FRANKIE AND JOHNNY Previews — Page 5

Saw this last week and gotta say, I thought it was one of the most poorly-directed plays I’ve seen on bway.
It was very lazy staging, moving them around the VERY UGLY and unhelpful set just for the sake of moving them around.
I would love to see these two actors do a (shortened) version of this play, but with a real director. Clearly they are both at the top of their craft but seem to have had zero help and are hampered by the set and poor staging, bad lighting, and an overall misfire of tone. Shannon plays it all for laughs it seemed. Never seemed to be genuine about any of it.
I was pretty disappointed.

jdrye222 said: "Saw this last week and gotta say, I thought it was one of the most poorly-directed plays I’ve seen on bway.
It was very lazy staging, moving them around the VERY UGLY and unhelpful set just for the sake of moving them around.
I would love to see these two actors do a (shortened) version of this play, but with a real director. Clearly they are both at the top of their craft but seem to have had zero help and are hampered by the set and poor staging, bad lighting, and an overall misfire of tone. Shannon plays it all for laughs it seemed. Never seemed to be genuine about any of it.
I was pretty disappointed."

Wow. Just....wow.

I just saw this today and was honestly quite surprised at how empty the mezzanine was (though it was a Monday night so I guess I shouldn't be).

To be honest, I think I'm a bit young to fully appreciate this play, though I did think moments of it were beautiful, particularly the ends of each acts--I actually thought the staging trick was absolutely stunning, especially when paired with the music. Both Audra and Michael were fantastic, though I felt like I would've been more interested in a slightly "softer" version of Johnny, not to take away any of his passion, but basically to slightly round his edges and make him just a touch less manic, especially in the more intimate scenes with Audra. Sometimes I just felt like Michael Shannon was shouting all the time when he didn't need to be to get the character across. And while I'm not sure whether it was the character of Frankie or Audra's performance, I felt like I was almost always more interested in what she had to say.

The humor seemed a little uneven, and the audience definitely played a part in that. There were many lines when the audience seemed to force into a laugh line but also many lines that I thought should have been funny but didn't elicit a response. And the pacing of the play itself also seemed to vary a lot to me. The first act seemed to drag a bit until the end, and the second act I thought was far better.

Like others have mentioned I did also recall Burn This in comparison, though I think the relationship between Frankie and Johnny here is much more nuanced and memorable than the one between Anna and Pale, both in the writing and in the performances. So overall I think it is a rather good production, but perhaps not something that's necessarily for me.

Just jumping in here to say that I saw this last night and thought it was spectacular. There was one audience member who (very bombastically) laughed at everything Shannon said, but aside from that, it was a perfect evening of theater. I found McDonald and Shannon to be perfectly matched and it was a privilege to watch them play off of each other.

Any theater fan is doing their self a disservice by skipping this.

Shocking.

I saw this this past weekend and, sadly, cannot recommend it. Audra and Michael are very good, but I wouldn’t say either of their performances are worth the price of a ticket (or the time spent).

The final moment with the set worked when I saw it, although I found it more confusing than anything. I was off to the side a bit, so I wonder if viewing it straight on might have made it more effective.

I also agree with those who feel the script does not age well. It did feel disturbing to see this somewhat manic man refuse to leave this woman’s apartment, particularly because I believe we as the audience are, ultimately, supposed to find this charming and exactly what Frankie “needs” to open her up. What I believe the playwright is trying to show as Johnny’s passion and desire to “connect” came off, to me, as a man refusing to listen to a woman until he gets his way. Even if Johnny was otherwise portrayed as the sanest, most caring, gentlest person, him refusing to leave feels very scary for Frankie. I certainly don’t have an issue with seeing a disturbing situation take place on stage – I have an issue when a situation like this is shown on stage and I feel that both the script and the production are trying to portray these actions as endearing. In today’s world, I find it irresponsible to continue to portray this kind of behavior from a man as something that is charming (SPOILER) and is ultimately rewarded.

Someone earlier said that Frankie doesn’t actually want Johnny to leave because she doesn’t open the door or call someone. First, Johnny literally goes through how anything Frankie does to try get him to leave either won’t work or he will just end up coming back. Second, a woman shouldn’t have to do anything other than ask him to leave for him to oblige. Third, I saw “What the Constitution Means to Me” last week and, for anyone who has seen it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of the story she tells when she says she heard something in the back of her head that sounded like “Stay alive.” A woman’s actions (or inaction in this case) are often motivated by an instinct to protect themselves. Fourth, even if she secretly did want him to stay, a man refusing to leave when asked (multiple times and forcefully, no less) is not okay.

