Rialto Chatter: Nathan Lane-Led ANGELS IN AMERICA Heading to Broadway?- Page 2

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 7/18/17 at 1:41am

Robbie2 said: "Jordan Roth will have the August Wilson available this fall...I believe he's involved in the move

I also heard this today.  Hopefully everything will work out. It'll be wonderful to have Angels in America back on Broadway.

[Skimbleshanks2]

Posted: 7/18/17 at 7:52am

Is that implying that GHD will be closed by Labor Day...?

[Kad]

Posted: 7/18/17 at 9:54am

No, it's implying it'll be closed by some point in the fall.

[Skimbleshanks2]

Posted: 7/18/17 at 10:00am

LOL remember when y'all made fun of me for worrying about it flopping? Just sayin'...

[mlsheehan]

Posted: 7/20/17 at 3:04pm

I was wondering who might be seeing Part 1 of Angels in America tonight?  The Fathom events showing in California is tonight.

I'm excited to see this.  I saw the original Broadway version and really enjoyed it.  Saw the HBO version which was..."ok".   This looks really good with a great cast.

I don't think I'll be able to make it to New York if it transfers, so this is my chance.

I'm interested to hear folks feedback.

[Valentina3]

Posted: 7/20/17 at 3:44pm

I'm watching it tonight (via NTLive, i.e.) Going with my bf. We both found HBO movie fantastic because we love every single of those actors, but underwhelming at the same time because of the piece's inherent theatrical nature which didn't translate well to the movie completely. Really excited to see this :)

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 7/20/17 at 3:47pm

I'll be seeing the NT Live screening of part 1 tonight! I did a two show day back in May and the production is really magical, I'm very excited to revisit it. 

[Alexander Lamar]

Posted: 7/20/17 at 4:09pm

I'm going tonight. 

[Owen22]

Posted: 7/20/17 at 4:13pm

I saw this onstage back in May.  As good as other Roy Cohns have been (Rob Leibman and Frank Wood in especial) Nathan Lane is even, somehow, better.  I think it's his comic timing. Which is possibly the greatest America has to offer at the moment.  DO NOT MISS HIM. I see to be alone in not loving Andrew Garfield but James McArdle is the greatest Louis I have ever seen.

[Nycat63]

Posted: 7/20/17 at 4:14pm

Going tonight as well and looking forward to it!

Updated On: 7/20/17 at 04:14 PM

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 7/20/17 at 4:34pm

 "I see to be alone in not loving Andrew Garfield but James McArdle is the greatest Louis I have ever seen"

I feel the complete opposite. I thought McArdle was awful, but Garfield was transcendent.

[mlsheehan]

Posted: 7/20/17 at 4:42pm

Well either way, I'm sure that Andrew will be better than Justin Kirk.  Who, for me, just was not a good selection for Prior.  Everyone else in the movie was great though.   I have nothing against Justin Kirk as I like him as an actor and have enjoyed him in lots of things.  However, he just wasn't the Prior that was written on the page or that I was expecting.  He would have been a pretty good Joe, or, perhaps an interesting Louis.

But he missed the camp factor which I think is a big part of the character.

[billyelliotfan123]

Posted: 7/20/17 at 4:46pm

Has anyone heard anything about a transfer? I want to see the screening but would much rather wait to see the live production as I have never seen the show before and would prefer my first experience to be live theater

[mlsheehan]

Posted: 7/20/17 at 5:05pm

I don't think there is anything definite, but I would assume there are producers lining up to try to get it in New York with this cast.  So, it probably boils down to whether Nathan Lane can do it, or wants to continue with it. 

But really at this point, it's anyone's guess.  (Unless someone on the board has direct knowledge.)

[billyelliotfan123]

Posted: 7/20/17 at 5:09pm

I have heard solid confirmation that Jordan Roth wants to do it but nothing further than that

[billyelliotfan123]

Posted: 7/20/17 at 5:10pm

It seems lately Nathan Lane only works with Scott Rudin though... Has anyone else noticed that?

[froote]

Posted: 7/20/17 at 8:07pm

Owen22 said: "I see to be alone in not loving Andrew Garfield but James McArdle is the greatest Louis I have ever seen."

Agreed.

