1984 Previews- Page 2

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/19/17 at 4:56am

Not sure how you would ever think 1984 was going to be a pleasant evening.  I agree, many of the things you are complaining about are the essence of e piece.

[ak72090]

Posted: 5/19/17 at 9:36pm

Forgive me for being stupid, but after looking up reviews online, I saw multiple posted from the 18th from Australia with the same writers. Is this the same adaptation in two venues?

[ak72090]

Posted: 5/19/17 at 9:38pm

Did some more searching and answered my own question. Didn't know it was also touring.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 5/20/17 at 7:50pm

I recently caught this. I found the play to very strong overall. This play was one of the most disturbing and intense evenings I have spent in a theatre, which is the entire point of the piece. The production is excellent all around from the direction and physical design to the acting and pacing. I did think the conference room setting for the first good half of the play was a little strange and not entirely effective, but not enough to detract from the play overall. It's been a while since I read the book, but it stayed true to the source material from what I remember.

[LxGstv]

Posted: 5/21/17 at 12:39am

Won the lottery for this and I found it to be quite good.  I had low expectations after reading some of the comments here, but I'm glad I went to see it. It's hard to say it was enjoyable because it's so heavy and unpleasant at times, but it's a really great production overall.

I'm not sure what people are expecting from 1984 though, the guy sitting next to me was visibly bored. I thought it was rather faithful to the book, from what I remember at least.

I actually thought that the video projection for the bedroom scenes were great, at first I was a bit thrown off, but it plays brilliantly with the play and what happens. It's their safe space where they think no one is watching, in that sense the audience becomes big brother, which for me made the reveal scene even more intense.

I'm curious how much it will change during previews though, as much as I enjoyed it I feel it would benefit from a bit of trimming at the start.

[ALMinNYC]

Posted: 5/21/17 at 11:16am

How are the front-row lottery seats? Is the stage very high? Is it just downright terrifying and deafening there?

[LxGstv]

Posted: 5/21/17 at 11:59am

ALMinNYC said: "How are the front-row lottery seats? Is the stage very high? Is it just downright terrifying and deafening there?

 

"

The stage isn't that high, you might miss an actors reaction because a chair or another actor might block it depending on where you are in the row, but they are minor things really. They are great seats if you like to be close to the stage, specially for the price.

TodayTix has warnings about flashing lights and loud noises. It can get a bit loud during one specific scene, it lasts for quite a bit... during that scene I wish I was further back, not because of the noises, just to see how the lights played out over the theater... but yeah, overall it's not really that loud...

edit: come to think of it, if you are short, you might miss one scene in the middle of it, the person next to me was struggling to see... doesn't last very long though... 

Updated On: 5/21/17 at 11:59 AM

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 5/21/17 at 1:19pm

I saw it yesterday and thought the cast was generally weaker than in London. Perhaps they still need some time to settle in. Not much has changed since the London production, so I doubt much will happen during the previews. As many posters have mentioned, it can be confusing if you don't know the source material. It can still be if you've read the book. However, when I saw it in London, I got a program and it had an article about how this production was conceived as an interpretation of the original play, and the library scene immediately made sense because of it. It's weird they didn't put it in the playbill though.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 5/23/17 at 10:23pm

I expected some of the characters to be tortured, but I didn't realize the real victims would be those seated in the audience!

How can a play be so loud and so sleep-inducing at the same time? Honestly, I was near a catatonic state about 45 minutes in, but I did perk up a bit once the (onstage) torture started. It's hard to not be engaged when you're watching someone suffer like that. 

The actors were fine, but nothing more. Even Reed Birney, an actor for whom I have great affection, didn't have much of a chance to show what he's made of. 

1984 reminded me of the worst parts of Enron. 

My eardrums are still hurting. So is my brain. What a way to start the 2017-2018 season. 

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 5/23/17 at 11:44pm

WhizzerMarvin said: "I expected some of the characters to be tortured, but I didn't realize the real victims would be those seated in the audience!

How can a play be so loud and so sleep-inducing at the same time? Honestly, I was near a catatonic state about 45 minutes in, but I did perk up a bit once the (onstage) torture started. It's hard to not be engaged when you're watching someone suffer like that. 

The actors were fine, but nothing more. Even Reed Birney, an actor for whom I have great affection, didn't have much of a chance to show what he's made of. 

1984 reminded me of the worst parts of Enron. 

My eardrums are still hurting. So is my brain. What a way to start the 2017-2018 season. 

 

"

Yup. My sentiments exactly. When I posted my "review", dramamama or whatever the hell her name is and a few others were like "blah blah blah, you don't know what you are talking about". Paraphrasing, but that was the idea. Those responses are why I post so rarely on here. So many arrogant know- it-alls.

