As You Like It at the Classic Stage Company

[BakerWilliams]

Posted: 9/19/17 at 9:32pm

As You Like It remains the most butchered of all of Shakespeare's plays in production, but WOW is this production bad. The whole cast here clearly has a version of their characters that they could absolutely nail, but John Doyle has directed the whole thing so poorly that everybody except Burstyn ends up embarrassing themselves. I felt particularly bad for André de Shields. There were maybe one or two laughs in the whole thing and the evening felt so joyless and flat. At 105 minutes without intermission, it also drags heavily on the attention span, and this is from somebody who adores the play. 

It also featured one of the most hideous set designs I've ever seen. Those tacky light bulbs projecting bright neon colors really was an eyesore.

 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 9/19/17 at 9:59pm

Wow, ok this is crazy. I literally felt the exact reverse of every single sentence in your post, haha! 

I usually can't stand John Doyle, but I found this production to be utterly delightful. I thought that almost the entire cast was excellent, with the exception of Burstyn, whom I thought was very wooden and seemed bored. The audience was highly engaged when I saw it, and there was a really lovely, fun atmosphere throughout. The actors were playing off the audience very nicely, and the audience seemed to be loving it. For me, the 105 minutes flew by. And I thought the design was beautiful and magical, and one of the elements of the production that drew me in the most. I thought Stephen Schwartz's music worked well, though it wasn't especially memorable. 

I won't go so far as to say that this is John Doyle's best work, but I will say this is definitely my personal favorite that I've seen (I did not see his Sweeney, but I DID see The Color Purple).

Talk about a matter of taste! Even after years of posting on this site, it still sometimes amazing me how people can have such polar opposite reactions to the same thing. But I guess that's the wonderful thing about art! 

Updated On: 9/19/17 at 09:59 PM

[BakerWilliams]

Posted: 9/19/17 at 11:39pm

I spoke to some people around me afterwards and the reaction seemed polarized, but I will say that I heard very little laughter during the show from the whole audience. 

Perhaps my really strong aversion to the production stems from the fact that I think that Shakespearean dialogue follow by a *gasp* anachronistic moment of clowning as a method of telegraphing to the audience that this is where they should laugh to be thoroughly eye roll-inducing and that was basically where eighty percent of the attempted comedy of this production came from. Also, for me As You Like It is Rosalind and Rosalind is As You Like It so the relative de-emphasis from her character in the production made the whole affair rather pointless to me.

Burstyn worked well for me because she was the first actress I've seen play Jacques as truly melancholic instead of just dark and dour and it felt more true to the intent of the character.

[BakerWilliams]

Posted: 9/19/17 at 11:39pm

I spoke to some people around me afterwards and the reaction seemed polarized, but I will say that I heard very little laughter during the show from the whole audience. 

Perhaps my really strong aversion to the production stems from the fact that I think that Shakespearean dialogue follow by a *gasp* anachronistic moment of clowning as a method of telegraphing to the audience that this is where they should laugh to be thoroughly eye roll-inducing and that was basically where eighty percent of the attempted comedy of this production came from. Also, for me As You Like It is Rosalind and Rosalind is As You Like It so the relative de-emphasis from her character in the production made the whole affair rather pointless to me.

Burstyn worked well for me because she was the first actress I've seen play Jacques as truly melancholic instead of just dark and dour and it felt more true to the intent of the character.

[Alfie6]

Posted: 9/20/17 at 12:09pm

I agree with BakerWilliams on this one, this is one of my favorite plays and it was such a disappointing night. The entire production felt dead and totally lifeless, people around me were dozing off and seemed disinterested. There isn't much of a set except for dozens of lights (which were pretty) and a trunk and a piano that get moved around a bunch. I don't think anyone stood out in terms of acting, it all felt so bland, the only two moments in this show that had any excitement involved some audience interaction which I won't spoil. The direction was also a mess with several characters just  hanging around the playing space at points making weird uncomfortable facial reactions. I get that there is probably limited backstage area but it felt so bizarre. The music was charming but I have no idea why this production is billed as "jazz age" since that didn't come across. Definitely a let down. 

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

Posted: 9/20/17 at 1:56pm

A promotional photo from this production actually wound up on the "PR is Difficult" Tumblr. Its moderator commented that Ellen Burstyn was looking for "the sweet release of death" or something like that.

Incidentally, it is a hilarious site. Link

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 9/20/17 at 2:19pm

Ado Annie D'Ysquith said: "A promotional photo from this production actually wound up on the "PR is Difficult" Tumblr. Itsmoderator commented that Ellen Burstynwas looking for "the sweet release of death" or something like that.

Incidentally, it is a hilarious site. Link"

I'm f*cking weeping

 

[Addison D.]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 12:35pm

I'm with JBroadway on this one.  I thought the production was delightful, with splendid performances all around, especially from Hannah Cabell, and Kyle Scatliffe.  Burstyn is giving an understated performance, to be sure, but *not* (IMO) wooden and certainly not sleepwalking, lost or confused. 

The set is minimal, certainly--I found the lights effective, but not...genius, exactly.  The crowd last night was engaged and enthusiastic, and I overheard nothing but positive comments on the way out.  

It has been a long time since I read the play--perhaps I should have done so before heading in--and it did take me a while--20 minutes?--to get traction on the plot points, the language, etc., but once I did, the evening flew.  As the story began to wrap up, I actually felt a pang of regret that the show was coming to an end--I could have danced all night. 

ETA: I agree with Alfie6, however, that the--sporadic and rather extraneous--music in NO way gives a sense of this as a "jazz age" production.  There is nothing 'Jazz Age-y' going on here at all.  That is not to the show's detriment, but it does speak either to a failure by the creative team to achieve a goal they set for themselves or a profoundly mis-guided marketing campaign. 

 

Updated On: 9/23/17 at 12:35 PM

[little_sally]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 5:10pm

I'm with Alfie6 on this one. This is a dreadful and dull production, and the comedy has been ripped from this play. And I find this to be Shakespeare's funniest. The cast is directed to speed through the text, and I didn't think anyone had any idea what to do with their characters. The added music didn't do anything for me, and I didn't quite understand what Doyle was going for with his "concept." I didn't think there were any standouts in the cast, which is sad because I've enjoyed so many of them in other things.

Skip this. It's nearly two hours without an intermission and you will feel every minute of it.

[BakerWilliams]

Posted: 9/29/17 at 1:39am

Green really did not like it in his review for the Times, and I must say that he gets it 100% right here.