DEATH OF A SALESMAN 2022 Previews

The Lomans are back on Broadway.

The fifth Broadway revival of the Arthur Miller classic Death of a Salesman begins previews tomorrow at the Hudson Theatre, before an October 9 opening night; Miranda Cromwell directs. For the first time in New York, this story is being told from the perspective of an African-American family; Wendell Pierce and Sharon D. Clarke lead the company as Willy and Linda Loman, with André De Shields as Uncle Ben. Rounding out the cast are Khris Davis, McKinley Belcher III, Blake DeLong, Lynn Hawley, Grace Porter, Stephen Stocking, Chelsea Lee Williams, and Delaney Williams. Death of a Salesman concludes its limited run on January 15.

“One man and his family are caught up in the pressures and delusions of living the American Dream. Miller’s play is the story of a travelling salesman whose illusions of picture-perfect business and family life cave in on him.”

Who’s going?

Seeing this October 1 and incredibly excited to see Wendell Pierce on stage. He’s a force of nature.

I’m not going for a couple weeks, but I’m so excited to read people’s thoughts here, on what I genuinely think is the best production of this play I’ve ever seen.

I also thought the production was really strong -- with Pierce and Clarke being the standouts. I was also unfamiliar with McKinley Belcher and Stephen Stocking, but they both made strong impressions on me. There's a lot of really good stuff here, so the minor quibbles I have are that -- very minor. And I hope most of them will work themselves out in the preview process -- most notably the sound (it was really hard to hear people at times) and Khris Davis' performance as Biff. It still felt to me like it was searching for a connection to the rest of the play.

When the show opened, I liked some of the singing but when the show went on past 11, it was wearing me down. A couple of days later, I would've preferred all that be cut so I could've gotten out before 11. This is a show that would be firing on all cylinders if it were tighter.

Staging wise, it was fine. I don't quite understand why directors decide to play pivotal moments off stage in parts of the theater where not everyone can see what's happening, but I hope that will be changed by the time the show is locked.

The piece that kept pulling me out of the show most was DeShields. For a single second, I didn't see Ben on stage. I saw DeShields. It felt like Mr. Hermes had simply flown in from Olympus and was in a different production than this one. Where everybody else was grounded, he was jazzy and actor-y. He was fun, don't get me wrong, but I didn't see a lot of performance there. The other thing that kept pulling me out of the evening as DeShield's use of the set. There were a lot of steps and every time he had to step up or down, he was trying to hold on to things and it felt like he was in danger of falling and hurting himself. It became a weird production and every single time he had to step down, I held my breath and sorta quit watching what else was happening for those fifteen seconds because I was worried he was gonna hurt himself. I don't know if that was an acting choice or if that was a practical thing, but it felt like an issue that might not be solvable.

Still, this is a great production. Very very happy to have seen it.

Very curious about seat locations for this. Their ticketing site warns about blocked views from the side orchestra seats, and even from rear-mezzanine.

I saw last night's performance from a first-row, audience-right TodayTix rush seat, and the view was mostly excellent -- only a couple times toward the end was it less than ideal, when action took place on the lip of the stage directly in front of me, and I had to bend my neck far back to look at the actors' faces instead of their knees.

As for the performance, I thought the first Act was very strong -- well-acted, well-paced and fluid as it moved back and forth between Willy's mind and the concrete world.

But, for me, the second Act was less successful, mainly because it seemed to repeatedly overstate and oversimplify the unpleasantness of the world in which Willy lives. For example, Willy's run-of-the-mill jerk boss becomes Snidely Whiplash. And, in a manner that appears to contradict what Arthur Miller wrote, a decent guy is turned into a run-of-the mill jerk. Specifically, in the text, a waiter kindly returns to the distraught Willy some money that Willy has just given him. But in this production, the waiter keeps the money.

I also thought that the music was far too prominent in the last scene (up until then, I didn't have a strong opinion about it).

In response to the above - I was first row orch, one seat off the far-right aisle. Even there, the stage wall on that side was still further to my right. I don't recall ever thinking I was missing any of the action or that the view was obstructed.

Depending where the actors were, I couldn't always see their feet. At the lip, though, the stage is quite low and close - when one actor was standing there, I could count the individual small holes in the designs on his brogues. Also, there was enough room on the floor in front of my seat to extend my legs comfortably.

I found this a bit difficult to sit through. There's just so much repetition of ideas and by the time you reach three hours (in a theater that wasn't well air conditioned), I could feel people squirming in their seats.

Wendell is on fire but I do find that his use of yelling is a bit erratic and almost not believable. In any conversation he might suddenly YELL a line of dialogue and it felt unrealistic to me, no matter how on-edge the character is. I wanted him to be a bit more nuanced with his choices, but was impressed overall.

