Posted: 12/10/15 at 5:25pm
Someone in the show was wondering about WHAT IS THIS FRAMING THING YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT??? I saw the show, please tell me, I have no clue either.
thank you
Posted: 12/10/15 at 5:56pm
Posted: 12/11/15 at 12:06am
I love Danny Burstein. I worship Bartlett Asher. I adore Fiddler On The Roof. I have seen the show at least 40 times, from some of the most amateur productions to some of the best. This was the first and only time I did not weep. And the first and only time I was bored.
This production is overwhelmingly disappointing and lacks all the fire, passion and love necessary to bring Anatevka to life. It moves at a ghastly pace, clocking in at an interminable 3 hours. There are so many uneven and even bad performances, with one of the ugliest and strangest scenic designs I've seen in years. The choreography, while eye-grabbing, is such a mixture of contemporary and classical that it often becomes muddled and clumsy. And the wedding was sorely lacking Robbins' signature choreography. And Sher's "concept" at beginning and end is confusing and unnecessary. I've never been more disappointed by a show I was looking forward to. And for the love of God, if your Yente isn't landing laughs, you're in trouble!
Jessica Hecht is absolutely one-note and dreadful as Golde. Burstein tries so very hard, but comes up short. I don't think it's his fault, but the cumbersome production's and the uneven performances around him.
The framing device is INCREDIBLY confusing and muddled and completely unnecessary.
For those asking what it is:
Tevye enters/exits in a modern red parka reading/finishing a book at top/end of show. It's completely unexplained and so very confusing, but I took it to represent a descendant visiting his homeland. A nice idea in theory, a very poor one in execution.
Posted: 12/11/15 at 12:06am
This is a show I would happily watch again and again. This production, however, couldn't get me back, even with a free ticket.
Posted: 12/11/15 at 2:50am
I really respect your critique on this production. I saw it and not at all disappointed. But your thoughts are sincere and genuine, and after 40 times you know your fiddler!
Agree with you about Jessica, can't believe that was the only woman that was chosen for Golde. She had a perfect nose, flawless skin, she is a little too pretty and she is the only one I feel you are correct. Danny was no Tevye but I liked him very much. My absolute favorite was Motel the tailor played by Adam KANTOR. Of any Motels in the past, he won me over. Even better than Austin Pendleton.
Dancing I loved. Jacket fine. Times change a tweak here and there what can you do? The 3 hours flew for me. Happy Holidays
Posted: 12/11/15 at 1:57pm
I luv....----I, unfortunately, agree with most of your critique. The one area I felt was strong, tho, was the choreography/dancing. I was very entertained when the dance numbers were being performed. I was disappointed in Danny's performance (and he was one of the reasons I immediately bought tickets for this production). He was good--I just didn't feel Tevye.
Posted: 12/11/15 at 2:48pm
Well, here it is. The first photo I could find of the new production. Honestly from what little I'm seeing, Michael Yeargan's set isn't THAT threadbare, now the 1988 Broadway version of Carrie is what I call threadbare.
Posted: 12/11/15 at 8:54pm
Those of us who have seen the show and are critical of Yeargan's set aren't complaining that the stage is too empty, simple that it's too empty of good visual ideas.
Posted: 12/12/15 at 12:29am
This picture is, from what I could gather, a rehearsal from the show's Instagram. Again showing a bit more of Michael Yeargan's quote: "Too empty of good visual ideas" sets which I think looks really good so far. It's different than any per-usual production of this musical that's for sure. https://www.instagram.com/p/-kwyPWJq0Z/
Updated On: 12/13/15 at 12:29 AM
Posted: 12/12/15 at 2:57am
Those houses look terrible. I have seen regional productions designed better than this. How does this quality of work make it to Broadway. I would like to see what John Doyle could do with this show. I will say that the last revival of Fiddler created a beautiful environment for the action to take place in. Much better than those cartoon houses. This just seems so backwards from most of Yeargan's work.
Posted: 12/12/15 at 10:11am
Having finally seen the show last night: I liked it. A lot. The last revival left me numb, but this one lifted me up to the roof.
a part of me does wonder what the houses would have looked like if they were depicted a little more realistically, but nonetheless thought it looked fantastic. The lighting in particular I thought was stunning.
But here's the thing. If this whole production was supposed to be from the perspective of this man looking back and reading the book, the set represented how those ideas would come together: the dead would rise from the ground. The houses (depicted as cartoons from the book) would float in. The fiddler would float across the brain.
i get the design not being everyone's cup of tea, but I thought it was entirely in the service of the action.
I fitst thought the framing device was a little odd, but after finally seeing it, and seeing how it ends, I was brought to tears.
the stagehands all have costumes now btw. I think that was always the intent. It just took a while for the costumes to come in.
Posted: 12/12/15 at 10:55am
Not only do they look terrible and cheap, but they just float there... In front of this ugly white tiled wall.
