van Hove/Miller

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 6/16/16 at 12:56pm

It's interesting that Ivo van Hove directed two Arthur Miller plays within the same Broadway season.

He really outdid himself with "A View From The Bridge". I loved it so much that when it was announced he would be directing "The Crucible" (which is my favorite of Miller's plays) I was stoked - - - and then I saw the production and was completely underwhelmed. It was also telling when the Tony noms came in and most of them went to "Bridge" and not "Crucible".

Has this ever happened before where a director directs two plays by one playwright in the same season?

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/16/16 at 1:20pm

You are not alone.

I found his View to be a seamless, compelling interpretation of the play, deconstructive yet never gratuitous in his choices.  Everything connected for me and the play remained the thing.  His style organically served the play at all times.

I am clueless as to what he thought he was doing with The Crucible.   If others found he served the play well, that's great.  Count me as one who  while watching it was constantly asking myself, "what is that about?"   "Exactly what he is trying to achieve by that?"  "How do all these mixed set pieces and metaphors bring this story to life?"  "A classroom? A chalkboard with unintelligeble writing?  A wolf?  A vaguely institutional setting?  Actual paranormal incidents?"  Unlike with View, I found myself watching the direction rather than the play.   There were even scenes that I thought failed outright, especially Elizabeth and John's last scene.  Here are two amazing actors, a world class director and a climactic scene in a beloved play, all the ingredients for magic, and I was completely unconvinced by what I was seeing.

With View, I saw the play, as I had never seen it before, and felt that I was closer to the play than I had ever been before.  

Updated On: 6/16/16 at 01:20 PM

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 6/16/16 at 1:22pm

I don't have an answer to your director question,  I'm curious as well, but just saying his Crucible wasn't universally disliked. It was fairly well reviewed. https://www.show-score.com/shows/the-crucible

 

[asmith0307]

Posted: 6/16/16 at 1:26pm

Just thought I'd add that they were the same commercial producer as well - Scott Rudin (though Bridge was a co-pro with LCT)

[bandit964]

Posted: 6/16/16 at 1:29pm

Agree agree agree.  Perhaps if I hadn't seen and been so impressed with View I wouldn't have been so disappointed by Crucible.  It wasn't terrible, but I was expecting to be blown away.  Plus the reviews all said how it was so scary.  I didn't think it was scary at all.  

Wonder how I would have felt if Crucible was the production he brought 1st

Updated On: 6/16/16 at 01:29 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 6/16/16 at 1:52pm

Has van Hove had any marked success developing new works, or does he strictly focus on heavy concept revivals?

[AC126748]

Posted: 6/16/16 at 1:55pm

He said in the long profile piece published in THE NEW YORKER last year that new works do not interest him very much. I think LAZARUS is one of the few works he's developed from the beginning. 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/16/16 at 1:55pm

He is most famous for classics, but he does direct new works.  Most recently, Lazarus.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 6/16/16 at 2:12pm

henrikegerman said: "I found his View to be a seamless, compelling interpretation of the play, deconstructive yet never gratuitous in his choices.  Everything connected for me and the play remained the thing.  His style organically served the play at all times."

I couldn't have said it any better myself. That is exactly how I felt about this production.

bandit964 said: "Agree agree agree.  Perhaps if I hadn't seen and been so impressed with View I wouldn't have been so disappointed by Crucible.  It wasn't terrible, but I was expecting to be blown away."

Yes! I felt that he missed the mark with "The Crucible". I had no issue with the performances - - - it was his vision that I had an issue with. I was trying to figure out what he was trying to say with the choices he made in how he staged it - - - also I felt all the effects were so unnecessary. "The Crucible" doesn't have to be made scary or frightening with these kinds of gimmicks because it's all there in the play itself - - - the words and the actions of the characters. I found it to be quite distracting. 

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 6/16/16 at 2:14pm

I loved his work on "Lazarus" and then when he gave his Tony speech this past Sunday it made me realize his journey in theater came full circle for him. The first Broadway show he went to was "The Elephant Man" starring David Bowie. 

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 6/16/16 at 2:19pm

I absolutely detested his View from the Bridge, especially the final moments where the blood rained down on them. The cast was wonderful, but the sense of intimacy was lost from the balcony and I had trouble following what was happening (and I knew the play).

