Desire Under the Elms Preview Reviews

Is anyone going tonight? I am so interested to hear about the show.

---

Updated On: 4/15/09 at 09:48 AM

Caught the dress rehearsal last night and was impressed but not moved.

I guess I should confess that I'm not much of an O'Neill fan to begin with, unless its MOON FOR THE MISBEGOTTEN. From what I understand, DESIRE uncut runs about 3 1/2 hours so its somewhat merciful that Robert Falls has cut the show down to an 1hr 40min one-act. But that's also the problem, though. O'Neill's verbose bloat has heft and gains in momentum as an evening goes on, cut literally in half the show becomes a rather flat, gappy melodrama that must have been predictable even in O'Neill's day.

One thing I wasn't expecting was Falls' thoroughly expressionistic approach. This is not realism...the set for instance is a rock quarry that appears to be half underwater and the much-discussed barn hangs literally over the characters heads, swaying. This directorial approach produces some utterly striking moments like the HAIRY APE-influenced opening sequence and a creepy moment featuring a fiddler on top of a hill as well as some ballsy physical choices from the actors, but it also leads to some missteps such as a lengthy, cinema-like montage set to a recent Bob Dylan song.

The cuts also affect the actors somewhat. Gugino is fine and Dennehy is force-of-nature brilliant but I walked away from the show wishing I had seen them in bigger, richer roles and not stock melodrama figures. Pablo Schreiber is an actor I honestly have not much admired, finding him a little too much of the Julliard School of the personality-free, technique-heavy worker bee. He looks amazing naked, but his vocals are atrocious. He is totally tied up in his accent (to be fair, most of the actors seem to be struggling with the accent) and is frequently incoherent.

I'm sure the critics will love it because the director is the star and that seems to be what's vogue now, and while I gotta admit the show wasn't boring, I walked out unsatisfied.

---

Thanks for the review...I'm looking forward to it.

I think I may be there on Friday night...

Oh, you should see some of things that get good reviews in Chicago. The money I've wasted on good reviews... Not that I disagree with ALL good reviews, but I feel that Chicago critics are more about celebrating Chicago theatre than actually setting high standards in the theatre Chicago produces, if that makes any sense. I was quite surprised to learn this when I moved here. It's probably because I come from a place where there is not a whole lot of support for theatre, so there was a bigger struggle in getting audiences to attend, not to mention keep them returning.

---

Jeez, I'm surprised...The buzz was so good for this. I really will be looking forward to the posts on this in the next few days, I'd imagined it was clearly an excellent production. Please, everyone, let us know what you think this week...

Have they lowered the stage at the St. James for this production, because it seems like the first few rows have been easy to purchase each time I call and I wonder if it is because the stage is so high still?

---

I am resentful when someone assumes their opinion is the universal opinion... or some how the correct opinion. Perhaps the Chicago audience were not being duitiful, perhaps they LIKED the play. I certainly did. Despite Mister Matt's depiction of Chicago theater audience as easily impressed numbskulls, the production stired widely varied reaction here in Chicago. There was quite a bit of controversy regarding the cuts to the texts and the non-realistic staging.

Personally, I thought it was absolutely wonderful. It is a potboiler and a melodrama... but for me, so is the original source material. I liked that the production didn't try to hide the luridness and silliness inherent in the text... but harnassed it. Much of O'Neill... certainly earlier O'Neill (obviously my opinion) is a little over the top to begin with... this production shot it over the moon. And I think that's an interesting way to deal with the difficulties of staging earlier O'Neill today.

This staging is not dissimilar to a modern expressionistic staging of a classic Greek tragedy... and I thought that was an interesting representation. I was thoroughly entertained.

kmc

---

WiCkEDrOcKS, the balcony at the St. James sits fairly far back (I believe it overhangs at row J of the mezz) so nothing should be cut off. It's definitely not as bad as, for example, rear mezz in the Shubert.

RE: Chicago critics. Things have never been the same since Claudia Cassidy in both senses of the term.

---

Does anyone know if the stage is just as high as during Gypsy? If so, the first few rows would be too close.

---

Any reports re: rush or the stage door?

I saw the dress. I enjoyed it. Everything about the show is quite over the top. It took at least half the show to get me on board with it. My biggest issue was the accents. It was difficult to understand what they were saying half the time, even with mics. I wonder why the producers decided to take the St. James. I know its a coveted b'way house and all, but the shows is so intimate, and the St. James is huge. The Longacre sits dark.

---