Posted: 12/12/15 at 1:40pm
I for one don't know yet if this brick wall does make sense to Fiddler on the Roof or not but I do know that the palace wall that Michael Yeargan designed in The King and I makes sense for the palace of Siam and being a conceptual metaphor for the King cutting himself off from the world outside but wants to change for not only himself but for the future of his kingdom. I don't know how the idea of a wall in Fiddler on the Roof will work for what Bartlett Sher and Michael Yeargan has in mind but I'll see the show soon and will find out. If there's one thing we can agree on is that Michael Yeargan sure isn't "one note" so to speak, creating sets that people either love or dislike.
Updated On: 12/12/15 at 01:40 PM
Posted: 12/13/15 at 1:03am
John Doyle directing Fiddler on the Roof? Really? Is Yente gonna play the tuba? Is Lazar Wolf gonna play the piccolo? Is Frumah Sara gonna play the tambourine?
You know that doesn't sound half bad!
Posted: 12/13/15 at 1:08am
goldenboy said: "John Doyle directing Fiddler on the Roof? Really? Is Yente gonna play the tuba? Is Lazar Wolf gonna play the piccolo? Is Frumah Sara gonna play the tambourine?"
Is the cast playing their own instruments in The Color Purple?
Posted: 12/13/15 at 7:46am
ljay889 said: "^ Or The Visit......."
Another gem gone too soon....
Posted: 12/13/15 at 9:46am
the stagehands all have costumes now btw. I think that was always the intent. It just took a while for the costumes to come in.
Everyone who attends previews and posts about them should think about that sentence.
QUESTION FOR THE BOARD: Do we have an obligation--as theater lovers--to take a more process-oriented approach when discussing what we see as "deficiencies" in previews?
Posted: 12/13/15 at 11:18am
PalJoey, I totally agree with your observation, and yes, we should be looking at these preview performances as a "work-in-progress" rather than a finished product. But when you bring in a paying audience at full price, many of them not realizing that work is still going on, it becomes a tricky issue. I saw the first preview, detailed hundreds of posts ago, and it doesn't sound as though much has been done since then, based on the descriptions I've read. Of course, FIDDLER is not a new show, and the changes that Sher and company have made are not major rewrites or additions. I found the whole thing pretty underwhelming and lumbering, so it apparently wasn't just the "newness" of the material that they company had to deal with.
It seems unlikely that this FIDDLER will be here for years to come...
Posted: 12/13/15 at 11:43am
But when you bring in a paying audience at full price, many of them not realizing that work is still going on, it becomes a tricky issue.
I'm speaking only of the posters on this board.
Posted: 12/13/15 at 11:56am
I'm curious as to why people choose to go to previews at all unless it's much cheaper or aligns with their schedule in a way no other date will do? I mean, to make seeing the first preview your thing? That I don't get.
Of course I am still stinging from the cancellation of "The Grand Paradise" previews because I built some vacation time around that. So I would think regular preview going could be a frustrating thing.
Posted: 12/13/15 at 1:25pm
As I figured, the set is taken from Marc Chagall paintings and I find them quite wonderful.
Posted: 12/13/15 at 1:33pm
Namo; you have to remember that in this case the first preview ended up occurring in what was suppose to be the second week of previews. They changed the date. And with Fiddler I guess the assumption is that there is not much they can change. And for better or worst... they haven't. Whoever saw t early on is not going to notice much difference now.
Updated On: 12/13/15 at 01:33 PM
Posted: 12/13/15 at 1:56pm
FindingNamo said: "I'm curious as to why people choose to go to previews at all unless it's much cheaper or aligns with their schedule in a way no other date will do? I mean, to make seeing the first preview your thing? That I don't get.
"I live here..and if I get the opportunity to see a preview, I go......knowing they are still working the show. If I hear that there were MANY changes or if really I loved it or for another specific reason, I will see it again after it opens. I have seen some amazing songs/numbers in preview that were ultimately taken out of the show - so I am glad I went early. Plus the show needs preview audiences for feedback. Why not mine?
In this case, I don't find the need to go back at all. For a new show which is still in development, I might be more tempted.
Posted: 12/13/15 at 2:07pm
SNAFU said: "As I figured, the set is taken from Marc Chagall paintings and I find them quite wonderful.
Marc Chagall is one of the most interesting artists of the 20th century and for Boris Aronson designing the original sets in 1964 was a neat tribute to that talented artist and now Michael Yeargan does a tribute to Boris Aronson and Marc Chagall at the same time (from the pictures I've seen so far) while doing his own recognizable style.
EDIT: Here's another Instagram photo I found that shows off more of Michael Yeargan's sets and so far I actually like it. Can't wait to see it in person. 
https://www.instagram.com/p/--LJSVxkLa/
Updated On: 12/13/15 at 02:07 PM
