Porgy and Bess is FANTASTIC in previews- Page 3

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/6/12 at 11:52am

I noticed a main theme that has bubbled up in this thread is that this is, indeed, a Porgy & Bess for people who have never seen Porgy & Bess. Which is fine, I never saw it before I saw it in Cambridge, either.

I too loved Audra, Norm and Philip Boykin. But there was such stasis in the direction of the ensemble that it left puh-lenty of time for my mind to wander and consider such things as the set and the direction. My overall sense was, because she had Audra and Norm (who are incredible), Paulus settled for everything else being "good enough."

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/6/12 at 1:11pm

>> "I’d love to know when that photo of the set you posted was shot."

That, as noted, is the ARTproduction, but I havent found anything online to suggest it's all that different in NY. Does anyone have anything?

[charlesjguiteau]

Posted: 1/6/12 at 3:07pm

Sean, you and I are both trained set designers who agree on a great deal. We both come to theater with the same expectations for the set to transport us in the way that others hope the performers to transport them. I've always completely agreed with your complaints about the new Follies set, specifically because I've SEEN the show (once in DC and once in NY) so I KNOW what a fail that design is.

Two great set designs I've admired most from this past year on Broadway were David Rockwell's "The Normal Heart" and Tobin Ost's "Bonnie and Clyde". Both sets seem simplistic, mono-chromatic and dull in photos, but man do they come alive on a stage filled with actors, lighting, projections, set automation, the JUICE of live performance, in short the full intent of a director's vision. Seen in the rich context of their actual performances, these sets brought to vivid life the heartbreak of surviving in NYC during the AIDS crisis of the 80's or surviving in south Texas during the depression. Both sets performed that miracle that takes place when great design meets great performance for a unified whole. And guess what? You only get to experience that miracle live.

So either drag yourself to the Richard Rogers, Sean, or let's find some other design to trash that we've both seen in the flesh. It's so much more rewarding that way.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 1/6/12 at 3:15pm

Namo, I said the same thing last night. I wouldn't have even cared or barely noticed the set if the production did what it ought.

Once again, I agree with with everything temms said in the last post...especially about not being "emotionally in the right place." I felt like that throughout the performance, and I blame Paulus because, as we all know, these actors can and have put us "emotionally in the right place" in other productions.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/6/12 at 4:40pm

>> You only get to experience that miracle live.

I agree... to a point.

As you note, we're both trained in design. Yes, there are some designs that can only be experienced live: the original FOLLIES is a breathtaking example, because photos dont even come close to telling how amazing that set was... and then again there are some that you look at the working models and the production photos and you think "WTF?" LITTLE MERMAID was one — and I generally love Tsypin's work. But here he simply blew it by imposing a manufactured style onto something that didnt need expression in heavy plastics. The Met's last iteration of DON GIOVANNI, with its relentless brick walls, is another: I sat there watching this thing for three hours and had no idea what the designer was trying to do or say about Mozart or the opera. There was simply nothing there that worked with the material — in fact, in both those cases, I'd say the designs ran counter to the show's style. To cite an even more egregious example, look at the world of difference between the Sydney and New York productions of PRISCILLA: in the former, the set helped tell the story of the Outback; in the latter, they might as well be in Nebraska.

So if it feels like Im being harsh with PORGY, it's because it, like the FOLLIES revival, is an opportunity wasted. There is so much visual information about this production available on the Net that, aside from Audra's performance, I doubt I'm missing much of anything by not seeing it live, sorry. It is clearly a show where the budget for the physical presentation was so limited that all they could afford was a single platform and a backwall and some bits and pieces of furniture — and then they called in the lighting designer to save the day, because I doubt it took very long to see how incredibly limited that design was.

People have said, "Oh it changed from ART to Broadway," but no one's said how, which makes me think probably not much — again, because there's nothing else showing up in the countless resources out there on the web. The show's trailer on YouTube looks just like the one they did for ART. The photos with all the reviews show the same thing as presented at ART — so where's the difference? Would someone kindly tell me?

So sorry, but for me, this was just a plodding, facile, dull design, with no imagination and no core concept beyond "Oo! Driftwood!" — because no one involved had one. Paulis could have put this on a bare stage — and for all intents might as well have — and gotten the same effects with her lighting designer sweating his (or her) ass off to give this thing something in the way of visual style. If I go to see it the next time I'm in NY (which is next month BTW should anyone care to join me for dinner some night) it will be for the performances — there's obviously not much else.

YRMV.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 1/6/12 at 4:56pm

Sean, it hasn't opened in New York yet, so the review quotes (and, I'd assume, the images that go along with them) are from the ART production.

I totally see where you're coming from, as a set designer, that's one thing you specifically look for to enhance your enjoyment of the piece, and that's fair, but you have to consider that changes have been made since all the photos you've seen (the overall plank platform is still there, but there is a lot more detail on the sides and backdrop - people have described some of these changes in posts, I guess you just missed them).

