Desire Under the Elms Preview Reviews

[esparza 333]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 9:48am

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

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

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 10:12am

90 minutes of O'Neill, even if it is one of his shorter plays, is never enough. I hear, however, that it's a sizzling production.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 11:39am

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.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 11:45am

I'm hoping to rush it later in the week.

If anyone rushes tonight, let us know where the seats are!

[Morgaine885]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 11:51am

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

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 12:35pm

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.

When I saw the production in Chicago, I found him much easier to understand than the actors playing his brothers. I rarely caught a word of what they were saying. Accents were all over the place and it was impossible to determine where the story was supposedly taking place. The set only added to the bafflement as they all kept referring to the "farm", the only apparent representation of which was the house, mysteriously hung by ropes, highly symbolic of something, I'm sure.

The design of the show was the only interesting aspect of it for me. Yes, there were some good performances, but how much does it matter when virtually everything else is so utterly repulsive? I have to admit, I didn't realize the play had been edited down so much, but that certainly explains the baffling immediate shifts of emotions. There was no believable motivation for the boomerang love/hate relationship in the young couple that simply turned on a dime every 15 or 20 minutes for no discernible reason. "Get out, you whore! Oh wait...no, I love you so much! You skank! Don't leave me!"

This is one of the few major plays I've seen where I felt my time and money were utterly wasted and my dislike actually grew each time I recall the production. Eliminating the intermission was wise, as I would have left. But the dutiful Chicago audience gave it the obligatory standing ovation and cheered the opportunity to see Dennehy appear in another hyped production. Smoke and mirrors, in my opinion.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 4:04pm

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

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 5:01pm

I'm surprised to hear such negative things since it got such good reviews in Chicago.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 5:11pm

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.

[AC126748]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 5:17pm

If anyone happened to rush tonight's performance, I'd appreciate details (ie, seat location, relative ease of the rush, etc). Thanks!

[April Saul]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 5:19pm

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...

[Testing1232]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 5:43pm

Wife is going tonight, and we are both going back next Tues--- the "buzz" on the production is that its VERY good !!!

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 5:46pm

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?

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 6:07pm

I'm 90% sure I'm gonna rush it on Friday but if anyone rushes before then, can you let us know where/how the seats are/what time you get there, etc?

Also, question about seating at the St James (sorry for the threadjack) are the last two rows of the mezzanine good seats? Or is the overhang from the balcony bad?

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 6:23pm

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

[Testing1232]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 6:35pm

Wife in Mezz G thru TDF-

[theatreguy]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 6:49pm

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.

[April Saul]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 7:02pm

Thanks for your post, KJ, I am keeping an open mind, although I do read all the reviews I can and enjoy getting posters' opinions...there is NO universal opinion, I agree.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 7:12pm

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

[Testing1232]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 9:01pm

Wife just left show--- sent me a text "Show absolutely awesome"-

I believe it ended at 8:45- 8:50.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 9:05pm

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

[bschneid76]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 10:03pm

I went to the show this evening and enjoyed myself. This was the first time seeing an O'Neill play on stage. I do enjoy O'Neill, even if it is depressing as hell. Brian Dennehey stormed through the roll and was extremely powerful. He has a terrific monologue that bowled me over during the middle of the show, it was breathtaking. I hope he scores a Tony Nomination. Carla Gugino was wonderful as well. Her deep voice sounded lovely and at times she reminded me of Piper Laurie during her younger years.

The production was very steamy and the cast sizzled on staged. The set design is well done and I tip my hat to the director for doing a smashing job keeping the play going without too many pauses and stops. A terrific night of theatre.

[cglaid]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 10:05pm

Any reports re: rush or the stage door?

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 11:07pm

Thanks for the review, bschneid!

Where did you sit/did you notice if the first row of the Orch (if that's even where the rush seats are) had a good view (in terms of the height of the stage, mainly)?

[singtopher]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 11:26pm

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.