The Elephant Man Previews

[bfreak]

I am so excited that this is finally starting it's first performance! I'm not going for a month, but post all your thoughts on the previews HERE! Also, if anyone heads to the stage door, post that experience as well.

[shocowo]

I'm going tonight!

[haterobics]

And if anyone was interested in going, the show they added on Monday before Thanksgiving has a TON of seats available. Full price, but available.

[Play Esq.]

I very much enjoyed Cooper's performance at WTF. That siad, I found the production overall to be a little too austere. I hope it's improved since.

[Auggie27]

Cooper was the best thing in THREE DAYS OF RAIN, and as recent as that was, the relative unknown the two stars. How quickly one's fate changes in show biz.

[WhizzerMarvin]

I was there tonight and I generally liked it, although it never completely won me over into feeling anything more than respect for the production. The first act flew by; an hour felt like 25 minutes with the zippy direction and the text galloping through plot at a nice clip. Things became a bit rougher around the edges in the second act. There were lots of nice moments for sure, but it was here that it most felt like a first preview.

I thought Cooper acquitted himself nicely and didn't skate by on his movie star charms, but at the same time he didn't knock my socks off in a role that could have really thrilled. He made some odd choices (IMO) with vocal inflections that occasionally made him sound like Hyacinth Bucket. His final scene was well played and he was fully committed to the physical nature of the part- something just wasn't fully clicking for me that possibly will fix itself in previews.

Patricia Clarkson, who I normally find no fault with on film, has the showiest part and it's very easy to warm up to her. She does well with the quieter moments in act two, but could be even bigger in act one. I couldn't help but think of Jan Maxwell in the role- they look so alike- but I think she'll settle into her role too.

I enjoyed Scott Ellis' direction and the physical production. Did he direct the out of town too?

It's a great thing that we're experiencing such a strong year (on the whole) for plays, but that just means each new entry has to work that much harder to make an impression.

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Yes, Scott Ellis directed the production at Williamstown too.

[RippedMan]

Wouldn't Cooper already be pretty settled into the part having done an out-of-town show and rehearsals? I doubt too much will change at this point.

Did they do anything to the inside of theater? I know the outside kind of looks like an old-school sideshow.

[bfreak]

According to twitter, it appears that Bradley signs and takes pictures at the stage door.

[Auggie27]

I agree: Jan Maxwell would've been inspired. I'm not a big fan of the play. I saw the original, and I always find the conceit -- this deformed man played by a particularly charismatic young actor, often movie-star handsome, precious and a bit of a cheat. Give me THE WHALE, wherein we're really asked to suspend disbelief and face our biases about deformity and societal aesthetics. THE ELEPHANT MAN lets everyone in the audience feel empathetic and proud of themselves for being so touched by the man's soul. A soul contained in the person of the sometimes semi-clothed Bradley Cooper (or fill in the blank). I get it, so no lectures on stylization in the theater. Personally, I sit dry-eyed through this story, and felt much more compassion facing John Hurt's tragic duplication of the real man's condition in the rather more demanding film.

[CurtainsUpat8]

The movie was brilliant and much better than the play. Just like Driving Miss Daisy... just like Trip to Bountiful. Some plays just need to be opened up to bigger possibilities that can happen on stage.

[wonkit]

I also liked the movie but find the play on the page to be very stilted and self-conscious of creating effects. I am seeing this production in about ten days and hope there is more life to it than the script suggests.

The traditional use of a fine looking actor troubles me because it seems to manipulate the human prejudice that handsome people are somehow good, more truthful, "better" than their less gorgeous fellows. It influences us to side with and protect the character, who does not have that advantage in his true form.

[henrikegerman]

I can see both Augie's and Wonkit's well-stated take on the leading man no-makeup casting as intellectually dishonest. But I can also see a Brechtian distancing justification for it.

Both sides now.

If this kind of casting makes us keenly aware of the prejudices we are bringing to the way we take in the story and the way we feel about John as a function of our being able to see his beauty so easily (and clearly it does inspire this awareness as it has inspired this criticism which is a function of that awareness), perhaps it's working splendidly.

Then again, did people feel less sympathy for John in the movie? No. But they are different media. Perhaps trying to present John on stage as a physical facsimile of John would not have worked, as it would have been exploitive of effect and thus even more of a gimmick; and likely an inept one.

There is a marked difference between intellectual dishonesty that insipidly and with an absence of irony makes something palatable and intellectual dishonesty that puts itself in relief so as to inescapably confront an audience with its prejudices. The first is highly objectionable, the second effort can also prove fruitless. Or not.

[Auggie27]

Putting my cynicism aside, I would still not describe Bradley Cooper in "The Elephant Man" as remotely about Brechtian distancing.

