KING LEAR Previews — Page 5

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#101

King Lear

Posted: 3/8/19 at 5:41am

I didn’t as passionately dislike this as some other seem to, but it was just okay. It’s Shakespeare, so we know the writing is incredible, but it’s also complex. If you’re not speaking clearly, we won’t get it. There were a few moments of that.

I also felt that intermission was in a weird place. When lights went down for the storm, a few people around me for up and walked to the back thinking it was their chance to rush to the bathroom. Nope, still a half hour left, people. But it wasn’t the length necessarily that made it feel like an appropriate moment for intermission, it was the lights going down after all that time.

Performances overall were good, but definitely a few that I wasn’t a fan of. Again, it was a good production but not great. They still have time.

#102

King Lear

Posted: 3/8/19 at 9:49am

Thx, poisonivy2. Just checked TDF and it must have come down fast! I”ll keep checking.

Updated On: 3/8/19 at 09:49 AM

#103

King Lear

Posted: 3/8/19 at 10:12am

As long as we are noting Mr. Gold’s hits and misses here, which we know are all subjective, haven’t all directors seen themselves there, even the great ones such as Harold Prince?- (whom I adore, BTW): Prince of Broadway, Lovemusik, Hollywood Arms, Parade, Rosa, Grind, End of the World, Play Memory, A Doll’s Life, Merrily We Roll Along, Some of My Best Friends, Pacific Overtures (one of my all time favorites- saw it 17 times- but was not, shall we say, loved by all),

I’ve always disliked ad campaigns for theatre and film that uses the phrase: “ Director of..., Writer of...” Sure, one will think, like I do, “Oh, he or she wrote that show or movie I loved and now he or she is doing this?!...” We are now talking about a new project, and their past successes or failures shouldn’t hold that much weight, IMHO.

,

Updated On: 3/8/19 at 10:12 AM

#104

King Lear

Posted: 3/8/19 at 10:17am

EthelMae said: "As long as we are noting Mr. Gold’s hits and misses here, which we know are all subjective, haven’t all directors seen themselves there, even the great ones such as Harold Prince?-(whom I adore, BTW): Prince of Broadway, Lovemusik, Hollywood Arms, Parade, Rosa, Grind, End of the World, Play Memory, A Doll’s Life, Merrily We Roll Along, Some of My Best Friends, Pacific Overtures (one of my all time favorites- saw it 17 times- but was not, shall we say, loved by all),

I’ve always disliked ad campaigns for theatre and film that uses the phrase: “ Director of..., Writer of...” Sure, one will think, like I do, “Oh, he or she wrote that show or movie I loved and now he or she is doing this?!...” Weare now talking about a new project, and their past successes or failures shouldn’t hold that much weight, IMHO.

This is exactly why I've never understood all the Jack O'Brien hate on this board. I know Carousel wasn't beloved by all (I enjoyed it) but Front Page, Only a Play, The Nance, and Catch Me If You Can were all very solid (if not quite at Hairspray level). Everybody goes through a rut, but that doesn't mean they should be written off.

#105

King Lear

Posted: 3/9/19 at 10:13am

I agree with Whizzer about the Gold "Fun Home." One of the most exquisite stagings I've seen of an intimate musical, and probably the best use of Circle I've experienced -- 've been going since the John Wood/Tammy Grimes/Patricia Elliot "Tartuffe" --. "Fun Home" at Circle was so perfect, it's hard for me to imagine the material fully independent of it. The moment when Bruce asks the observing Big Allison to take the drive in lieu of the college-aged characterization -- a low tech piece of theatrical magic all accomplished only with actors -- still makes me shiver on reflection. I'll never forget the house finally slowly materializing in full from the floor, or the ways Malone's Allison watched the younger iterations of herself without the usual self-consciousness of paralleling younger/older.

The reports that Gold had help -- was that at the Public, or in the move to the arena staging? The use of the physical space uptown was so breathtaking, and masterfully told a shorthanded story that could be fragmented under less assured guidance. It begin unified, and kept finding new ways to coalesce. Stunning.

"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling

Updated On: 3/9/19 at 10:13 AM

#106

King Lear

Posted: 3/9/19 at 10:30am

kade.ivy said: "I know there’s no official policy, but has anyone tried to effectively rush this?"

I rushed this week. $40. Orchestra sides. Partial view but really the only thing I missed was he orchestra some times.

#107

King Lear

Posted: 3/9/19 at 11:59am

A dumb question perhaps, but do they speak Shakespeare verbatim or modernize the language? I never liked Shakespeare decades ago in school bc I found it difficult to read. Just wondered.

#108

King Lear

Posted: 3/9/19 at 12:20pm

JayElle said: "A dumb question perhaps,but do they speakShakespeare verbatimor modernize the language? I never liked Shakespeare decades ago in school bc I found it difficult to read. Just wondered."

