A View From The Bridge Previews- Page 3

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 10/23/15 at 11:14pm

Is A View From the Bridge the new Gypsy? We will have had 3 Broadway productions in a little over 15 years. The last revival was such perfection. Schreiber was magnificent and should have won the Tony. Johansson was wonderful and Hecht gave the best performance I've seen her give. The set, with those massive brick walls, was very imposing and the direction enriched the text; the whole thing was deeply poignant and affecting.

 

Perhaps there's an urge with these classics to shake things up because we've seen them so many times, but I don't think the gimmicks always work/serve the text. Personally I adore the text, and tonight I felt distracted by all the trappings (or lack thereof) rather than moved by van Hove's decisions.

 

Mark Strong was excellent and was the only cast member I felt who could compete with his or her counterpart in the last revival. Everyone else had their moments, but overall I don't think the cast was as strong as some of the other recent British casts we've had the pleasure of seeing in New York. The accents were all over the place, and they're actually quite important to the piece. I didn't like the decision to have the Italians completely accent-free and those already in Brooklyn sounded Irish, Scottish, English, and American, although never very much like the area that Miller so specifically describes at the top of the play. The setting is important to the piece and van Hove seems to have consciously removed as much of it as possible. 

 

As disappointed as I was with certain aspects I still found myself swept up with the final act. I was sitting in the mezz, which I think was fine, but I would be wary of sitting in the balcony because of the set and staging.    

[RippedMan]

Posted: 10/23/15 at 11:21pm

Is it normally done with no intermission? I felt like parts dragged to me.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 10/23/15 at 11:24pm

Anyone have a pic of the other revival's set? Also, why was Santino replaced during previews? 

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 10/23/15 at 11:25pm

This blew my mind tonight. Just sensational. 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 10/23/15 at 11:26pm

Saw the show tonight from 3rd row of on-stage seating. I bought tickets at around 6:45, after failing to get rush tickets to Eclipsed at the Public. We had the option of paying $20 for the front row of the orchestra, or $50 for on-stage seating. Ultimately, we're really glad we sat onstage. After the show I sat in one of the front-row seats, and it didn't seem nearly as good of a view. If you can manage the extra $30, I think it's worth it (and this is coming from a college student who hardly ever pays more than rush price). 

 

The show was excellent all in all. I read the play a few months ago and loved it, and it was great to see it live. There were definitely some specific direction choices that I didn't love, but it was very engaging and well-acted. I don't understand many of the decisions Van Hove made, but most of them worked for me. The actor playing Eddie was the strongest link, both in acting and in accent. I agree that the dialects were all over the place. Beatrice, Alfieri, and Eddie's friend were the biggest offenders. I often heard their accents slip into British. I also didn't like the choice to have the Italian people speak with American accents. My girlfriend, who saw the show with me, pointed at that it might have been a means of removing the "otherness" of their Italian relatives; they're all in the same community, and from the same heritage. The actress playing Catherine was quite good, I thought. As were most of the actors, despite the accents.

 

Overall, a really compelling evening at the theatre, especially from the intimacy of the stage-seats. Despite my qualms, I definitely recommend it. Definitely a strong contender for the Best Play Revival and Best Director. 

 

 

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 10/23/15 at 11:33pm

The play was originally written as a one act, but it flopped badly and Miller rewrote it and split it into two acts. The last revival used the two act version, which also had a larger cast. This felt like the two act version without the intermission! I knew there wouldn't be an intermission going in, but I really was craving one about 2/3 of the way through.

 

 

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 12:01am

I was first row stage right seating and I have to say, it's the best view. Mark Strong plays a lot to stage right, and it's downright mesmerizing just to catch his gaze. (On a more prurient note, Russell Tovey shirtless scene is down stage right and it's pectacular.)

its actually my first time seeing the play and I have to say I was transfixed and didn't need an intermission at all. The cast was all around very strong, and found the slow burn of the tension to be quite effective. Perhaps because they were in my face - I was stage right A15 on the center aisle - I couldn't help but feel like I was a fly on the wall, catching all the subtle moments and they flew by. Was it as effective from the house? I do wonder, especially as on stage allows a more "landscape" view. 

The only part that took me out was the final coups de theatre. Maybe it was the scent of whatever they used - smelled vaguely tomato based - but it just felt a bit too much. That said, the moments leading up to them were nail-biting. I really liked it, but I do wonder if where you sit makes the difference. 

[VotePeron]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 12:17am

Spoilers*

I was there tonight, also, front row of the orchestra. This was my first exposure to the play, and I was completely enamored the entire time. The entire cast is so uniformly strong and powerful, it's so incredible to watch them be so involved, and then involve us with them. I think the actress playing Catherine stole the show for me, and I was floored by her performance. Even though I didn't know the storyline, I happily guessed the effect that was going to happen at the end, after seeing what happened at the top of the show. (I mean, white floor, sprinkler system, death threats being thrown around...haha). 

The only time the show dragged for me was the "end of act 1", where they're all together in the house having a very tepid conversation. A single beat plays every 4 seconds, and that lasted for 20 minutes. It was effective as hell, but the pacing dragged for me.

Also, I hope the fix the timing at the end of the show with the black box flying back down. It was pretty jerky tonight towards the end, got about half way down nearly unnoticed, and then all the sudden swooshed down in an instant. I think if they can replicate the effect at the top of the show, and have it close as the Lawyer is talking, it will be SO much more effective.

As for the view, it was INCREDIBLE for $20, and I am very happy having not paid $50 for the on stage seating, which is what I had planned to do. When I return, I'll opt either to do the front row again for rush, or the front row balcony, as I would love to see the floor better.

