Glengarry Glen Ross Previews - Page 2

[AC126748]

Posted: 11/2/12 at 11:10am

I haven't seen the current production, but this play usually runs under two hours, including intermission. The last revival was around 1:45.

Does running time really matter all that much, though? Shouldn't a work be as long (or short) as it needs to tell the story fully--does a short play really stifle your enjoyment? (Or make you feel like you didn't get your money's worth?)

[meganofsuburbia]

Posted: 11/2/12 at 11:31am

I went to the matinee, and overheard an usher telling someone that the play would get out at 4:00... I didn't believe it when I heard it because I was expecting it to only run 1:45 including intermission, but alas, he was right. It ran 2 hours in total.

[Wee Thomas2]

Posted: 11/2/12 at 4:51pm

"Does running time really matter all that much, though? Shouldn't a work be as long (or short) as it needs to tell the story fully--does a short play really stifle your enjoyment? (Or make you feel like you didn't get your money's worth?)"

It does when I pay alot of money and am back in the street 70 minutes after the show starts, like with Race, and to a lesser extent Speed the Plow.

[Miranda3]

Posted: 11/2/12 at 5:04pm

meganofsuburbia: Would it be too much of a spoiler to say how Pacino's take on Levine differs from Lemmon's?

[kidbroadway2]

Posted: 11/2/12 at 10:26pm

(minor spoilers ahead)
Overall gotta say it was good. Not great. But I guess they still have some time to work out.. whatever. I'd say it is still definite must see theater, but not as good as the Alda/Schreiber version.

Some things:
- A good section of the audience around me groaned at the line "houses flooded' during Roma's pitch in act 1. (i.e Sandy) Interesting whenever real life events intercede with the script.
- Bobby was fantastic. Big big fan of his. I still prefer Liev's version of Roma, but Bobby's first act closer was dynamite. Woke everyone up. Should definitely be major Tony buzz for his performance if the show can pick up some good buzz. He was a lot showier and flamboyant than I've seen it played, especially around Lingk. He had everyone in the audience buying what he was selling tonight.
- David Harbour as Williamson was my favorite Williamson I've seen. I remember him from Merchant of Venice too, but the humanity he brought to Williamson was truly remarkable. He doesn't play him like the 100% dick that Spacey does, but rather gives Williamson a heart. You believe and feel the struggle he's under. Thought he really did fine work.
- Mcginley and Schiff were both solid. The roles don't call for too much, but they filled them nicely. Mcginley played Moss underhanded which was a nice choice, rather than yelling his way out of the show like most Moss's do. Shamos as Lingk good too.
- The transitions in between scenes of the first act were a bit cheap in my opinion. Seemed rather tacky. The shade trick at the beginning of act 2 was a nice touch.

And unfortunately I get to this:
- WTF was Al Pacino doing? He was serviceable, but nothing that great. Almost every time he was part of a scene, it virtually stopped the show. Seriously lost any momentum the show was carrying. His first act scene was slow, but (i thought) deliberate on the part of Al in order to build a nice arc for the character. But other than a hilarious crumb cake bit after closing the sale, Shelly was the worst part of the show. i didn't care about him like I did for Alda/Lemmon's Shelly. He never seemed that particularly desperate, but more like the crazy weird old guy who works at your job (First thought is Creed from the Office). Not the former Roma of the office. Having him at the center of the show, you want to care about Shelly and I didn't really.

- Not to mention it seemed like Al went up on his word a couple times, although I checked the script and turns out he didn't. But that's how slow he went. Ginormous fan of his, but it seems that no one gave Al any direction this time. Odd.

- Also if anyone was their tonight (Friday), anyone see Pacino make an odd face when he bowed at curtain? Maybe it was just me.

But still the show was still entertaining and it's Mamet. Go see it.



Updated On: 11/2/12 at 10:26 PM

[ChairinMain]

Posted: 11/3/12 at 4:37am

What do you mean by the thing with the shutters in act two? I saw the second preview and didn't notice a bit with the shutters...did they add one in?

[kidbroadway2]

Posted: 11/3/12 at 12:46pm

At the start of act two (before any lines are said) you see Aaronow and Williamson trying to look into in the interrogation room, and then one of the interrogators notices and closes the shutters. Short funny bit.

The more I thought about it though, maybe Pacino's playing Levene as just a really incompetent salesman (particularly in the 1st scene). In order to contrast with Roma.

[macnyc]

Posted: 11/5/12 at 9:21am

I was surprised to see this up on TKTS on Sunday. I guess the run isn't sold out, or maybe because of the storm and the transit upheaval, there were cancellations.