When you see photos of the new set, feel free to judge the Broadway production. Until then, stop claiming that because no one has offered any specifics on how the set has changed, clearly everyone is lying about it changing at all.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/6/12 at 5:19pm

Okay, where have I said people are lying about it?

What I have said is, would someone kindly tell me how it's different.

There is a huge difference between those two statements, and I will thank you to kindly remember that.

[Yero my Hero]

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

People have said, "Oh it changed from ART to Broadway," but no one's said how, which makes me think probably not much

Maybe "lying" was the wrong word, but you implied a few times that since no one has offered specific examples of the differences, then there aren't really any noticeable differences. If people are telling you it's different but you don't believe it really is different, isn't that basically the same as thinking that people who say it is different are lying? It may be oversimplifying and paraphrasing, but how is it incorrect?

[Tony2600]

Posted: 1/6/12 at 6:05pm

Sean-
So you haven’t seen the set for the current Broadway production but feel comfortable trashing it anyway? Then there’s My Oh My who is critical of the reduced orchestrations but hasn’t heard them. He also hates the marketing of this show and is convinced that the director has purposely created a strategy to undermine the original work. Wow!
Why don’t you guys see the damn show first before you start critiquing something you haven’t seen or heard?

[julesboogie]

Posted: 1/7/12 at 12:50am

I gave examples...sean chose to ignore them. Let him rip it, and miss it. Who cares?!

[My Oh My]

Posted: 1/7/12 at 1:43am

Who said I haven't heard them, Tony?

I'm sure Ms. Paulus is a wonderful lady and not at all the evil witch you quickly assumed I'm making her out to be. Last time I checked, I was writing about her philosophy and her approach, which we all know were based on a desire to improve, revitalize, flesh-out, and modernize. Hardly a sin.

This is a theatre board and we are discussing the art, and decisions that shaped it. I'm sorry you feel I'm attacking her as a person.

[Tony2600]

Posted: 1/7/12 at 10:18am

“Who said I haven't heard them, Tony?”

I say you haven’t heard them. Because if you had bought a ticket to see the current
production you would have you might have mentioned the performance of a lifetime that
Audra McDonald is giving in spite of the reduced orchestration and the sound quality
of the orchestra.


“In the end, Ms. Paulus' strategy of undermining the original while elevating her own is at fault and makes people resistant to her vision, when a little bit of respect and mindfulness in considering those who love the original piece would have prevented alienating them.”


Yea, it really sounds like you think Ms. Paulus might be a perfectly wonderful lady who is simply trying to improve, revitalize, and modernize. Your real first name by any chance isn’t Mitt is it?

[My Oh My]

Posted: 1/7/12 at 8:18pm

I have not SEEN Audra's performance but I have HEARD enough of the orchestration to form an opinion. Besides, my problem isn't with reduction/adaptation. If that were the case, I'd have a problem with most every production of every show ever staged. I thoroughly explained the difference between adaptation and a new orchestration.

To be fair, it can get confusing but it's not so much the number of musicians or the overall size of the orchestra or resulting sound. Of course large orchestras are always preferable and the thrill I get from listening to a beloved score being performed live is unmatched, and is half of the enjoyment I get from seeing a show onstage, but I've heard some really well adapted works that had less than half the original number of musicians and even assigned parts to other instruments and so on. In the end, it's about the work's musical message/identity, which is connected to the storytelling in ways that is distinct and uniquely affecting. It isn't as simple as "Oh, this is different from what I'm used to, therefore, I don't like it."

As for Ms. Paulus, her intentions weren't bad but their effects caused people like Sondheim to raise an eyebrow or two. Don't tell me you think he randomly decided to pick on Ms. Paulus personally. He was criticizing her philosophy and approach to directing the piece and he wasn't too thrilled with the suggestions she made about the show being so flawed it was begging for someone to swoop in and make it enjoyable for modern audiences. It was a bit pretentious even if her intentions were not geared toward malice or patting herself on the back.

Nobody is blasting directors for sport and nobody is keeping anyone else from enjoying her work.

[jv92]

Posted: 1/8/12 at 3:36pm

OK, I went yesterday. Here's what I liked:

- Audra was spellbinding. Norm Lewis was utterly moving and captivating as Porgy. The supporting players were quite good too.
- The adaptation, for whatever it's worth, worked well, with one major exception (see below). What Sondheim should have been more concerned about was the treatment of the music.
- The new William David Brohn orchestrations are not nearly as bad as I've heard or expected.
- The set was not nearly as bad as I've heard or expected.
- Paulus' direction was quite good at points. Even the choreography, with the exception of the dance break that opened Act II, worked.