They definitely are not modernizing the language–otherwise, it ain't Shakespeare.

#109

King Lear

Posted: 3/9/19 at 2:19pm

okay, tnx...hell they changed mockingbird so I wondered.

#110

King Lear

Posted: 3/9/19 at 2:25pm

JayElle said: "okay, tnx...hell they changed mockingbird so I wondered."

They adapted a novel for Mockingbird. Lear is already a play.

#111

King Lear

Posted: 3/9/19 at 2:27pm

oh, okay...

#112

King Lear

Posted: 3/9/19 at 5:19pm

I have to agree with pretty much everyone else on here about this production of King Lear. It is an incredibly misguided production that lacks any kind of cohesion. A vast majority of my problems can be attributed to Sam’s Gold direction.

There is no overarching concept that glues the various production elements together. I feel like there were five different directors all working on a production of King Lear, and they all just threw their ideas into a blender and threw it onstage and called it done. I don’t mind a contemporary staging of a Shakespeare play, but it should at least make sense.

The acting was fine, but no one really wowed me, not even Glenda Jackson. Pedro Pascal’s Edmund was the weakest link by far. He seemed to be playing every line for laughs. Ruth Wilson was good as both the Fool and Cordelia. I didn’t understand the point of having the sign language.

The set design is pretty ghastly. Three shimmery and glittery gold walls and a royal purple carpet as well as some furniture. I don’t mind a simple set, but it shouldn’t be this ugly. The lighting was easily my favorite part of the production. There are some really great moments of lighting. The costumes were all modern, but still all over the place.

The onstage musicians didn’t bother me, and I never felt like they were drowning out the dialogue which many people noted earlier in this thread. It’s possible that maybe this has been fixed.

I love Shakespeare, so there is a part of me that enjoyed this just for the story and dialogue. That being said, I have to admit this production drags like crazy after intermission. The first two hours went by pretty quickly, but the last hour and ten minutes felt twice as long. When I walk out of a show, and the only thing that I can really compliment is the lighting, that’s pretty darn bad.

"There’s nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music. "

#113

King Lear

Posted: 3/13/19 at 12:36am

Interesting to hear about all those negative reviews. I have no problem with the set at all - in fact I'm in love with it. It's what the show needs to be, a trashy golden place, and I am still extremely amazed by how Miriam dealt with her fire curtain. It's genius. The lighting too.

I do believe Sam Gold's concept is not consistent, but it's definitely not misguided. A Shakespeare doesn't need a concept, at least in my opinion, enough concepts have been tried and there is nothing wrong playing with some crazy ideas. Personally I am intrigued by how the show would change over the next month, and I may even go back and see it again.

Overall, it's extremely experimental and not a typical broadway show. The acting however was the most disappointing link I found, since Jackson, despite her amaze, is still using her British shakespearean training, that definitely didn't go well with the rest of the cast.

But Gold was never an actor's director, and to be honest this is a lot better than The Glass Menagerie to me.

#114

King Lear

Posted: 3/13/19 at 8:56am

SPOILERS AHEAD

An exhausting production in more ways than one. The first act is exactly 2 hours and it felt much longer. (It also does not help that all the ushers continually warn us of its length AND that you will not be allowed back into your seat if you leave for the bathroom. This Rudin policy is very irritating.)

Emasculation and impotence. Those are the themes of this production of Lear. To further this message, Gold has cast women in three of the pivotal male roles and has given most of the men playing male characters "weaknesses" which are not in the text.

1.) The Duke of Cornwall is deaf and must rely on others to help him communicate. There’s also the very deliberate choice of having him wear a kilt. (No offense - but since he’s the only cast member to wear one, I assumed it must be a specific choice to “feminize” his character.)

2.) Oswald is overtly gay and struggles with a pronounced speech defect.

3.) Earl of Kent is “demoted” to a lowly delivery man (complete with green uniform, cap, and dolly).

Continuing the impotency theme, stationary flagpoles stand erect in the back of the stage (which feels like a great golden meeting room at the Hague) and are periodically toppled, lain to the ground, and allowed to remain there throughout the show. Leaving the poles on the ground is a deliberate choice since most of the props (endless dishes, glasses, wine bottles, cutlery, etc.) are moved/removed throughout the play.

Also, the Fool makes several penis jokes and at one time breaks off the end of a carrot he has just used to imitate a penis.

These themes are very definitely part of the text of Lear and I get what Gold is trying to do, but the choices do not land. They distract from rather than support the themes.

And at times the production feels very amateurish. Several cast members are making their Broadway debuts and it shows. The lengthy storm scene is played in front of a metallic gold wall that allows the actors only about 5 feet of stage to play with. As a result, they do not move much and since there is no real wind or rain (just a lot of stage thunder and lightning tricks) the scene is surprisingly static. And while Lear is bellowing into the storm, Kent, Edgar, and the Fool lay on the ground as if they are waking from a bad drunk. No tension at all.

