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

[ardiem]

Posted: 2/13/23 at 10:52pm

Just got home after tonight's preview. There was some a technical stop involving the turntable (you'd never have been able to tell if not for the fact that they called it out). This is my first time seeing the piece in any form. The set is extremely barren and monochromatic - I assumed Ivo van Hove was involved until I checked the Playbill afterwards. The actors are similarly constrained in motion, which gives every moment they deviate from their positions or neutral poses added punch, and a moment at the end breaks all the rules. At the same time, I felt the minimalism to be too much - no different than listening to an audiobook. It might have helped had I sat closer in the orchestra level; from where I sat in the first row of the mezzanine, I couldn't really make out facial expressions well.

Photos, where you can see how far the stage is from the mezzanine in the second photo.

Updated On: 2/13/23 at 10:52 PM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 2/13/23 at 11:09pm

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]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 12:32am

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. 

Updated On: 2/14/23 at 12:32 AM

[ardiem]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 12:38am

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. 

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 12:56am

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?

[BJR]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 7:28am

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.

[VernonGersch]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 7:42am

Really looking forward to seeing this - never read the play or seen the show - although have seen A Doll's House 2 -  I think Jamie Lloyd is brilliant and found his Cyrano a theatrical highlight.  Did not feel the same way, at all, about his production of The Seagull which I just couldn't get into.  

So looking forward to this and hearing more thoughts

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 7:49am

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.

[inception]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 8:35am

ColorTheHours048 said: "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."

Yes.  I for one am not interested in a bare set in modern dress.  I want a lavish set & period costumes.

Also chorus boys in tight pants doing a lot of tap dancing. 

Also flamboyant scenes where the lead actress is in an iconic red gown and she swans down a huge staircase & everyone applauds and the music swells and everyone says "Oh we've missed you Mrs. Nora!"

If there's none of that in  "A Doll's House"  then I'm just not at "A Doll's House."

But seriously, I think many people have more conservative expectations for a Broadway production of a classic, similar to how North American Opera audiences are very cool to post-modern "Eurotrash" productions.

As for the comment, "Well it is that director so you should know it will be such & such..."  Only a minority will recognize their name & know their reputation.

Maybe this will work for some, but right now I'm happy I didn't rush & buy a ticket, because I know it wouldn't work for me.

Updated On: 2/14/23 at 08:35 AM

[yahyahyah]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 11:05am

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.

 

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 11:13am

I can appreciate minimalism and exceptional acting. I was only half serious about sets. I love a beautiful or inventive set design. Even a sparse or bare set, with a few surprises. As one of the few who liked Sally Field's Menagerie, I liked what was done there. 

I look forward to seeing this incredible cast. I also loved Jessica in The Heiress, which seems to also be in the minority. I found it electrifying. Granted, I had never seen the show before. 

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 11:17am

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...

 

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 11:21am

ColorTheHours048 said: "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 suppose, but peeps can't complain for expecting something without researching or even asking what the aesthetics of the creatives assigned to the project are.

[SisterGeorge]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 11:32am

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.

 

[yahyahyah]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 11:46am

bwayphreak234 said: 
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...


I totally understand. Lloyd’s aesthetic is not for everyone. It is indeed similar to his Betrayal staging. However, darker, with subtle visual shifts to create feelings of confinement, isolation, pressure, etc.

I’d also suggest that this production, with these actors, would not be possible without a reimagined and less-stodgy approach. I doubt Chastain and others would be attracted if it wasn’t for Lloyd, who is known for this work. As the current reigning Best Actress Academy Award winner, she certainly had to be passionate enough about this project to hold months of other work for it. I’m trying to remember another time a reigning Best Act___ Oscar winner has made the choice to do so..

I also very strongly preferred Lloyd’s Betrayal to the Nichol’s. Infinitely better acted, which at the end of the day, is the most important element of an evening in the theatre for me. 
 

Updated On: 2/14/23 at 11:46 AM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 1:11pm

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. 

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 3:46pm

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.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 4:32pm

To say A list actors would not be interested in doing A DOLLS HOUSE without a radical rethinking by a director like Jamie Lloyd is positively ludicrous. It's not only one of the most acclaimed plays ever written, it contains one of the greatest female roles ever written. In recent decades there have been innumerable revivals both lavish and simple that have been highly acclaimed in the States, the UK and around the world.

Jamie Lloyd's style is simply the 'flavor of the moment.'

[JasonC3]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 5:08pm

BJR said: "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."

Seems like a real merch opportunity ... buy a miniature door along with your window card. Or maybe slam a prop door in the lobby if you donate $10 to BCEFA.  So many possibilities.

Updated On: 2/14/23 at 05:08 PM

[IdinaBellFoster]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 8:26pm

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.

[BJR]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 8:37pm

Personally, I was surprised she was returning in this, until I saw who was directing. A new take on it seems like a worthy reason.

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 8:38pm

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

[JSquared2]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 8:53pm

QueenAlice said: "To say A list actors would not be interested in doing A DOLLS HOUSE without a radical rethinking by a director like Jamie Lloyd is positively ludicrous. It's not only one of the most acclaimed plays ever written, it contains one of the greatest female roles ever written. In recent decades there have been innumerable revivals both lavish and simple that have been highly acclaimed in the States, the UK and around the world.

 

Then why was the last Broadway revival in 1997? What have all of those "A Listers" been waiting for?

[RippedMan]

Posted: 2/14/23 at 9:14pm

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. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

Posted: 2/15/23 at 12:38am

Bettyboy72 said: "I can appreciate minimalism and exceptional acting. I was only half serious about sets. I love a beautiful or inventive set design. Even a sparse or bare set, with a few surprises. As one of the few who liked Sally Field's Menagerie, I liked what was done there.

I look forward to seeing this incredible cast. I also loved Jessica in The Heiress, which seems to also be in the minority. I found it electrifying. Granted, I had never seen the show before."

I was actually thinking about Sally Field in The Glass Menagerie when I watched A Doll's House tonight. Part of the problem with a super striped down approached to presenting a play is while it's an artistically valid choice, there are also diminished returns. By having no sets and outfits not tied to a specific time period, A Doll's House felt more modern than it would otherwise. 

On the other hand, if you see enough plays using that same device, it also feels kind of lazy. Find an original way to recontextualize the work. 

What I found more frustrating however was it felt like a staged reading where the actors were off book. For example, when one character light's another character's cigar, they don't mime it or have a prop, the actors just stare at each other. 

I thought Chastain and Arian Moayed did a great job based on what they were being asked to do, but I was less a fan of Jamie Lloyd's "lets make this an audiobook" approach to directing.