#51
Posted: 3/12/26 at 4:15pm
I’m fairly certain that journalist was a bit too reliant on AI.
DEATH OF A SALESMAN 2026 Previews — Page 3
#52
Posted: 3/12/26 at 7:49pm
I think the younger boys is a waste. They’re not that much younger than the older boys, theres no point in bringing in new actors for that.
#53
Posted: 3/15/26 at 12:47am
this was excellent.
theres nothing particularly original here, no gimmicks, just a straightforward perfectly acted production of one of the best plays of all time.
i thought Wendell Pierce was marvelous a few years ago, and the conscious decision to portray the Lomans as a Black family paid off big time. But the overall production was hampered by the insanity of Andre de Shields' Uncle Ben, and none of the other Lomans made a lasting impression. The only other production I have seen was 2012's Philip Seymour Hoffman, probably the most brilliant actor of his generation but totally miscast. Regardless, PSH and Andrew Garfield were TOO famous, it was distracting.
Lane is perfect. He disappears into Loman while staying familiar. He finds some moments of humor here and there but mostly plays it straight- and not pitched to 10 like I thought he might. He is by far the most knowable Willy Loman I have seen- that might just be my own personal upbringing, but i KNOW this man in a way that others felt more distant. I can't think of a single negative word here. Tears streaming down his and my and everyone elses face tonight.
I found Laurie Metcalf somehow disappeared in the second act, and was underwhelmed by the final scene. Shes being directed to downplay that moment, and it felt a bit anticlimactic (I remember Linda Emond tearing me apart at the end). But her Act 1 is FANTASTIC, and her big scene with her sons is simply breathtaking, literally. Her overall portrayal is gut wrenching and in many ways shes born for this role. Her worship of her husband makes perfect sense but so does her knowing how flawed he is. She makes it work so perfectly.
Chris Abbott is the opposite of Metcalf in that hes somewhat timid in Act 1, but earns what I hope will be at least a Tony nomination in Act 2. He seems to breakdown a little more in each scene, and his big confrontation with Lane had tears streaming down my face, which I was not expecting from a play I have already seen twice.
Everyone else is solid- Ahlers is doing fine work in a tricky role. K Todd Freeman is always a pleasure to watch.
Aside from the acting, theres not much to say about the set/production. The music and lighting is not intrusive but is very much there. Not sure how much it adds. The car is center stage almost the whole show and people enter/leave the stage through it. There are no real set changes, just chairs moved around. The columns all over the stage do nothing as far as I can tell except block the view of the actors at time?
One thing that bugged me was the costumes-- the play is explicitly set in the 40s/50s. But Biff looks like hes going to order a matcha in Bushwick, and at one point Mrs. Loman is at home wearing some modern slacks. I dont get the choice here, it was distracting.
I also don't get why this play is in this theater. I mean, I do, to make alot of money, but (and this is the first time I was ever in the Winter Garden) the theater is so huge for such an intimate play. The mezzanine seems like its a mile back, and even from Row J orch (on the left side, I think right is better), we felt kinda far from the stage, which also seems high. At the end there was dirt around the lip of the stage- i think first for Willy's garden, then it becomes a grave--but I couldnt really see how that got there or the full effect, from where I sat. This would be such an incredible experience to see in the Booth, was what I kept thinking.
anyway, this is a fine production of an excellent play, and i think Lane is doing career best work here. Had a blast.
#54
Posted: 3/15/26 at 2:53am
I'd kill to see this in the Booth. I still have resonant memories of how that space felt perfect for the Jones/Quinto//Keenan-Bolger/Smith production of The Glass Menagerie.
#55
Posted: 3/15/26 at 6:05am
That’s great to hear. Seems like most are really liking the production. It’s the venue that’s up for criticism. Looking forward to this next month. It’s funny…of the plays I have coming up, this was the one I feared could be a flop. But I’m reading good things. I expected the most from Dog Day Afternoon, and lots of folks are bailing on it.
#56
Posted: 3/17/26 at 4:30pm
I watched this play last night and will admit I was surprised they seated latecomers during Act 1. Usually for Rudin produced show no latecomers are seated until intermission.