Placing this Lear into modern dress and times does not help Gold's gender juxtaposition theme because in 2019 gender and gender roles have never been more open or fluid.

Also, duct tape? Really?

I have to say that I was underwhelmed by almost everyone in this production including Jackson. In keeping with the themes of emasculation and impotence, Lear is supposed to be old, mad, and feeble -- which Jackson is not and her Lear is not. Throughout the evening I always felt that she had the biggest penis in the room.

#115

King Lear

Posted: 3/13/19 at 11:10am

I thought this was tremendous.

To be honest... I'm not sure there are a ton of "gimmicks" so much as the main gimmick that strips the production of basically any trapping and just lets the actors act. The stage is a gold room (that reminded me much more of Trump Tower than it did The Hague) that is adorned with stuff but the stuff doesn't have much effect on what the actors are doing. It may have well been set on a bare stage... though I liked the set and the "stuff." It felt like I could focus almost completely on what the actors were doing with the language and their characters... with some lovely lighting to highlight everything.

I thought all the actors delivered... either playing really good versions of my understanding of those characters or interesting new variations for me to consider. I was really taken by the cruelty of Jackson's Lear... and how very little sympathy she was attempting to garner. Even after the storm... she seemed less pathetic and more... resigned. Even in the final scene... she still had an air of "this sort of thing shouldn't happen to people like us" than a real understanding of how awful she'd been. Anyway. It made me think a lot.

Aisling O'Sullivan, Elizabeth Marvel, and Pedro Pascal were all more blunt in their performances but I thought their acting was wildly delightful. I giggled with delight during the blinding scene... it was so very intense. All three were quite wicked but also quite human. Pascal was pretty funny and more than a little bit sexy.

Ruth Wilson was deeply soulful in both performances... though to be honest I'm not quite sure what to make of the dual role. At first I thought it was just sort of... you know... just because (and because perhaps the roles were originally cast that way)... but it did seem to call attention to itself like I was supposed to get more from it... and I didn't.

Jane Houdyshell was the only real disappointment. She seemed pretty uncertain for much of the first act. Repeating and searching for lines... not terribly specific in her choices... all around not ideal. Once the character was blinded I thought she found her footing... which lead to a very touching reunion with Lear.

I'm not really interested in commenting on others comments... we all bring our prejudices and aesthetics with us... but... Russell Harvard and Matthew Maher are both terrific actors and both are fantastic in the roles... bringing a lot of color and definition to roles that aren't always so special. For me, their performances make a strong case that they were simply the best actors that auditioned for the roles. Russell Harvard is a deaf actor and his deafness is woven into the production in an essential way. He signs, he has a translator, but he also speaks and signs untranslated. He felt like a whole human being and not a "cause" or a diversity hire. Or even that the director was trying to say something with his casting. It just seemed like a deaf actor was playing a deaf character with only minor modifications. As it should be. Matthew Maher was just speaking in his own voice. I don't think they way he speaks, which I guess some folk think is effeminate and with impediment. Again... it just felt like a whole person.

That's my take. I basically loved it and I'm sad I won't be able to return in a few weeks to see what has grown.

Jesus saves. I spend.

#116

King Lear

Posted: 3/16/19 at 2:20am

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT

I saw this evening's performance, and I think the production may be taking advantage of previews to make some significant staging changes.

For example, an earlier post mentioned a really slow fight between Edgar and Edmund. But tonight, just when I was expecting the usual unconvincingly stagey Shakespearean combat, Edmund pulled out a gun, fired at Edgar, missed, and almost simultaneously got shot by Edgar -- the whole thing was over in moments. So, I found that a pleasant surprise. (I didn't notice much blood, though, and -- given that Edmund was wearing a white shirt, perfect for highlighting the carnage -- I wondered if there was a technical malfunction).

On the other hand, the blinding of Gloucester is still boring, and the "Peter Pan" hanging of Cordelia is still laughable. Though I guess, to be fair, the show can't take the usual approach of Lear carrying in Cordelia, because Glenda Jackson is much smaller than Ruth Wilson.

Incidentally, someone was wondering above why Ruth is playing both The Fool and Cordelia. I think partly it might have to do with that discussion that's been going on for centuries -- when Lear says "And my poor fool is hanged," does he mean his daughter or his jester or both?

Another thing that I wasn't expecting was the fairly explicit sex between Edmund and Goneril -- and the post-sex, which elicited a couple of gasps from the audience. Again, I found that a refreshing alternative to the usual "passionate" stage kisses and whatnot that I seem to recall as common at that point in the play.

