First (Or is it second?) Death of a Salesman Preview — Page 2

It's VERY jarring. The first time Linda says that Willy is 63, they breeze past it so quickly it seems intentional. Almost all of the ages seem to be mentioned as if they are inconsequential, which seems more like a blatant choice to try and cover-up the fact that they are all far too young for the roles.

I would rather see a 35 year old man play a 10 year old Happy or Biff. There's a level of patheticness there that stings more. A 25 year old man not being able to support his ailing father is not quite as disappointing as a 35 year old.

I was thinking of that film, too, growl. And wondered if it inspired this revival in the first place.

---

And yet another wild divergence, Jordan! I'd say that, next to maybe Daniel Day-Lewis, Philip Seymour Hoffman is the finest actor of his generation and easily one of the finest actors working regularly in American movies today.

---

Which of course isn't necessarily to say he is one of the finest stage actors working in American theatre today.

Oh, of course not! But given that he's widely regarded as one of our best working film actors (I'd even say that's a majority opinion, not just not a minority opinion), it surprises me that anyone would be surprised by his casting in this, even if they don't care for him themselves.

I think Kirsten Dunst, 9 times out of 10, is boring as sh!t, but I understand why she works. People like her. I don't, but lots of people do.

---

It's an odd decision, but a deliberate one, and I think it completely works. What I saw last night was ready to open, and I thought Hoffman, Garfield, and especially Emond, were all terrific.

I don't know how far back you were sitting, iluvtheatertrash, but I saw plenty of actual tears coming from Garfield. And I also don't know what weird baggage you're bringing to the show with this "emaciated twink" talk, but I think - again - it's a very deliberate choice to have him be the scrawny, conflicted, wildly-overestimated-in-his-father's-eyes son next to Finn Witrock's buff, womanizing Happy. The acting decisions of both of them seem to bear that out.

I was also there last night and think it's in mostly excellent shape. The production and performances will no doubt benefit from the preview period, but for me, it was delivering in all of the spots where Salesman usually gets to me. For those who call Philip Seymour Hoffman a screamer, I thought this production was less screamy than the Dennehy production (which I also liked a lot).

Regardless of Hoffman's actual age, I felt him make the transitions from 60-ish Willy to 40-ish Willy effortlessly, and the tears began for me with his scene with Howard and the tape recorder, or possibly the "What's the secret?" scene with Bernard, when he just seems to crumble in front of you. Really devastating work.

Emond is as excellent as I expected - and goes in a very different direction than Liz Franz did. It's a quieter, more vulnerable approach that really pulled me in. When she turns steely with the sons, it shocks. She's really one of our most under-appreciated NY stage actresses.

Garfield builds his performance to the hotel scene and as such, I think is playing mostly the character's resentment of his father as his driving force, less the confused, lost young man as I've seen in other productions and more that he feels completely betrayed by his father's actions. I actually loved that he silently witnesses his father's mad scene in the garden and Willy's "conversation" with Ben about him. I felt it drives the "dime a dozen" scene that follows, when Biff tries to expose the truth to his father. While I didn't feel his performance was quite at 100% yet, I didn't find him miscast or not up to the task at hand.

Finn Wittrock, Fran Kranz, Molly Price, John Glover and especially Bill Camp were all first rate, I feel. The production felt very well cast to me, down to the minor roles.

And a word for that set - I really admired the design of the Dennehy/Robert Falls production and the way it broke free from traditional stagings of Salesman, but the Mielziner set here coupled with Brian MacDevitt's lighting just makes the transitions of the past-present/reality-fantasy scenes happen instantaneously, with no turntables necessary. It's a marvel and you understand why it was revolutionary in 1949 and in some ways, clarifies the piece, as the scenes are mostly playing out in Willy's head in the house during his final days. It makes sense for it all to spring forth from the surroundings of the house itself.

I think as it stands after its second performance, it's already an accomplished Salesman and I think it will be even more rewarding as it settles in further. For those on the fence, I'd say go.

Updated On: 2/16/12 at 11:50 AM

Has anyone tried the under-30 rush yet? Where are the seats and how are the crowds? Any advice on good time to get there?

Updated On: 2/20/12 at 02:24 AM

Saw the show last night and thought it was brilliant. I've never seen a production of Salesman done but read the script long ago in high school. Having never seen Hoffman on stage before, I thought he delivered an amazing performance of such a tragic character. I feel it's his Tony award to lose. I agree that the ages of Biff and Happy feel off as Happy does seem to be the older brother (in the beginning of Act 1 at least) and I always felt he was meant to be a smaller guy. I loved John Glover as Ben. The lighting and scenic design was brilliant, I was able to catch the bed trick, very cool! The audience was absolutely silent walking out of the theater afterwards

I rarely post anymore, but even I had to stop and say how annoyed I was by Andrew Garfield. His acting was fine, but he is simply too young. I'd never heard of him, but looking at his bio in the program told me the story - he's a film star who can sell a few extra tickets (to teenage girls who will not appreciate or understand the play).

When I first watched the scene unfold with Biff and Happy, I presumed the one was playing the other. When I first realized who was playing which role (Happy calls Biff by his name) I, honest to God, thought it was a line flub.

It might even work if the actor playing Happy wasn't so mature and buff-looking, but he is. He is much more suited for Biff. But, they had to get Garfield's name over the marquee, so...

I hate this kind of thing. When you're watching a production of a play and something like this is present in it, you can't help but remain fully aware that you're watching a scene in a play. It makes it harder to accept the fiction.

For the record, I thought everyone acted their heads off. Seymour Hoffman was impressive, refreshingly thoughtful and toned-down, and Emond was absolutely captivating and surely the standout.

---

Seeing the mat tomorrow. Very excited.

---

Rudy- Since you hadn't heard of Garfield I guess you never saw The Social Network, in which he was wonderful. He might be a little young for the role, but he's a great actor, and hardly one to only sell tickets to a few teenage girls. Not to mention it's a bit condescending to assume teenage girls/his fans will neither appreciate nor understand the play anyway.

Is Garfield my ideal Biff? No. But I think he gave an accomplished performance, and the hotel scene in particular was effective. This isn't Hollywood stunt casting with no acting merit to back it up.

---