FRANKIE AND JOHNNY Previews- Page 5

[n2nbaby]

Posted: 5/20/19 at 10:52am

I did a two show days of Burn This and Frankie and Johnny and I have to say I enjoyed F&J a lot more. Not to say Burn This was bad, it for was a solid production with even more solid performances but I didn’t walk away from the Hudson moved.

When I left the Broadhurst, I felt drained in the best way possible. What a beautiful, thought provoking piece this is. I’m glad I went in cold and knew little about it.

I’ve never seen Audra on stage before and she gives a brave, intimate, controlled performance. She was incredible. Michael Shannon was also incredible and they played off each other amazingly and their chemistry was red hot.

I don’t agree with the comments above about how it is a naked man refusing to leave. I never felt uncomfortable for Frankie and I never felt like she was in any kind of danger (she clearly also knew this or she would have actually done something about him not leaving).

I was surprised how incredibly funny this was, right from the get go. I don’t often laugh out loud but I did multiple times here.

As for people talking about the nudity: they are both naked and I do think Audra was wearing something on her bottom half, but as said before the nudity is essential but considering how much people have been talking about it, there isn’t much actual nudity there. You see Audra naked briefly a couple of times and Michael IS nude through a large portion of the first act, but you don’t see anything because of the way he is sitting. This definitely shouldn’t be a talking point by any means, it was mostly brief and tastefully done.

I’m sad this isn’t selling well, it’s a beautiful play with two fantastic central performances. I hope it catches on but now I’m worried it won’t last through its 16 week run. Get a ticket and fall in love.

[jdrye222]

Posted: 5/20/19 at 11:12am

Saw this last week and gotta say, I thought it was one of the most poorly-directed plays I’ve seen on bway.
It was very lazy staging, moving them around the VERY UGLY and unhelpful set just for the sake of moving them around.
I would love to see these two actors do a (shortened) version of this play, but with a real director. Clearly they are both at the top of their craft but seem to have had zero help and are hampered by the set and poor staging, bad lighting, and an overall misfire of tone. Shannon plays it all for laughs it seemed. Never seemed to be genuine about any of it.
I was pretty disappointed.

[n2nbaby]

Posted: 5/20/19 at 12:18pm

Also, if anyone is interested in a stage door report...

Both Audra and Michael came out fairly quickly, especially since I am assuming they both had guests because quite a few people from the guest list came in. Michael came out about 25 minutes after curtain and then Audra followed out maybe two minutes later. Both were incredibly friendly and took their time with people, signed and posted for photos if asked. They also were both pretty playful with each other, they clearly enjoy each other’s company.

The crowd was smaller, maybe 30 people.

[JSquared2]

Posted: 5/20/19 at 12:22pm

jdrye222 said: "Saw this last week and gotta say, I thought it was one of the most poorly-directed plays I’ve seen on bway.
It was very lazy staging, moving them around the VERY UGLY and unhelpful set just for the sake of moving them around.
I would love to see these two actors do a (shortened) version of this play, but with a real director. Clearly they are both at the top of their craft but seem to have had zero help and are hampered by the set and poor staging, bad lighting, and an overall misfire of tone. Shannon plays it all for laughs it seemed. Never seemed to be genuine about any of it.
I was pretty disappointed."

Wow.  Just....wow.

[AllThatJazz2]

Posted: 5/20/19 at 12:57pm

Does anyone know if they are coming out to the stage door after the matinee performances, or only in the evening?

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 5/20/19 at 11:27pm

I just saw this today and was honestly quite surprised at how empty the mezzanine was (though it was a Monday night so I guess I shouldn't be).