[The Other One]

Posted: 7/20/17 at 8:23pm

I saw the NT broadcast of Millennium Approaches this afternoon.  McCardle is quite good, I like every actor in this cast, but I stand by my belief that Adam Driver (who I saw in Signature's Millennium Approaches) and his understudy Eric Bryant (who I saw in Perestroika) are the best of all the actors I have seen play Louis. (I give Bryant a slight edge.)

This is a fine production, and I'm sure it will do well if it transfers, but I felt a bit detached watching it.  Maybe it was the result of watching a broadcast of a live performance.  Just as likely, on viewing a fourth production the play loses much of its impact.  Lane and Tovey are especially good, however.

 

Updated On: 7/21/17 at 08:23 PM

[Jarethan]

Posted: 7/20/17 at 8:27pm

Dancingthrulife2 said: "Saw it yesterday. From what I witnessed, which was a magnificent masterpiece, a full Broadway transfer would be quite difficult to pull off. 

First, the length is a big problem. This is not a play where it's okay to ditch one part for the other. Two parts together, this production runs nearly 8 hours with two 15-minute intermissions in each part. As much as I love theatre and have seen a lot, the length did take a toll on me as the day goes into night. I doubt a regular tourists-abundant Broadway crowd would be able to sit through even 4 hours. Not everybody is happy with the recent revival of Long Day's Journey into Night. Then again, seeing only Part 1 without Part 2, one won't be able to understand a lot of important points about the play itself.

Second, Lyttelton has a huge stage and the production makes full use of it with no doubt. Definitely not for August Wilson and other small to medium playhouses. Vivian Beaumont should work though.
 

I have to say that I disagree with you on a couple of assumptions: (1) that it would be sold as a single ticket vs. two separate performances with separate ticket purchases possible.; and (2) re having to see both parts.  

(1) I can't think of a really long production, e.g., Nicholas Nickelby, Wolf Hall, Norman Conquests, The Kentucky Cycle, where you didn't have the option of buying 2 or even 3 tickets involving single or different days.  Only those who want to see the play in a single day have to do so.

(2) Re having to see both parts, when it originally opened, Perestroika did not even open in the same season as MA.  I venture that a lot of people have probably only seen MA because of that.  I also seem to recall that Perestroika did not have as many performances as MA, but may be wrong.  While the whole of Angels is justifiably considered a major work of art, I do recall Perestroika not being as wildly praised in its original run as was MA.  

Personally, I have seen MA four times, but have only seen Perestroika two times, because -- as much as I love MA -- I found myself getting very bored in parts of Perestroika.  While Perestroika closes up all the loose ends, (1) it is pretty pretentious at times and (2) who says you have to close up all the loose ends.  MA stands on its own merits as a major masterpiece.

 

Updated On: 7/20/17 at 08:27 PM

[Jarethan]

Posted: 7/20/17 at 8:46pm

VintageSnarker said: "I went to check the grosses for Wolf Hall Parts One and Two since that seemed like the most similar situation in recent memory. It wasn't very encouraging.

 https://www.broadwayworld.com/grosses/WOLF-HALL-PARTS-ONE-TWO

I do think the cast would help but 8 hours is asking a lot even from opera audiences. 

 

I guess the limited engagement aspect does create some issues that did not exist for the original production, in terms of demanding that audiences see both parts in a very short time table (I personally always try to see on the same day, but that was not possible 20+ years ago, at least if you saw MA early in its run, as I did.  Of course, on the other side, it means that there are only so many tickets available and that, if you don't move quickly, you COULD miss out).

 

As for comparison to Wolf Hall business, there are several MAJOR differences:

1.  Angels has not one but two stars.  The biggest star who works regularly on Broadway (Lane, if anyone is unsure) and a young movie actor who had a stunning 2016.  Wolf Hall had, in the US, unknowns.

2.  Angels has recognition, and with that cast a vibe that Wolf Hall did not have, at least here.  Most interest, certainly mine among them, it was because of its success in London vs. its story line, yet another look at life around the court of Henry VIII. 

3.  I personally thought Wolf Hall was a big bore, made worse by the fact that I saw it all in one day; of course, I never would have gone back if I wasn't already there and hadn't already paid for the ticket to Part 2.  The decreased business over its run was clear evidence that word of mouth was not good, and audiences just weren't spreading the word that it was a must see.  It just petered out.  I remember how tepid the applause were at the performance(s) I attended, despite the actors putting themselves out there for a day.  That must have hurt.