The bad and the ugly:

- Act I ended with the BIGGEST anti-climax in Musical Theater history. They should have just kept the damned thing in three acts, or figured out a better way to end the first act.
- The keys were too low-- "My Man's Gone Now" and the first "Summertime" were not nearly as effective as they could have been after being lowered a few tones.
- Loved Norm Lewis, but surely he could have sung Porgy in the original bass-baritone range, not raised up a few tones. He still was brilliant, but this is the fault of the musical adaptor.
- Are audiences really that stupid? They do realize that the fellow playing Crown is not a hideous villain, just an actor, right? Then why did they "Boo" him at curtain call? He was excellent-- and a really sweet guy at the stage door. The audience was not quite as excellent or sweet.

Overall, I liked it. I can see it doing well. It definitely is dramaturgically effective-- but Steve, you should have been more worried about the original musical intentions of Gershwin, rather than Porgy's goat cart.



Updated On: 1/8/12 at 03:36 PM

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 1/8/12 at 3:40pm

Just a small note: Sondheim objected to the changes made for the ART run, but particularly the attitudes of the creative team toward the original. At any rate, most of the major changes they made have been scrapped for Broadway and restored to the original.

[jv92]

Posted: 1/8/12 at 3:51pm

I know it was more about attitude than anything, but he did make an objection to the cane being used rather than the goat cart.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 1/8/12 at 4:58pm

I know that was one thing he specifically pointed out, but in general, the major changes have been changed back. If that was the only change, Sondheim probably wouldn't have called it out, but I think it was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

[AC126748]

Posted: 1/8/12 at 5:33pm

Are audiences really that stupid? They do realize that the fellow playing Crown is not a hideous villain, just an actor, right? They why did they "Boo" him at curtain call?


Booing the bad guy happens sometimes. I find it ridiculous, but it's kind of a tradition. Why do you think Boykin does that stupid curtsy at his call? To show the audience that he's not really big, bad Crown.

[jv92]

Posted: 1/8/12 at 5:56pm

You quoting my paragraph made me realize-- "They" should be "Then!" Oops!

I've NEVER seen a show, even kiddie shows, where the bad guy is booed, though.

[AC126748]

Posted: 1/8/12 at 6:10pm

Really? I've seen Captain Hook booed/hissed many times. And I remember the singer playing Crown booed when I saw it at NYCO about a decade ago.

[jdrye222]

Posted: 1/8/12 at 6:24pm

I kind of think it is all in good fun when audiences do that - if they didn't like the performance, they wouldn't cheer OR boo....
And Boykin handles it beautifully with that "stupid curtsy" - he is a real find in this role... and a great guy at the stage door as others have said.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 1/8/12 at 6:31pm

I know this is silly, but i really hope boykin and henry are remembered come awards time. Is three supp.actor noms possible?

[AC126748]

Posted: 1/8/12 at 7:45pm

I'd love to see Boykin nominated.

[justoldbill]

Posted: 1/8/12 at 10:28pm

Well, I finally saw the thing. And as someone old enough and fortunate enough to trace his experiences with PORGY AND BESS back to back-stage conversations with Avon Long and Eva Jessye in the 1960's, I have to say that the resulting excrescence of this dreadful experience at the Richard Rodgers, in every respect, stinks to high heaven. The theatre will never be properly fumigated when this show is (hopefully very swiftly) withdrawn.

I miss Peter.
I miss Archdale.
I miss Frazier.
I miss Scipio.
I miss the goat.
I miss the buzzard.
I hate the lack of any indication of locale.
I hate the over-amplified orchestra with the hideous orchestrations.
I hate the feedback between Porgy and Bess' body mikes.
I hate the scar on Bess' face. Yes, she has one in the original novel, but Heyward never said it made her look like Catwoman.
I hate Bess crawling on her belly like a reptile to sniff cocaine off the stage floor, looking like Catherine Malfitano at her worst.
I hate Maria (not "Mariah") doing Frazier's divorce scene- what was THAT??
I hate the musical staging. My companion kept expecting the chorus to break into FINIAN'S RAINBOW.
I was amused that Jake's crew made it back before the hurricane without him. What did they do, swim back?
I like the fact that Porgy now refers to his cane as his "stick"- thank you, Stephen Sondheim.
I like the shadow effects in the lighting during the wake and the hurricane- THANK YOU, ROUBEN MAMOULIAN!!!

Updated On: 1/11/12 at 10:28 PM

[NYadgal]

Posted: 1/10/12 at 11:22pm

I just got home. And absolutely LOVED it.
I loved everything about it.

The performances were beyond brilliant. The set, lighting and subtle expression of movement were all incredible. Nothing was in the way. Nothing was left undone.

I am in awe of Audra and Norm, and thought the rest of the performances were perfect.

I can't give it a more heartfelt and loving recommendation. Captivating. Beautiful. Extraordinary.