Porgy and Bess is FANTASTIC in previews- Page 2

[vitamins]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 7:29pm

everything that Temms said! Times one million!

[Tony2600]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 9:43pm

Hey Temms and vitamins,

Noticed that you didn’t mention Audra McDonald, Norm Lewis, David Alan Grier, or Phillip Boykin. Does your displeasure with this P&B extend to the performances?

[charlesjguiteau]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 10:20pm

Sean, you've confounded me this time:

"I wouldnt say it's the ugliest I've ever seen, but I'd definitely put it in the top 10. It was bewildering in concept and "unfortunate" in execution.

"Having not seen the production..."

Did I read that right? Weighing in on Richard Hernandez's set without ever seeing it in the flesh? You're usually one of the most knowledgeable posters on the board when it comes to discussions of set design, but surely you must know that a set can't be fairly appraised till it's seen in context IN PRODUCTION, not in photos posted online or on the designer's site.

THEN the relentless trashing can commence.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 10:45pm

>> "Weighing in on Richard Hernandez's set without ever seeing it in the flesh?"

There is a great deal of information, as well as photos, of the set involved readily available. I dont need to see the full production to know how well (or in this case, not) the set works, just as I dont need to see CLEAR DAY to know how wrong-headed *that* show's scenic approach was.

The Porgy set has zero style, just a lot of *stuff* designed to maybe suggest this or perhaps intimate that. It does not convey the sense of community that is Catfish Row, nor does it come any closer to suggesting the island. It's simply a piece of bad Euro-theatrics. I'm not saying the opera demands faultless realism: the philadelphia Opera's production from some years back, which also used a skeletal unit set, proved you can get away with a lot. But this one tried to be audacious and, IMHO, failed miserably.

I worked in this field, diligently. I know at least a little about how these things operate. I have a fairly good grasp of looking at something and appraising how well it does or does not support the production. And in this case, I stand by my assessment.

YRMV.

Updated On: 1/5/12 at 10:45 PM

[chrisampm2]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 10:51pm

This reminds me of the Seminar approach to reading fiction: all it takes is the first few sentences to render authoritative judgement. While photos and intros can be telling, especially to experts, I discount raves or dismissals based on such evidence.

For what it's worth, from my center orchestra seat, I felt the Clear Day set served that production's vision.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 10:55pm

I'm quite sure people will find the set to Porgy entrancing, just as some will apparently enjoy the migraine that is the one for CLEAR DAY. Neither works for me, sorry. If you consider that a "seminar" judgment, so be it. But I still stand by it.

[chrisampm2]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 11:08pm

Not having seen this production, do you know whether the sense of community or the island is at the fore?

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 11:17pm

Okay, let's get ruthless about this, shall we?

Here's the Porgy set.

Now, I know there's a little more to it than this, because you can see that elsewhere, both in stills and some video that's available. The main platform is above the deck enough to suggest the idea of a wharf, sort of. But by and large, it's just a big open space, with some outsize planking for a back wall. Everything else is done with lighting.

And we're done.

Come on. This could be the set for anything. There is nothing here that even comes close to suggesting the story of Porgy or the community in which the opera is set. It is all style, such as it is, and little to no substance, and I really dont need to see the full production to know that. Compare this to the original, which had multiple levels that forced the eye down to centre stage, and this one is just... nothing by comparison. Everything is played out on the same level so nothing is emphasized. The designer hasnt thought much beyond "wow, wouldnt it be cool if...", because there's simply nothing there.

Now, if you can defend this abysmal piece of work, do so. I'll listen, I promise — and I'll listen with an open mind. But you're gonna have to be damn persuasive to convince me that there's anything of merit in this design.

Updated On: 1/5/12 at 11:17 PM

[DAME]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 11:50pm

I didn't give a crap about the set. Did not even give it any thought. Loved the show. Loved the performances. Loved the music. There was electricity coming from that stage. And that pic you just posted made me just buy another ticket.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 11:52pm

>> I didn't give a crap about the set.

Then they probably didnt need one, which simply underscores that the designer didnt do his job.

And I'm glad you bought another ticket. Live theatre needs all the support it can get, so thank you.

Updated On: 1/5/12 at 11:52 PM

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 11:53pm

I, too, agree with temms. And Sean. Although if the music had seduced me (as it should) I wouldn't have cared about the set. The fact that I was paying so much attention to the set is revealing in itself.

Just really disappointed.

[julesboogie]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 11:55pm

That picture is from ART. Thats not what the set looks like anymore. While the floor is similar, the background is completely different.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 11:59pm

Different how? I'm not finding anything that looks all that different, sorry.

[DAME]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 11:59pm

MP; so sorry you were disappointed . The music totally seduced me. I wish it would have been the same for you. For all of you.

[julesboogie]

Posted: 1/6/12 at 12:13am

what looks like a crooked wooden backdrop here, i did not see at all. Its more like square slats of wood that have peeling paint and such. Iron awnings. Also window decor.

[chrisampm2]

Posted: 1/6/12 at 12:13am

SeanMartin, thanks for the invitation to dissuade you from your putting this in the Top Ten Worst Stage Designs of All Time. I haven't seen the production so can't chime in. I admit from this and the other shots I've seen it does not seem to be a candidate for the best of all time but I hope it doesn't undermine the intention of the production. Looking at it, I wonder if Paulus is trying to center Bess and place us in a more abstract tempest-tossed mindset.

