A Delicate Balance previews begin tonight- Page 2

[dave1606]

Posted: 10/24/14 at 11:56am

I saw this last night, and yet again, the audience was trying. I do not think this is a very appropriate play for a high school group to see, and they took up the last two rows of the theater and were quite disruptive. Two girls talking through most of act 1, and then in the third act, lots of inappropriate laughter.

I think this is a great production, that is still settling in as people have mentioned. Close and Lithgow are fantastic together, and not enough have been said about Lindsay Duncan's performance. She of course has the showiest role, and I think she does a great job with it. Martha Plimpton is also excellent as Julia.

Overall, it is shaping up to be a great production. The set is wonderful, and I thought the direction was great. It is a play that certainly takes some time to digest (which I think Broadway in general needs more of), but one I would love to return to and explore further.

Also, I can tell you I did the stage door last night, hoping to meet Martha Plimpton. Martha did not come out, and the only one to actually sign was Glenn, but she was delightful. There weren't many people either which surprised me.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 10/31/14 at 11:00am

To me this play is as funny as it is intellectually demanding. Can you give us an example of something that got a laugh you thought was inappropriate.

[Patash]

Posted: 10/31/14 at 11:17am

Love Albee, love this play, love the cast. I'm so glad I'm not seeing it until the first week of February. They should all be well settled into their roles by then!

[Lara 2]

Posted: 11/3/14 at 9:38am

Enjoyed entire performance on Saturday night. The audience was great, wish we all had given more time for the ovation and appreciation of the theater magic, a combination of the playwright, actors, director and designers work that have created that magic. Huge respect and admiration goes to Mr. Lithgow - never disappoint you - what a talent! Ms. Close was at her best. Truly believe that the only person that needs "settling" into her role was Martha Plimpton; hopefully, she will get there, she is a very talented actor. Strongly recommend for theater goers that prefer going over an impression left by the performance rather than enjoying the moment; this performance gave me both opportunities.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/3/14 at 12:23pm

Just my opinion, but I think Julia is the single hardest female role in all of Albee. With minimal stage time, she must go from zero to 60 in act two, from emotional and post-adolescent to near hysterical. I never saw Seldes, but have never seen one that quite got it, though Lee Remick makes interesting choices in the film (far more glamorous than others, but her beauty contributes to a different view of her backstory; it's 180 from the Julia of Mary Beth Hurt, which I didn't think worked on any level.) Her meltdown is so near-volcanic, and so much of it must be loaded off-stage, I can imagine actors wrestling with the role's demands. I can't wait to see Plimpton, who seems ideal.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/3/14 at 3:50pm

Odd that so little is being said here about Duncan, one of the greatest actresses alive who here is playing one of modern drama's juiciest roles.

[Glittergrrl]

Posted: 11/3/14 at 8:07pm

I want to see this so badly. I'm seeing the river on Saturday, so I may try to get tix for Saturday night.

Years back I saw Martha Plimpton as Hedda Gabler. I thought she was fabulous. I think she is a gifted actress. I am so excited to see her in this.

Updated On: 11/3/14 at 08:07 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 8:24pm

For all its exquisite trappings, the production is troubling. The program says "now," yet none of the characters behave remotely like 63-65 year-olds would in 2014. Nothing tracks with boomer sensibilities. Albee wrote the play in the mid-sixties, it opened in 1966. Tobias and Agnes (and Claire) would've been born in 1910, so their behavior in '66 is grounded in early 20th century childhood socioeconomic issues (Depression, WWII, etc). Playing the show in 2014 means they were born in the late 40s to early 50s. Baby boomers. Yet none of these 4 women have careers, Agnes and Tobias have always had servants (they talk about the early days of their marriage -- when they had a drunk cook. In the mid 70s? Two 20 somethings? Really?) And they live in a 4-bedroom house -- 4 bedroom mansion, we are led to believe -- that has a full staff to deliver trays of food to Harry and Edna. I could go on, but the idea of setting it now doesn't work. They have dressed Close like the Tandy Agnes of 1966. And as she awaits her daughter's return from a 4th failed marriage, and dinner in her own home, she dons a floor length crepe gown and diamonds. And summons yet another cook. McKinnon's hands are tied, Albee changed only two small lines, and feels the play updates easily.