#57
Posted: 3/18/26 at 10:55pm
Thought this was a knockout. Everything and everyone are firing on all cylinders. Design is lavish and uses the space beautifully.
Updated On: 3/18/26 at 10:55 PM
#58
"Hey little girls, look at all the men in shiny shirts and no wives!" - Jackie Hoffman, Xanadu, 19 Feb 2008
Posted: 3/19/26 at 12:34am
Saw the show tonight in first row aisle, so I really felt like I was in the room with them, the way the set extends in the audience. Overall I was truly impressed by this production, I really never felt the time pass, the tempo of the piece was so nicely placed.
Nathan is incredible. While I feel like the very Nathan of it all means some of his line deliveries venture on humorous, I was truly impressed by how lived in he felt.
Laurie is a force sometimes I felt so much so in Act 1, but by Act 2, I really felt that her Linda was just a pot just simmering for her whole life just below the boiling point, shooting up steam here and there until finally she can let loose. So perhaps that left her final moment not as cathartic as some might want, but I think it's just the pot is finally off the flame.
I really wasn't sure about Abbott as Biff. Maybe it was the accent at first? He grew on me as it went along, and he did get to my emotions as he broke down. The rest of the case was excellent as well. Ben Ahlers I have no idea who he was before tonight, but he had my attention the whole time he was on, even after his put his shirt and shoes on. Kudos to Joaquin Consuelos, son of Kelly and Mark, holding his own against Nathan Lane is his professional debut.
A great night of theatre that, in spite of the mammoth set, really helped me feel like I was hearing the words this time. They are truly some powerful words.
"Hey little girls, look at all the men in shiny shirts and no wives!" - Jackie Hoffman, Xanadu, 19 Feb 2008
#59
Posted: 3/19/26 at 1:13am
I saw the Wednesday matinee, fourth row on the right side (which meant I got to see the entrances through the curtain and the long exits, long after they are out of view of people with centered seats).
Despite the fact that the theater is too big, director Joe Mantello makes good use of it. (One gripe is the pillars, which don’t add enough to justify their intrusiveness.) Nathan Lane is terrific as Willy Loman. I had never seen him on stage before, nor the play on stage, so I didn’t walk in with too many expectations. Lane portrays Willy as a pitiable man, ailing and deluded, but far from a blameless one. There are moments that have been staged and set up wonderfully, and all you have to do is follow Lane’s eyes and body language to see his stubbornness, denial and pain. A scene with Howard, his new boss, is brutal from beginning to end. A subsequent scene with Charley is painful in a different way. Lane makes it all work.
Laurie Metcalf is wonderful, especially during the first act and (for me) at the end. It helped, perhaps, that I was closer to the stage. But the ‘wife’ role in Death of a Salesman is less juicy than the one in All My Sons, despite some of Linda’s famous lines. Ben Ahlers makes the most of his role as Happy and is a compelling stage presence. Christopher Abbott improves as he goes as Biff, although I find him to be the play’s most frustrating character (not Abbott’s fault). Still, he nails Biff’s most important outburst and that counts for a lot.
Having two actors play Biff and Happy works OK, and provides some interesting staging opportunities, but there were times when I would have liked to see the same actors play them at different ages - just to see the contrast.
Seeing John Lithgow as Roald Dahl in the explosive new play Giant, followed less than 48 hours later with Nathan Lane as Willy Loman in a classic… you New Yorkers are lucky.
Updated On: 5/4/26 at 01:13 AM
#60
Posted: 3/19/26 at 2:34am
I felt like Lane is not exactly the curmudgeon that is described in the play, he’s pretty soft throughout. I agree with an earlier comment about how Laurie Metcalf is too strong, it should be the opposite between the two. Linda is supposed to be a trad wife, not a pioneer woman.
#61
"Hey little girls, look at all the men in shiny shirts and no wives!" - Jackie Hoffman, Xanadu, 19 Feb 2008
Posted: 3/19/26 at 1:54pm
Joyce 9 said: "I felt like Lane is not exactly the curmudgeonthat is described in the play, he’s pretty soft throughout. I agree with an earlier comment about how Laurie Metcalfis toostrong, itshould be the opposite between the two.Linda is supposed to be a trad wife, not a pioneer woman."
