Posted: 1/30/17 at 8:32am
Opening October 26th 2017 (no theater listed).
Link
Updated On: 1/30/17 at 08:32 AM
Posted: 1/30/17 at 8:36am
Hopefully, this will be a better vehicle for Clive Owen on Broadway than Old Times.
Posted: 1/30/17 at 8:38am
I feel like this is going to go one of two ways - Brilliant or train wreck...
Hoping for brilliant...
Posted: 1/30/17 at 8:45am
He seems awfully sexy and dour for the role, but who knows? Lithgow played it brilliantly as something of a tragic fool.
Posted: 1/30/17 at 9:57am
Yes to that logo!
Posted: 1/30/17 at 9:58am
Omg! One of the most exciting pieces of Broadway artwork I've seen in a LONG time! I needed that!
Posted: 1/30/17 at 10:01am
I agree, the artwork is truly breath taking.
Posted: 1/30/17 at 10:08am
The artwork is FLAWLESS. Clive is PERFECT. This is shaping up to be quite exciting.
Posted: 1/30/17 at 10:11am
The artwork is superb. I'm not immediately sold on Owen as Rene, but I'm hoping he surprises me. Will be interesting to see who they get to play Song: whether they go with a relative unknown (as they did with the original) or a more established actor.
Posted: 1/30/17 at 10:21am
A splendid actor and a brilliant director do a revival of a very bad play. Pass.
Posted: 1/30/17 at 10:38am
Agree on the stunning artwork. That's beautiful.
I wonder what theatre this will take.
Posted: 1/30/17 at 10:41am
The artwork is very striking. I like it. Owen is an inspired choice; I'm very interested in seeing what he does.
Posted: 1/30/17 at 10:47am
Wow. Really into this casting and logo!
Posted: 1/30/17 at 11:33am
Not sure about the casting but I am sure that the show has a director who is not known for being of much help to actors or to any storytelling that is not visual,in a show that needs both. I like the art though it is reminiscent of Mercury Fur for no particular reason.
Posted: 1/30/17 at 11:35am
That artwork is visually striking, but I find it...pretty unsettling. Like, I actually winced when I saw it. But I guess that is the point.
Posted: 1/30/17 at 1:52pm
OLD TIMES was a terrible show (waste of $$), but I do love CLIVE OWEN... Hoping this is a better show for him.
Posted: 1/30/17 at 2:36pm
I hope they use that image for the Playbill. That's gorgeous.
Posted: 1/30/17 at 4:53pm
That really is stunning art work , the best I've seen in years
Posted: 1/30/17 at 8:45pm
Roscoe said: "A splendid actor and a brilliant director do a revival of a very bad play. Pass.
"
I meant to delete this because I'm trying to be nicer these days, but I think Roscoe is out of his mind on this one.
And what could be more timely than a play about how the West meets its downfall because it doesn't bother to understand Eastern cultures?
Please, God, please: save this exquisite play from Julie Taymor.
Absolutely agree that the artwork is cool and I'm sure Taymor approved it. But she'll find a way to f*** it up yet, I fear. She's of the school that confuses directing with painting: she makes images rather than telling stories.
Updated On: 1/30/17 at 08:45 PM
Posted: 1/31/17 at 5:09pm
1. Clive Owen is a good actor and will be a box office draw, and Gallimard is probably better played by a "romantic leading man" type than a John Lithgow type.
2. M. Butterfly is a great play, STFU.
3. Yes the logo is awesome.
Posted: 1/31/17 at 11:14pm
John Lithgow's performance as Gallimard is the best or one of the best performances I've ever seen in a drama. (His performance in Durang's BEYOND THERAPY is one of the funniest.)
With respect, Baritone, you are misreading the play (and forgetting a key scene). In the locker room scene (with John Getz in the original), Gallimard confesses that he has NEVER been a ladies' man, or even a man's man. He was a wimpy kid who married a plain woman.
And THAT is one of the main reasons he is "fooled" by Song: she plays to his unmet desire to be the "romantic leading man" you mention. (I write "fooled" in quotation marks because Gallimard eventually confesses that maybe he wasn't as clueless as he has told us and himself.)
This isn't to say I am writing off Clive Owen, though he isn't obvious casting to me. Owen isn't all that handsome IMO; his sexiness comes from within and may be tempered with his acting. I hope.
Posted: 2/1/17 at 8:12am
"Gallimard is probably better played by a "romantic leading man" type than a John Lithgow type."
I certainly disagree, but would like to hear why you think that. Gallimard (at least in productions I've seen) is something of a pompous buffoon, not a dreamboat. The film took all theatricality out of the piece, and made it into a rather dull romance, and Irons (I thought) couldn't have been more of a snooze. But Lithgow was riveting in the original rather flamboyant production.
Posted: 2/1/17 at 9:38am
I can see this going into either the Belasco, Golden, or Barrymore.
Posted: 2/1/17 at 9:42am
The artwork is EVERYTHING
Posted: 2/1/17 at 2:28pm
Gaveston -
Good call. I am not hugely familiar with the text - I just remember reading it in college and being blown away, and I have seen it on stage only once many years ago.
Maybe they'll give Clive Owen a dorky haircut and glasses? lol.
BTW, this seems like a good play for Taymor to direct. It's supposed to be theatrical and requires more of a Julie Taymor-style director than the kind of director who is basically a glorified acting coach.