It does not.

If you are a contemporary of the actors playing Agnes and Tobias, and Claire (and Edna and Harry) as I am, you look at these people behaving like rich people 40 years ago, for reasons noted above. People my age were giggling at the first intermission, gathered at the bar, at the preposterous idea that these 5 adults represent our generation, no matter the class. Tobias would be a guy who scored Beatle or Stones tickets, not this old fart, again, more appropriately born before WW I. By the time Martha Plimpton's Julia arrives -- dressed hip, born in 1978, with neither career nor children, a 1998 college grad! -- the time warp aspect collapses. It's an error, and these actors could pull off a timelessness, if they made the production less naturalistic, or dared tie it to another era, as McKinnon did with "Virginia Woolf."

The final straw was the bizarre sociopolitical references. Both Julia and Tobias freely use the word "fag" about the dead son, without blinking. And yet put down "brutal Republicans" and talk of a "teenage marijuana nest" nearby. Julia, born in 1978, claims she's never smoked marijuana, as she married 4 different men. Huh? Who are they? In 2014? No.

Updated On: 11/7/14 at 08:24 PM

[Play Esq.]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 9:20pm

I find this to be a most troubling, albeit, incredible play. I'll finally be seeing this production next week.

I'm surprised that few have commented on Clare Higgins performance as Edna. I'll admit, I've had a gay-crush on Clare since I saw her Vincent in Brixton, so I'm not the most objective voice on this regard. It's rare to see her on this side of the Atlantic and I hope her reviews encourage her to come back more often!

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/8/14 at 9:00am

I'd love to talk about Higgins. Let me just say, she is integral to the best part of this production's interpretation (see my post above). I've seen several Ednas, but this is the first one to so completely dominate the precarious negotiations with Tobias and Agnes. Though Edna does the bidding for the temporarily displaced couple in the text, in this production Edna is clearly a kind of player. Prime mover. Higgins has been given an unflattering and inappropriate costume, a cruel sitcom styled get-up, to me one at odds with what the play says about her relationship. Yet she transcends it, and gives Edna a kind of moral clarity, an abject certainty. When she handles Julia (no spoilers), it's with a crispness and sense of purpose that makes her seem the sanest person on stage. I've grown used to the almost creepy Edna of Betsy Blair in the film. Higgins makes a case that Edna is probably a kind of survivor. Though if she loses her tight reign on her own emotions early in the play, as she finds her footing again, she builds a very plausible arc for this woman, a character Albee has written with few words. Very effective. If they'd change her costume (polyester and mink), she'd be even more persuasive.

Updated On: 11/8/14 at 09:00 AM

[followspot]

Posted: 11/8/14 at 11:23am

^ Higgins stole the show for me, and I wouldn't be surprised if she's the sole Tony nominee among the cast, in what is shaping up to be a very competitive year for plays. (Yes, I was "meh" on this production — over-the-moon critical reaction might help its awards chances. Time will tell.)

And yes, she's hideously costumed. I found all costumes for the four female characters in this production to be consistently bizarre, all seemingly purposefully mismatched in both style and era, nonsensical, and highly unflattering. Poor Glenn Close looks like a chiffon Christmas tree throughout. I'm assuming the venerable Ann Roth hasn't lost her mind, so what exactly is the intent here?

Updated On: 11/8/14 at 11:23 AM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/8/14 at 1:26pm

I'm with followspot, for all of the reasons I went on about above. The play has been baldly staged as contemporary ("now"), but the women seem to inhabit three different worlds and time zones, at least. The Agnes of Glenn Close next to the Edna of Clare Higgins makes the point easily. These women are friends? Why Harry and Edna are dressed as bourgeois suburbanites is beyond me, and not remotely in Albee's intentions. When Edna walked in Thursday night, the laughs started, as if she was a sight gag. Harry and Edna bring a black comedic vibe into the play, to be sure; but not sitcom commentary about tackiness and bad manners. This production suggests that part of the unappealing nature of Harry and Edna's unbidden intrusion is their inherent boorishness. Not in the play, and shoehorned in only makes it harder to suspend disbelief. But it's hard with this production anyway.