The only issue I can see them having -- and, God knows, I have been wrong before -- is selecting a theatre that is too small for the length of the engagement and the cost of opening and ongoing operating costs.. 

 

Updated On: 7/20/17 at 08:46 PM

[Jarethan]

Posted: 7/20/17 at 8:46pm

VintageSnarker said: "I went to check the grosses for Wolf Hall Parts One and Two since that seemed like the most similar situation in recent memory. It wasn't very encouraging.

 https://www.broadwayworld.com/grosses/WOLF-HALL-PARTS-ONE-TWO

I do think the cast would help but 8 hours is asking a lot even from opera audiences. 

 

I guess the limited engagement aspect does create some issues that did not exist for the original production, in terms of demanding that audiences see both parts in a very short time table (I personally always try to see on the same day, but that was not possible 20+ years ago, at least if you saw MA early in its run, as I did.  Of course, on the other side, it means that there are only so many tickets available and that, if you don't move quickly, you COULD miss out).

 

As for comparison to Wolf Hall business, there are several MAJOR differences:

1.  Angels has not one but two stars.  The biggest star who works regularly on Broadway (Lane, if anyone is unsure) and a young movie actor who had a stunning 2016.  Wolf Hall had, in the US, unknowns.

2.  Angels has recognition, and with that cast a vibe that Wolf Hall did not have, at least here.  Most interest, certainly mine among them, it was because of its success in London vs. its story line, yet another look at life around the court of Henry VIII. 

3.  I personally thought Wolf Hall was a big bore, made worse by the fact that I saw it all in one day; of course, I never would have gone back if I wasn't already there and had already paid for the ticket to Part 2.  The decreased business over its run was clear evidence that word of mouth was not good, and audiences just weren't spreading the word that it was a must see.  I remember how tepid the applause were at the performance(s) I attended, despite the actors putting themselves out there for a day.  That must have hurt.

The only issue I can see them having -- and, God knows, I have been wrong before -- is selecting a theatre that is too small for the length of the engagement and the cost of opening and ongoing operating costs.. 

 

[Alexander Lamar]

Posted: 7/20/17 at 9:37pm

Waiting for Act III now, and loving the production. I hope it transfers. 

However, the woman playing Harper is a weak link for me. Also, is it just me or is the actor playing Louis struggling with his lines?

[LYLS3637]

Posted: 7/21/17 at 12:27am

Just got home from the screening! I very much enjoyed it! Nathan Lane has never been better. He was absolutely mesmerizing and terrifying. Denise Gough as Harper was equally good-- devastating and alive.

I have to say, I did not get Andrew Garfield's performance. It was so over the top and inauthentic. In the moments where he dialed the camp back, he was truly effective, but it didn't happen nearly enough for me. 

[ggersten]

Posted: 7/21/17 at 12:34am

Alexander Lamar said: "Waiting for Act III now, and loving the production. I hope it transfers. 

However, the woman playing Harper is a weak link for me. Also, is it just me or is the actor playing Louis struggling with his lines?"

Just back from a Central Illinois showing.  Theatre was between 1/4 and 1/3 full.  Very disappointing.

I thought the play and performances were generally terrific Lane and Garfield were great.  Lane was charming and evil and dynamic and how the heck does he make Roy Cohn sympathetic?  I disagree with Alexandar Lamar about Denise Gough.  She owned every scene she was in, in my opinion.  Very jealous of my spouse who saw her in People, Places & Things.  I did wonder whether James McArdle (Louis) was struggling with lines here and there, but since Louis gets tongue tied and wanders off on tangents, I chalked it up to character.  That said, I wasn't taken in by his Louis.  Louis seemed more caricature than character, to me.  

[Sauja]

Posted: 7/21/17 at 12:38am

Caught the screening tonight and was dazzled by Denise Hough--the best Harper I've seen. Also adored James McArdle as Louis and Russel Tovey's Joe. Garfield was the weak link to me, but I've yet to see a Prior that I love (of a limited number--just Borle, Kirk, and now him). Overall, a pretty extraordinary evening. I hope I get the chance to see it in person.