To be honest, I think I'm a bit young to fully appreciate this play, though I did think moments of it were beautiful, particularly the ends of each acts--I actually thought the staging trick was absolutely stunning, especially when paired with the music.  Both Audra and Michael were fantastic, though I felt like I would've been more interested in a slightly "softer" version of Johnny, not to take away any of his passion, but basically to slightly round his edges and make him just a touch less manic, especially in the more intimate scenes with Audra.  Sometimes I just felt like Michael Shannon was shouting all the time when he didn't need to be to get the character across.  And while I'm not sure whether it was the character of Frankie or Audra's performance, I felt like I was almost always more interested in what she had to say.

The humor seemed a little uneven, and the audience definitely played a part in that.  There were many lines when the audience seemed to force into a laugh line but also many lines that I thought should have been funny but didn't elicit a response.  And the pacing of the play itself also seemed to vary a lot to me.  The first act seemed to drag a bit until the end, and the second act I thought was far better.

Like others have mentioned I did also recall Burn This in comparison, though I think the relationship between Frankie and Johnny here is much more nuanced and memorable than the one between Anna and Pale, both in the writing and in the performances.  So overall I think it is a rather good production, but perhaps not something that's necessarily for me.

[wolfwriter]

Posted: 5/21/19 at 12:18am

Terrence McNally is an odd playwright. He either over-writes or under-writes each of his plays, of which I've seen many. Some are garbage (Mothers and Sons and Deuce). Some are not very good but are entertaining (Master Class & The Ritz).

Frankie & Johnny is one of those that's over-written but mildly entertaining. It's too long by half an hour and the second act becomes dull and repetitive.

Unfortunately, while the play is amusingly sad, the actors here, are starring in two different productions. Audra McDonald is playing a sincerely closed off woman who is scared to reach out but desperately wants to. Michael Shannon talks about "connecting" but plays everything for manic laughs and the audience tonight, obliged. They laughed too loudly and inappropriately at lines that were more sad than funny. While an audience is certainly entitled to laugh as they want, it was distracting and only called more attention to Michael Shannon's incongruent acting and the poor direction the actors are receiveing.

I didn't buy Johnny for a minute. Nothing he said was sincere. I didn't buy his phony desperation to "connect." As Shannon plays it, he looks like a guy who'll say anything to get laid. I think this is why he kept refusing to leave. Audra was more sincere and far more believable. And, every time he spoke, I wanted him to stop and let her speak.

Another issue is the direction. As mentioned above, moving actors for the sake of moving actors is noticeable and pointless. The stove 'incident' is so poorly directed, I was mildly shocked. I agree, the lighting is terrible, especially since it's mentioned multiple times as an "issue." It needs to be precise & helpful and it's neither.

The final scene is a giant shrug. It's rather pointless, even though I get what the point is supposed to be. I don't want to spoil it, but it's not a big deal.

This is a cute play that should be much shorter and be off-Broadway. I don't think there was a huge demand for this revival and I'm not sure it will run til August. I have a suspicion that this is far more fun for an actor to appear in, than it is for an audience to watch.

[52889j]

Posted: 5/21/19 at 10:56am

Just jumping in here to say that I saw this last night and thought it was spectacular. There was one audience member who (very bombastically) laughed at everything Shannon said, but aside from that, it was a perfect evening of theater. I found McDonald and Shannon to be perfectly matched and it was a privilege to watch them play off of each other.

Any theater fan is doing their self a disservice by skipping this. 

[Cape Twirl of Doom]

Posted: 5/21/19 at 12:06pm

wolfwriter said: "
I didn't buy Johnnyfor a minute. Nothing he said was sincere. I didn't buy his phony desperation to "connect." As Shannonplays it, he looks like a guy who'll say anything to get laid. I think this is why he kept refusing to leave. Audra was more sincere and far more believable. And, every time he spoke, I wanted him to stop and let her speak."

I've gotta say, I agree with this. I didn't think Johnny was sincere about anything he was saying. He just seemed like a creep who kept trying to wear Frankie down until she would accept him. I really don't think the play has aged well with him refusing to listen to her and not leaving her apartment. Audra was great, but I did not get at all what she saw in how Michael Shannon played the character. I don't think they had chemistry at all.

