Les Liasons Dangereuses

Why did this show not succeed? It sounded so promising, yet when I saw it, it was very disappointing. Thoughts?

Too chaste.

I agree with Henrik -- the play has never worked for me. It feels tawdry and of its time -- the late 1980s -- like a mashup of Masterpiece Theatre and 9 1/2 Weeks. It has little of the novel's wit or intrigue. This production's casting flaws and inert direction just magnified the problems already there.

Yes, I remember quite liking the film, and I think the producers here were thinking that the name recognition from the film association plus having Liev Shreiber would work, but it didn't seem to work, did it? That's why just having a star in a play that inspiried a 1980's movie, is not always the best idea for success. Look at On Yoir Feet, Fun Home and Dear Evan Hansen...all original without big stars. And successful. I think a good story trumps some play or musical which can only tout a star. Look at Hughie with Forest Whitaker. That failed miserably.

"And while Hamilton is based on a biography, it was done with such intelligence, style and intelligence, it works. Not everyone can have the genius of Lin Manuel Miranda"

Are you really comparing Christopher Hampton's skills in adaptations and as a playwright unfavourably with LMM? Admittedly I haven't seen this recent production but surely his body of work (and awards) speak for themselves.

At first I thought A8 was giving us a reference to the "A Little Night Music" song, but then I realized he was pointing out the OP's typo. Much more on brand

It was staged in a much smaller (250 seat) venue.

I never much liked the play. I love the novel and the Stephen Frears motion picture. That movie just reeled me in from the very beginning and although Close and Malkovich gave great performances the real surprise for me was Michelle Pfeiffer's incandescent performance as "Madame Marie de Tourvel".

It is one of her finest.

LightsOut90 said: "can anyone explain why the florescent lights come down during the last scene? I'm still super confused by that.



"

I just saw the show tonight and was wondering the same thing. The entire set overall was the worst part of the show to me. Anyone know their reasoning for not extended the set to the sides? I was sitting in the center Orchestra yet could see the actors walk through the door and see the other side of it, why would this be done on purpose? I saw no benefit from it.

Other then the set I really enjoyed the performances, especially Liev. I haven't seen any other version so maybe that's why I enjoyed it so much.

I normally have pretty good luck with being around well behaved audiences but tonight was the worst. If it says no late seating then don't seat them late. The cast actually waited a minute or so for several groups of people to find their seats after being seated late. The guy in front of me looked and acted like he wanted to be anywhere else and he completely ruined the experience for his wife cause she kept gesturing him to stop.

I saw several people leave early and at intermission but I really enjoyed it so what the hell do I know lol

Updated On: 11/30/16 at 01:15 AM

Yes I forgot about the fluorescent chandeliers. They were strange and didn't seem to fit into an 18th Century chateaux

I intensely disliked the earlier Broadway production, especially Lindsay Duncan, who I found weak and ineffectual in the role. Thought the film was great, although Malkovich was perhaps a tad too slimy, but Glenn Close was as good as she has ever been. Liked the current production a lot, saw it at a late preview, and was surprised at its lackluster critical reception.

Just saw this, tonight and was sorry I didn't stay home and watch Hairspray.

I concluded, about midway through, that one of my favorite novels, has not translated well, into a play. This revival is surely better than the last, with Laura Linney (just dreadful, in every way), but it's not worth your time.

I agree with others that the film is far superior to the play and closer to the novel. This play needs passion and fire to be believable. This play was on quaaludes, downers and prozac, all at the same time. I felt like I was watching a bunch of sixth graders who giggled every time somebody said something "dirty." There was a good bit of laughter, but much of it felt misplaced.

Janet McTeer was lifeless and one-note, from beginning to end. Liev Schreiber didn't have much to work with, from his co-stars and didn't really impress one way or the other. The supporting players ranged from adequate to awful.

The set was ugly and evocative of nothing and I have no idea what the fluorescent lights were all about. It looked like an attempt at a framing device that was dropped, but who knows? Most costumes were okay, but some, stood out, as anachronistic and ugly.

There were some empty seats in the orchestra, after intermission, including the one next to me (although the man slept for the entire 95min first act), but it got a standing ovation and people seemed to enjoy more than I did.

Overall, I didn't hate it, but it was kind of a waste of three hours.

Braniff Forever said: "Yes I forgot about the fluorescent chandeliers. They were strange and didn't seem to fit into an 18th Century chateaux "

Fluorescent lighting is notoriously unflattering - it exposes people and all of their flaws. Because of when it was incorporated, I found it to be an effective choice. Like much of the play, it was unsettling to see, and I appreciated it as an extension of that.

Updated On: 12/17/16 at 09:52 AM