DEATH OF A SALESMAN 2022 Previews

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 9/16/22 at 12:05am

The Lomans are back on Broadway.

The fifth Broadway revival of the Arthur Miller classic Death of a Salesman begins previews tomorrow at the Hudson Theatre, before an October 9 opening night; Miranda Cromwell directs. For the first time in New York, this story is being told from the perspective of an African-American family; Wendell Pierce and Sharon D. Clarke lead the company as Willy and Linda Loman, with André De Shields as Uncle Ben. Rounding out the cast are Khris Davis, McKinley Belcher III, Blake DeLong, Lynn Hawley, Grace Porter, Stephen Stocking, Chelsea Lee Williams, and Delaney Williams. Death of a Salesman concludes its limited run on January 15.

“One man and his family are caught up in the pressures and delusions of living the American Dream. Miller’s play is the story of a travelling salesman whose illusions of picture-perfect business and family life cave in on him.”

Who’s going?

[BETTY22]

Posted: 9/16/22 at 11:36am

I think it's invited dress tonight. 

[sppunk]

Posted: 9/16/22 at 1:40pm

Seeing this October 1 and incredibly excited to see Wendell Pierce on stage. He’s a force of nature. 

[BCfitasafiddle]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 7:06pm

Who is going tonight?

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 7:16pm

I’m not going for a couple weeks, but I’m so excited to read people’s thoughts here, on what I genuinely think is the best production of this play I’ve ever seen.

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 11:50pm

Any first preview thoughts?

[Wick3]

Posted: 9/18/22 at 10:08am

I thought it was a pretty solid first preview. Runtime was 3 hours with 1 intermission and there will certainly be cuts but time flew by very quickly. I didn't even look at my watch until intermission and after I left the theater (left at 11:13pm.) So if you have a train/bus to catch after the show, it might be better to see the matinee.

It's a stellar cast. Wendell Pierce, Sharon Clarke, and Andre de Shields stood out for me. I read the play over 20 years ago and barely remember Uncle Ben but will certainly remember Andre de Shields's take on Uncle Ben after seeing this production. Loved the additional music/singing in this production. Got teary-eyed a few times in act 2. I'm glad this production came to NYC from the West End.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/18/22 at 3:37pm

How was the physical production? 

[Jmuep2]

Posted: 9/19/22 at 11:16am

I also thought the production was really strong -- with Pierce and Clarke being the standouts. I was also unfamiliar with McKinley Belcher and Stephen Stocking, but they both made strong impressions on me. There's a lot of really good stuff here, so the minor quibbles I have are that -- very minor. And I hope most of them will work themselves out in the preview process -- most notably the sound (it was really hard to hear people at times) and Khris Davis' performance as Biff. It still felt to me like it was searching for a connection to the rest of the play. 

When the show opened, I liked some of the singing but when the show went on past 11, it was wearing me down. A couple of days later, I would've preferred all that be cut so I could've gotten out before 11. This is a show that would be firing on all cylinders if it were tighter. 

Staging wise, it was fine. I don't quite understand why directors decide to play pivotal moments off stage in parts of the theater where not everyone can see what's happening, but I hope that will be changed by the time the show is locked. 

The piece that kept pulling me out of the show most was DeShields. For a single second, I didn't see Ben on stage. I saw DeShields. It felt like Mr. Hermes had simply flown in from Olympus and was in a different production than this one. Where everybody else was grounded, he was jazzy and actor-y. He was fun, don't get me wrong, but I didn't see a lot of performance there. The other thing that kept pulling me out of the evening as DeShield's use of the set. There were a lot of steps and every time he had to step up or down, he was trying to hold on to things and it felt like he was in danger of falling and hurting himself. It became a weird production and every single time he had to step down, I held my breath and sorta quit watching what else was happening for those fifteen seconds because I was worried he was gonna hurt himself. I don't know if that was an acting choice or if that was a practical thing, but it felt like an issue that might not be solvable. 

Still, this is a great production. Very very happy to have seen it. 

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 9/19/22 at 12:42pm

Glad to hear the good reviews and it didn't go over too long since the show is advertised as a three hour show. 

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 9/19/22 at 10:30pm

Very curious about seat locations for this. Their ticketing site warns about blocked views from the side orchestra seats, and even from rear-mezzanine. 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 9/19/22 at 10:37pm

Since the change in director credits has been a topic of some conversation, I'm extremely curious to know  what, if anything, has changed significantly from the London productions.

