I've been on a Glenn Close kick lately, but, given that I sat through the Public's last abysmal venture into the Joan of Arc story, I think I'll wait for the reviews.
GlindatheGood22 said: "I've been on a Glenn Close kick lately, but, given that I sat through the Public's last abysmal venture into the Joan of Arc story, I think I'll wait for the reviews."This is much better than Into the Fire (how could it not be?) but you would probably be happier with a $20 rush ticket than if you paid full price.
So funny how folks see things so differently. I thought Van Patten was abysmal.
HogansHero said: "So funny how folks see things so differently. I thought Van Patten was abysmal."Me too. But it hardly mattered, since no character except Isabelle is written with any kind of depth. That said, I thought Close was pretty dreadful too -- screaming her lines, rushing around the stage like a madwoman. Overall, it was a woeful experience.
I'm shocked by the overall positive tone of the reviews (not Brantley, though -- he's a total star-<<edited by BWW staff>>). No hyperbole, every single person I know who's seen this thought it was dreadful, myself included.
LarryD2 said: "I'm shocked by the overall positive tone of the reviews (not Brantley, though -- he's a total star-<>). No hyperbole, every single person I know who's seen this thought it was dreadful, myself included."Sounds like it is time for you to consider (1) reading a few more reviews, (2) broadening your group of friends, and (3) seeing more shows (because if you thought this was "dreadful" you have missed a lot...
HogansHero said: "LarryD2 said: "I'm shocked by the overall positive tone of the reviews (not Brantley, though -- he's a total star-<>). No hyperbole, every single person I know who's seen this thought it was dreadful, myself included."Sounds like it is time for you to consider (1) reading a few more reviews,(2) broadening your group of friends, and (3) seeing more shows (because if you thought this was "dreadful" you have missed a lot..."I see 200+ professional productions a year. This show sucks.
AC126748 said: "I see 200+ professional productions a year. This show sucks."Great. You are entitled to your opinion. (Mine is more moderate but certainly not exuberant,) But there is a long way between "sucks" and "dreadful."
I wouldn't really call it "dreadful" either, but I would say that this show gave me a stronger negative reaction than a lot of truly dreadful shows I've seen. I find that IN MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, if a show is really, really awful, more often than not it's because they tried something unusual and it went horribly wrong. They made strong choices that worked terribly. And honestly, I'd rather see something like that than something lazy and safe like Mother of the Maid. I feel like I can learn from a dreadful show, or maybe it's unintentionally funny, or at the very least I can get a good story out of it. But shows like this just feel like a waste of time.
I didn't care for this at all. I thought Close was chewing the scenery, and it all felt so inessential. I don't think it did anything to shed light on the Joan of Arc story, and it just felt like Isabelle was reacting to things for the whole 2 hours.
I saw this last Sunday, 10/14, and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was great to see Glenn Close so "close," and I thought that it was a funny and sweet story told from the mother's (and sometimes father's and brother's) point of view. Maybe as a mom, I could relate to Isabelle always wondering how Joan was doing, and not caring about her work, but about her happiness, nutrition, and well-being. The patron next to me was crying at the end. I sat in center row B with an excellent view of the small and intimate stage. I agree that is probably not everyone's cup of tea, but I loved it.
This was pretty much a total miss for me. It just had no idea what it wanted to be. One moment it was a sitcom (and a not very funny one at that), the next a Barbara Stanwyck mother/daughter weepy. And then at the end we're asked to take it all super seriously. The anachronistic dialogue drove me crazy. Every time Glenn Close called Joan "Joanie," I kept thinking "...loves Chachi." And when the high tone woman at the castle tells Glenn Close, "You're fabulous," it was straight out of a "Sex and the City" episode. Ridiculous. I was shocked at the NY Times review. The Hollywood Reporter and Variety reviews are far more on target IMHO.
Add me to the chorus of hating the anachronistic language. Everytime Joan said, "hey ma" or "yo ma" I rolled my eyes. I thought Glenn was extraordinary but the shifts in tone were jarring and I felt the supporting cast was terribly amateur. Having them on stage with Close amplified that. The dialogue was like 'you say your line and then I say mine.' It never felt like true conversation. (I saw Torch Song right after this and that felt organic-overlapping dialogue, breathing, nuance, gelt spontaneous and real.)I though Grace who played Joan was miscast. Regardless of the play as written, I feel you need a young actress who is "charismatic" as Joan is described. Nothing charismatic about Grace. I never believed she was special or possessed. For the people to become enthralled with her she needed a gravity that Grace never delivered on. Her speaking like Jo Polniaczek from the Facts of Life didn't help matters. Kate's understudy was on and she was marvelous. She brought her A game and during curtain call Glenn was squeezing her hand and mouthing "you did it!"This play seems very weak. The reviews for the previous production were mixed so Im unsure why Glenn attached herself to this.
Scarywarhol said: "Hilarious how many people are flipping their wigs about the anachronistic language, like it's not on purpose." As one of the people who complained about the language, let me say a few things in response to that: 1. In general, I don't care about language being anachronistic, especially if it's done with a clear intent. I can go on and on naming plays and musicals that I thought were brilliant, that also had clearly anachronistic language. 2. Just because something is done on purpose does not mean that it works. 3. My issue with the language was not that it didn't match the time period. It's that it seemed to be TRYING to evoke some kind of "other" setting that didn't mesh at all. If the playwright had decided to make the language sound purely modern - instead of just partially modern - and then maybe give the Arc family a kind of American country twang to evoke the sense that this was a rural family. Then that might have worked very well. Or maybe they could have spoken in British accents, and the Arc family could have had a kind of Northern or Bristol dialect. Or maybe they could have spoken in an Irish dialect, and then their use of Irish vernacular would have sounded more organic. The issue here, for me, is not anachronism, it's inconsistency. And also that she went in a stylistic direction that I thought just sounded stupid and grating to listen to.
© 2019 Wisdom Digital Media