LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT Previews- Page 7

[Copperfield2]

Posted: 4/25/16 at 12:08pm

neonlightsxo said: ""Gallagher Jr. seemed terribly miscast."

 

I'm genuinely confused what you mean by this. As far as type goes, he's ideal for Edmund. It's fine if you mean you didn't like his performance, but please explain?


I thought Gallagher was well cast, actually, though he isn't as hammy as Shannon and some find his performance underwhelming.

 

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 4/25/16 at 1:17pm

I understand "underwhelming," he's always been a subtle actor, but to say he's bad in the role, or that he doesn't pull it off, is not only unfair but untrue. That's just my take.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 4/27/16 at 12:41pm

I finally caught this last night, and I have to say that I feel like I must be going crazy this season with the play revivals.  First a View From The Bridge, then The Crucible, and now this.  I have to say, the whole thing didn't really work for me. I found the direction to be completely misguided.  Everything was directed with quick ups and downs to the point where it felt like there were no stakes.  Everything was a small spat that was quickly resolved rather than a small boil that continued to build steadily throughout.  In Act 2, when James says "It's YOU who's leaving US!" I felt absolutely nothing.  That's supposed to be his big moment.

All four major actors felt like they were in different plays to me (and I found the girl playing Cathleen to be unbearable).  For me, Jessica started out far too heightened, giving her nowhere to go.  Conversely, I found her to be FAR too lucid in her final scene of Act 4. Bitch has just taken loads and loads of morphine, and she's standing solidly upright and talking in a very pointed but calm manner? Didn't buy it.  Also, I found that many of the lines which indicate her addiction and should be to herself or said in a rage (but to the audience) were directed at her castmates, almost making it seem like she was intentionally rubbing her addiction in their faces.  This is fine except that the follow up line is always "I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT."  It just seemed like a weird character choice to me.

As for Gabriel Byrne, I wanted to tie his hands behind his back because they were so distracting.  He was indicating every single line, and it drove me nuts.  John Gallagher Jr (whom I usually adore... his performance in Rabbit Hole is still one of my favorites) was laughably terrible.  I was actually embarrassed for him. His big monologue in the second half... it felt to me like he didn't understand the significance of what he was saying.

The only successful person on stage for me was Michael Shannon who seemed very natural in Acts 1 and 2, not ever foraying into a heightened state.  In Act 4, his big scene with Edmund was perfection.  You could really feel his inner torment without him showing it to the audience.  I felt like the other three actors were Acting with a capital A in order to get the audience to understand them.

I thought the design was beautiful to the detriment of the show.  The floor paneling in particular was stunning, but I couldn't help but feel that this wasn't a house that was cheaply designed and had corners cut.  I did like the color scheme, but I found everything to be a little too grand (especially the LOOOOONG staircase) considering how often the characters discuss how the house needs improvements.

This all might be me nitpicking since I absolutely love this play and thought the Laurie Metcalf production in London was incredible, but overall I walked away fairly disappointed.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 4/27/16 at 1:02pm

"I finally caught this last night, and I have to say that I feel like I must be going crazy this season with the play revivals.  First a View From The Bridge, then The Crucible, and now this. "

 

Do you think maybe it's just you?

[bjh2114]

Posted: 4/27/16 at 3:52pm

Unless the other 3 people who saw Long Day's with me last night are also in the same boat, I'm going to say no.  I just don't think these revivals are actually as groundbreaking as people are making them out to be (though I suppose that word hasn't been used by the critics for Long Day's... yet).

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 7:32pm

I just saw this at the matinee today. I had been looking forward to it for a while, and recently read the play for the first time (I know, I'm not as familiar with O'Neil as I need to be). Let me start by saying that I read the play up until the end of Act III thinking it brilliant, and then that night when I read Act IV I was so disappointed, especially with the buildup of the previous three acts. I felt mostly the same about this production. It was worth it but I had many quibbles with the direction and cast.

The set is gorgeous, which is kind of odd when every character is talking about how run down and cheaply made it is. I loved the moving curtain at the opening and then thought is was overused between every act/scene. Both Michael Shannon and John Gallagher, Jr. seemed to be using "character voices" the entire show and neither seemed particularly suited to the text. Gallagher, in particular, seemed to think he was playing Treplev in The Seagull, bringing a comic hamminess to every dramatic line. His big Act IV monologue about the sea was the low point of the evening, as even he didn't seem to care much about what he was saying. Shannon does his best in his scenes, but he was in so little of the play it hardly mattered. His scene at the end where he reveals he will eventually destroy Edmund was a highlight.

Gabriel Byrne was great, showcasing his skills in his scenes and bringing a great intensity to his monologue about growing up poor and choosing commercialism over artistry. However, even he cannot save the deathly leaden fourth act. Just from this performance, at least a half hour could be cut from it without much notice. The constant quoting is particularly annoying and the more important and interesting parts seemed to be buried in the mire.

Throughout the play characters seem to be wandering aimlessly through the room with no purpose as though they had been given no direction. The fog that swirled outside also swirled inside the dining room, for some reason. Each scene/act gave away its ending by fading the light even as the actors were still speaking, when I feel the last lines would have landed better with a beat before the transition. I feel like most of the low points of the show could have been saved with a better director.

But most of these quibbles can be excused for the ferocity of Jessica Lange's performance. Every time she was on stage, the room was filled with life. Her slow descent was gripping and her conflicting delusions and bitter self acceptance were a thrill to experience. Act III gave her the most room to fully showcase her prowess, her voice high and lilting one moment, and low and rumbling the next. Her many monologues were phenomenal and her scenes with Byrne were thrilling. That was a taste at what the production could have been: two incredible actors fully embodying their characters. The final scene of the play was a bit of a let down, as her monologue was stretched a bit thin by how slow she spoke, and the voice she used when in memory was very hard to hear up in the mezzanine. But the last line gave me chills, and I can't forget her face as the lights faded out.

"I fell in love with James Tyrone and was very happy... for a while."

Updated On: 5/4/16 at 07:32 PM