Updated On: 11/8/14 at 01:26 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/14/14 at 5:25pm

Since seeing it last Thursday, I've heard several people speak about how much trouble Close is still having with her lines, three plus weeks in. Creating a tentativeness that is inconsistent with her other stage work, and detrimental to this production. It's a helluva difficult role, and yet I wonder if the problem is more complex. I found her lacking a kind of critical confidence as Agnes.

The production is in many ways built around her character, she's the center (the blocking often places her in strongest positions, and she begins and ends the play dead center.) Close falls prey to a kind of one-note intellectualized approach to Agnes, held hostage to the language rather than able to use it as a center for her own power. Agnes's loquaciousness is a way she steals focus, demands attention, exacts revenge. "Forgive me for being articulate" she says acidly, on one of her exits, and it's intended to be ironic, and even a kind of warning (this is her turf, after all), since Agnes is very proud of her verbal acuity. Yet Close hasn't yet found a necessary ownership of the word play so that she might wield her diction as a cudgel against others. She is oddly hampered by the speeches, and though they are ornate and adorned with intricately shaped digressions (the first few pages are a killer), they allow Agnes to hold court with purpose: to make sure her position in the home is absolute.

Close is of course smart, elegant and refined and easily possesses all of the surface qualities. But to me, she hasn't found enough to go after in the woman. A strong goal in the storytelling. She's static, expounding rather than trying to win points or even sometimes destroy. It's a disappointment, and an enigma.

Updated On: 11/14/14 at 05:25 PM

[BroadwayBaby2012]

Posted: 11/14/14 at 5:34pm

Close had line problems when I saw it too. Lithgow seems to have adjusted his performance to accommodate her, coming off feckless sometimes because of the anticipated tentativeness instead of every bit her equal.

I thought Plimpton, Higgins, and Balaban were all very successful. Much more so than their counterparts in the last production - Plimpton especially had a strong show.

I am surprised there hasn't been more about Lindsay Duncan's interpretation. Is it a deliberate choice of hers or is her only way into the dialect to play it like a Marx Brother? Stritch's shadow may loom largest but I did not understand a lot of Duncan's choices, which seemed of another time and place and play to me. She and Close seemed to be missing the mark to a degree.

That said, the production still manages to serve the play well.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/14/14 at 5:43pm

I was taken with Duncan in the first act, and thought she reminted the role with very vivid choices, even the bohemian costume served. But she literally began to fade from the top of the second act. She's saddled with the topless suit speech, which makes no damn sense in 2014; it was a Rudi Gernreich phenomena in the 60s, and Claire's citing of it in a staid suburb might've had some zing. Now, it's mind-numbing what the intention of the speech could be, since the concept is all but gone (the whole joke is built on the visual, the Gernreich suit had a high waist, straps...it was a fashion statement, as odd at it seems now.) Albee of course claims that the play is timeless, but Claire suffers, stuck with material that's not exactly timeless, and her parsing and loathing of AA, post the 80s recovery movement, also seems yoked to the 60s. Alcoholism hasn't changed, of course, but our perception of the disease as a disease certainly has. So Duncan aims for a kind of wise-ass eccentric, much less pained than Stritch or any other Claire. It's a legitimate approach, even if it fails with her muted choices later. Even the accordian playing, usually funny enough, is sort of half-assed. I was rooting for Duncan to make the part her own and redefine it. She has problems with Close, because Close doesn't seem threatened enough by her. And so we don't feel her presence as a threat to Agnes and Tobias.

Updated On: 11/14/14 at 05:43 PM

[followspot]

Posted: 11/14/14 at 7:03pm

You really know your stuff, Auggie27. I enjoy reading your posts.

I adore Lindsay Duncan. Claire should be a threat. There is no threat in the Duncan/Close dynamic — although, as you've eloquently described, that dynamic is problematic in both directions in this production — Duncan doesn't have an active Agnes to work off of. And indeed, the shock value Claire uses as a weapon doesn't really make sense in the context of a 2014 setting.

I kept thinking what Judy Davis might do with the role.