Whereas The Crucible made me fall in love with the show all over again. I was looking forward to each of the pre-act spectacles, which felt integrated into the piece unlike the blood rain in Bridge. The eclectic mixtures of spectacle and intimacy worked for me so much better than in Bridge, and I was never more moved by the final scene. The way he directed each act to rise to one specific moment was thrilling and I found the cast marvelous. I'd see his Crucible again if I was given the opportunity.

[bandit964]

Posted: 6/16/16 at 3:26pm

wow, SallyDurantPlummer, I had the complete opposite reaction.  I thought the blood in View was completely cathartic.  I felt that the effects in Crucible were showy and didn't capture me.  

beauty of theatre 

Updated On: 6/16/16 at 03:26 PM

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 6/16/16 at 5:08pm

Maybe it was thrilling up close. I'm not sure. Clearly the show was directed for the on stage seats and the orchestra. I was so disconnected from every move and word up in the balcony that the show landed with a resounding thud. Whereas with The Crucible, from the front of the mezzanine, I felt right there with the actors and I understood exactly what this production was doing. I was actually surprised during the play, which I've read many times. Maybe that's why I loved it so much.

[indytallguy]

Posted: 6/16/16 at 5:26pm

Having seen Bridge from a mid-orchestra seat and then onstage, I would agree that the closer you were, the more powerful it might have been.

Onstage I felt that I was indeed at the edge of a boxing ring with heavyweight champions fighting. It was visceral and thrilling.

[ChiTheaterFan]

Posted: 6/16/16 at 5:28pm

I hated View from the Bridge (although the acting was great) and almost didn't see the Crucible because of it. I ended up seeing it and really enjoying it. I know I'm in the minority but A View from the Bridge was the one that felt like it was trying way too hard to be "different" to me. I guess I responded to the eeriness of the Crucible for some reason. 

 

I still prefer more classic direction of the classic plays so I would like to see Van Hove direct more newer works. I really thought Lazarus was interesting and am very glad I saw that. I just thought his style worked better for a more modern work, at least to me. Maybe after I've seen a lot of those classic works I'll appreciate the new interpretations more, but I just got into plays a few years ago so this is my first exposure to most of them. 

[blaxx]

Posted: 6/16/16 at 5:34pm

What was the point with the haunted chalkboards, flying girls and garbage storms in The Crucible?  The whole point is that everyone is making things up due to the mass hysteria, resulting in corruption, ignorance and abuse of power. It wasn't a sequel to The Craft, jeez.

[Fantod]

Posted: 6/17/16 at 12:48am

^ I believe the point was that the mass hysteria was not willful cruelty, but something driven out of fear. The girls actually believe there is a witch. Or maybe I'm crazy. I don't know, the production was ridiculous.

[blaxx]

Posted: 6/17/16 at 1:19am

The point of the girls taking it too far is that they feel threatened by Abigail and find themselves too late to back down on their lie. 

I actually liked the scene between Abigail and John Proctor, it was obvious they were both attracted to each other, as wrong as that was. So much more could have been built out of that in this production; no need for fairy lights and showy effects. 

[bandit964]

Posted: 6/17/16 at 9:08am

I was so upset that the levitation scene was spoiled for me.  Then I saw it.  I thought someone was going to look like they were, um, levitating.  This was like an amateur peter pan, or Angels in America where you're supposed to see the supports.

[BIG BALONEY]

Posted: 6/17/16 at 1:04pm

I walked out at intermission. Enough was enough.

[belrowley]

Posted: 6/17/16 at 7:07pm

It's the first time I ever felt that the direction was working against the text. I found the theatrics distracting, and van Hove's explanation - that the audience needs to see/experience witchcraft to connect with the character's hysteria - is so condescending.

[BroadwayNYC2]

Posted: 6/17/16 at 7:16pm

I absolutely adored this production and felt it gave new life to a tired, though still incredible, piece. When thinking of this production, I feel Van Hove took the McCarthy metaphors out and toyed with the idea these events were actually occurring. Not sure of his intention but I thought it was an interesting idea. 

[blaxx]

Posted: 6/17/16 at 7:57pm

Oh, they looked cool, don't get me wrong. If only they made any sense. 

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 6/17/16 at 8:26pm

blaxx said: "Oh, they looked cool, don't get me wrong. If only they made any sense. 

I love u for this blaxx....it's on point.