Would the role be offered to Paul Giamatti? Shuler Hensley? The audience is in the Booth too see an aesthetically pleasing male, again at times barely clad, in an artistic pursuit of understanding the human condition manifest in physically repulsive deformity and disease? When I saw Phillip Anglim, cute and buff, I felt manipulated. At least Anglim wasn't a star. Now we get to feast our eyes and sensibilities on movie star flesh and go home enlightened about our tolerance and acceptance. I'm in the minority, as the premise and conceit have worked handily all the the way to kudos and the bank for years.

[bwayphreak234]

I am curious what the inside of the theatre looks like as well!

[SweetLips]

Is it the stage make up but the Bradley Cooper on the poster looks nothing like the Bradley Cooper taking his bow.

[LarryD2]

Can anyone who's seen this yet offer some insight on rear orchestra seating? I noticed that they are selling the back rows of the rear orchestra for $99, and there are still tickets available for a lot of preview performances. Does anyone know if these seats are partial view, or if anything is blocked by the mezzanine overhang that would necessitate selling them at a lower price? Thanks in advance.

[jayinchelsea]

Wow, there's a lot of bitterness out there about "cute and buff" actors playing the lead. Hey people, that is the conceit of the playwright, and frankly, it works far better than seeing John Hurt, a fine actor, in a deformed mask. Imo, the film is dull, and demands little from the viewer. Where is the imagination in that? At least wait until you see the production to make up your mind.

I saw it at Williamstown and was extremely impressed by each of the three actors, who are recreating that production on Broadway. I'll be seeing it again this weekend, and am looking forward to it.

[Auggie27]

Interesting, that a negative response to the artistic decision to cast the play with attractive men is described as "bitterness." In truth, it's an admittedly subjective reaction to the preciousness, the pretense and the assumption of audience acceptance. Bitter I am not; unmoved I decidedly am. But from the first words I posted, I made it clear: Mr. Pomerantz doesn't need my vote. Nor does Mr. Cooper. They are in for a big success, and more power to 'em. It's hard to believe, but sometimes we do discuss our differences here without wishing anyone failure.

[BWAY Baby2]

Let's face it- big movie stars bring in big audiences, generally. I personally don't think an actor should be judged on his attractiveness in a role like this. I think it is a brave move for Cooper to play this role- not in his comfort zone and it takes some real acting ability to play a role like this one convincingly. If he can do it- and I see it Dec. 6- more power to him. Whenever an actor goes against type there is an element of surprise- I hope he can pull this off and it seems he can after Willimastown reviews. He is an excellent actor and this further establishes his credentials. I hope I am moved by his portrayal.

[LarryD2]

There actually is no mandate in the script that the actor playing Merrick be a man of traditional physical beauty--whatever that is. It simply states that cumbersome prosthetics and other distracting factors not be used. Auggie27, I think your point is well-judged and reasonable, although I don't think I completely agree. Using The Whale as a correlative, though, is a good choice--that really was a performance (in every manner, including the physical) that forced the audience to confront its prejudices and preconceived notions. At the same time--to offer another example--I thought Sutton Foster and company were able to do a lot in Violet without the use of any makeup, simply playing off of how her character saw herself, and how others saw her. And I do see the point Pomerance was making (albeit, thirty-five years ago) that trying too hard to capture the deformities of Merrick could be problematic.

I think it is a brave move for Cooper to play this role- not in his comfort zone and it takes some real acting ability to play a role like this one convincingly.

How exactly is this role out of his comfort zone?

[mamaleh]

I'm assuming they're not selling standing room for sold-out performances during previews. Is that the case? Has anyone noticed?

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

"How exactly is this role out of his comfort zone?"

Because we're so used to seeing him play more comedic roles.

[Auggie27]

Thank you, Larry. Good points, all. I'm not arguing for Phantom make-up, but more interested in addressing the decades-old casting decisions which have been associated with this conceit since the first production. The one that intrigued me the most was late in the original run -- David Bowie -- made a more exotic case for the premise. Bowie isn't unattractive of course but isn't by any definition a traditional leading man. I would be curious to see the play with someone more in the Bowie mode. Or with some personal aspect that makes the actor stand out from the rest of the company. It's the sustained use of WASPY Americana that makes me question the conceit's absolute boundaries, i.e. Bruce Davidson played it. As has Billy Crudup. Has the role ever been played by an African American, by the way? Everyone will balk (I can hear the replies), but what about, say, Peter Dinklage? I would love to see how the play functions without that -- how else to say it -- boyish center. How would the story unfold if our own comfort zones were in some way, any way, challenged? The repulsion is an intellectual construct, we hear about the societal revulsion, but then never face its impact, not in theatrical terms. It's the cerebral algebra of translating a handsome face and figure into this man who made people turn away that I would like to see re-imagined.

[LarryD2]

"How exactly is this role out of his comfort zone?"

Because we're so used to seeing him play more comedic roles.

So then it's outside of your comfort zone, based on how you perceive him. Not his.