Am I the only one who found THE NORMAL HEART just okay?

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 12:00pm

Perplexed by all the buzz THE NORMAL HEART has received. From some bizarre staging (SPOILER: Felix dies standing up...) to some very mediocre acting (Barkin), I'm wondering if there's anyone else out there who wasn't completely blown away.

I enjoyed it. I thought it was a serviceable production, save Mantello who is extraordinary. But I didn't think it was all that great.

Anyone else?

[After Eight]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 12:23pm

I thought it was more than just okay, but I've seen the play done better.

I think the problem may be one of hype and expectations. When one goes in expecting something extraordinary, merely good or even very good can be a letdown. Whereas if one expects little going in, one can be pleasantly surprised.

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 12:31pm

I think a good part of it is if you lived through that time. I found myself nodding in agreement a lots. I thought it was beautifully acted. Barkin seemed a bit one note to me in the beginning but I just realized that was the character's personality. Montello was just wonderful and it was nice not to really be "star struck" when Parsons and McFarlane, whom I watch on tv every week, hit the stage because I was into the play itself. It is just a good evening of theater.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 12:32pm

I was definitely expecting to be chewed up and spit out. But the truth is that I found myself very underwhelmed.

I couldn't understand the immediate applause for Barkin's monologue. Most of it was one color - angry - and I eventually stopped listening...

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 12:41pm

o.....k......

[CarmenDeBris]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 12:45pm

No you are not the only one! I was thoroughly disappointed by the production. The set didn't work for me it all...the production design felt thrown together. I was not particularly moved and although the cast was excellent I felt they didn't receive any direction whatsoever.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 12:46pm

And F*CK YES, it was angry. People were DYING and nobody was doing anything about it!! Wouldn't you be angry????

[CarmenDeBris]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 12:50pm

I felt the same way during her monologue. There was no build to it...no arch it was all just one level. I realize the character is angry but there are many ways to show anger and intensity other than yelling, other ways that are often more moving and effective and I didn't feel that was captured. This I think is a perfect example of how I feel the direction was lacking. Barkin had great passion but she wasn't given the direction required to make the monologue effective.
Updated On: 5/9/11 at 12:50 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 12:52pm

Is this an actual conversation?

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 12:52pm

Jordan, that's not the point. Yes. It was ANGRY. But it was the same exact color for the 4 minutes she was speaking. This is a play, right? Is it a crime for me to want to see a Tony-nominated actress go on a journey instead of playing the same tactic over and over and over again?

Mantello, who was viscerally angry, played a range of emotions.

Look. I think we all love it because we love the play and we love Ned and we love what the play and Ned stand for. I just didn't think this production was all that mesmerizing. I personally enjoyed the Esparza/Gleason production much more.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 12:54pm

I wonder if the production would be better with more rehearsal time. Who knows? But regardless, it just felt like the blueprint of something wonderful, something never fully realized.... Like it reached a plateau and stayed there, never becoming better. I wanted to love it, but I only walked away saying 'I liked it'.

[PopAria]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 12:55pm

You are all making really good points. but I think this production is about sending a message on that stage and the creative team have made a point that they don't need to win best set design or best choreography awards.... This play has incredible people acting the hell out of what they were given. I think it's a great play for anyone who lives in the 21st century and knows the dangers of AIDS and other STDs and how they affect people.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 12:56pm

I couldn't understand the immediate applause for Barkin's monologue. Most of it was one color - angry - and I eventually stopped listening...

The applause wasn't for Barkin, it was for the words. Maybe you didn't get it because you weren't listening, as you just admitted.

Sometimes, seeing a play isn't about the actors. Shocking, I know, but sometimes, it's about the text. Maybe you are not happy unless you see an actor ACTING, but I, and apparently a lot of people, are pretty darn happy to see an important, engaging, infuriating play.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 12:59pm

Then it isn't a play...

Sorry, but I think the acting should match the play. That's part of the whole shebang, isn't it?

I WAS listening. But eventually her constant screaming tuned me out. Because I began to feel that her performance made the text redundant.

I'm not stupid. I get the message of the play. Believe me, I get it. BELIEVE ME. But I just wasn't that blown away by the production. I thought the production didn't live up to the play which, for me, is a problem.

[CarmenDeBris]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 1:00pm

You are absolutely right! And I think that's why a lot of people are embracing this play so strongly...its about the text for them. And I willingly admit you're right. That is exactly why I didn't like the production...because it didn't have the concept or direction to make the over all production succeed...I need more than just strong text to enjoy a play...I need an great production to fulfill the plays potential to enjoy it.
Updated On: 5/9/11 at 01:00 PM

[Idiot]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 1:00pm

Personally, when anger gets the best of me and I 'lose it', it tends to be only one color. It's a bit 'actory' to think that explosions of emotion need levels.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 1:00pm

I'd like to to mention that I couldn't give a crap about the set. If there are great actors performing a great play on a bare stage, I'll still love it. I just found the acting to be only so-so in most cases (save the remarkable Joe Mantello) and some of the staging to be strange.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 1:01pm

There's always one...

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 1:03pm

Personally, when anger gets the best of me and I 'lose it', it tends to be only one color. It's a bit 'actory' to think that explosions of emotion need levels.

Completely agree.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 1:04pm

Actually, it seems there's more than one.

I think y'all need to read things closer before you comment. I'm not saying I hated it. I'm not saying I didn't get it. I'm not saying I didn't enjoy it. I just don't think the PRODUCTION - forget the play, this isn't about THE PLAY - the PRODUCTION was not that great.

What is so wrong with that?

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 1:07pm

You're right. I totally get what you're saying about 'losing control' regarding Barkin's performance. She was fine. Serviceable. I guess I just thought Joanna Gleason was better...

Posted: 5/9/11 at 1:14pm

You luv theater trash. You didn't love this as it was not trash.

[Idiot]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 1:18pm

"I guess I just thought Joanna Gleason was better..."

Oooo, I'd love to have seen Gleason in this play. She's excellent. I can't remember who I saw in the role back in the 80's in Los Angeles. Now I have to poke around and figure it out.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 1:21pm

Joanna was pretty stunning. She got her point across but the facts were also crystal clear and not passed-over.

Yeah. I do love theater trash. I think Wonderland is a hoot and I could see it again and again just for the camp factor.

BUT I also know good theater. Greek tragedies are some of my favorites, especially Medea. Though I do love Tennessee Williams and Eugene O'Neill very much, as well...

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/9/11 at 1:23pm

iluv, as I mentioned above, at first I felt that Barkin was kind of "one note" but I realized that she was very angry from the beginning. We meet her character after she has already been seeing patients. I could see a change in her personality had we met her beforehand but she was already enraged when we met her. I also realized why she was so mad when she made the reference to polio. (It was polio wasn't it?) Barkin's performance worked for me. And I agree, it wasn't just her performance in that monolouge, it was the words. As far as the set is concerened, I think it was perfect. You didn't have much else to focus on except what was being said and I think that's the way they wanted it. JMO