[meganofsuburbia]

Posted: 11/5/12 at 9:26am

Miranda3: It was wildly different, which I never expected. I love, love, love Jack Lemmon in the movie, he plays it very desperate and angry, a man who has lost his dignity and furiously tries to regain it. Al, on the other hand, played it completely differently, he was more pathetic than desperate... still desperate, but less angrily so, definitely more of an inept salesman who is just at his lowest point and can't get out of it, not just because he's missing the opportunities, but also because he's missing the talent. He also played it a lot more comically and energetically... bouncing all over the stage and dancing with excitement when he finally makes a sale, as opposed to Lemmon's version where he's more vindicated as if he's finally proven what he's worth, Al's version was more like a child who couldn't believe his luck, more bewildered and ecstatic. Both interpretations of the character are fantastic, and totally valid, totally in line with what's on the page -- the thing that just shocked me was that I had no idea that these things were even in this character until I saw how he interpreted it. My mouth was honestly agape in awe half of the time. It was beautiful. And then, at the end, when reality sets in for him and he comes crashing back down, I was almost teary, it was so emotional.

I do think he's less of a "grown-up Roma" and more of a separate character, and I do think, like Kidbroadway2 said, that he seems a little like the crazy old guy in the office. But I don't think that's a negative thing, I think it's actually a strength. He's just totally at his lowest point, the way any version of Shelley should be, but he portrays him as a character that has lost his way and doesn't know how to sell anymore. This is proven in the first scene where he fails to sell Williamson on giving him the good leads. We see how inept and lame he is up front, and that's the character trait that informs the rest of Al's fantastic performance.

[Miranda3]

Posted: 11/5/12 at 6:59pm

megan: Thanks so much for your vivid description. I too thought Lemmon was spot on in the film. I couldn't really conceive of a different valid interpretation of the role till reading your description. Not that these roles are at all equivalent, but your description of Pacino's take on Levine reminded me of his portrayal of Lefty in the film "Donny Brasco." Lefty was an aging minor mobster, honorable in his allegiances but ultimately pathetic in that they are misplaced. How I wish I were still in NYC and able to see this production!!

[RippedMan]

Posted: 11/6/12 at 6:20pm

Judging by the pictures, it looks like it was done on the way cheap. Those sets look tacky and cheap. Ew.

[meganofsuburbia]

Posted: 11/7/12 at 10:10am

Miranda: Ah, I love Al's performance as Lefty! I see how you'd make the comparison, and yeah... they are similarly pathetic, washed-up, and never really had "what it took." But performance-wise, his Lefty is more understated, while his Levine is a lot more boisterous and animated (though certainly not without its subtleties). I can see how this would be a performance that would divide audiences, some people probably claiming that it's terrible and weird and others (like myself) insisting that it's inspired and rich. I'm seeing it again in December, so I really look forward to seeing how it evolves.

As for the comment about sets looking cheap: I wasn't aware that a dive Chinese restaurant and a dingy, failing, real estate office weren't SUPPOSED to look cheap and tacky...

[RippedMan]

Posted: 11/7/12 at 3:25pm

If I remember correctly, the last revival use to get applause when the curtain rose because of the sets. I'm just saying. There's a way to make a cheap hole-in-the-wall Chinese place interesting by using details, etc. This revival just looks thrown together, and poorly designed.

[meganofsuburbia]

Posted: 11/7/12 at 4:19pm

Hm...I hear you on that, actually. It's not a very "interesting" set, certainly. I didn't really think "cheap," mostly because I thought it was achieving exactly what it was going for, but I'll grant you that the sets are definitely not very "impressive" or interesting.

One thing that did bother me was the lack of motivational posters on the walls of the office. This is the only production of the play that I've seen, but based on the movie, I would have imagined that "Always Be Closing" posters and other such tacky slogans would have been pasted everywhere.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 11/9/12 at 1:39pm

I saw the show last night. Before I go into my thoughts on the production, I need to call out the ridiculous audience behavior I witnessed. The kids at ANNIE were better behaved than the adults at GLENGARRY. Seriously awful. People on their phones throughout, multiple people talking nonstop, walkouts during the middle of the show, people complaining they were bored, people shuffling through candy wrappers. I mean, it was really insane.

And I have to say that in all honesty, these distractions took away some of my appreciation and enjoyment from this show. It's very slow-burning and not the firecracker, rapid-fire approach most productions take to a Mamet piece. I enjoyed it overall, but didn't love it. Al Pacino is doing strong work here; I understand the reservations some people have about his performance and I do think his portrayal is not fully-realized yet, but he's hardly a disaster. I thought his opening scene was fantastic, not boring. He's magnetic in that first fifteen minutes. Some people may say he's acting in a different play than everyone else, but that's his approach to the character. His Shelley isn't a part of the young, crackerjack, fast talking Mamet world of Ricky and the other salesman. And I appreciated his characterization very much. He's fine-tuning a few things here and there, but he's Al f*cking Pacino. He's fascinating to watch onstage.

