Discussion about Public Theatre's The Normal Heart

[esparza 333]

Posted: 5/2/11 at 7:55pm

I have become very interested in this play in the past months ever since the reading with Mantello. Now that the revival is being celebrated so much I was wondering if any body could share their thoughts about the Public Theatre revival a few years back with Esparza. I have heard wonderful things about it but I was most curious about Esparza's Ned Weeks. From the photos of that production I have seen, his Ned looks more charismatic while Mantello's seems more eccentric (is this is a fair comparison?). Also since this play can be done very intensely and "loudly" in addition to being done on a more restraint level as the new revival seems to be, I was wondering if Esparza and the cast took a more intense approach to the material or if they were more similar to Mantello and this broadway cast?

[After Eight]

Posted: 5/2/11 at 10:33pm

I would say there was greater intensity at the Public, and Esparza was terrific, a whirlwind force of nature. I thought Joanna Gleason was great as well.

All in all, I found the Public production riveting, and preferred it to the current revival, itself excellent.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/2/11 at 10:34pm

Once Emcee sees this thread, you'll get a fantastic and detailed response to this question.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/2/11 at 10:49pm

Aw, thanks, Jordan. I just wanted to say that I saw this and I will reply to you in hopefully articulate detail in the morning.

For now: this production changed my life, and is the reason I work in theater.

Updated On: 5/2/11 at 10:49 PM

[SNAFU]

Posted: 5/2/11 at 11:18pm

I saw the Public's version 6 times. loved it. Esparza's Weeks although more charismatic then Mantello's Weeks had fire in him... Always there right under the surface. You KNEW he was someone people feared/hated. YOU KNEW he was a brazen loud mouth who couldn't keep his yapper shut.. The final milk and fish scene blew the freaking roof of the theatre.
Now this revival, although intense somehow, for me lacks that flash point the show needs to really work. Every one of the six times I saw it at the Public, I felt like I was slammed against the wall and worked over with a base ball bat. This one, I was moved but not as much.
Mantello's Weeks is quirky subtle but for me lacked the fire needed.
As I said in another thread, it might be that the Public theatre was a bit more intimate and there was actually a splash zone!

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 5/2/11 at 11:28pm

The Public Theatre's version was troubled by tensions among the cast and Joanna Gleason making a rather nasty comment about a certain ego-inflicted co-actor, I could be wrong but I think she refused to continue and left the production early.
Maybe someone can remember better than me and correct my memory if impaired.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/2/11 at 11:33pm

I'm pretty sure she left because her schedule didn't permit her to stay for the extension. If I remember correctly, they'd been extending a little bit at a time, and then they had that weird two-week (I think) hiatus to put Lisa Kron in, but it closed shortly after.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 5/3/11 at 1:30am

You're right, the "official" reason for her leaving was to work on DIRTY ROTTEN...

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/5/11 at 2:30pm

Ok, finally responding to the original post. I don't think this is going to live up to what you or Jordan might be expecting, but I'm going to try anyway. A lot of the old-timers probably remember how much I cared for it first-hand, and I thought about digging up and posting my original "review" thread of it for you, but some of it is really embarrassing and I'd rather just filter it through my now-older eyes.

Anyway, I was still in high school when I saw The Public's production. My best friend and I had recently seen -- and fallen in love with -- the HBO film of Angels in America, which got us interested in the surrounding family of plays, so we decided to go see The Normal Heart. I was just sort of coming into being interested in theater as my own thing at that point; my parents had always taken me to see things as a child, but during high school was when I really started to take ownership of the interest, and go see things that I picked out, etc. This was the first straight play I had seen, probably, in at least five years, and of course with a few exceptions that same year because I had finally been deemed old enough, most of the things my parents had taken me to see were fairly light, or at least family-friendly. So I had, for the most part, no idea that theater (especially a straight play) could really "be like that." I was, in retrospect, coming from a place of absolute naivete. But, it opened me up in this monumental way. It gave me a sense of what theater is capable of that I had never understood before. It changed everything I knew about plays, and it changed my life.