When I think of terrible design, I think of the original Merrily We Roll Along, where set and costume design hurt the production. When I read later that Prince couldn't figure out a visual approach to the show and that he couldn't follow through on a "high school musical" approach because the audience would resent paying Broadway prices for something that looked unprofessional and that they threw out the original costumes and makeup in tech, I understood why the resulting design was so bad it undermined the rest of the production. But I wouldn't have volunteered it for your list without having experienced it live.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 1/6/12 at 12:15am

Aw. Thanks, Dame. I know we usually respond positively to the same things, but maybe I just had unrealistic expectations, I don't know. It was the one production I was looking forward to this season.

As I have said before, I thought everyone in the production was wonderful, but then again, I can't imagine any of them being anything but wonderful no matter what they do. "Lackluster" is the word that keeps popping into my head. (It was first preview. Not that that should make a difference.)

One thing I forgot to mention--and it really has no bearing on anything of importance, but just for fun, here goes--

At the end of the opera when Porgy is on the stage by himself in a rather dramatic and climactic moment, the trap door next to Norm Lewis opened--as if someone unlocked, rattled, and then reattached it. Many people who saw it (I was in the front mezz) laughed, probably because they either thought it was funny or they were kind of " awkwardly surprised" (you know, that "nervous laughter" you sometimes release because you're shocked and uncomfortable). I felt terrible for Norm! His big moment and he was upstaged...by the stage!

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/6/12 at 12:30am

>> "Looking at it, I wonder if Paulus is trying to center Bess and place us in a more abstract tempest-tossed mindset."

I would say you were being kind in your reach to find something nice to say about it.

No, it's not as bad as the original MERRILY's bleachers, but it's bad in the sense of being dull. It's a platform and a back wall, no more, no less. It doesnt inform. It doesnt support. It simply sits there and, as Dame noted, disappears... which means, in essence, they might as well have done a semi-staged production like the NYPhilharmonic or Encores.

[temms]

Posted: 1/6/12 at 3:24am

To reply to Tony2600:

I actually thought Audra was terrific. I have nothing but praise. Sounded as great as ever, acted the hell out of it. Norm Lewis was not in good voice the night I saw it, so I'll reserve judgment. The others were fine. Boykin sounds great - Grier brings absolutely the right kind of personality to it.

So my dislike of the production does not extend to the cast. But someone earlier in the thread said something like, how can you not appreciate those two singing "Bess, You Is My Woman". And for me, it was that I was not emotionally in the right place for it. I didn't feel as though the evening had musically built to that point. That duet is the emotional culmination of everything that's happened up to that point. But that's not the fault of the actors, and if you're not familiar with the original and are being swept along by the story as acted (as opposed to played/sung) then yes, I'm sure it's effective.

"I Loves You Porgy" was the high point of the evening for me. It was the closest I felt to what the show really is. I thought the second act was overall much more engaging than the first.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/6/12 at 5:57am

I really enjoyed P&B. As I'd menioned, I've never seen a production previously, but was familiar with both the music and storyline.

I was moved by a number of moments and truly invested in the characters. The set? It was perfunctory at best, but at the same time, it never detracted from the performances, so I can't put it in the 'awful' category.

[dwperkins]

Posted: 1/6/12 at 9:02am

Totally agree with Temms that I loves you porgy is the emotional highlight of the show. Audra was devastated and desperate and reaching out for hope at the same time.

I also agree that Bess you is my woman now did not have the usual sweep and emotional tidal wave effect that it can have but I attribute that to the lack of strings in the orchestra, the generally bad orchestral sound and amplication system and the direction which is towards colloquial musical theater singing rather than operatic lyricism.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/6/12 at 9:13am

>> The set? It was perfunctory at best

A lot of you go to the the theatre to enjoy the performances. You will rhapsodize when this actress or that singer does something well, and you will (sometimes) be merciless when they screw up.

Well, so is it for me when it comes to the physical production. If I'm shelling out a hundred bucks for a ticket, I dont want "perfunctory". I want good. I dont want the set to disappear; I want it to participate as fully as any chorus dancer: to the very best of its ability. This is why FOLLIES was such a profound disappointment, why CLEAR DAY will never make it onto my ticket list, and why PORGY is such a wildly missed opportunity — in all three cases, the designers simply did not do their homework. They went to for easy solutions that either gave a vague suggestion or went careening hopelessly out of control. When interviewed, they'll talk about intent. I dont want to hear about intent, no more than any of you would want to hear intent from your performers when they give a lackluster performance. The proof is what's on the stage, period, end of story.

Yes, it's a harsh economy, and the design aspect is usually the first aspect of any show to suffer as a result. But that doesnt excuse something that winds up being so much a non-entity that it could serve ANTIGONE as equally well as PORGY AND BESS.

Just my 0.02. YRMV.

[AddisonMizner]

Posted: 1/6/12 at 10:46am

Has anyone heard any rumours about a possible cast recording for this? Do you think it is likely to happen? It is extremely unlikely I will be able to get across the pond to see this so a cast recording would be the next best thing, especially for Audra!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/6/12 at 11:07am

I'd be shocked if this goes unrecorded. Audra McDonald in one of the most significant African American female roles in the history of musical theatre (and opera). It's quite rare that a musical, revival or new, goes unrecorded and this woman in this show is pretty big news. It's not as big of a WTF production as Clear Day, which could very well go unrecorded if Connick is as unhappy in the show as the rumors indicate.

[Tony2600]

Posted: 1/6/12 at 11:17am

Hey Sean,
I’d love to know when that photo of the set you posted was shot. When I saw the show in Boston last September those faux wooden planks were indeed the set. However, that was not the set I saw this past Tuesday. I believe that’s the old set in your photo. When did you see the show?