Chastain stars in A DOLL'S HOUSE On Broadway - Reviews & News Thread — Page 2

JoeW4 said: "RippedMan said: "Eh I disagree. I think a big production requires a certain director. I think of Sher who famously doesn’t like automation - and I as someone who loves seeing how the scenery moves and whatnot know going in I’m probably not going to be entertained by the staging.

I feel like it’s similar to the recent Betrayal. No set just turntables. I wish I had seen the Daniel Craig version prior because to me the story was lost. Like when I saw Doyle’s Sweeney. I could not tell you the plot because there was no time or place. It was more of a vibe or a mood but the stories were lost on me."



That's an entirely valid opinion (in fact I feel the exact same way about John Doyle). You're criticizing the artistic merit of the staging choices; you're criticizing how the staging affected the storytelling for you as an audience member - which makes perfect sense. And that's very different from attributing it to the producers "cheaping out," which is simply not what's happening.

Well true. And it’s tough to say what is what. One of my favorite musicals of past is “Waitress” which I thought had a pretty cheap and uninteresting design but still a fab show.



But I do think something like this, with a star attached, should take a risk. And going off the photos this looks awful.

rafarosgon said: "I think the lighting design also doesn’t help: I was second row mezzanine left and I agree with feeling the actor so far away from the stage and not seeing facial expression. At the end of the play Nora’s exit is also blocked (unless you sit right in the center). I heard people cheering and applauding but couldn’t tell what was going on."

This is really unfortunate, because you and everyone on your side of the theater missed out on a very pivotal moment that in a way is a prize for enduring - for lack of a better word - the very rigid structure of the play up to that point.

Jamie Lloyd is the only reason I'm seeing this. Little desire to see this play yet again, but he is an inspired choice. His Cyrano was fresh and unexpected. Can't wait to see what he does with this,

Some of y'all can come home and slam ya own door.

blaxx said: "Jamie Lloyd was announced as the director months ago, why being shocked now?

He uses no sets or costumes, why do peeps suddenly have expectations?"

Because some of the posters on this board have a limited view of what Broadway and theatre in general should be. The fact that anyone is saying “This looks bad” from a single Instagram photo should tell you all you need to know.

I don’t usually jump in on first preview weigh-ins, but as someone who saw more than a photo of the stage and was actually there last night, I feel compelled to emerge from the shadows.


Firstly, this is a new adaptation by Amy Herzog. This isn’t your Lit 101 class translation of the OG. Herzog reshaped a script to veer from sentimental pageantry, and focuses in on the complexity and vitality of these relationships. The script feels much less prone to caricature than some previous translations, and cuts stodgy and cumbersome lines and expressions. The child actors are cut too, and effectively, remain as voices. This new text and delicate directorial approach opens space for us, and the actors, to experience the play in a fresh way. Without the literal and frequently cumbersome frills and Christmas trees and knitting needles and macaroons and toys, etc. When this play premiered in the late 1800’s, in some markets, it was deemed too shocking and morally bankrupt to be performed and was banned. Of course this story hits our modern ears in a different way today and does not have the same inherent gut punch, so I felt this new adaptation was in good taste. It didn’t feel excessive or gaudy.

The evening is a showcase for a group of fantastic actors. This is the takeaway of the production. This is why you buy the ticket. The performances are excellent. Alive, surprising, multi-dimensional, free. Chastain is indeed the reigning Oscar winner, and does not disappoint, but the evening would fail without the superior casting and talent of the actors around her. The actors are all miked, which affords them the ability to be extremely intimate and easy. In some other circumstances I would chalk this up to laziness and/or the general lack of proper training for actors today, but this directorial choice felt purposeful and engaging. I would highlight the standouts among the cast, but as an ensemble of six, they are all equals and excellent. For a first preview, this was an exceptionally cohesive group.


I am not out to convince anyone to see this if you prefer epic sets and a constant wonder of, “what bustle might Nora quick change into next?” That’s not the point of the evening. I, too, can love lavish productions of classics done extraordinarily well, but reimagined pair-downs also excite me. Especially with a cast this strong. I think that’s a rarity, and why I’ll head back to see it again after some time.

yahyahyah said: "I don’t usually jump in on first preview weigh-ins, but as someone who saw more than a photo of the stage and was actually there last night, I feel compelled to emerge from the shadows.


