M. BUTTERFLY Previews- Page 5

[ArtMan]

Posted: 10/20/17 at 10:32pm

BalconyClub said: "From the full balcony Saturday night, the sight lines were good and the words heard. A great value for $39 for seat G1 in the top row.

I liked the gray panels, as I interpreted their use as a cell for both lead characters. From reading previous posts, the panels are now handled better.

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

BalconyClub, Great to hear your view from G1 was a positive experience.  I will only be in NYC for less than 48 hours and really wanted to rush this, in able to view from front row.  However, my The View ticket was released and have to be there before 9 am.  So rush is out.  So I purchased a ticket (had to pay those fees!!) and got F1.  So I will hope that my seat is the same or a little better.  Of course, if it doesn't sell out, I will be reloclating.  Or that at least, is the plan.

[BroadwayLuv2]

Posted: 10/21/17 at 12:08am

nycward said: "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.

"

The Seats were great.  Really loved the performances and the production.  Highly reccomend!

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 10/21/17 at 2:40am

Seeing the panels in those photos, I'm even more confused. What does everyone mean about them not aligning? I'd assumed they were supposed to match up to form a picture and that wasn't happening.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/21/17 at 7:39am

devonian.t said: "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!"

You and SNAFU are absolutely right, of course. One needs to "pretend" only until one gets used to the convention. (The same is true in Western theater: we get used to ignoring raked staged, hanging lights, cloth legs, modern dress in Elizabethan England, etc. and so forth.) I found that even on film, the bunraku puppeteers disappear pretty quickly because so much skill is invested in the movements of the puppets.

 

I wrote that the Japanese "pretend" because if I said the Japanese just don't see the stage attendants, it would sound like they were blind to the color black or something equally absurd.

[LxGstv]

Posted: 10/21/17 at 10:38am

VintageSnarker said: "Seeing the panels in those photos, I'm even more confused. What does everyone mean about them not aligning? I'd assumed they were supposed to match up to form a picture and that wasn't happening."

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

That photo that was posted of the panels is during a scene where all of the panels are rotating at the same time, so they are not suppose to be aligned.

During other scenes they use anywhere from 2 to 4 or 5 panels to create either an apartment or office space. Because they are panels moved by a person, they sometimes don’t always stick close together. It’s a really small issue to be honest. I was expecting something much worse. Granted, it could have been a lot worse during early previews. But when I saw it on Thursday it wasn’t bad at all. I was enjoying the performance instead of looking for flaws.

 

[DeepVSexyWitch2]

Posted: 10/22/17 at 7:31pm

Was there this afternoon and all I can say is "meh". A subpar production of a brilliant play. Clive Owens is giving a snooze inducing performance. I don't understand the cuts they made to the text, including the "weenie" monologue which I adore. It's fine. The audience around me was very very confused and I don't blame them. I know the show pretty well and even I was questioning stuff I knew because of the staging. 

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 10/24/17 at 8:50pm

Just left this thing at intermission. On my way home. This was as boring as previous posters have mentioned. It seems like everyone is just trying to get through it. Ouch.

[Play Esq.]

Posted: 10/24/17 at 9:01pm

YES!!!! We left too!  That was insufferable and so incredibly ugly and CHEAP!  Also, have you ever heard such reluctant clapping at the close of an act before intermission?

[mamaleh]

Posted: 10/25/17 at 10:46am

Perhaps because I never saw the original production, nor do I remember much about the Jeremy Irons film version, I enjoyed this production.  I thought Clive Owen and Jin Ha both very effective and moving.  But perhaps someone could explain (in a spoiler alert, of course) the new elements in this "revisal," what is the "weenie" monologue, and whether the ending is the same in both versions.  Thanks.

[ArtMan]

Posted: 10/25/17 at 6:09pm

Thearegoer3,  Your choice of wording "just left this thing" has made me laugh several times.  I see it on November 1.  I only get to see two shows this trip, so I hope I'm somewhat entertained.

Updated On: 10/25/17 at 06:09 PM

[Alfie6]

Posted: 10/26/17 at 12:03pm

Clive Owen and Jin Ha were great but this production is pretty lackluster. I went in cold (didn't read the wiki page/see the movie) and I thought it was all just fine but nothing I would tell people they need to see immediately. I am sure the original production was out of this world. There has been a lot said about the panels, yes they are hideous and one actually got stuck when I went so it was a bit distracting having stagehands descend trying to move it along. I could understand if I went in early previews but at this point the set shouldn't be sticking. I wonder if anyone else had this experience but I found it difficult to hear from my seat in the balcony, Jin Ha especially. The view was excellent but I was definitely struggling with some lines. This wasn't torture to sit through and I wouldn't tell people to avoid it by any means but it was all so flat. 

[little_sally]

Posted: 10/26/17 at 1:01pm

This production doesn't do the play any favors. It drags and the whole thing is ugly. The panels are terrible; they're unattractive and cheap-looking, and from my seat in the orchestra, they always looked crooked. Clive Owen and Jin Ha are fine but nothing special; the production doesn't really let their performances be great. Also, I didn't think they had any chemistry at all.