I haven't seen Mantello's performance yet because I'm out of town, but I still count Raúl's as one of the greatest things I will ever see. I had actually never seen him on stage before this. I saw Taboo, but caught his understudy, and had begun the curiosity about this "Raúl Something With An E" guy by playing the tick, tick... BOOM! album on loop, but Ned Weeks was his "had me at hello." Ten minutes in, and I was in for life. I still, all these years later, can't quite put satisfactory words to what it was about him, but I don't think I had ever seen, even in my excessive-for-an-eighteen-year-old theatergoing, an actor who had that kind of absolutely gravitational magnetism. "Force of nature," is definitely a phrase that comes immediately to mind. There was this fire to his performance that is now sort of colloquially established as the Esparza "intensity," but the thing I remember most about it was that he had this magnificent way of balancing that fire with the warmth and sweetness that were lovable about Ned. And even more amazing to me was that he could turn that on you on a dime, but it would never feel artificial. I still don't think there are many actors who can negotiate that kind of transition as well as he can. There was something about him that you trusted, but you could also still believe that this was someone people feared and hated; his Ned would go from tiger to teddy bear in half a second flat, and you totally bought it. But even in the sweet moments, there was always something bubbling underneath. He was angry, charming, and passionate. Violently passionate. I hate using this word because it's become kind of cliché to use it about Raúl, but he had this frenetic energy about him as Ned: almost a nervousness, almost a twitchiness, a kind of constantly buzzing energy where he rarely stopped moving. You got the impression that Ned needed to constantly be engaged in some kind of activity, the kind of person who finds it hard to keep quiet or sit still; it was part of that sort of volcanic feel that he had to him. Part of what made clear just how driven he was. And yes, there was a lot of yelling and screaming, but I would never characterize the whole performance as generically "loud." He was loud and in-your-face when he needed to be, and softer and more restrained when that was right, too. I remember being mystified as to how he could go through that every single night. Actually, I'm still mystified as to how he could go through that every night.

The production as a whole was top notch. Not a weak link in that cast, and Raúl and Billy had great chemistry. Joanna Gleason was also something to be reckoned with. The intimacy of that space was perfect; you felt like you wanted to run away and hide, but you couldn't, and you were so close. The first row was almost literally on the stage. It was devastating, heartbreaking, and eye-opening, especially as a young person who didn't really know all that much about the source material at the time. I remember coming out of the theater in a daze, trembling, exhausted, angry, and feeling like I wanted to be able to do something. I had never experienced that before, even following my most moving theater experiences. I went back to my sheltered suburban world with this fierce new awareness. It made me want to educate myself and get involved -- in making theater like this, and in the fight. I bought the play immediately, read it over and over and over again. My first copy is still hanging on, but the pages are falling out. It is well-loved. My friend and I were in the middle of nailing down plans to go see it a second time when the abrupt closing happened. I've been waiting seven years for that second chance.

Updated On: 5/6/11 at 02:30 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/5/11 at 2:48pm

I saw it last night and the fish and milk scene brought me to tears. I had heard that this was a "loud" play and I am glad that this revival isn't. (At least I didn't think it was). I am usually good for seeing a highly emotional play once and not needing or wanting to see it again. I would see this revival again in a heartbeat. Montello was just incredible.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 5/5/11 at 5:03pm

I know a few who really loved the Public's revival mentioned they missed some of the 'rage' from that production so for what its worth it might be interesting to revisit this production again a little later in its run...it feels like they are spraying some additional petroleum on the fire...

I caught the current Broadway production again last night and its fascinating to see how its already evolving (from the 1st preview). Last night's performance was in pure 'fury' mode -- Mantello seems to have kicked up his performance a notch if thats possible - the rage tearing through darker ways then when I'd seen him before. Ditto Barkin who is now practically trembling with wrath at the onset of her monologue.

While its exciting to see that kind of heightened energy, I do have to say that I think it has to be very carefully tempered. I think it could be potentially pretty easy to turn this play into a one note scream fest -- I did feel in their zealousness - at times the overall pacing was almost a bit rushed last night - it could have been post Tony nomination jitters, but obviously its still a tremendous production. I just hope George C. Wolfe keeps careful tabs on the production throughout its run.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/5/11 at 7:13pm

I know I'm being the dumb ass here, but what is Mantello's history with the show? He was in the original? But then there was a revival? The revival seems to be the only one I remember.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/5/11 at 8:43pm

Mantello was Louis in the original production of Angels in America... are you getting the two mixed up? The only time he had done The Normal Heart before this production was the benefit reading last October. Brad Davis was Ned in the original production at The Public in 1985. Joel Grey's history with the play is long, though -- he replaced Davis in the original production, and of course (co)directed the current revival. The 2004 revival was the only one prior to the one running now.

Updated On: 5/5/11 at 08:43 PM