SAINT JOAN (2018) Previews- Page 2

[Theater3232]

Posted: 4/4/18 at 9:43am

Total snoozer like those you usually see in the American Airlines Theater.  To be avoided at all costs.  Show was 3+ hours and is pure torture to sit through.

For those of you going to see the leading actress, I think you'll be quite disappointed.  She was very one-dimensional for the vast majority of the show.  And I had never even heard of her before this.

Many in the ensemble cast were very poor "actors" as well.  You got the feeling this was the first time many of these people were on a professional stage.

Updated On: 4/4/18 at 09:43 AM

[After Eight]

Posted: 4/4/18 at 10:37am

"Ha, of course it was Shaw’s choice. I’m just saying I didn’t like it!"

My, my, my.

So this is where we are now.

This one wants. That one wants. And that one over there wants, too.

This director changes. That author alters.

This ideologue demands. That one demands even more. And don't even talk about the one over there screeching up a storm!

Wants, wants, wants. Change, change, change.

And what about what the deceased author wanted?

Uhhh.....

Who?

 

Updated On: 4/4/18 at 10:37 AM

[musikman]

Posted: 4/4/18 at 10:48am

^^^^^^^

https://youtu.be/jrB1IB7d0o8
 

The resemblance is uncanny 

Updated On: 4/4/18 at 10:48 AM

[Jarethan]

Posted: 4/4/18 at 10:52am

I have to admit that I am not a member of the Conceal Rashad club.  I thought she was adequate in Bountiful and barely there in ADHP2.   I did not see her in Stick Fly and doubt that my opinion would have changed based on R&J, given the reviews for it and her.

I was thinking that I might see St. Joan, although I have rarely enjoyed Shaw performances (exceptions: Pygmalion and House.  I generally hated several productions of Mrs. Warren's Profession, Major Barbara and Candida that I have seen over 50 years, but several of them were badly reviewed, so it could have been the production that I disliked.

That said, I thought I might see this in one of the remaining slots I have for late May, to see if my opinion of CR would change.  Based on reviews thus far, I am not inclined to use a slot for something that sounds like a slog.  This is why I love this board.  If I still lived in NY, I would probably see most everything; but, I don't...so I need to be selective.

[two ladies tickets]

Posted: 4/4/18 at 12:15pm

I was at the first preview as well. I agree that it looks like they just had a free-for-all in the rehearsal hall. This production is definitely all about the set. It overwhelms everything, even Shaw’s language.
There was a phenomenal production of Saint Joan done at the Shaw Festival last season, if anyone saw that production you can definitely skip this one.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 4/4/18 at 10:41pm

WhizzerMarvin said: "And to clarify, it’s not like Joan is some minor character, it’s just that the play is not told from her perspective, but rather from the men who viewed her as a threat and orchestrated her demise.

For example, Scene 4, a very loooooong scene in which Joan does not even appear (except to set out of the wings at the end to give the end of act one a button), could easily have been written with Joan in the room instead.

It’s not like I think Shaw is some hack (he’s not), nor is he a misogynist, but there’s an irony to Joan lamenting about how all these unfit men are judging her and controlling her life when she has not be granted first-person perspective in her own play.

"

This is disappointing because I was already on the fence about a show with a cast of 13 that only features one woman. But I like the actors I'm familiar with and I figured that since it's called Saint Joan, she'd be the focus and it'd be better than Joan of Arc: Into the Fire (which I skipped after all the negative word of mouth). And Shaw is totally capable of giving his female characters good material.

Speaking of the set, was it at all hard to look at it during the show? The instagram photo makes it look very bright and intense.

[Theater3232]

Posted: 4/4/18 at 10:49pm

Joan of Arc at the Public was a high-energy rock musical.  You can view a snippet by searching youtube for "joan of arc public theater".  You should have given it a chance.