[little_sally]

Posted: 10/26/17 at 2:31pm

Also, I should just say that it ran about 2:25 last night.

[Fordham2015]

Posted: 10/26/17 at 3:30pm

Weird, on Playbill it says two hours- thanks. Seeing this Sunday

[little_sally]

Posted: 10/26/17 at 3:51pm

Fordham2015 said: "Weird, on Playbill it says two hours- thanks. Seeing this Sunday"

I went in expecting 2 hours until I heard an usher last night tell another audience member they should be done by 9:25 (it was a 7pm curtain.)  Telecharge says 2:20, which is about right. The first act was about 1:20 last night.

[10086sunset]

Posted: 10/26/17 at 9:54pm

I found the production to be a mixed bag.

Maybe that’s too kind. Maybe seeing it tonight has me giving it a more generous pass than it deserves. Perhaps I’m guilty of being caught up in the opening night energy.

While the panels didn’t bother me, I can easily understand why so many have reacted negatively.

I thought the strongest piece of the production was the script. Hwang is excellent and I’m thankful his masterwork is getting another Broadway production. The weakest piece was the performances. I kept waiting and wanting Jin Ha to touch the seductiveness that B.D. Wong defined. It simply never happened. 

Being a huge Taymor fan, perhaps the biggest disappointment was that her vision simply felt boring.

Updated On: 10/26/17 at 09:54 PM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 10/27/17 at 1:23am

I wonder if Taymor just didn't connect with the material or what? I feel like this show would let itself well to a "visionary" director, but alas. Maybe she felt she needed to be totally different from the original, so instead of starkness she went super extra? I've not seen it yet - a friend in the production won't let me go until after opening - but I'm curious to see it. 

[blaxx]

Posted: 10/27/17 at 2:36am

RippedMan said: "I wonder if Taymor just didn't connect with the material or what? I feel like this show would let itself well to a "visionary" director, but alas.

 

How? The play is character driven, she constructs visuals, not characters.She was an awful choice for it. Will disappear into oblivion.

[Valentina3]

Posted: 10/28/17 at 9:01pm

RippedMan said: "FYI, The cast is on a different contract, but they're basically signed for a few months after Clive leaves... wonder if they have anyone lined up?"

So.. this is completely unverified, but I was thinking about this play today, as I have everyday since I saw it a week ago, and remembered this comment. I started thinking of who else I want to see as Gallimard (I personally thought Clive Owen was a brilliant choice if only very under-directed in this production); another thought I had at the same time was an offhand comment by a beloved star that he will be back on Broadway sooner than you'd think. I put those together.

What if Raul Esparza is Clive Owen's replacement? I would DIE. I would actually quite honestly watch this show again and probably multiple times if that's the case.

[rebeccmam31]

Posted: 10/29/17 at 3:55pm

During last night’s show a steel rod that drops a robe fell to the stage narrowly missing hitting Jin Ha. He remained composed and just moved it but it was a scary moment.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/29/17 at 4:43pm

Ugh, I hate hearing about stage accidents, thank goodness no one was hurt.    

[Boston Friend]

Posted: 10/29/17 at 8:00pm

I was there too. Jin Ha handled it well. 

By the way Raul Castillo (from Looking on HBO) was there too. Probably supporting Murray Bartlett. 

[Fordham2015]

Posted: 10/29/17 at 9:02pm

I saw M Butterfly today and had basically the opposite reaction of everyone on this board- I thought it was very well done.

Hwang's revised script was smart and clever without being too explainer-y (my main problem with plays like Oslo).

Taymor handled the big opera numbers very well (no surprise given her background) but I thought the smaller scenes with just one or two characters were also very smartly staged.

I had no problem with the panels that have been the subject of such ridicule. I actually liked how they were used throughout the show as both opera backdrops and general set pieces.

The lead actors were both quite strong. Owen was his usual suave self while still showing the complicated feelings roiling beneath the surface- his final scene was handled especially well IMHO.

And Ha made a very assured Broadway debut- he gave Song an air of mysterious sexiness which I thought worked perfectly. His big reveal at the end gave the requisite shock value without seeming exploitative.

I certainly see why the show has provoked mixed reactions among both critics and audience members- Taymor's work usually does. But I ended up liking this quite a bit more than I expected.

[Gizmo6]

Posted: 11/24/17 at 1:22pm

I saw this on Wednesday Matinee. Clive Owen was out, stuck over the atlantic we were informed. I was for the rush and was more interested in the play than the cast. 

Anyway, I don't think it was as terrible as some posters/critics have made out. Yes it is a very different Butterfly to the original. 

The crux of the problem for me lies in the lack of transformation. The original play is about transformation but the creatives believed 21st century audiences to cynical to believe in the the power of transformation. 

At its essence it lacked magic, the magic of cross dressing and theatrical magic, it was Brechtian in the sense that it broke the fourth wall in terms of direct address and revealing the inner workings of the play. 

So I think what people felt was essentially an alienation effect. 

That's my two cents. Also the understudy Thomas was good.