But anyway, you have much more clout on here than me, so maybe your review will resonate more and save others from forking down hard earned cash for this total mess of a production. 

[BakerWilliams]

Posted: 5/23/17 at 11:58pm

Didn't you know Matt Rogers, if a show makes you want to commit seppuku in the seats, it's intentional and you just didn't get it.

As for 1984, I only went for Reed Birney and it somehow managed to be even worse than Orwell's novel.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 3:58am

VotePeron said: "But THEN, there's the moment. And yes, it was cool. But I spent the majority of my time on the subway ride home not pondering the plays political stances or theatrical (attempted?) achievements, which are blatant and in-your-face, but whether this is a good show or not. I still can't say. 

- I strongly disliked Tom Sturridge's interpretation of the character. I found him mainly annoying, and didn't root for him at all. 

- Michael Potts makes the most of what is a small and unforgiving role."

Without spoilers, does the moment take place inside Room 101?

Not that I think Tom Sturridge is a dreamboat or anything but shouldn't Winston be older and less attractive... or am I misremembering the book?

Michael Potts needs better roles. 

[MoveOnGypsy]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 6:59am

Reading these comments, I'm glad I got that $8 ticket computer glitch then. 

[After Eight]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 7:24am

 

Baker Williams wrote:

"Didn't you know Matt Rogers, if a show makes you want to commit seppuku in the seats, it's intentional and you just didn't get it."

But when a play like The Antipodes, John, or The Flick zombifies theatregoers with world-record-shattering levels of boredom, then it's intentional, and the long-suffering souls in the audience just didn't get it, right?

Anyhow, as for 1984, it was at once revolting and overpoweringly dull.

Updated On: 5/24/17 at 07:24 AM

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 9:22am

You all know it's okay to not "get" a play, right? Some people have a higher tolerance for plays that test our patience. If you didn't "get" 1984, it doesn't mean your intelligence is being insulted when someone points it out. It means it wasn't your cup of tea and that's just fine. It's a message board full of people who think all kinds of things about theatre. Maybe don't get so bent out of shape about what other people think of your opinion. Especially not someone like dramamama, who is a respectful and knowledgeable member of BWW boards.

Back on topic, I'm not surprised at all that this is the kind of show it is. One look at any of the promo material would tell you it's probably highly divisive. I'm still looking forward to it. Many on here absolutely detested THE ANTIPODES and I found it wonderful for exactly the reasons people hated it. Does that make me of better stock than the people who disliked it? Absolutely not.

[After Eight]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 9:47am

"If you didn't "get" 1984, it doesn't mean your intelligence is being insulted when someone points it out. It means it wasn't your cup of tea and that's just fine."

 

Not really. That's not the sole way, or even the most common way, "get" is used. When someone says you didn't get it it, it means more often than not that you didn't understand it. Same with the expression, "I don't get it."

Personally, I "got" 1984, The Antipodes, John, The Flick, A Life, etc., and I loathed them all.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 10:55am

Thank you, ColortheHours, for your kind words.  

 

I didn't realize talking about your opinions meant any of us were telling you your opinion was wrong....you are allowed your opinion, heck, I saw this in Cambridge last year, and I admit, it was hardly my favorite, so I certainly wasn't singing the show's praises. I doubt I'd be going again if my teenage son wasn't so keen to see it, since now he's read (and loved) the book.  But your opinion created a discussion....isn't that what this board is ABOUT?   I don't "get" or like Rent ....people try to convince me all the time that I'm wrong.   I'm not....and no one said you were "wrong", either.

[thealtoslament]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 11:55am

VintageSnarker said: "

Not that I think Tom Sturridge is a dreamboat or anything but shouldn't Winston be older and less attractive... or am I misremembering the book?

"

It has been a few years since I've read it but iirc, Winston is supposed to be 40ish and look older than he is (John Hurt in the movie was pretty perfect casting). Sturridge is in his early 30s and looks a LOT younger.

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 8:40pm

dramamama611 said: "Thank you, ColortheHours, for your kind words.  

 

I didn't realize talking about your opinions meant any of us were telling you your opinion was wrong....you are allowed your opinion, heck, I saw this in Cambridge last year, and I admit, it was hardly my favorite, so I certainly wasn't singing the show's praises. I doubt I'd be going again if my teenage son wasn't so keen to see it, since now he's read (and loved) the book.  But your opinion created a discussion....isn't that what this board is ABOUT?   I don't "get" or like Rent ....people try to convince me all the time that I'm wrong.   I'm not....and no one said you were "wrong", either.