This version at MTC is super boring and is talk, talk, talk.  The set isn't too bright to look at, so trust me, that won't be your problem with the show.  On the contrary, many scenes are pretty darkly lit, which help with your extreme urge to nap through the 3 hours of boredom.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/4/18 at 11:04pm

Delete. 

 

Updated On: 4/6/18 at 11:04 PM

[After Eight]

Posted: 4/5/18 at 6:19am

Auggie27 wrote;

"I'm with Whizzer about the play,"

I am not.

"and it's painful to admit."

It ought to be.

"more often than not, the play is simply too windy, digressive, unfocused and static at times to find theatrical fire."

It's a great play, and it most certainly can find "theatrical fire."  

"Shaw is entitled,"

Well that's mighty big of you. Shaw would no doubt be so grateful.

Honestly!



 

[JayG 2]

Posted: 4/5/18 at 10:58pm

I also saw the St. Joan at Shaw Festival last season, and it was sensational. i don't intend to see this production, but after seeing the set, which seems a bit bloated and overwhelming, perhaps MTC should have just imported the play from Canada.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 4/5/18 at 11:03pm

I fondly recall a production of ST JOAN at the Circle On The Square quite a few years ago. It starred Lynn Redgrave and Robert LuPone. It was splendid.

[Julie Yard]

Posted: 4/7/18 at 10:10am

I am with the minority here, because I saw it last night and thought it was wonderful. I felt the director caught that great place between light and dark with this play. I'd seen Joan before (at a small company downtown) and loved it but it was all dark. This production moves betweeen the dark and the light, and the major set design was a perfect reflection of it.  And a shame for Rashad to have no chance at the Tony (because Glenda will get it), There was no hint of histeria in her performance... Joan is speaking her truth, and she's not crazy.

I did remark to my friend that I wished I was part an older theater time when and wasn't corrupted with TV or movie viewing because I did want to snip at some of the longer scenes. But that's my bad.

Loved it.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 4/7/18 at 11:38am

After Eight, you seem to vascillate between being outraged at people's audacity in changing authorial intent, and being outraged at people's defending a change in authorial intent (Sher's take on MFL) because it's screwing with an author (Lerner) who had the audacity to change authorial (Shavian) intent.

You don't see a contradiction in your outrages, no doubt, and will justify it as Lerner being sacrosanct when it comes to MFL and Shaw being sacrosanct when it comes to Pygmalion - but I would guess the ending of the 1937 movie of Pygmalion (identical to the ending of MFL) doesn't outrage you - would I be right about that?

Of course the question most people would have for me is why am I feeding the troll by engaging with you.

But I don't think of you as a troll.  I think of you as bww's performance art side show, our antic disposition, our enfant terrible provocateur par excellence. As kind of a marvel.

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 4/7/18 at 11:55am

^ Has anyone on these boards actually met After Eight in person? I'm suspecting it's actually some adorable grandmother who bakes cookies and crochets in her spare time and gets all her aggressions out via her odious avatar on BWW.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 4/7/18 at 12:09pm

^THAT'S the best idea for a new musical in a very long time.

[After Eight]

Posted: 4/7/18 at 11:30pm

"You don't see a contradiction in your outrages, no doubt,"

 

It's both presumptuous and highly unseemly to tell others what they "no doubt" think. Arrogant as well, I'm afraid.

Speaking for myself, I'm perfectly capable of stating what I think, without your or anyone else's assistance.

 

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 4/7/18 at 11:41pm

Cool so what's your review?

Because so far After8 your response has been reviews othes responses.

[Andy51]

Posted: 4/7/18 at 11:52pm

After Eight said: ""You don't see a contradiction in your outrages, no doubt,"



It's both presumptuous and highly unseemly to tell others what they "nodoubt" think. Arrogant as well, I'm afraid.

henrikegerman's comment is, in context, neither unseemly nor arrogant.  Rather, it was quite charitable.  For if you did make your assertions with the belief that you were contradicting yourself, it would entail that you function irrationally or as a troll.  