Updated On: 9/19/22 at 10:37 PM

[Tom-497]

Posted: 9/20/22 at 6:31pm

I saw last night's performance from a first-row, audience-right TodayTix rush seat, and the view was mostly excellent -- only a couple times toward the end was it less than ideal, when action took place on the lip of the stage directly in front of me, and I had to bend my neck far back to look at the actors' faces instead of their knees.

As for the performance, I thought the first Act was very strong -- well-acted, well-paced and fluid as it moved back and forth between Willy's mind and the concrete world.

But, for me, the second Act was less successful, mainly because it seemed to repeatedly overstate and oversimplify the unpleasantness of the world in which Willy lives. For example, Willy's run-of-the-mill jerk boss becomes Snidely Whiplash. And, in a manner that appears to contradict what Arthur Miller wrote, a decent guy is turned into a run-of-the mill jerk. Specifically, in the text, a waiter kindly returns to the distraught Willy some money that Willy has just given him. But in this production, the waiter keeps the money.  

I also thought that the music was far too prominent in the last scene (up until then, I didn't have a strong opinion about it).

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 9/20/22 at 10:23pm

Hey Tom, may I ask you what your exact seat was? Im just wondering where to sit for this one. Only one side of the dress circle is mostly partial view which is interesting because the other side is not. I am tall so the stage height isn't a big deal, but could you see mostly everything for your seat and is there a good amount of space between the stage the the first row? Any answers would be appreciated. 

[Tom-497]

Posted: 9/20/22 at 11:39pm

In response to the above - I was first row orch, one seat off the far-right aisle. Even there, the stage wall on that side was still further to my right. I don't recall ever thinking I was missing any of the action or that the view was obstructed.

Depending where the actors were, I couldn't always see their feet. At the lip, though, the stage is quite low and close - when one actor was standing there, I could count the individual small holes in the designs on his brogues. Also, there was enough room on the floor in front of my seat to extend my legs comfortably.

[christinelavin]

Posted: 9/21/22 at 12:08am

Tom-497 said: "I saw last night's performance from a first-row, audience-right TodayTix rush seat, and the view was mostly excellent -- only a couple times toward the end was it less than ideal, when action took place on the lip of the stage directly in front of me, and I had to bend my neck far back to look at the actors' faces instead of their knees.

As for the performance, I thought the first Act was very strong -- well-acted, well-paced and fluid as it moved back and forth between Willy's mind and the concrete world.

But, for me, the second Act was less successful, mainly because it seemed to repeatedly overstate and oversimplify the unpleasantness of the world in which Willy lives. For example, Willy's run-of-the-mill jerk boss becomes Snidely Whiplash. And, in a manner that appears to contradict what Arthur Miller wrote, a decent guy is turned into a run-of-the mill jerk. Specifically, in the text, a waiter kindly returns to the distraught Willy some money that Willy has just given him. But in this production, the waiter keeps the money.

I also thought that the music was far too prominent in the last scene (up until then, I didn't have a strong opinion about it)."

In Tuesday night's performance the waiter DID put the money back in Willy's pocket, so that is changed for the good.

I was with friends in center row H and when we were leaving I asked if anyone else had trouble hearing all the dialogue, and it turns out we ALL did.  DeShields articulated better than most of the actors, but for seats that close the sound should be way better. The text is so essential, so please do work on that -- some of it is rapid-fire and when you struggle trying to hear, it can have a cascading effect. 

There's an excellent filmed stage version from 1985 starring Dustin Hoffman and Charles Durning that's free online. I watched it this afternoon to get me prepped for tonight, and helped me with some of the dialogue. It's such a classic play, and fascinating to watch different productions, so you might want to check this out, if you have time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMqiCtq5VLs If you hit the "CC" button all the dialogue appears on the screen, which can help if they continue to have sound issues in this production.  

[SayitSomehow]

Posted: 9/22/22 at 11:49am

I found this a bit difficult to sit through. There's just so much repetition of ideas and by the time you reach three hours (in a theater that wasn't well air conditioned), I could feel people squirming in their seats. 

Wendell is on fire but I do find that his use of yelling is a bit erratic and almost not believable. In any conversation he might suddenly YELL a line of dialogue and it felt unrealistic to me, no matter how on-edge the character is. I wanted him to be a bit more nuanced with his choices, but was impressed overall. 