Anyway, despite some dull passages (particularly in and around the storm section), and the intrusive strings playing the variously cheesy, cliched or sentimental Glass score, I thought this was a better than average evening of Shakespeare -- Jackson was very good, especially in her long conversation with the blinded Gloucester and "howl howl howl," Wilson was strong throughout, Pascal was often funny, and dashing in a way that made the lust of Regan and Goneril believable (although, as someone else noted, he did seem to randomly shout a couple of his lines). In fact, I think the actors in all the major roles provided at least a couple of memorable moments and (unlike perhaps every other stage production of Lear I've seen) nobody struck me as outright incompetent.

(And, just as an aside -- I think Zachary Quinto was in the audience.)

#117

King Lear

Posted: 3/16/19 at 3:11am

^ Quinto posted a pic from Times Square to his IG story 2 hours ago so quite possibly he was in attendance.

#118

King Lear

Posted: 3/16/19 at 5:33pm

Caught the matinee this afternoon, and only one word springs to mind:

SLOG

#119

King Lear

Posted: 3/20/19 at 10:23am

Singularly, the greatest production of a Shakespeare play I have ever seen on Broadway (or even at say, Royal Shakespeare or on the West End).

I saw the Old Vic production a couple years ago, and loved Glenda so much I held my nose to see it again (I knew it wasn't the same production but I've seen Lear many times and it's mostly a highlight only for the actor playing Lear). I just did not want to see King Lear again. I am so glad I did.

Gold's direction is fluid in a way I haven't always seen in professional Shakespeare productions. The actors' modern and (who cares) multi-accented approach to the dialogue, the clarity of intention over the poetry!! I have rarely understood Shakespearian dialogue so eaily!! I can't fault one actor. I am not a fan of Ruth Wilson (except in the film Little Stranger) - I acknowledge she's a good actress (saw her as Hedda at the National) but she blew me away as the slightly depressive Cordelia and the working class-accented Fool. She was wonderful. As was this exquisite cast But it comes from the top down, the magnificent Glenda Jackson. The stamina!! The intent of purpose. The physicality!! She is somehow even better than the Old Vic--and she was pretty much perfect there!!

I'm not going to say that the two hour first act flew by, but it ended a log quickier than I thought it would (or when that Act break usually occurs) But it is a brilliant production and Sam Gold is our current greatest popular director.

Updated On: 3/20/19 at 10:23 AM

#120

King Lear

Posted: 3/20/19 at 11:11am

.....

#121

King Lear

Posted: 3/21/19 at 5:19pm

I wanted to love the show and came out frustrated and exhausted. I don't mind a modern setting of Shakespeare, I don't mind musicians on stage and added songs, I don't mind gender fluid casting, I don't mind the addition of deaf actors...in fact, most of that is wonderful when it's used well....but when all of that is happening at once, it's just hard to concentrate on the text and let's face it, Shakespeare takes some concentration to follow what's happening. Several people around me were asleep during Act One, and there were several empty seats around me after intermission. And that's ok, I mean, Lear isn't for everyone, but I love Shakespeare and even I was overwhelmed. I'm glad to have seen Jackson take on a role like that, but lordy it was a painful experience at times.

#122

King Lear

Posted: 3/21/19 at 5:28pm

I don't really understand this notion that the direction somehow gets in the way. If anything, the direction strips away essentially everything except the text. Certainly there's unconventional casting, but I'm not sure how that gets in the way of the text. The text is almost always delivered clearly and without much modification. If it's a slog it's Shakespeare's fault.

Jesus saves. I spend.

#123

King Lear

Posted: 3/21/19 at 6:48pm

"I don't really understand this notion that the direction somehow gets in the way. If anything, the direction strips away essentially everything except the text. Certainly there's unconventional casting, but I'm not sure how that gets in the way of the text. The text is almost always delivered clearly and without much modification. If it's a slog it's Shakespeare's fault."

Perhaps some people are just more "sensory sensitive" than others? Music in the background competes with text. The sign language can be distracting visually. Jayne Houdyshell as Gloucester was such an odd, ineffective casting choice in my opinion that it was distracting and I did NOT think she was clear in her delivery because she was trying to make her voice sound masculine. I didn't mind the double casting of Ruth Wilson as Cordelia and the Fool because I've seen that choice before on stage, but some around me were confused by that. I just felt that there was an awful lot happening, that's all.

Obviously it worked for you, and that's great.

#124

King Lear

Posted: 3/22/19 at 8:03am

I have to agree with Duckie4. The direction CAN affect the text when there are too many interesting but disparate choices made in both casting and presentation. The clutter of the props (dishes and cutlery everywhere), the blandness of the pivotal storm scene, and the wildly uneven performances all distracted from the text.

#125

King Lear

Posted: 3/22/19 at 8:50am

This production left such a bad taste in my mouth, honestly. I need a palate cleanser in the form of Laurie Metcalf and Joe Mantello.

Updated On: 3/22/19 at 08:50 AM

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $73

Tickets From $89

Tickets From $65