Posted: 4/27/16 at 5:01pm
Please be sure to post the reviews right here!
Updated On: 4/27/16 at 05:01 PM
Posted: 4/27/16 at 6:57pm
Posted: 4/27/16 at 10:03pm
Some more reviews are in. 6 are positive, the other 2, not so much.
https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessagemodern.php?thread=1092319&m=4794363&boardid=0
Posted: 4/27/16 at 10:12pm
Ben Brantley has weighed in...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/theater/review-long-days-journey-into-night-is-a-tempest-in-a-bourbon-bottle.html
Posted: 4/27/16 at 10:13pm
"Gabriel Byrne, Jessica Lange, Michael Shannon and John Gallagher Jr. who are providing the thunder and lightning...Yet you can't avoid the feeling that this tempestuous climate is artificially controlled." Interesting.
Posted: 4/27/16 at 10:14pm
Brantley: "You can feel Ms. Lange giving her all to each of her big set pieces, but they often feel too exquisitely self-contained, like coloratura arias in an opera. Ms. Lange is often acting beautifully, but she is also often palpably acting. And her final soliloquy is stretched self-indulgently thin."
Ouch. I was expecting total raves for Lange.
Posted: 4/27/16 at 10:19pm
The fact that people still listen to what this guy says is flat out amazing. He has an inflated sense of his own importance and seems to think he is above it all. Now we can all assess everything now that the king has rendered his verdict.
Posted: 4/27/16 at 10:24pm
Mr Roxy said: "The fact that people still listen to what this guy says is flat out amazing. He has an inflated sense of his own importance and seems to think he is above it all. Now we can all assess everything now that the king has rendered his verdict.
I have found over the years that I have enjoyed every single show that Mr. Brantley has recommended. Since I haven't seen every show, I cant say whether I've just been lucky.
The lead critic for the NY Times has always, up until now, been the admitted "dean" of the profession. Perhaps that is/will change. But I don't think it would be wrong if he did consider himself a bit of a success.
After all, there was both a recent show and a current website which adopt his importance as a key element.
Posted: 4/27/16 at 10:25pm
How many shows that he panned did you like if you saw them?
Posted: 4/27/16 at 10:36pm
I disagree with Brantley, rather strongly, about Lange's Mary. But I get why he said what he said. I thought it was a dangerous performance, more self-aware than other Marys, larger, yes, a healthy dose of Williams blended into the O'Neill. But brilliantly conceived, stunningly executed. I'm not surprised that her work isn't universally praised here. But she takes great risks, and that's the thrill. (And it is thrilling.) She had me in tears twice, in part because Mary provoked them, and no doubt in part because Lange, artist, went for broke.
Posted: 4/27/16 at 10:36pm
Funny, reading Brantley's review it seemed he could've used a good editor too! Dare I say a self-indulgent pan! What an ass- I have tickets to see this and from all people I've heard that have seen it said the time flies by. Also, I understand what he is saying that the energy seems contained, however, when emotions run so high in a show like this, it is important contain your energy as not to really hurt your fellow actors. The choices you make can be bold, but if "lapels are grabbed" and "bodies are launched at the floor" or wtf ever he said, that's the reason that fight directors make a living! If this review was so inept, I can't wait to see what he thinks of "A Streetcar Named Desire" an, imo, near perfect production.
Posted: 4/27/16 at 11:41pm
Actually usually agree with Brantley, but I think he was dismissive here. So silly that he shares a paper with Isherwood, who will praise anything with a lot of camp that appeals to his nostalgia or laziness as an audience member.
Posted: 4/27/16 at 11:47pm
I actually agree with Brantley's review here except I didn't love Byrne as much as he did. I found Michael Shannon to be far more successful. I think it's a totally fair review. But again, people call him "wrong" for having a different opinion than theirs. And no, phillytheatreguy10, for me the time did NOT fly by. I felt every minute of the 3 3/4 hours.
Posted: 4/28/16 at 12:14am
Chris Jones from the Chicago tribune, whose reviews I usually agree with, really didn't seem to like the performances. He also mixes up Edmund and Jamie at one point, referring to Jamie as sickly and ill with consumption. http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/theater/broadway/sc-long-days-journey-into-night-broadway-ent-0427-20160427-column.html
i am surprised to see so many negative reviews. I enjoyed it quite a bit. I did think the end dragged a bit but I don't know if that was the play itself or the production, as this was the first time I've seen it.
Update: Jones has now fixed the mistake in the review.
Updated On: 4/28/16 at 12:14 AM
Posted: 4/28/16 at 7:13am
I think most of the reviews are spot on.