"

 

Updated On: 4/7/18 at 11:52 PM

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 4/8/18 at 12:04am

The fact that After Eight doesn't actually see these shows has become so much more apparent lately. Aside from this thread, A8's sole commentary on the My Fair Lady thread was anger about the ending—which was only posted after somebody else wrote about it. No other substantive feedback about the production at all. 

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 4/10/18 at 11:53am

Theater3232 said: "...is super boring and is talk, talk, talk. The set isn't too bright to look at, so trust me, that won't be your problem with the show. On the contrary, many scenes are pretty darkly lit, which help with your extreme urge to nap through the 3 hours of boredom."

What do you expect from a straight play expect "talk, talk, talk"? 

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 4/12/18 at 12:25am

I thought this was good, but not great.

Condola is terrific as Joan, and her transformation throughout the show is breathtaking to see. I thought everybody else seemed pretty "act"-y. Like they're presenting their dissertation.

I went in wary based on comments in this thread because I really don't like "talky plays," but I was engaged for the majority of it—except, however, for the final scenes of both acts. The lengthy last scene of Act I is, I believe, the first time I genuinely slipped in and out of consciousness in the theatre. It was absolutely endless and repetitive. Like, we get it. You want to burn Joan. Move on. I also vehemently disliked the epilogue, which felt like the long, trying-to-be-funny-but-not-really-funny, poor man's version of "Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story."

I know I'm eviscerating those two scenes, but otherwise, I did actually enjoy the show for the most part, though I'm probably not going to remember much of it a year from now. It's far from the brilliant, searing theatre that was happening on the Friedman's stage a year ago in The Little Foxes. 

The only nominations I see this getting are Rashad for sure and maybe Scenic Design.

Updated On: 4/12/18 at 12:25 AM

[haterobics]

Posted: 4/12/18 at 1:05am

Dancingthrulife2 said: "What do you expect from a straight play expect "talk, talk, talk"?"

Nudity.

[After Eight]

Posted: 4/12/18 at 6:46am

A fitful production of a beautiful play. The mercurial shifts in tone from comedy and drama aren't the easiest to navigate, and the creative team hasn't been able to steer clearly through them here, Some of the early scenes were risibly bad, but the play finds itself on surer footing as it goes along. The second act was quite good; the inquisition scene in particular was very powerful. 

The acting is varied in style and quality. Condola Rashad handles her dramatic scenes very well; she registers less effectively early on. Max Gordon Martin is excellent as Brother Martin, and I liked the work of Jack Davenport and Walter Bobbie.

The set was something of an eyesore. It was also jarring in the extreme to hear French place names mispronounced throughout.

This is a wise, witty, moving, and poetic play. The production is hit and miss, but when it hits, it hits home.

Updated On: 4/12/18 at 06:46 AM

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 4/21/18 at 7:42pm

This was a real drag. My problems with this show stem from both the writing and the production itself. This a subpar production of a subpar play. The play itself is just not very engaging, and  it is very wordy and talky. There’s a lot of rehashing of things over and over again. 

Condola Rashad gives an incredible performance, but whenever she is not onstage (which is more often than one would think considering she’s the title character), her absence is sorely felt. The rest of the cast is fine, but there are no true standouts at all.

The set design was cool for the first five minutes, but it became a bit of an eyesore after that. The bell theme/motif they were going for didn’t really work for me at all. Way too abstract.

The Epilogue was one of the most embarrassing things I have ever seen on a stage in my life. It felt like a really poorly written SNL skit. The tonal shift between the previous scenes of the play and epilogue was very jarring. I hated it.

In a season ripe with so many good plays (especially revivals of plays), this one definitely falls short. It’s really just a not very good production of a play that was not too great to begin with.

[Synecdoche2]

Posted: 4/22/18 at 2:37pm

The fact that people consider this play too talky does not bode well for the future of audiences’ attention span. It’s dense and political and *fascinating*. This production is rather excellent (especially Rashad) and I think it serves well as the white collar play of the season.