Sharon is strong, but my group found Biff to be quite bad to the point where it undermined the entire night. We felt his acting was like a 1970's sitcom, his style was stiff and lacking fluidity, he couldn't bring the level of emotion needed for the bigger scenes. It felt like he chose a characterization for the stylized childhood flashbacks but then couldn't shake it, he seems like a really tall muscular little child. It was tough to connect with and did not seem Broadway caliber to us at all. The actor playing Happy was much much better.

As a huge musical fan, I agree with poster above that Andre De Shields took me out of it as well. Too much Hermes energy and his presence doesn't match the rest of the cast. I also don't understand the direction for the "laughing woman" -- that felt like comedy and I don't think it was supposed to. 

Glad I saw the production, but I certainly was checking my watch. 

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 9/23/22 at 12:08am

Was at tonight's show. Started a few minutes after 8, turned my phone back on at 11:10.  We were Row N Center Orch, which was perfect. 

Its a long night, of the near-perfect play, and it didnt drag at all. The production makes some.... choices, and some work better than others but overall, its a well-produced revival of a classic and I enjoyed seeing it. 

The whole thing turns on the central two performances, of course. I saw Philip Seymour Hoffman ten years ago, and I remember a masterful, rage-boiling-over performance. Wendell Pierce is doing a whole other thing, and its largely excellent. Some of his line readings made me almost burst into tears. He plays Loman a bit more manic than I was expecting, but its a powerhouse steam engine of a performance start to finish... and he is well matched, if not surpassed, by Sharon Clarke. I simply loved every second she was on stage- the exhaustion, the warmth, the grief. Give her the Tony she should have won last year, and give it to her now. 

By far the biggest miss/fail of the night was Andre de Shields, who is 1000% playing Hermes. And its hard to fault him, as the production mystifyingly plays UP the other-worldliness of his character. His sing-song cadence, his frailty-- he's in a totally different play, and distracting is the kindest way to describe it.

I'd like to believe that McKinley Belcher and Khris Davis are going to grow into their roles a bit. The first extended scene with the two of them was awkward to the point of rough (though Belcher repeatedly finds humor, which I appreciated). But both got better as the play wore on, and both took the opportunity to break my heart. Davis' big scene with Pierce was a knockout. Also a special shout out to Delaney Williams who does a HELLA lot with a small (and easily throwaway) part.

I don't think any ground is being broken here but its a solid production of one of the best plays with some incredible performances. 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 9/23/22 at 12:32am

I haven't seen Andre de Shields in this role, so I can't pass judgement. But I can definitely see how his distinct style might be distracting or out of place in this production.

But people saying "he's playing Hermes" makes me laugh. He never played Hermes; he played Andre de Shield, just like he's seemingly playing Andre de Shield now, and just like he played Andre de Shields in the few roles I'd seen him in before Hadestown.

And I don't even mean that as an insult; he's a marvelous performer, and like many marvelous performers, he has an incredibly distinct set of mannerisms and stylistic flares, which he brings to most of his roles. The character of Hermes wasn't "like that" until they cast Andre de Shields, and that's partly what made his performance so noteworthy.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/23/22 at 12:48am

Any typical Elliot style direction choices? Feel like she likes big. scene changes, etc .

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 9/23/22 at 12:54am

JBroadway said: "I haven't seen Andre de Shields in this role, so I can't pass judgement. But I can definitely see how his distinct style might be distracting or out of place in this production.

But people saying "he's playing Hermes" makes me laugh. He never played Hermes; he played Andre de Shield, just like he's seemingly playing Andre de Shield now, and just like he played Andre de Shields in the few roles I'd seen him in before Hadestown.

And I don't even mean that as an insult; he's a marvelous performer, and like many marvelous performers, he has an incredibly distinct set of mannerisms and stylistic flares, which he brings to most of his roles. The character of Hermes wasn't "like that" until they cast Andre de Shields, and that's partly what made his performance so noteworthy."

I've only seen him as Hermes so I can't argue with you, and maybe that just is how he moves and sounds. But imagine him in a white suit with sparkly shoes. Imagine the way he slowly walks/glides as Hermes. Imagine the way he talks slowly and deliberately, as if imparting wisdom. All that worked great in Hadestown. Now, pick that up and drop it in 1940's Brooklyn, as Willy Loman's brother. It just doesnt work.

[hollebolle]

Posted: 9/23/22 at 1:01am

Jmuep2 said: "I don't quite understand why directors decide to play pivotal moments off stage in parts of the theater where not everyone can see what's happening, but I hope that will be changed by the time the show is locked.”

