year old). Lane is significantly older than Geraldine Page was (at least, I think she is), but Page always read older in her roles, IMHO, so that may not be an issue. While Princess shouldn't be a caricature, as is often done, I could see Lane maybe not being flamboyant enough for parts of the role. (There's a thread here about Lauren Bacall--I would have loved to have seen her in the role in the 80s production directed by Pinter for London).

Anyway, I loved reading your well explained thoughts. There's a 20 minute interview with Cromer on youtube here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRh6xo1ItdE It doesn't say all that much about the show at all (it's more of a comedy interview), but his thoughts seem sound. Although, I admit, I was kinda horrified by the fact that he seems to suggest audiences were over Williams and found him passe when Bird came out (that didn't really happen for a few more years--its content did still scandalize many)--and that he seems to think it was not only Williams' last Broadway success (Period of Adjustment, and more significantly Night of the Iguana followed it), but probably his last original play staged on Broadway (...). Oh well, I guess directors shouldn't be expected to know all that kinda stuff...

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 9/19/12 at 3:32pm

I'm seeing this tonight. I don't have any prior experience with the play, though, so I can't imagine my opinion will be too useful to any of the aficionados out there. Looking forward to it, though.

Updated On: 9/19/12 at 03:32 PM