Firstly, this is a new adaptation by Amy Herzog. This isn’t your Lit 101 class translation of the OG. Herzog reshaped a script to veer from sentimental pageantry, and focuses in on the complexity and vitality of these relationships. The script feels much less prone to caricature than some previous translations, and cuts stodgy and cumbersome lines and expressions. The child actors are cut too, and effectively, remain as voices. This new text and delicate directorial approach opens space for us, and the actors, to experience the play in a fresh way. Without the literal and frequently cumbersome frills and Christmas trees and knitting needles and macaroons and toys, etc. When this play premiered in the late 1800’s, in some markets, it was deemed too shocking and morally bankrupt to be performed and was banned. Of course this story hits our modern ears in a different way today and does not have the same inherent gut punch, so I felt this new adaptation was in good taste. It didn’t feel excessive or gaudy.

The evening is a showcase for a group of fantastic actors. This is the takeaway of the production. This is why you buy the ticket. The performances are excellent. Alive, surprising, multi-dimensional, free. Chastain is indeed the reigning Oscar winner, and does not disappoint, but the evening would fail without the superior casting and talent of the actors around her. The actors are all miked, which affords them the ability to be extremely intimate and easy. In some other circumstances I would chalk this up to laziness and/or the general lack of proper training for actors today, but this directorial choice felt purposeful and engaging. I would highlight the standouts among the cast, but as an ensemble of six, they are all equals and excellent. For a first preview, this was an exceptionally cohesive group.


I am not out to convince anyone to see this if you prefer epic sets and a constant wonder of, “what bustle might Nora quick change into next?” That’s not the point of the evening. I, too, can love lavish productions of classics done extraordinarily well, but reimagined pair-downs also excite me. Especially with a cast this strong. I think that’s a rarity, and why I’ll head back to see it again after some time."

Very well written review - thank you! I'm on the fence about seeing this one... I have never seen the play live (I did study it in college, and I saw A Doll's House Part 2 a few years back), so I feel like it's something I SHOULD see. However, I was not a huge fan Lloyd's production of Betrayal, and from what I'm reading and seeing so far, it sounds like a lot of the same directorial concepts are used. I think I will probably end up seeing this for Jessica Chasten, though...

JoeW4 said: "Bettyboy72 said: "It makes me sad when expensive shows cheap out on sets"

This comment is really bizarre to me.

Firstly, Jamie Lloyd is a director who tends to have very sparse sets, and yet, he's a highly regarded director nonetheless. Because there's more to good directing than expensive sets. His style has its own distinct, deliberate effect on the viewing experience.

Sure, it's possible that the inexpensive scenic design helped the show get investors, because it allowed or a more promising recoupment schedule. But that's very different from what you're implying. It's not like Jamie Lloyd asked for a massive set, and got turned out down by cheap producers.

Secondly, is ANYONE going to see this show for the sets? No, they're going for an A-list movie star in a famous play. That's what audiences are paying for, and that's exactly what they're getting.

And honestly, if audiences are getting a high quality product with a major draw, while the producers can ALSO keep capitalization costs low, then I say go for it. Broadway is a tenuous enough space, and few enough things are recouping. Plus, we could go all day listing off renowned Broadway shows/productions that had relatively sparse sets.

And I realize that, if this production gets bad bad word-of-mouth/reviews, people might say that this post "aged badly," But actually I still don't think that would negate my points. If the production is bad, it'll be because it's badly directed and/or badly acted. It won't be because of the lack of sets. EVEN IF, the lack of sets makes the production feel too cold, hollow, and thin - that can STILL be chocked up to bad direction, not cheapness."

What will not age badly is my memory that Lloyd's bare-stage, actors-on-chairs productions of Cyrano (Brooklyn) and The Seagull (London) were as riveting and thrilling as theater can get. I also thought that his Betrayal was far superior than that indifferently directed (can't believe that was Mike Nichols) and acted production with Daniel Craig.

Well acted sure, but I don’t think I grasped the whole story. Same when I saw Doyle’s Color Purple. The passage of time didn’t sink in because no one changed outfits or anything. It wasn’t until the very end that I was like oh… she’s way older…

And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with thinking a director might change up their style from show to show. I mean Rocky is not Beetlejuive is not Here Lies Love. So some directors keep you guessing.

Also worth noting that Chastain went to Juilliard, so I imagine we will see her on the New York stage more than your average Oscar winner.

Talk to me about Moayed and Onaodowan. Anyone who was there last night, how were they?

blaxx said: "RippedMan said: "Well acted sure, but I don’t think I grasped the whole story. Same when I saw Doyle’s Color Purple. The passage of time didn’t sink in because no one changed outfits or anything. It wasn’t until the very end that I was like oh… she’s way older…

And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with thinking a director might change up their style from show to show. I mean Rocky is not Beetlejuive is not Here Lies Love. So some directors keep you guessing."

Oh love, please don't compare Timbers to Lloyd. One is McDonald's and the other is fine dining."

Not comparing anything just saying some director give us something new and interesting.