BAREFOOT IN THE PARK Review

[LaCageAuxFollesFan2]

Posted: 1/29/06 at 10:39pm

BAREFOOT IN THE PARK Review

Not only is the current revival of “Barefoot in the Park,” now playing at Broadway’s Cort Theatre, completely bare, but also extremely sole-less as well. Director Scott Elliot (“The Women”) is mostly to blame for each misstep this foot takes. His cast of six, in most cases, do their own shtick. While a couple actors have what it takes to overcome the flaw-filled point to point, several others feet seem to be not only barefoot, but sinking in a pit of quick-sand. And nothing can be more painful with Neil Simon’s evidently humorous script, than how Elliot has separated the evening into a contrived and interrupted drudge that feels more like a slow suicide instead of the uproarious romp.

The relatively low-key action takes place in the newly rented, cold apartment of newlyweds Corrie (Amanda Peet) and Paul (Patrick Wilson.) Corrie is starry-eyed, Paul less so after staggering up five flights. Their house seems to be populated by unusual people, the most bohemian being suave Victor (Tony Roberts) whom Corrie finds entertaining. Corrie tries matchmaking between Victor and her lonely mother, Mrs. Banks (Jill Clayburgh). After a disastrous (in more ways the one) dinner party she learns that walking barefoot in the park may not necessarily denote joie de vivre - in February it is simply silly!

Silly only begins to describe several choices made by Elliot. But preposterous seems more suitable for the decision of breaking this three act play into two. Act I is normally the setup and character introduction for the entire play. Here, Act I is seen as Act I/Scene I. If it were to stand alone, completely flat would it fall. But breaking for an intermission only makes sense and gives set costumers much more time to decorate the bare apartment from act one. But instead we go directly into what has become Act I/Scene II, instead of Act II/Scene I as it is intended as should remain. The scene that shows the four characters going out to dinner is no longer directly followed by the scene where everyone comes back, instead is separated by a gaping 15 minute memory loss drug. Not only does this hurt the entire flow of the piece; but any slow build-up of tension between Corrie and Paul so that her eventual explosion at him makes sense. Instead Corrie’s blowup looks contrived and reasonless.

No thanks to Amanda Peet’s poor stage acting choices. Acting for the camera and on a Broadway stage are two entirely different things, a fact which Miss Peet has not been informed by her director. It is only the more obvious when in scenes with actors who have accomplished both with ease and aplomb. Patrick Wilson and Jill Clayburgh are both splendid in what they are given to work with and could only be better with a well suited leader. The scene that works best is the one between Wilson and Clayburgh, but it doesn’t come till way too late in the game and everyone has given up home long, long ago.

This play should not seem as dated as it feels and should not feel as dated as it is. The sets, lights, and costumes really do nothing to make the magic sparkle. But the fact is, Patrick Wilson in nearly see through underwear is the only thing to make the audience stir. Unfortunately, this revival is in need of what mends the heart: Reviving! Next!

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 1/29/06 at 10:46pm

I agree wholeheartedly, and posted the exact same feelings in my review, a few posts below.

Amanda, by far, was the weakest link, especially in act 1, where it seemed she was delivering lines while reading from the script.

[JerseyScoundrel]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 12:06am

That show should be lucky just to have Patrick Wilson. I thought he was great and thought Amanda Peet needed little work. I have never seen her before, which made me interested in her acting. Its seemed that Simons plays always have one bad lead (Peet in Barefoot and Broderick in Odd Couple).

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 12:43am

at least Patrick Wilson is good.

[ken8631]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 7:50am

Wife and I saw it, liked it. Thought the whole cast (including Miss Peet) did a great job. Saw it first night of previews. Didn't see the original.

[beacon1]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 10:19am

Do you think there is any chance they'll restructure it to have the 3 Acts?

Do you think Amanda is getting any coaching on the side?

[broadway86]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 9:04pm

Do you think Amanda is getting any coaching on the side?

I'm disappointed to hear that she isn't very good in this production... yet. I love her film work, and she has played this role many times before. What's going on?

[Kevinoes]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 9:08pm

Too bad this didn't suit you. I hope it does well with others.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 9:20pm

It was a very cute show, but still needs work. I don't really think the momentum is screwed up by placing the intermission where they did. The real problem lies in that the acts, as they're structured now, feel too long. I had the same problem with The Odd Couple.

I also didn't like that the play started with 5 minutes of Amanda doing shtick with newspapers stuck to her feet, singing Downtown. It brought a more realistic feel to the piece, but it was unnecessary.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 9:27pm

Why do they always have to tamper with the structure of these old plays? I thought the revival of NOISES OFF lost it's dramatic line by playing it in two acts. Now this.

Still, I'm interested in seeing it.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 9:28pm

Maybe they realized that modern audiences can't sit through 2 intermissions....yet it only feels longer with 1.

[beacon1]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 10:57pm

Here's a link to the NY Times on-line where readers are posting their own reviews of "Barefoot in the Park."

(If it asks you for a registration to view it, go ahead. It's free!)


NY Times Readers Reviews of Barefoot

[LaCageAuxFollesFan2]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 11:27pm

The 2 intermission structure worked well for ABSURD PERSON SINGULAR, and this play would highly benifit from it as well. The blame of this Revival can be, at this point, fully placed in the Director's hands. Elliot just doesn't get the comedic through-line with Barefoot, and really that shouldnt be a surprise.

[beacon1]

Posted: 1/30/06 at 11:41pm

So...major changes are need to catch the Tony committee's attention?

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 1/31/06 at 12:54am

Nice review. Just cought this show on Sunday and sadly have to agree. Though I didn't feel as strongly negative about the entire show, I did feel Peet's performance was quite the weak link in the entire production. It sounded to me as if in rehearsals she was consistently recieving the direction to project more, and in turn, lost any nuance or varied delivery. For example her line deliveries on "I want a divorce" and "mmm, those smell delicious" were delivered with the exact same cadence, as if one could have replaced the other without notice. Tony Roberts was the standout for me, as was the impressive set change betweens act one and two. The added sixties music throughout was obvious and fairly pointless. Also, the stage business Elliott gives Peet to open the show goes on for WAY too long and is not even that funny or insightful. The entire things drags at a truly leaden pace.

[jimmirae]

Posted: 1/31/06 at 2:34am

Well, Patrick Wilson in his undies will help it till they fix it(?)

[Dollypop]

Posted: 1/31/06 at 5:56am

I directed a production of BAREFOOT many years ago. I don't remember Paul prancing about in his underwear. Could someone refresh my memory?

[beacon1]

Posted: 1/31/06 at 8:56am

"It sounded to me as if in rehearsals she was consistently recieving the direction to project more, and in turn, lost any nuance or varied delivery. For example her line deliveries on "I want a divorce" and "mmm, those smell delicious" were delivered with the exact same cadence, as if one could have replaced the other without notice."

Well...the producers did have her taking vocal lessons to help her with her projection. She demonstrated one of the exercises on the Ellen DeGeneres show. Her coach had her push against another person as hard as she could and sing while the person resisted her pushes. She did it with Ellen and I think she was singing something from "A Chorus Line". It was kinda funny to watch her try to push back Ellen and sing.