Random, but a butterfly or a moth was flying about the stage and front orchestra for the last 10 minutes of the show, and that was pretty magical to watch.

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/24/15 at 12:18am

Like Whizzer, I was absolutely blown away by the 2010 revival. For me, this revival will have a lot to live up to, but I am so excited to see it next month. 

Updated On: 10/24/15 at 12:18 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/25/15 at 12:51am

It's funny you thought that was 20 minutes, Peron. Because it wasn't. And funny that you thought it was 4 seconds because it was two beats, with the beats literally (as the kids say) audible. 

 

My advice is not to listen to anybody who hasn't sat on the stage telling you not to sit on the stage.  Especially before they go up to $135.  It's like you are the close-up camera in a very intense film  

 

[macnyc]

Posted: 10/25/15 at 9:24am

SPOILERISH QUESTION********

 

Why were they all barefoot? The lawyer was carrying his shoes, but he was barefoot also. Catherine had high heels on briefly. 

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/26/15 at 12:15am

We can figure this out, right?  

[TerrenceIsTheMann]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 2:12am

I saw this tonight, and all I can say is that Mark Strong is incredible. Like really. The show is pretty good, and so is the rest of the cast, but it's worth seeing just for him.

[Fantod]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 2:33am

but WHY ARE THEY BAREFOOT!!!!!?????????

[LimelightMike]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 3:52am

With regard to the onstage seating, do they distribute the Playbill pre or post-performance?

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 8:09am

A very stressful usher gave us our Playbills before seating us.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 9:35am

The barefoot choice is discussed by Ivo in this profile.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/26/theatre-laid-bare

If you're familiar with his work it's not surprising. They don't have any props, why would they have shoes?

[Brick]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 11:21am

Yeah, folks. Spoiler alert: this isn't naturalism.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 11:29am

Because you can tell a lot about someone by looking at their shoes and Ivo has decided to remove all specificity from this highly specific play. 

[macnyc]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 12:01pm

Thanks for the article link. Very interesting!
 

I don't think as shoes as props, but I guess they can be. Catherine does have shoes on at one point though, and the lawyer carries his shoes.

Next question: Why is Catherine in such an ugly outfit? I read somewhere that the flowers on her top bloom as the play goes on, but as I recall the color flowers are replaced by gray flowers, suggesting the opposite.

[Braniff Forever]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 12:14pm

Well, well, well,..... Well the show is over, and I really liked it, but did not love it. And I definitely did not love love love it! I really wanted to love it, but, hey we can't love everything. My favorite part was sitting on the stage and getting to be in the third row up from the actors. I thought it was amazing to see them so up close and to be able to look out at the audience and think, Chita Rivera recently stood on the same stage and looked out at audiences just as I sat and looked out at them. That was the best part of the show, my seat. The acting was superb, except for, at times, the young girl, the lawyer and even Beatrice slipped out of their Brooklyn accents and you could hear their English accents, which was off putting (even though I love the English and their accents, when I'm expecting to hear Brooklyn NY accents I don't want to hear British one's. I did enjoy getting to see Russell Tovey without his shirt and the first scene with Mark Strong and the other actor getting dressed onstage was quite fun to watch because I was so close. However, the play overall, I thought dragged and was even sort of boring at times. Maybe it was too long, although I wasn't really bothered by no intermission. It just sort lacked an emotional attachment to the characters. I didn't really care too much what happened. I guess the main message of the play is "beware of loving your parent too much and vice versa parents be careful of loving your kids too much." Both must let go and experience life on their own. SPOILER ALERT!!!! Stop reading if you don't want to know the very ending. The very ending was the most dramatic of scenes. The whole stage set was very minimalist basically a black box with a white floor. There was no set decoration. While the first scene opened with a shower of pure water the last scene was all the characters standing under the same shower but this time it was blood (or fake tomato juice molasses blood) raining down on the characters representing the tragedy and death of the show. It was very unexpected, so I wonder if in more traditional settings/showings of this play would it end like that? In a shower of red blood? It reminded me in a strange way of the shower scene of blood in Carrie. I will never forget that last scene. The last scene has the same emotional impact that the last scene of GHOSTS had with Lesley Manville. Funny, I hadn't been to a straight play in a while so I missed the music, although there was some classical music accompaniment in different scenes, it was no score and no singing, except that I think Russell Tovey sang a small song I think. Overall the show was interesting and kept my attention for the most part.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 12:55pm

"Because you can tell a lot about someone by looking at their shoes and Ivo has decided to remove all specificity from this highly specific play. "

OK. I disagree but that's your opinion. Nobody is forcing you to see it, and nobody forced you to see the NT Live, so you can calm down with the negativity. Van Hove's work has never been for everyone.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 12:56pm

I guess I'll point out that Eddie tells Catherine that he's not comfortable with the way her walk down the street has developed a sway, so it's going to be even more noticeable in her new shorter dress, especially give the way the click click clack of the high hells already draws attention to her. Remember?

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 1:00pm

The proliferation of people personally offended by non-fawning responses to things they like on this board confuses me deeply. 

I honestly believe that was his approach to this play. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings for some reason. 

Updated On: 10/29/15 at 01:00 PM

[little_sally]

Posted: 11/6/15 at 11:00am

I liked this a lot but wasn't blown away as I was expecting to be. The play is the thing, and it's so strong but some of the direction felt heavy-handed, and some scenes really do drag. However, the cast is fantastic (Mark Strong especially, what a terrific performance.) The performances are really the reason to see this production. I didn't necessarily have a problem with the accents, although sometimes I found it was difficult to understand Phoebe Fox.