Funny aside: When Claire lies on the floor and pontificates in Act One, the woman in front of me leaned toward her husband and loudly whispered: "Other Desert Cities." Made me think.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/14/14 at 8:49pm

Judy Davis. Inspired.

[dtzumbrunnen]

Posted: 1/3/15 at 1:13pm

Very late to the party with this one, but sad to report that Close's line flubs have not improved. Saw it last night and am definitely still trying to digest the whole piece.

I stopped reading this preview thread after the first few entries went up in November, but I definitely agree with the time shifting not working well. I hadn't noticed the setting directions in the Playbill, and the first real clear indicator that this was set in the present was when Harry and Edna left in Act III with their nice, new four-spinning-wheeled luggage. Up until that point I was sure we were set somewhere in the 60s.

Lithgow, Duncan, and Plimpton were last night's standouts.

Any suggested resources/analysis of the play anyone is familiar with? Curious to dive into it a little deeper, as last night's first encounter has left me mostly uncertain.

[theaterfan862]

Posted: 1/9/15 at 12:01pm

Thanks for the update dtzumbrunnen. Has anyone else seen the show lately? I am on the fence wether to see the show or not. I love Albee, but haven't heard much buzz over this production.

[jv92]

Posted: 1/9/15 at 2:33pm

I would still see it if you love Albee. It's not bad by any means. Just not truly inspired. At least you'll see some very fine performances from Lithgow and Duncan. And Close's third act was superb.

[Noel&Cole]

Posted: 1/26/15 at 8:13pm

Very Late to the party, but I caught this on the weekend. I was very excited to see Glenn Close, Lindsey Duncan and Claire Higgins. Big fans of all 3 ladies!… Sadly the whole thing was so dull, especially for the talent involved. Not a mess, just nothing exciting, and with the material and talent at hand I would have hoped it to be electric. It was a big disappointment and sadly not worth my $140+

[ljay889]

Posted: 1/26/15 at 8:15pm

Saw it yesterday and was really looking forward to it, but I agree, it was very dull.

[FishermanBob]

Posted: 1/26/15 at 9:03pm

It's not the fault of the cast. Saw a production In LA last year with Susan Sullivan, a Golden Globe winning actress in the lead role. Love Albee but was vas very disappointed. It's just not a very good play.

[jv92]

Posted: 2/2/15 at 6:04pm

It IS a good play. It's not as good as ...VIRGINIA WOOLF, though. It needs the right handling and the right "balance" in the company. I always was deeply disturbed, as I've said before, by the audience who seemed to think it was a rollicking comedy the day I went.

One play that really deserves as much acclaim as A DELICATE BALANCE and V. WOOLF is THE LADY FROM DUBUQUE. Signature here in NYC did a wonderful production with Jane Alexander a few years ago, and it is the equal of WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?, just spellbinding, funny, tragic, and weird. I think it's my second favorite Albee.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 2/3/15 at 8:41am

Oddly enough, I don't think it's entirely fair to compare it to WOOLF. The two pieces have almost nothing in common other than its author. I am a huge admirer of DELICATE BALANCE, but for the very things that make it the anti-WOOLF: the tensions are underneath, contained and therefore all the more troubling. The single explosive moment in the play, given to Julia, is a tantrum. Everything simmers and then boils, but therein lies the drama. That means it takes an acting company willing to (or capable of) carry that tension under the words through scenes of very civil discourse. If that tension -- the sense of high stakes, people fighting to hold onto their values and lives -- is absent, the play is a lot of long-winded chatter. It requires great precision, to my thinking great exploration of the emotion underneath. This is a family that has confronted a dead child, after all, probably everyone's idea of the worse tragedy that can befall anyone. And so the play focuses on a kind of sustained denial that things are falling apart. Agnes has a line that even addresses that, early in act two. I found the current production intelligent but without surprise, except for Higgins. She took Albee's conceit about the terror and make it as scary real as is humanly possible. What we don't see enough of: the impact of Higgins terror, once it's brought into the room. I have always thought the play is about a kind of home invasion. Harry and Edna are close friends, yet they bring a monster into this house with them: mortality and its attendant fears. I love the play, obviously, and found this production wanting, as smart as it is.