THE HEIRESS Reviews- Page 2

[NewYorkTheater]

Posted: 11/2/12 at 12:30am

Jessica Chastain miscast, Dan Stevens a dreamboat, Judith Ivey the standout performer, the design sumptuous
The Heiress Review TFT

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/2/12 at 12:35am

What is the amount of time they should wait before a "near perfect" production to risk doing a very good production and not being judged primarily in comparison. 18 years seems like a long time--long enough that I'm not sure it's really fair for the memory of one performance to be the basis for thoughts on a new one...

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 11/2/12 at 1:08am

NY Post is positive.
http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/theater/downton_abbey_no_it_washington_square_MF6GJpEf8bdIbY9sg1mxGN

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 11/2/12 at 1:10am

I personally found Chastain very captivating as Catherine, but I agree that the affectation she uses with her voice turns out to be a huge handicap for her.

I got that the flatness of her tone was a choice fairly quickly, but I expected her to use that to her advantage and make her voice vocally expressive in the final scene when Catherine owns her power. Jarringly, she kept the monotone even then, and for me, it robbed the transformation Catherine undergoes of any real effectiveness. It's something I'm shocked a director as skilled as Moisés Kaufman wasn't able to pick up on.

Jane Fonda cited really interesting studies in her recent book about aging that said the female voice lowers in tone as a woman matures and finds contentment in her life. It would have been an interesting thing to explore in a piece like this one, but the fact that you walked away not fully grasping how the events that unfold change Catherine so drastically proves a big blow to the emotional resonance of the play, even if Chastain has strong moments otherwise.

Updated On: 11/2/12 at 01:10 AM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/2/12 at 7:59am

People understandably go to The Heiress to see pyrotechnics. Kaufman tried something very different here, putting the focus on the internal, on the characters' vested conceptions of who they and each other are, and the ensuing tragedy (or is it?) that comes from it (a more Jamesian approach) than on the melodrama that results from who they "clearly" are and what they "clearly" want. It is a much more subtle effect.

To me, Kaufman succeeded brilliantly and his company is doing exactly what they should be doing to execute his vision. What bugs me isn't that some critics disagree. What bugs me is that some critics aren't even trying to see what this production (as opposed to their hermetically sealed sense of what "The Heiress" is and can be) is about and examining whether this interpretation was worth doing or how well it was executed. They are just being dismissive.



Updated On: 11/2/12 at 07:59 AM

[Owen22]

Posted: 11/2/12 at 8:38am

Each new revival will be compared to the one previous, and if said previous revival was heralded as the second coming of theatre, god help the newer version. Remember the recent "Guys and Dolls"...? Of course, no one minded its drubbing in the press, that revival was prejudged months before it even opened...

[Misha515]

Posted: 11/2/12 at 8:45am

I'm a little surprised that the reviews are so mixed. Everything I have seen and heard from theater goer's has been positive. I saw it and while I thought it differed from the original - it was an excellent production and a bit more lively and modern than the original. I have never seen Cherry Jones in this role but I thought Chastain was amazing and really brought the character of Catherine full circle. Kudos to the rest of the cast as well. Dan Stevens as Morris was amazing. I left still unsure of his motives.

[darion]

Posted: 11/2/12 at 2:36pm

brantley is a sad unhappy little man. therefore he must rip everything to feel good about himself. i saw the heiress last week and i thought chastain was amazing. the way she can get tears to stream down her face out of nowhere is just an amazing thing to witness in person, without cuts and takes of a movie. everyone else was equal as well, especially Ivey.

[MarkK]

Posted: 11/2/12 at 3:02pm

I'm also very surprised with many of these negative reviews. I think the criticisms of Ms. Chastain's performance are wrong. I don't feel she was miscast.

I think the Times and Newsday have an axe to grind and are being really mean-spirited toward her.

Is it necessary for Linda Winer to Title her Review "Chastain isn't pretty" ?

[wickedfan]

Posted: 11/2/12 at 3:09pm

Why is it whenever Brantley likes something, it's "Oh he finally got something right!" but when he doesn't like a show, it's "He sad, bitter and he's got an agenda"?

He didn't like the show. His review isn't about anything personal. It's mean spirited tone comes from the trend to be quotable, not because he has any axe to grind or because he has any prejudice. It's just an opinion. One that sadly carries some power. But still, it's an opinion.

