First (Or is it second?) Death of a Salesman Preview- Page 3

[Amy Archer]

Posted: 2/25/12 at 12:59am

>I really hated the set<

The Jo Mielziner set? Only one of the most famous, important, influential, revolutionary designs of 20th Century theatre? Well, bjh has spoken, so make of that opinion what you will.

[thetinymagic2]

Posted: 2/25/12 at 1:11am

I think bjh meant that sightlines in various parts of the theater are not good. I have seen this problem many, many times with diff, plays, with excellent set designs, but it seems like the designers ONLY sit in J 101 Orch!? They should sit, say, in A23, or a box. I kinda wish they paid way more attention to the fact that people paying BIG $$$ do not appreciate "partial view" seats at ANY price. I wonder, though whether this was a problem in 1949? .

[Amy Archer]

Posted: 2/25/12 at 1:17am

Except bjh sat extreme side orchestra, which he bought as a rush ticket. "I sat extreme side orchestra and got an extreme side orchestra view of the set! It's the set's fault!"

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 2/26/12 at 1:57pm

Was there yesterday. I thought it was good, if inferior to the Dennehy production. My biggest problem was with Linda Emond, who read like a complete non-entitiy most of the time. I guess she might have been directed to play it that way, but I much preferred Elizabeth Franz's performance.

Decent performances for Biff and Happy, despite a few flubbed lines. I see a nomination in Garfield's future.

Bonus: Meg Ryan sat behind me and quite frankly she looked like hell.

[callitquits]

Posted: 2/26/12 at 5:17pm

So relieved to hear I'm not the only one on the Linda Emond front! I was nervous to post my thoughts as most word here around her performance was so positive, but boy, was I disappointed by her performance at yesterday's matinee. Rushed through the entire "attention must be paid" section with fluttering hands more befitting a Blanche DuBois, and also displayed no change whatsoever between the present-day scenes and the flashbacks - sad because I really felt that Hoffman nailed so perfectly those transitions between past and present, like I could see the years melting away or piling back on in instants, and Emond just came out in a different wig and that was the only distinguishing characteristic. I think I just prefer a stronger Linda; this Linda felt like a fragile bird, and I think the ending, when she finally breaks down and cries, is much more heartbreaking when you've spent the play seeing Linda as the rock and foundation of the family, and not a timid mouse hovering on the edge of tears the entire time. Obviously Emond is an immensely skilled actress, I just prefer a different interpretation of the character.

Garfield is making a very impressive Broadway debut, and I think his first act is absolutely wonderful. However, he spends entirely too much of the second act yelling and screaming (I do not know how much of this is his choice or Nichols') and it made some very powerful moments fall a little flat for me. His best moment in my eyes comes when the two restaurant girls are making fun of Willy, and he quietly says to them "that man is a prince." Also, he looked perfectly believable as a 1930s football quarterback, and nothing like an "emaciated twink." Yes, Happy is a bit buffer, but he is also shorter and I felt like there was a definite choice to play up the fact that Happy maybe was not always so built and started working out in high school as a way of trying to get his father's attention.

I loved Hoffman's Willy. I know he is a very polarizing performer, and during the first scene I wasn't sure what to make of him and I feared he was too young, but after his first flashback scene, my fears disappeared and I was riveted.

Overall, I liked a lot of it, but still left feeling a bit disappointed. I had hoped for the cathartic experience I had when I saw the Dennehy production, and I welled up at the scene in which Willy is fired, but I was a bit surprised by how cold I was left at the end.

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 2/26/12 at 5:35pm

One thing that I think the Dennehy production did better was the relationship between Willy and Linda, which is in my opinion abusive. I think what happens to Willy is largely Linda's fault, the result of years of enabling. Basically she does to Willy what he does to the boys, pumps him so full of phony illusions that he cannot face reality.

And, of course, no matter what she does he treats her like dirt. I think one of the most telling moments in the play is at the end of the first act when the boys are pitching their sporting goods idea and Willy keeps telling her to shut up whenever she offers encouragement. More disturbing, though, is the fact that she just takes it. The audience laughed every time that happened, and then when Biff exploded and told his father to stop yelling at her the eternal silence seemed unwarranted.

[AC126748]

Posted: 2/26/12 at 5:35pm

Also, he looked perfectly believable as a 1930s football quarterback, and nothing like an "emaciated twink."

Thank you. It annoys me when people make this comment. Football players of the time period looked NOTHING like the muscled-out, 300 pound football players of today. Just take a look at the link:
Wittenburg University Football team, 1930

[bjh2114]

Posted: 2/27/12 at 3:17am

I think bjh meant that sightlines in various parts of the theater are not good.>

Thank you. This is exactly what I meant.

Except bjh sat extreme side orchestra, which he bought as a rush ticket. "I sat extreme side orchestra and got an extreme side orchestra view of the set! It's the set's fault!"

Well that was the ticket that was given to me. I didn't get to choose where the seat was. And who cares what I paid for it? If it's a ticket I am paying any amount of money for anywhere in the house, I deserve to see more than 1/2 of the show. The entire stage left from the doors over was blocked, and the entire upstairs level was blocked. The designers could have shifted things. And by the way, I had the worst seat in the house, but others around me who paid full price also couldn't see. It just doesn't make sense the way it's set up. Just because a set is iconic does NOT make it effective.

The Jo Mielziner set? Only one of the most famous, important, influential, revolutionary designs of 20th Century theatre? Well, bjh has spoken, so make of that opinion what you will.

You're a moron. Just because I don't particularly think the set was recreated well in the space doesn't mean that I don't recognize that the set was revolutionary for it's time. But it being iconic ALSO doesn't mean that it was the best choice for THIS production. So I am entitled to my opinion having seen the play and not finding it to be an effective choice, regardless of the design's history. So make of THAT opinion what you will.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 2/27/12 at 12:30pm

Reading this thread reminds me of my own memorable experience of seeing DEATH OF A SALESMAN. Back in 1975, Circle in the Square produced this work which starred the incomparable George C. Scott with Teresa Wright as his wife and James Farantino and Harvey Keitel as the sons. Scott directed, as was not uncommon for him. It was a tremendously moving production, completely sold out for it's run, with standing room on sale each morning for that day's performance. At the end there was not a dry eye in the house.