[LuPita2]

Posted: 5/21/19 at 2:03pm

Shocking. 

[raddersons]

Posted: 5/21/19 at 2:06pm

As a heads up, make sure your eat dinner before the show, because they talk about food a lot and you will be starving half way through. I sometimes skip dinner if I'm coming straight from work... big mistake. 

[GilmoreGirlO2]

Posted: 5/21/19 at 4:22pm

I saw this this past weekend and, sadly, cannot recommend it. Audra and Michael are very good, but I wouldn’t say either of their performances are worth the price of a ticket (or the time spent).

The final moment with the set worked when I saw it, although I found it more confusing than anything. I was off to the side a bit, so I wonder if viewing it straight on might have made it more effective.

I also agree with those who feel the script does not age well. It did feel disturbing to see this somewhat manic man refuse to leave this woman’s apartment, particularly because I believe we as the audience are, ultimately, supposed to find this charming and exactly what Frankie “needs” to open her up. What I believe the playwright is trying to show as Johnny’s passion and desire to “connect” came off, to me, as a man refusing to listen to a woman until he gets his way. Even if Johnny was otherwise portrayed as the sanest, most caring, gentlest person, him refusing to leave feels very scary for Frankie. I certainly don’t have an issue with seeing a disturbing situation take place on stage – I have an issue when a situation like this is shown on stage and I feel that both the script and the production are trying to portray these actions as endearing. In today’s world, I find it irresponsible to continue to portray this kind of behavior from a man as something that is charming (SPOILER) and is ultimately rewarded.

Someone earlier said that Frankie doesn’t actually want Johnny to leave because she doesn’t open the door or call someone. First, Johnny literally goes through how anything Frankie does to try get him to leave either won’t work or he will just end up coming back. Second, a woman shouldn’t have to do anything other than ask him to leave for him to oblige. Third, I saw “What the Constitution Means to Me” last week and, for anyone who has seen it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of the story she tells when she says she heard something in the back of her head that sounded like “Stay alive.” A woman’s actions (or inaction in this case) are often motivated by an instinct to protect themselves. Fourth, even if she secretly did want him to stay, a man refusing to leave when asked (multiple times and forcefully, no less) is not okay.

Aside from the issues I had with the sympathetic nature taken toward Johnny’s behavior, I overall found this production quite…boring. I couldn’t find myself rooting for them as a couple and didn’t feel emotionally connected to either.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/21/19 at 4:40pm

I think you are misreading the 1980s...thinking it was such a long time ago and the kind of behavior portrayed in this play was seen as endearing.  The play was written during and in response to the AIDS crisis when sex was considered dangerous.  The element of danger you're seeing isn't some new thing from a woke perspective.  It's baked into the DNA of this play.  It is supposed to be unsettling in those moments.  This is a portrait of two deeply lonely, wounded people who do not know how to be with each other.  Johnny's talk of connection should ring a little hollow, as if he's heard it in some sort of self-help workshop and, if he says it enough, he might mean it.  It's his last chance...at least, that is what he believes.  It's not charming...it's desperate and sad and Shannon does of beautiful job of calculating his performance so that he never becomes too menacing.  Is it prelude to rape?  No...but we're not actually supposed to have that answer.  We're supposed to feel the danger of sleeping with someone on the first date in the age of AIDS without knowing much about them.  By making the couple heterosexual, McNally was able to explore all the other dangers involved in casual relationship outside of the crisis. 