I found Nathan and Laurie playing the opposite of what is expected is part of why I loved them so much, once I got used to the non-traditional of it all. It really made me pay so much more attention to their dynamic.
"Hey little girls, look at all the men in shiny shirts and no wives!" - Jackie Hoffman, Xanadu, 19 Feb 2008
#62
Posted: 3/19/26 at 2:28pm
I really loved this production. Walking in and seeing that stark but beautiful set was chilling and I couldn't help but fantasize about a revival of Follies playing in rep!
#63
Posted: 3/19/26 at 2:49pm
I really dont have much to add to what the others have said but I thought this was absolutely riveting. This play FLEW by. Everything about the design worked for me. Everything about the direction worked for me. Nathan Lane is incredible, I do echo what most are saying about act 1 Metcalf vs. Act 2. It's been a long time since I've sat in an audience with that much audible/physical reactions to things (profound/sandess wise, not comedy). Like one big punch to the gut. Will be going back.
#64
Posted: 3/19/26 at 3:33pm
Joyce 9 said: "I felt like Lane is not exactly the curmudgeonthat is described in the play, he’s pretty soft throughout. I agree with an earlier comment about how Laurie Metcalfis toostrong, itshould be the opposite between the two.Linda is supposed to be a trad wife, not a pioneer woman."
Huge congrats on totally missing the point --- again. Keep up the good work, Flash!
#65
Posted: 3/22/26 at 9:13am
DEATH OF A SALESMAN, to me, has always felt like one of those plays in the canon that you pay respect to, but sitting through it can feel like a chore because it is remarkably verbose and deals with heavy themes. I remember my mind wandering during the last revival because of the very pedestrian direction.
That is absolutely not the case here. Mantello took those extra years after COVID prevented this from coming in 2021 and staged probably one of the most refined and clear-eyed revivals of a play I’ve seen in a very long time. It’s definitely a boon that you have dynamic performers like Lane and Metcalf in the lead roles because they have such a synergy that allows for humor (however dark), as well as the tragedy to pack a huge punch. This play clearly has a lot of heft for both of them to use all the tools in their boxes to deliver the show and it’s a smashing success. Abbott and Ahlers are also wonderful in their respective roles, especially Abbott - who conveys more of the frustration of not getting through to his delusional father than the sadness of not meeting his lofty expectations of success.
I sat in the rear left orchestra - T35. Heard and saw everything just fine.
Check out my eBay page for sales on Playbills!!
www.ebay.com/usr/missvirginiahamm
#66
Posted: 3/22/26 at 3:24pm
This production is riveting.
I saw the show last night. Lane and Metcalf are exceptional. For two and a half hours, you could hear a pin drop in the Winter Garden.
The supporting cast was strong overall. Ahlers is great. Abbott is a very gifted actor, but didn't read as Biff to me. I found the casting of the younger actors to be mostly unnecessary, but not overly distracting. (Also: the crop tops. Why?!).
Mantello is in peak directorial form here. I was reminded of The Humans, but I'm not sure I could fully articulate why.
I agree with bear882: I feel lucky to be a New Yorker and fortunate to have seen this cast and this production.
#67
Posted: 3/23/26 at 4:53pm
Does anyone have any stage door reports after a matinee?
A little swash, a bit of buckle - you'll love it more than bread.
#68
Posted: 3/26/26 at 6:33pm
Joyce 9 said: "I felt like Lane is not exactly the curmudgeonthat is described in the play, he’s pretty soft throughout. I agree with an earlier comment about how Laurie Metcalfis toostrong, itshould be the opposite between the two.Linda is supposed to be a trad wife, not a pioneer woman."
Have you seen the current production? Because while I can understand you feeling this way about them personally, you aren't describing anything either of them is actually bringing to Willy and Linda. Also, have you read the play? Curmudgeon seems an odd word to use to describe Willy as written on the page (or in any production of the play I've ever seen, for that matter).