[PapaGe]

Posted: 11/2/12 at 3:38pm

Spoilers for the play below.

I have to side with Brantley on this one. Chastain's performance was by far the weakest part of the show for me. I was unfamiliar with the play going in (but would love to read more about Cherry Jones' performance) and for the most part I loved it. However, I never conquered the feeling that I didn't care about anyone in the play (except Judith Ivey as the aunt)--especially not Chastain. She didn't come across as just awkward and shy, she came across as the truly dull person everyone else accused her of being. I did not believe, or even really see, a transformation for her at the end because her performance felt so one-note to me. I talked to a fellow audience member after and we agreed that until the curtain went down we really hadn't been sure whether she was on the verge of killing herself as some sort of righteous punishment ("that'll show him"); I certainly did not see the vicious regality in her that seemed intended by the script (although her delivery of her last line to her father, something along the lines of "And you'll never know", as she leads him up the steps to his deathbed, was perfect and chilling, partly because it was delivered in that same dull tone).

For the most part I enjoyed everyone else's performances. There were a few line semi-flubs by Strathairn but he made it work.





Updated On: 11/2/12 at 03:38 PM

[tokki2]

Posted: 11/2/12 at 4:53pm

Chastain's Catherine did leave me cold for most of the play, unfortunately, but I just took it as the director's intention since I'm familiar with Chastain's work and can see her acting out a more homely Catherine if necessary. *shrugs* I'm still not sure what to make of it.

I really like the play nonetheless, and so did a number of theater goers that I talked to afterwards. The thing with these mixed/negative reviews is that I feel they don't give enough credit to the overall production which I found to be very solid. I hope they don't deter viewers away.

P.S. I also noticed Strathairn's semi-flubs.

Updated On: 11/2/12 at 04:53 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/3/12 at 7:27am

I saw the Cherry Jones production in NY, and I agree with MB. When they first announced this revival, I thought "good luck."

Most of you here either weren't around then or don't remember that it wasn't just a "best of the season" performance by Jones. It was one that people of all ages (even old NY guard) were saying, one of the best ever seen on Broadway.

Those are some big dowdy, plain shoes to step into. And there are plenty of people still around who remember them well.

[CukorLover]

Posted: 11/3/12 at 9:49am

Underwhelmed by the production last night. I never saw Cherry Jones, but the image of Olivia de Havilland in the movie still resonates with very strongly with me. It's a heartbreaking and nuanced portrayal.

The supporting cast is excellent here (including Stevens), but both Jessica Chastain and David Strathairn disappointed in peculiarly mousey interpretations. Chastain almost listless, while Strathairn sans any authority or strength. While Chastain may be no Cherry jones to some, David Strathairn is certainly no Ralph Richardson !

[bobs3]

Posted: 11/3/12 at 9:52am

WOW! The bitchy backlash has already begun. A week ago this production could do no wrong.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/3/12 at 10:31am

I'm eager to read Feingold's review. Not that I am convinced he will like this production (as I did). I have no idea what his conclusions will be. But simply because I fully expect him to review it, favorably, unfavorably or somewhere in between, with his usual perceptiveness and an understanding of what Kaufman has been trying to achieve. In other words, being a critic instead of a demagogue and with the good sense to realize that in comparing Kaufman's work to Guitierrez's it is not a facile "either or" proposition but a question largely of whether this production succeeds on its own terms, or not.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/3/12 at 10:31am

I'm eager to read Feingold's review. Not that I am convinced he will like this production (as I did). I have no idea what his conclusions will be. But simply because I fully expect him to review it, favorably, unfavorably or somewhere in between, with his usual perceptiveness and an understanding of what Kaufman has been trying to achieve. In other words, being a critic instead of a demagogue and with the good sense to realize that in comparing Kaufman's work to Guitierrez's it is not a facile "either or" proposition but a question largely of whether this production succeeds on its own terms, or not.

[TimesSquared]

Posted: 11/3/12 at 12:29pm

I agree with Scott Brown's review in New York Mag. I think the production was poorly cast, with the exception of Judith Ivy and some of the supporting players.