[jdrye222]

Posted: 5/21/19 at 5:27pm

For me it doesn’t matter when it takes place or was written. I saw all three major productions (original with Bates, the Mantello Falco/Tucci version at the belasco, and now this).... and it is so atrociously staged and the tone is so poorly directed that none of that even matters. The beautiful moving thing about the Mantello production was that you really truly saw TWO lost souls connecting by their loneliness and perceived ordinariness - you were not siding with one or the other in their back and forth struggle. And when Johnny finally gives the monologue to the radio DJ, it is stunning because it’s like the world stops for both of them and neither can believe what’s coming out of his mouth. I get goosebumps thinking about it as I’m writing this.
I do not blame Shannon, I blame the basically non-existent direction (beyond just making them move all over the stage for no reason). It felt like I was ultimately watching the two most talented students in a graduate acting program doing an exercise where the teacher just tells them to never stop moving.
And don’t get me started about them making the omelet but leaving it sitting on the stove.

On a side note - i has totally forgotten that the ugly set (with doorways in the middle of windows) moves at the end until I was reading the posts here..... And it just reminded me how clueless this director is. So completely unnecessary, gave no impact to the piece - Why not focus on your actors and allowing them to be the ones who have us feel that just maybe their world has somehow opened up over the course of this ?

After the Mantello production, this was one of my very favorite plays, and I thought McNally’s best-written. Audra and Michael seemed to do what they could, but had zero help from anyone else.

[Tom5]

Posted: 5/22/19 at 2:27pm

If a man refused to leave a woman's residence after being told to do so I don't see how that could be viewed as "endearing" whether it took places in the 80's or in the Paleolithic.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 5/25/19 at 12:34am

This was the first showing my trip-annual visit to NYC.  Only had room for 6 shows this time.  This was the first  oneI saw.  I saw it on Tuesday, in the same audience as the idiot audience member who laughed like a hyena, presumably to show those around him how much he was enjoying the show.

i liked the show, but I am at a loss re all the hyper-praise from some of the posters on this board.  I thought it was an decent play, well acted by Audra, but not sure re Shannon (I have never seen the show before, so I have no basis for comparing Michael Shannon's performance to prior actors in the role.  it just seemed like another super intense Shannon performance, similar to other roles he has played / performances he has given).

I kept on thinking -- both during and after the performance -- that Frankie had better be really careful if she is going to try for a real relationship with Johnny, because he seems beyond lonely, a little scary / almost schizophrenic in fact.  I couldn't help thinking that she might be better off alone than with Shannon's Johnny.

I thought the staging at the end of the show was positively stupid.  I can only assume the director was trying to show that they had the potential to be their own little island.  If not that, I have no clue.

[bear88]

Posted: 5/25/19 at 3:44am

On Monday, we had a guy in the mezzanine (where we were) laughing at an absurdly loud volume at most of what Shannon said. Does he go every night? (We also got the woman yelling excitedly that the actors were really naked during the opening scene.) 

I had a similar reaction to Jarethan. I didn't actively hate the play and can't compare the performances to those that came before, Frankie seems better off alone. As played by Audra McDonald, she appears to realize it. Shannon's Johnny is insufferable, just trying to wear Frankie down so he doesn't have to leave. The reason is unclear, aside from an undiagnosed mental illness or some darker impulse. Frankie's character is so desperate to get away from him that she's about to leave him alone in her own apartment. It felt somehow dishonest and a bit of cheat by Terrence McNally to have the violence and injury - nothing too serious - committed by Frankie's character.

I'm not sure how much to blame Shannon or the director for this. The character is on the page, and Shannon tries to make him as engaging as possible. McDonald is game, creating a character who is believably lonely and yearning for human connection - so much so that she puts up with Johnny's tiresome manipulation despite having every reason to be cautious about him, if not alarmed. I liked McDonald's performance a lot.

There are moments when the play works, but I don't think it has aged well. Or perhaps previous versions were able to convey what I didn't get out of this revival.

[kingfan011]

Posted: 5/25/19 at 10:47am

For those that have seen the original Kathy Bates production and this what is this version doing wrong?

[RaisedOnMusicals]

Posted: 5/25/19 at 11:08am

kingfan011 said: "For those that have seen the original Kathy Bates production and this what is this version doing wrong?"

Objection--assuming facts not in evidence.