#69
Posted: 3/26/26 at 11:14pm
Attention must be paid! Easily one of the top five theater experiences of my life. I’ve never seen an audience so completely still and silent—it was mesmerizing. Every performance was electric. Don’t miss this one!
#70
Posted: 3/27/26 at 1:18am
I echo most of the praises here. I liked this production a lot, with only a few minor reservations.
I don't have a huge repertoire of Willy Lomans (I've only seen Fredric March and Dustin Hoffman in movies and Wendell Pierce on stage) so maybe it's a lack of familiarity with the source material but I found Nathan Lane's Willy to be almost too much of a loser here. It did make me care more about him especially in the end, but it also made the family dynamic less believable. Added to that I also found Laurie Metcalf's Linda to be colder in this production. I don't think it was bad, not at all, but the family scenes had something lacking for me.
I also thought that the stage was too big, and unless some of the set pieces have hidden messages I don't know, it seemed to me that the director decided to add stuff to fill the room. What I don't understand is why the director didn't decide to use the open space to invest in set changes. I don't mind the benches becoming a single bed, then becoming the couple's bed, but with such a big space I don't think resorting to that made a lot of sense. I also saw Becky Shaw earlier in the week and they made more with less space.
Overall I enjoyed it and recommend it to anyone who thinks John Lithgow has this one in the bag.
By the way I have a ticket for Apr 2 I bought by mistake, if anyone's interested please DM me.
#71
Posted: 3/29/26 at 12:02am
What a marvelous production! Metcalf did it again this season, and I so hope she brings home two Tonys come this June. The cast is across the board fantastic, and the brings so much to and so much out of the material. So much so that I wish they could've done away with the epilogue. It doesn't feel like an organic part of the play but more like a Miller shouting the audience "Hey this is what this play is about" scene, and it worked in some productions. But in this one, it feels to me that the epilogue heavily discounts and oversimplifies the complex and nuanced two and a half hours that came before it. Maybe this is a situation where less can be so, so much more.
#72
Posted: 3/29/26 at 7:00am
Dancingthrulife2 said: "What a marvelous production! Metcalf did it again this season, and I so hope she brings home two Tonys come this June. The cast is across the board fantastic, and the brings so much to and so much out of the material. So much so that I wish they could've done away with the epilogue. It doesn't feel like an organic part of the play but more like a Miller shouting the audience "Hey this is what this play is about" scene, and it worked in some productions. But in this one, it feels to me that the epilogue heavily discounts and oversimplifies the complex and nuanced two and a half hours that came before it. Maybe this is a situation where less can be so, so much more."
It almost feels as though it could have ended when the car drove off, but then the epilogue plays a bit differently here. As expected, Happy is more glued to Willy's delusions than ever and Biff has seen what he has come to believe come to fruition, but Linda's state is more one of bafflement than grief.
What Miller wrote about the human condition via the Loman family dynamic is timeless. His thoughts on the effects of "the system" are not, or at the very least they are no longer distinctive as applied to Willy. Linda may indeed be wondering about it, she thought she'd done everything right in bolstering up her husband, but her confusion is more a part of this particular family's drama. Mantello makes the right emphasis.
Updated On: 3/29/26 at 07:00 AM
#73
Posted: 3/30/26 at 2:57pm
Making ‘Death of a Salesman’ New, With Help From Something Old
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/30/theater/death-salesman-broadway-lane-metcalf.html?unlocked_article_code=1.XFA.NBVI.V_z0Ju5UCnOa&smid=nytcore-android-share
#74
Posted: 3/30/26 at 5:42pm
https://aviewfrommyseat.com/large-photo/444043/Winter+Garden+Theatre/section-Orchestra%20C/row-B/seat-115/
I was thinking of getting 2nd row center orchestra for my in laws. The seat above is the first row. Maybe 2nd row is too close? They like sitting close. But the next thing available in center orchestra is Row M.
Thanks in advance!
#75
Posted: 3/31/26 at 2:50pm
Nathan Lane scheduled for "Colbert" tonight.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
Tickets From $89
Tickets From $89
Tickets From $72
Tickets From $65