 

"

Thank you. And apologies. I'm so used to people on here criticizing every post, maybe I was a bit too defensive. Over the years, it's always been like:

"The sky is blue."

"No' it's brown!"

Anyway, onward.

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 9:15pm

Matt Rogers said: "dramamama611 said: "Thank you, ColortheHours, for your kind words.  

 

I didn't realize talking about your opinions meant any of us were telling you your opinion was wrong....you are allowed your opinion, heck, I saw this in Cambridge last year, and I admit, it was hardly my favorite, so I certainly wasn't singing the show's praises. I doubt I'd be going again if my teenage son wasn't so keen to see it, since now he's read (and loved) the book.  But your opinion created a discussion....isn't that what this board is ABOUT?   I don't "get" or like Rent ....people try to convince me all the time that I'm wrong.   I'm not....and no one said you were "wrong", either.

 

"

Thank you. And apologies. I'm so used to people on here criticizing every post, maybe I was a bit too defensive. Over the years, it's always been like:

"The sky is blue."

"No' it's brown!"

Anyway, onward.

 

"

Except the sky is only blue on a clear day. Here the only equivalence of "a clear day" is Orwell's text.

[Lot666]

Posted: 5/28/17 at 2:31pm

I saw the show last night. This production of Orwell's "1984" is an excruciating, revolting, and borderline nauseating theatrical experience. It is deeply unpleasant and I've not seen anything remotely like it on stage before. When the Room 101 scene began, I expected people to begin walking out and even considered doing so myself, so disquieting was the depiction of this sequence. The production is flawed in some ways (the book club concept seemed superfluous and made the show drag in places for me; the first 20-30 minutes evoke Groundhog Day, but without the humor, and are rather tedious to sit through), but the message here is of the utmost importance. We are truly living this prophecy today and perhaps the show must be the full-on auditory and visual assault that it is in order to get people to (as O'Brien puts it) "look up from their screens long enough to notice what's really happening".

[Jessica Sek]

Posted: 5/29/17 at 12:39am

Just saw it yesterday. The sound/lighting effects is really way too much, I think I saw someone leaving because of it... it gives me headaches and quite nauseating. I stayed through the entire play, I thought it was pretty well done otherwise. I didn't find it especially boring or anything. 

[TheThreadMaster]

Posted: 5/29/17 at 12:58am

Everyone is talking about how loud and disturbing this thing is. What happens that's so bad? Can someone please do a "toggle spoiler content" entailing all of this craziness?

[ardiem]

Posted: 5/29/17 at 1:15am

TheThreadMaster said: "Everyone is talking about how loud and disturbing this thing is. What happens that's so bad? Can someone please do a "toggle spoiler content" entailing all of this craziness"

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

There's very liberal use of columns of strobe lights pointing directly at the audience on either side of the stage. The lights are typically accompanied by extremely high-pitched, shrill tones. It's very, very unpleasant. It also typically occurred without notice - cheap jump scares.

Regarding the "disturbing" elements:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

The play ends with an extended and graphic torture sequence, which those familiar with the book won't find surprising at all. But the degree to which you see and hear Winston in agony (coupled with the lights/sounds described above) was just too much for me - and I say that as someone who was totally fine with the violence depicted in the American Psycho musical.

 

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 5/29/17 at 8:01am

I caught this yesterday and maybe I'm a psychopath, but the biggest problem for me is that I wasn't disturbed enough. My experience reading the book was visceral. I felt there was a genuine danger to the world that I didn't feel in this production. The overriding feeling was tedium and a desire to go back and read the book. My boyfriend found the sound design effectively unsettling and I totally got what they were going for, putting the audience through their own form of torture as the characters did. This is a totalitarian nightmare novel we're talking about here, blood and shocks are to be expected.

What's unfortunate is how rehearsed it all looks and how staged it comes off. Some of this is likely the heavy amount of technical work that goes into the seamless transitions and intricate cue calling, but even if it had been a perfectly streamlined performance, it all felt to sterile and methodical. Which is, curiously, not the feeling I got from reading Orwell's novel. Some good performances, particularly an almost ferile Olivia Wilde (her first scene alone with Tom Sturridge was a highlight and a great example of the rawness I think the whole production needs) and ensemble member Carl Hendrick Louis, who draws attention in every scene he's in for his eerie intensity. Reed Birney is totally effective as O'Brien, but I can agree that I wish he had chosen something meatier to be a part of.

Is it unsettling? I can absolutely say yes. Was I personally unsettled? No. And I wish I had been.