Sharon is strong, but my group found Biff to be quite bad to the point where it undermined the entire night. We felt his acting was like a 1970's sitcom, his style was stiff and lacking fluidity, he couldn't bring the level of emotion needed for the bigger scenes. It felt like he chose a characterization for the stylized childhood flashbacks but then couldn't shake it, he seems like a really tall muscular little child. It was tough to connect with and did not seem Broadway caliber to us at all. The actor playing Happy was much much better.

As a huge musical fan, I agree with poster above that Andre De Shields took me out of it as well. Too much Hermes energy and his presence doesn't match the rest of the cast. I also don't understand the direction for the "laughing woman" -- that felt like comedy and I don't think it was supposed to.

Glad I saw the production, but I certainly was checking my watch.

I haven't seen Andre de Shields in this role, so I can't pass judgement. But I can definitely see how his distinct style might be distracting or out of place in this production.

But people saying "he's playing Hermes" makes me laugh. He never played Hermes; he played Andre de Shield, just like he's seemingly playing Andre de Shield now, and just like he played Andre de Shields in the few roles I'd seen him in before Hadestown.

And I don't even mean that as an insult; he's a marvelous performer, and like many marvelous performers, he has an incredibly distinct set of mannerisms and stylistic flares, which he brings to most of his roles. The character of Hermes wasn't "like that" until they cast Andre de Shields, and that's partly what made his performance so noteworthy.

JBroadway said: "I haven't seen Andre de Shields in this role, so I can't pass judgement. But I can definitely see how his distinct style might be distracting or out of place in this production.

But people saying "he's playing Hermes" makes me laugh. He never played Hermes; he played Andre de Shield, just like he's seemingly playing Andre de Shield now, and just like he played Andre de Shields in the few roles I'd seen him in before Hadestown.

And I don't even mean that as an insult; he's a marvelous performer, and like many marvelous performers, he has an incredibly distinct set of mannerisms and stylistic flares, which he brings to most of his roles. The character of Hermes wasn't "like that" until they cast Andre de Shields, and that's partly what made his performance so noteworthy."

I've only seen him as Hermes so I can't argue with you, and maybe that just is how he moves and sounds. But imagine him in a white suit with sparkly shoes. Imagine the way he slowly walks/glides as Hermes. Imagine the way he talks slowly and deliberately, as if imparting wisdom. All that worked great in Hadestown. Now, pick that up and drop it in 1940's Brooklyn, as Willy Loman's brother. It just doesnt work.

RippedMan said: "Any typical Elliot style direction choices? Feel like she likes big. scene changes, etc ."

I, for one, didnt feel her touch at all--i forgot she was the director until I opened my playbill on the way home. That isnt a criticism.

The lighting is very much part of the story, cluing us into whats present day and whats Willy's memory. The limited set flies up/down from the rafters for the most part; plain wood squares/rectangles are dropped as if windows/doors here and there. But its mostly pretty bare bones, with not alof of set pieces or changes.

The boldest choice is probably the singing: the play opens with the Company singing, and there are three other distinct musical moments (one of which I think is in the original text, one of which works in seamlessly and rather cleverly, and one of which, I think, goes too far).

I should add that there is a staircase at the back of the set meant to be the stairs up to the second floor of the Loman house. Its not used much but if you are sitting on the right side of the theater you will miss it entirely. (You'll miss nothing sitting center or left).

So I won rush tickets to this for the Wednesday evening performance. Frankly, it was a mixed bag for me.


—I LOVED Wendell’s performance as Willy Loman. I thought he made good decisions with showing the character’s descent into madness, depression, and overall mental erosion. It was played very tragically, and I felt genuine sorrow for his fate, despite Willy’s shortcomings.



—I found McKinley Belcher a compelling Happy, and a great implied echo of Linda; overlooked and under appreciated. He played a good contrast of who Biff was intended to be. I’m curious to see more from him.



—The concept of the set design was interesting, with the house finally getting a roof once the house is paid in full. More could have been done with that idea though.



—Khris Davis was passable as Biff, but spoke very affected for some reason. A lot of wavering vocal emphasis during arguments with Willy in places where it seemed unnatural, and not enough of a difference between teenage and adult Biff.

——Sharon Clarke….idk I’ve wanted to like her, but I just don’t understand the hype she receives. I’ve seen her in two shows now; this and Caroline or Change, and I’ve found her very middle of the road. Like I could throw a rock in a NY community theater and hit 5 who do exactly what she does. Decent as Linda, with a great funeral monologue as well as the “Respect is owed” moment, but I never felt as though she were truly in despair or that life had worn her out. Many times it just felt like she was saying the lines with a (noticeable) American accent. Idk if anyone else caught it, but she places a lot of weight on her words ending in R, in a way most Americans do not.



Overall, I give it (as it stands in previews) 2.5/5. Mainly for Arthur Miller’s AMAZING play withstanding the test of time, and Wendell’s excellent performance. It needs work though, mainly via better directing. I think many issues could be worked out with that.