Bobby Cannavale, who is always wonderful, is turning in another grade-A performance as Ricky. He's fantastic. I'm sure the critics will eat his performance up; he does have the meatiest role of the bunch. The rest of the cast is exceptional. These guys are a joy to watch.

My main reservation about the show is the direction. Sullivan has paced this GLENGARRY much more pensively than previous productions, and it may be to his detriment. There are certainly some moments where the show drags in terms of pacing, and if that hasn't been fixed this late in the preview period, I have to assume its intentional. But the moments in which the cast really amps up the intensity and is directed to put the pedal to the metal, the show soars. So, it's uneven, but it's hardly a disaster.

I do think Pacino is getting a lot of unfair flack.

And the first act set is as rickety looking as it should be. They're clearly just in a ****ty Chinese restaurant. Its fine. The second act office set is great. Grabbed my attention the second the curtain rose. Updated On: 11/9/12 at 01:39 PM

[aaronb]

Posted: 11/10/12 at 5:47pm

There's a great story James Lipton tells about seeing Marlon Brando for the first time. During the first act, he kept thinking, "Who is this guy? He doesn't even know his lines." Then in the second act, of course, he realized it was intentional. Updated On: 11/10/12 at 05:47 PM

[After Eight]

Posted: 11/17/12 at 8:49am

"The kids at ANNIE were better behaved than the adults at GLENGARRY. Seriously awful. People on their phones throughout, multiple people talking nonstop, walkouts during the middle of the show, people complaining they were bored, people shuffling through candy wrappers. I mean, it was really insane. "

Why shouldn't people walk out if they don't like it?

And if people were bored, why shouldn't they say so? What should they say--- gee, isn't this wonderful!!?

I was bored myslf, though overall, I'd say the production was passable. It's not dynamic enough. The previous revival was far superior all the way down the line.

Pacino was fair; his schtick and tics are tiresome and distracting.

Really, the play itself just isn't that good. Nor are Mamet's plays in general, for that matter, despite his status as a critics' darling.

Updated On: 11/17/12 at 08:49 AM

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 11/17/12 at 9:21am

Are you just gonna spend your late night/morning jumping down my throat in every thread I've reviewed a show in? No one on this board takes you seriously. You're wasting your energy. Updated On: 11/17/12 at 09:21 AM

[After Eight]

Posted: 11/17/12 at 9:52am

^

Only when you say something doltish.

[AC126748]

Posted: 11/17/12 at 3:12pm

And if people were bored, why shouldn't they say so? What should they say--- gee, isn't this wonderful!!?

I'm pretty sure that the poster was commenting on people voicing such opinions during the performance. There is nothing wrong with expressing displeasure...at the appropriate moment. It is not okay to be disruptive and ruin the theatregoing experience of others because you're not having a good time. (On the most basic level, it's almost never appropriate to talk during a performance, no matter what you are saying.)

[revlis]

Posted: 11/19/12 at 9:08am

Went to the 11/17 evening show. Was a little bit worried after reading some posts here, but couldn't have loved the show more.

Wasn't sure how Pacino would pull off his role. I figured he'd over do it, as he has been known to do. It wasn't HOOWAH! yelling, barking Pacino. He surprised me with a slowed-down, gentle performance. He does play it more as a beaten down, former hotshot salesman - and at a much slower, deliberate pace than Lemmon in the movie - but I thought it was awesome. The rest of the cast is great as well. No complaints about any part of the production. Just great actors doing a great play.

We did witness one walk-out just before the end of act one. To make it worse, someone must have said something to this woman, which she was having no part of. She said something to the effect of "What did you just say to me - I didn't think so!" It was audible to much of the audience, and was totally rude. I think walk-outs will always be part of anything Mamet. His style of writing is just a love/hate type thing.

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 11/19/12 at 10:24am

I was there Saturday night as well. The woman who caused a disturbance was playing on her cell phone during the entire first act and finally, with about two minutes left in act one, an usher caught her and told her to stop or leave (I'm assuming). So she's muttering to herself about how it's unfair while she's collecting her belongings to leave, and someone a few rows back said "Shut the f**k up", which caused her to get louder. She was still walking up the aisle as the lights went up for intermission. Thankfully she didn't return for act two.

[revlis]

Posted: 11/19/12 at 10:27am

crazy people