Aside from the issues I had with the sympathetic nature taken toward Johnny’s behavior, I overall found this production quite…boring. I couldn’t find myself rooting for them as a couple and didn’t feel emotionally connected to either.

For me it doesn’t matter when it takes place or was written. I saw all three major productions (original with Bates, the Mantello Falco/Tucci version at the belasco, and now this).... and it is so atrociously staged and the tone is so poorly directed that none of that even matters. The beautiful moving thing about the Mantello production was that you really truly saw TWO lost souls connecting by their loneliness and perceived ordinariness - you were not siding with one or the other in their back and forth struggle. And when Johnny finally gives the monologue to the radio DJ, it is stunning because it’s like the world stops for both of them and neither can believe what’s coming out of his mouth. I get goosebumps thinking about it as I’m writing this.
I do not blame Shannon, I blame the basically non-existent direction (beyond just making them move all over the stage for no reason). It felt like I was ultimately watching the two most talented students in a graduate acting program doing an exercise where the teacher just tells them to never stop moving.
And don’t get me started about them making the omelet but leaving it sitting on the stove.

On a side note - i has totally forgotten that the ugly set (with doorways in the middle of windows) moves at the end until I was reading the posts here..... And it just reminded me how clueless this director is. So completely unnecessary, gave no impact to the piece - Why not focus on your actors and allowing them to be the ones who have us feel that just maybe their world has somehow opened up over the course of this ?

After the Mantello production, this was one of my very favorite plays, and I thought McNally’s best-written. Audra and Michael seemed to do what they could, but had zero help from anyone else.

This was the first showing my trip-annual visit to NYC. Only had room for 6 shows this time. This was the first oneI saw. I saw it on Tuesday, in the same audience as the idiot audience member who laughed like a hyena, presumably to show those around him how much he was enjoying the show.

i liked the show, but I am at a loss re all the hyper-praise from some of the posters on this board. I thought it was an decent play, well acted by Audra, but not sure re Shannon (I have never seen the show before, so I have no basis for comparing Michael Shannon's performance to prior actors in the role. it just seemed like another super intense Shannon performance, similar to other roles he has played / performances he has given).

I kept on thinking -- both during and after the performance -- that Frankie had better be really careful if she is going to try for a real relationship with Johnny, because he seems beyond lonely, a little scary / almost schizophrenic in fact. I couldn't help thinking that she might be better off alone than with Shannon's Johnny.

I thought the staging at the end of the show was positively stupid. I can only assume the director was trying to show that they had the potential to be their own little island. If not that, I have no clue.

For those that have seen the original Kathy Bates production and this what is this version doing wrong?

I agree completely with SonofRobbieJ. I loved the play and found the acting superb and very moving. However, that the set and staging is a bit problematic - especially in the front few rows of the orchestra. I am going to see it again from a bit further back in the orchestra.

I saw the show this weekend, and I totally hear what everyone is saying but also couldn’t help but think of the AIDS crisis while watching it. It’s the underbelly of so much of McNally’s work, and the double-edged sword of connection is what brought it back to AIDS for me. If they do connect then loss is inevitable and that fear in both of them is palpable. With love comes the chance of being wounded and hurt and left.

They both seemed like "damaged" human beings and deeply lonely, and they’re far from being perfect or polite and neither of them know how to connect to one another. Johnny’s behavior may be inexcusable. He should have left. We see the possible repercussions of him staying. It’s not tidy and very messy, but both of them, especially Frankie, take huge risks in seeing what happens if they both take the leap. It’s so painfully human in their negotiations with the other person, not necessarily romantic, and both of them are vulnerable and have experiences of violence and loss in their life. The line that stood out to me is “We’ve gotta connect. We just have to. Or we die.” Those are high stakes! The play takes “connection” as a life or death choice so, in typical McNally form, it feels operatic. Those same questions were brought up during the AIDS crisis, but instead of it just being a choice for queer men, he’s making it a wider human choice. For this reason, what it means to “connect” to someone, no matter how “damaged” or “different” they seem felt pretty topical to me.

Reading through the thread, the things people are discussing feel like huge important questions where there is no right answer. The play is bringing about those questions because of its nuance and ambiguity. I didn’t think the play would read in today’s context until I saw it, but the play seems to be asking the very questions we are debating.

Two amazing actors are bring that to life and although I get why people thought Arbus’s direction felt “arbitrary” at times, I sort of saw a freneticness in their movements that was almost like two caged animals not knowing how to confront each other, or where to sit or move or how to respond naturally, which felt very intentional to me.

kingfan011 said: "For those that have seen the original Kathy Bates production and this what is this version doing wrong?"

I have not seen this production, but Kathy Bates's performance made an elongated if likable one-act a must-see.