I was there tonight and I think they did change that. The only thing that jumped out was (spoiler tag just in case)

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Willy goes into the audience just before his death, which is staged to look like it’s happening in the back of the house. But I don’t think anything actually happened in the audience.

There was also a moment when Ben exits through the audience while talking to Willy (on stage), so we didn’t have a visual of Ben, but I didn’t feel like I missed anything.

Curious about what was played off stage during the earlier previews.

—

SayitSomehow, you articulated my thoughts exactly, though I didn’t have as strong of a negative reaction to Biff. I have no right to edit Arthur Miller, but it did feel pretty repetitive and I was definitely squirming by the end. 

My take on the laughing is it gave her a sort of identity, so that we could make that connection even if she wasn’t directly in a scene. But if that’s the only reason, it feels like lazy direction? Though I’m sure you could make a case for subtext behind the laugh. I’m sure there’s a better way to phrase that, but it’s late…

And one last unimportant thought, Ben’s character reminded me a bit of Mr. Lies in Angels in America—especially with the talk of Alaska. 

 

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 9/23/22 at 1:02am

RippedMan said: "Any typical Elliot style direction choices? Feel like she likes big. scene changes, etc ."

I, for one, didnt feel her touch at all--i forgot she was the director until I opened my playbill on the way home. That isnt a criticism.

The lighting is very much part of the story, cluing us into whats present day and whats Willy's memory. The limited set flies up/down from the rafters for the most part; plain wood squares/rectangles are dropped as if windows/doors here and there. But its mostly pretty bare bones, with not alof of set pieces or changes.

The boldest choice is probably the singing: the play opens with the Company singing, and there are three other distinct musical moments (one of which I think is in the original text, one of which works in seamlessly and rather cleverly, and one of which, I think, goes too far). 

I should add that there is a staircase at the back of the set meant to be the stairs up to the second floor of the Loman house. Its not used much but if you are sitting on the right side of the theater you will miss it entirely.  (You'll miss nothing sitting center or left). 

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 9/23/22 at 1:11am

hollebolle said: "
My take on the laughing is it gave her a sort of identity, so that we could make that connection even if she wasn’t directly in a scene. But if that’s the only reason, it feels like lazy direction? Though I’m sure you could make a case for subtext behind the laugh. I’m sure there’s a better way to phrase that, but it’s late…
."

 

 

The laughing was brilliant. A sound that was once fun becomes haunting and inescapable. And it constantly snapped us back into that room. A nice touch.

I don't think its much of a spoiler to say that two to three times characters exit the stage via the audience left; it adds nothing, but I guess would be annoying if you're sitting rear Dress Circle/Balc. 

[GoldenGiggery]

Posted: 9/30/22 at 11:54am

So I won rush tickets to this for the Wednesday evening performance. Frankly, it was a mixed bag for me.
 

—I LOVED Wendell’s performance as Willy Loman. I thought he made good decisions with showing the character’s descent into madness, depression, and overall mental erosion. It was played very tragically, and I felt genuine sorrow for his fate, despite Willy’s shortcomings.

 

—I found McKinley Belcher a compelling Happy, and a great implied echo of Linda; overlooked and under appreciated. He played a good contrast of who Biff was intended to be. I’m curious to see more from him.

 

—The concept of the set design was interesting, with the house finally getting a roof once the house is paid in full. More could have been done with that idea though.

 

—Khris Davis was passable as Biff, but spoke very affected for some reason. A lot of wavering vocal emphasis during arguments with Willy in places where it seemed unnatural, and not enough of a difference between teenage and adult Biff.

——Sharon Clarke….idk I’ve wanted to like her, but I just don’t understand the hype she receives. I’ve seen her in two shows now; this and Caroline or Change, and I’ve found her very middle of the road. Like I could throw a rock in a NY community theater and hit 5 who do exactly what she does. Decent as Linda, with a great funeral monologue as well as the “Respect is owed” moment, but I never felt as though she were truly in despair or that life had worn her out. Many times it just felt like she was saying the lines with a (noticeable) American accent. Idk if anyone else caught it, but she places a lot of weight on her words ending in R, in a way most Americans do not.

 

Overall, I give it (as it stands in previews) 2.5/5. Mainly for Arthur Miller’s AMAZING play withstanding the test of time, and Wendell’s excellent performance. It needs work though, mainly via better directing. I think many issues could be worked out with that.