M. BUTTERFLY Previews — Page 4

I've never been much of a Taymor fan. Her work tends to be far too self indulgent for my taste. She does create stunningly beautiful stage pictures and effects, but her productions rarely come together to form a cohesive piece, IMO. I've heard from actors that have worked with her that she doesn't give much rehearsal time to the actual acting or storytelling when she directs, which had me worried about this show.

And I was right. I saw it a couple of nights ago and it kind of fell flat for me. She's clearly trying to rebrand herself as a serious director who can do an acting driven piece, but the set is just ugly and the actors are giving just serviceable performances. She just wasn't the right director for this. Also, Clive Owens is good and all, but he's a mind-numbingly boring choice for this part. He gives a perfectly fine performance, but there are definitely other actors out there that would have been better and more interesting. When you have a character that the whole show is based around, it's probably best to cast someone that isn't so bland. It's just a really sloppy production of a great play.

Gaveston, your comments are as spot-on as ever, but, having explored Noh theatre at length, it is my understanding that audiences do not "pretend" not to see stage hands dressed in black; this convention is so ingrained that audiences claim to actually NOT see stage crew, and can gasp in wonder as scenic elements move "magically". I know I am not from that culture, but that is what I've been assured.

I haven't seen this production of M.Butterfly, but it seems like they haven't got the ritualistic nature of Noh theatre to work for Western eyes, perhaps?

PS This is not meant to be an excuse for self-indulgence or incompetence!

SNAFU said: "Ripped, I have always found Lion king to be very schizophrenic. On one hand it tells a Disney story and it is then laced with Taymor art installations and stage pictures. Yes, it is still raking it in. Good for Disney, Good for Taymor. Personally I found it, after the first 10 minutes and a couple of scenes throughout, to be quite boring. I might be alone in this. I found her earlier off-Broadway work much more appealing.”

I took my parents to see the touring production of The Lion King the first time it toured through Tulsa. Even though it was unpopular to say so at the time, I remember thinking it didn’t live up to my expectations. Also, I leaned over at intermission and asked my mom (who had never seen the movie) if she knew what was going on plot-wise. She had no idea, but loved the visuals. Of course, my mom was likely in the very early stages of undiagnosed (at that time) dementia so that may have played a part, but I only asked her because even though I’d seen the movie, I detected that someone coming to the show as a novice would be totally lost. That seems like at least partially a director-fail.

I have worked with and directed Bunraku style puppets (I have as stated before worked with Julie on many productions). The performers in black does work very well when the are performing a character well. The same way people follow the Avenue Q puppets with the performer visible. It is not a convention you have to be see 9or in this case, not see). It just happens. Sometimes it doesn't work. It depends on what it is used for. If it is to move flats, it has to be done gracefully, hopefully when the performers onstage are drawing your attention away.

Julie has, for the most part, always been the darling of critics. Sometimes I do find it head scratching (Green Bird anyone?). She keeps finding work though and getting butts in seats.

Don't see it.

"A variety of colorful scenes are revealed during the performance - some muted while others boldly red."


For people who did see the show earlier in its run, are these colors newly added or just something which were always there but not striking enough to mention? All the early previews have described the sets simply with "dull", "grey", and "drab" definitions.

So I was there this afternoon as well and I had a decidedly different opinion on the production. First, I will say that our TDF tickets were Orchestra, first row on the side aisle. We were sitting next to a script PA and had a brief chat about the script changes and tech issues that are occurring during this first full week of previews. I suspect that this very close perspective may have helped me enjoy the production far more than the previous poster did who was in the balcony. After hearing of the tech disaster all week on this board I found the show ran rather smoothly. Yes, a few times the panels didn't align that smoothly but all in all I went with the concept. Moving panels are very much a part of the classical Chinese theatre mes en scene and the difference between the bright colors of pageantry alternating with the metallic grey panels representing the literal prison in Paris and the colorless world of Mao's China worked in concept. It was indeed rather repetitious and in no way will anyone go out of that theatre humming the scenery but I accepted it. I found the play to be reasonably taught and engrossing and I found all of the performances to be solid. I did see the original production 30 years ago and remember John Dexter's brilliant concept and indeed this one is inferior but again, I went with it. Was it my proximity to the stage with all that massive legroom while watching the intimacy of Clive Owen's and Jin Ha's work? Perhaps. This production just might need a closer perspective than a Broadway two level balcony can provide which again is a legitimate criticism of the production. Finally, I do have to say that the audience response was very strong. Yes, the requisite standing O but a very loud and vocal reaction as well. I was pleasantly satisfied with the production considering all of the negativity that I hear in this thread. Looking forward to see what the critical response will be.

Jordan Catalano said: "I was in the front of the balcony and had no problem with it so I’m not sure if being closer will change anyone so perception. I really did find it to be a beautiful and moving show that’s going to get sh*t on solely because of people’s ideas of Taymor.

This is interesting as I agree that Taymor can spark a reflexive backlash similar to John Doyle.

Others have noted specific elements of the staging and acting that did not work for them though. It sounds like you did not experience those the same way or found them less problematic? I am on the fence about seeing this production.

The panels even look crooked in their production shots.

I mean...or not.

Saw this last night and didn’t think it was nearly as bad as mostly everyone has been saying around here... it probably did help to go in with low expectations though... it was my introduction to M. Butterfly, that probably helped too.

I didn’t find the panels to be annoying or ugly, it actually worked for me, I’m usually annoyed by stagehands walking on stage to set something up, but I thought it actually worked brilliantly here, the whole thing flowed very nicely.

All I have to say to people not planning to see this because a couple of opinions here, just go see it and judge for yourself. I’m glad I didn’t skip on this one, even if the staging isn’t a gorgeous as the original that someone posted a photo here, it’s still a very good play.

BroadwayLuv2 said: "RUSH REPORT

Rushed today. I got to the theater at 9:20 and was first in line. The second person arrived at 9:35 and said she had been there the day before at about the same time and was 8th in line but couldn't get tickets as they only distributed 11 seats. At 10 am today there were 5 people in line. I got 2 seats Orchestra Row AA Seats 101 and 102.

I noticed online that the seating chart for the Corthas 11 seats in Row AA, so I'm guessing the 11 seats they do for Rush are these seats."

My TDF tickets last Sunday weret AA 1,3 on the aisle. I enjoyed the show quite a bit from that vantage point.