One in particular mentions Gallagher's act four speech. I was also struck by the choices made here. It seemed clear to me that these were directorial decisions rather than Gallagher's himself. And I'm not sure they worked. It is a long speech. He delivers the whole thing locked in one spot leaning against the mantle. It is delivered in a near monotone. Quite stilted. I understand that he is intended to be primarily in his own mind at this moment but it sure didn't help us to connect with him.
Am I wrong here? I don't pretend to be particularly profound or insightful but I love his acting and I knew this was his big moment and it just didn't seem to work.
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
Updated On: 4/28/16 at 07:13 AM
Posted: 4/28/16 at 8:27am
Brantley effectively put into words a lot of what I felt when I saw the show. But I saw the first preview and figured things would coalesce and even out after a couple weeks. It sounds like they haven’t.
Posted: 4/28/16 at 9:06am
themysteriousgrowl, I saw the first preview too and I saw it again about 2 weeks later. It is actually better than it was then. The relationships and characters are more defined. But it seems like Brantley & McNulty of the LA Times had their minds made up to pan it before they even saw it.
I understand the directorial criticisms, though I don't agree, but I think outright panning the production is just absurd.
Updated On: 4/28/16 at 09:06 AM
Posted: 4/28/16 at 9:13am
Neon, no disrespect meant, but it seems clear from your comments here and on the other thread that you can't process how anyone could feel differently about this production than you do. Many of us do, though, and it's not because we didn't understand it or made up our minds in advance. Brantley's review aligns almost completely with my feelings on this production -- except I think he overpraised Byrne. And for the record I saw the production for the first time just a few days ago.
Posted: 4/28/16 at 9:16am
I certainly can understand that people feel differently. I just don't think it's right to pan the production because it's not in line with Long Day's Journeys that he's seen in the past. I think this production and these actors are doing it differently, yes, but that doesn't mean it's bad. I think there's a difference between, "I respect the choices that are being made here, but I don't like them" and Brantley's review, which is completely dismissive. These aren't exactly amateurs putting up this show.
Posted: 4/28/16 at 9:26am
I don’t read the Times review as a pan or as dismissive. To me, it’s very even-handed. I have no basis for an opinion on how much the show has or has not evolved since the first preview, but what Brantley describes is very much what I saw onstage.
Posted: 4/28/16 at 9:28am
Comden Green said: "I think most of the reviews are spot on.
One in particular mentions Gallagher's act four speech. I was also struck by the choices made here. It seemed clear to me that these were directorial decisions rather than Gallagher's himself. And I'm not sure they worked. It is a long speech. He delivers the whole thing locked in one spot leaning against the mantle. It is delivered in a near monotone. Quite stilted. I understand that he is intended to be primarily in his own mind at this moment but it sure didn't help us to connect with him.
Am I wrong here? I don't pretend to be particularly profound or insightful but I love his acting and I knew this was his big moment and it just didn't seem to work.
Anyone else have thoughts on this?"
Most of Act 4 didn't work for me, which was a shame considering it comes right off the (to me) high of Lange's speech. It was the only time during the show that I felt every minute of the runtime, primarily because the James/Edmund scene wasn't as compelling as the show thinks it is. It's a long downbeat that perks up slightly when Michael Shannon returns, but even then there's another 30 minutes of show to go.
Posted: 4/28/16 at 11:33am
The NYT review echoed how I felt about it too, though I also thought Byrne was overpraised. (Michael Shannon was the acting highlight, for me.) I didn't know the play at all, and it did feel really, really long to me, and frankly a bit pretentious. I had chalked this up to my own lack of knowledge of the material and figured it was just over my head, but it's sort of nice to see from some of the reviews that it wasn't just me.
Posted: 4/28/16 at 12:39pm
Roma Torre of NY 1 gave it a very good review. Saw it in a previous incarnation and enjoyed it back than. I also have a filmed version of it along with a ton of other titles from a company long since gone that I got at Footlight. They were mostly straight plays but the had a filmed version (a little abridged) of the original Working. It is basically set pieces for each song.
Posted: 4/28/16 at 12:49pm
I agree with MysteriousGrowl. One might agree with Brantley or not about this Long Day's Journey, but what about his review is dismissive of the production or the performances, let alone "completely dismissive"?
Have we gotten to the point where any mixed review is considered a hatchet job?
Posted: 4/28/16 at 1:05pm
Clearly Brantley didn't like the production. With the exception of reviews from Chicago and LA, all the others have been very strong, most citing Lange as giving an incredible performance. The show is selling very well and the show and Lange have been recognized by all of the awards groups thus far. Actually, given the praise for Lange, I think she is the front runner for the Tony. I respect Brantley, I just disagree with some of his comments on this show.