Some people seem to think it's unfair to compare a production to prior ones. I think that's nonsense. If I had seen this version back in 1995, my first exposure to the play, I would have enjoyed myself, and all these years later, I believe I would barely remember it. Chastain was just ok. Strathairn's career, I'll never understand. His acting is so artificial and unaffecting, it's mind-boggling.

But it Just happens that I saw the stunning LCT production, and Cherry Jones' tour de force performance first. So much of it is burned into my memory that I couldn't help being disappointed by this new, comparatively lifeless production.

Updated On: 11/3/12 at 12:29 PM

[Misha515]

Posted: 11/4/12 at 7:45am

In spite of negative reviews the show got an 8.2 rating on this site. Strange that some of the negative reviewers gave it an 8 or a 9. Seems to me if they TRULY didn't like most of what they saw the ratings would be much lower. I heard nothing but good things when the show first opened and now that it's opened it seems like everyone is picking it apart. I think it's unfair to compare this production to previous ones. It's a different take on the story. I would think playing Catherine as "one-note" only adds to her social awkwardness. I found the entire cast to be right on.

[homeimp]

Posted: 11/4/12 at 10:55am

For somebody who isn't sure what he knows, Jordan certainly has a lot to say on these boards.

[NYadgal]

Posted: 11/4/12 at 8:20pm

I also saw the Cherry Jones production in NY, and it was true theatrical genius.

However, it had no bearing on my enjoyment of this production, which I was able to see yesterday. I was thoroughly captivated by each of the performances, each character bringing a vulnerability that I connected with. I was moved to tears, I laughed and I sat in awe during the final scene and Jessica Chastain's performance exhibiting dignified strength born out of betrayal.

The sets are stunning. I loved this, and hope audiences continue to fill the theatre to appreciate this beautiful and moving production.

[Laurelei]

Posted: 11/5/12 at 7:39pm

Here's mine, for what it's worth...


The Heiress - Review on Shards of Daydreams

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/5/12 at 8:38pm

Laurelei, you write that Austin is "supposed to be a monster of egotism and cruelty," and that Strathairn plays it as "almost unaware of his own harshness, lost in a miasma of disappointment and mourning for his wife." You go on to say that Catherine's line "I can be cruel, I have been taught by masters" is difficult to reconcile with Strathairn's relatively benign interpretation.

I disagree. Strathairn's Austin was aware of his harshness because his mission was to be cruel to be kind. The text supports this. He speaks of being forced to be cruel to do what he must to protect his daughter. In his mind, of course, he is doing just that. Strathairn's is not your usual Austin in that he is not as pompous and bombastically arch as, say, Ralph Richardson was in Wyler's great film. Perhaps the "supposed to be" you posit is based merely on what we have seen before in the telling of this story. Kaufman and company saw it quite differently. For me, this is what makes this production refreshingly different and equally interesting to its progenitors.

That we, the audience, can be more understanding of Strathairn's Dr. Sloper should in no way prevent us from empathizing with Catherine's hurt and her sense of Austin and Morris as having been masterfully cruel. That is how she experiences it, quite understandably. But it doesn't mean that Austin in his heart of hearts is, intrinsically, a monster of egotism and cruelty. Nor does it mean that he isn't - that is what makes different directors' and actors' different looks at this story fascinating.

This is a rich interpretation of the story specifically because the moral fabric of the characters is more recognizably human and less clearly polarized on the spectrum of spiritual goodness. The play is being told less melodramatically than usual.

Now the question that is interesting is whether, judged on these terms, this production works or it doesn't. For me, it worked splendidly. For others it clearly did not.

But what is this "supposed to" barometer of who these people are? Why can't we leave aside - or at least be aware of - the way we have been conditioned by prior interpretations of this play to view these people and instead watch what is being presented to us in this new take on the play and judge it on its own terms? Doing so should not be confused with resisting comparisons with earlier interpretations. To the contrary, it would instead be opening ourselves up to alternative tellings and delving deeper into what works and what does not.

By comparing and contrasting without presuming that what came before is definitive.








Updated On: 11/5/12 at 08:38 PM

[aaronb]

Posted: 11/17/12 at 12:48am

I thought it was quite good--Jessica Chastain does a great job of overcoming being miscast. You can read my review here: http://scribicide.com/2012/11/15/for-life-as-it-were/