Not all think the production is doing anything wrong. Judging from all of the posts, many think it's brilliant. But it would be fair to ask those who saw the original production to compare it to this one. And along those lines, one major difference is that in the original Kathy played a fat, unattractive waitress and her physical appearance was central to the character. With Audra playing Frankie, that is obviously not the case.

 

[BroadwayMarley]

Posted: 5/25/19 at 11:25am

I agree completely with SonofRobbieJ.  I loved the play and found the acting superb and very moving.  However, that the set and staging is a bit problematic - especially in the front few rows of the orchestra.  I am going to see it again from a bit further back in the orchestra.

[Sauja]

Posted: 5/25/19 at 6:38pm

I’m in the group that found the show to be deeply uncomfortable. Throughout, I just wanted Johnny to listen to Frankie and leave. That this was played as a romance felt ugly. And when it was revealed that’s Frankie had been abused in her past...I left feeling uneasy for her. And that would be fine if I believed that was the intention, but the direction (especially that stupid moving back wall) felt pitched as a love story.

Shannon and McDonald are both astonishingly great actors, but they’re performing a play that isn’t especially good in a production that feels lazily directed (and I usually love Arbus’ work) in one of the cheapest, ugliest productions I’ve seen on Broadway.

Two of our greatest actors in a two-hander that is discomfiting and overlong. Glad I got a $25 seat.

[Brightstar33]

Posted: 5/28/19 at 1:11pm

I saw the show this weekend, and I totally hear what everyone is saying but also couldn’t help but think of the AIDS crisis while watching it. It’s the underbelly of so much of McNally’s work, and the double-edged sword of connection is what brought it back to AIDS for me. If they do connect then loss is inevitable and that fear in both of them is palpable. With love comes the chance of being wounded and hurt and left.

They both seemed like "damaged" human beings and deeply lonely, and they’re far from being perfect or polite and neither of them know how to connect to one another. Johnny’s behavior may be inexcusable. He should have left. We see the possible repercussions of him staying. It’s not tidy and very messy, but both of them, especially Frankie, take huge risks in seeing what happens if they both take the leap. It’s so painfully human in their negotiations with the other person, not necessarily romantic, and both of them are vulnerable and have experiences of violence and loss in their life. The line that stood out to me is “We’ve gotta connect. We just have to. Or we die.” Those are high stakes! The play takes “connection” as a life or death choice so, in typical McNally form, it feels operatic. Those same questions were brought up during the AIDS crisis, but instead of it just being a choice for queer men, he’s making it a wider human choice. For this reason, what it means to “connect” to someone, no matter how “damaged” or “different” they seem felt pretty topical to me.

Reading through the thread, the things people are discussing feel like huge important questions where there is no right answer. The play is bringing about those questions because of its nuance and ambiguity. I didn’t think the play would read in today’s context until I saw it, but the play seems to be asking the very questions we are debating.

Two amazing actors are bring that to life and although I get why people thought Arbus’s direction felt “arbitrary” at times, I sort of saw a freneticness in their movements that was almost like two caged animals not knowing how to confront each other, or where to sit or move or how to respond naturally, which felt very intentional to me.

[BroadwayMarley]

Posted: 5/29/19 at 1:25am

Saw it tonight for the second time and it was tightened up from the first time which I found to be excellent.  I agree with Brightstar33 about the negative comments reflecting the ambiguities that the play brings to light.  I disagree with earlier comments that this is a dated production including creepiness that is  now politically incorrect.   Instead of including things that should have been excluded or rewritten, the play brings to light inappropriate behavior that has never been ok but now is more likely to be called out.  All in all, I think the production succeeds with 2 excellent performers and excellent performances.

[The Other One]

Posted: 5/29/19 at 5:04am

kingfan011 said: "For those that have seen the original Kathy Bates production and this what is this version doing wrong?"

I have not seen this production, but Kathy Bates's performance made an elongated if likable one-act a must-see.