Mrs. Warren's Profession Starts Previews Tonight- Page 2

[mikem]

Posted: 9/5/10 at 12:44am

Bye Bye Birdie had color Playbills for about a month after opening. It was very brief. As far as I know, that is the only time either Roundabout or Manhattan Theatre Club has had color Playbills.

[April Saul]

Posted: 9/5/10 at 1:48am

I don't usually have a problem with British accents, but from my $10 mezz seat, it was a bit tough to understand them; George Bernard Shaw is also very word-y, so that didn't help. I have to say the issue cleared up when I scored a third row orchestra seat for the second act, and from there, I really enjoyed the drama between Hawkins, who really is the star here, and Cherry, who would be excellent no matter what accent she chose to use.

The play won't be for everyone's tastes--interesting that it was wildly controversial and even censored when Shaw first wrote it and today many will find it boring--but it raises interesting issues and is definitely a cut above a lot of recent Roundabout offerings. I'd put it on the same level as say, Pygmalion...And I think it helps to be in close proximity to the stage.

A few of us down front did give it a standing "O" tonight, although for me, it wasn't so much that I thought that the play was a home run, but that Jones and Hawkins had really put their hearts into it and I wanted to show my gratitude and encourage them.

[After Eight]

Posted: 9/5/10 at 8:17am

I found it a worthy production, the best from the Roundabout in a long time. The play is well acted and thought provoking, though I felt it ran down somewhat in the second act.

[April Saul]

Posted: 9/5/10 at 10:10am

And I know others have spoken here of the stage curtain, which is unlike any I've ever seen. If anyone knows how curtain design has may be significant in terms of the themes of the play, I'd love to know...

[masb19872]

Posted: 9/5/10 at 1:15pm

I enjoyed the production overall, but agree that at times it was difficult to understand some of the actors. There was occasional slurring of words, due to accents. But for the most part, strong performances, and a great production of an intriguing play.

[Luv2goToShows]

Posted: 9/5/10 at 3:15pm

I also had a hard time understanding some of the words, thought it was me.

[matty159]

Posted: 9/5/10 at 5:32pm

Just got home from today's matinee...

Overall, I liked it. The true star of the production really is Sally Hawkins. I thought she was magnificent. I also really enjoyed the performances by Edward Hibbert and Michael Siberry.

As for Cherry Jones...she gives a commanding performance...if only it weren't for that accent. It drove me completely crazy. It wasn't that I was unable to understand her, it was the in-and-out of British/Cherry Jones voice that I found annoying at times.

I found the transition music very good...something that doesn' usually stand out unless it is remarkably good or bad. And I too would like some insight on the show curtain. WTF?!?!

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/5/10 at 5:47pm

What is the running time?

[matty159]

Posted: 9/5/10 at 6:07pm

2:15...with intermission. Each act is pretty much one hour exactly.
Updated On: 9/5/10 at 06:07 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/5/10 at 10:37pm

So I just got back from this and all I'll say is that if Mrs. Warrens actual profession involves boring an audience for two hours than she deserves a raise.

[theaterkid1015]

Posted: 9/6/10 at 12:06am

Pleasantly surprised by this production this afternoon. I did not expect it to be in such good shape at only a 4th preview (considering the difficulty of the material.) I think it could grow into something really impressive. Cherry Jones definitely slides in and out of dialect, but I think/hope that will get more consistent.

Definitely a play with a huge intellectual impact as opposed to emotional. I think that's turning a lot of people off, but I'm also fairly certain that's always turned people off to Shaw.

[mallardo]

Posted: 9/6/10 at 7:17am

But the final mother-daughter confrontation should have a big emotional impact. Are you saying it doesn't here?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 9/6/10 at 11:53am

We saw it yesterday & we enjoyed it.

We sat upstairs & the great things about the theater is no matter where you sit you have a great seat. I am not a big fan of continental seating however.

The first scene was a bit dated but it picked up after that. The sets, especially for such a short run, were flat out amazing. The curtain is from hunger however.

Cherry Jones is the whole reason many will see the show.Sally Hawkins, as the daughter, is very good & their final confrontation is powerful. The rest of the cast is very good also.

The play is dated but the show as a whole is very good. We give it an 8.

[After Eight]

Posted: 9/6/10 at 11:57am

From Whizzer:

"Did anyone see the revival in the 70s with Lynn Redgrave. "


That was a very good production. Lynn Redgarve was excellent, displaying a little more warmth than Sally Hawkins, which I think the role needs. Edward Hermann was also very good, and won a Tony for his performance. The problem was with Ruth Gordon, who was miscast in the role. She was much too old, and by then her mannerisms had devolved into caricature.



From mallardo:

"But the final mother-daughter confrontation should have a big emotional impact. Are you saying it doesn't here?"


To be honest, I don't think it does have the emotional impact it should have. As I said, I think the play ran down in the second act. But I still think that overall, they did a good a job with this play.

[April Saul]

Posted: 9/6/10 at 11:59am

Mallardo--Yes, I'd say the emotional impact in the final scene with the women is there, and I'm sure they'll only get better further into the run. I'd probably give the production a B+ but if you are a lover of Shaw and wait a while to see it, it might be terrific for you.

[theaterkid1015]

Posted: 9/6/10 at 12:13pm

Maybe it should hold more of an emotional whallop, but I feel the point of the play is more about the economic situation and how people have to do what they do to survive and less about it tearing apart a family. Maybe I'm seeing it a little too cold-heartedly.

[MiracleElixir]

Posted: 9/6/10 at 12:25pm

The final scene does hold an emotional impact, but everything prior to it is a bit dry/academic. It's the problem with revivals of shows that were/are more about an overarching theme/message than story or character-driven -- Mrs. Warren and Miss Warren aren't actually fleshed-out people, just more mouthpieces and symbols for ideas.

It's not until the final scene when it feels like Jones and Hawkins really have characters to sink their teeth into. It doesn't make the play unsatisfying per se, but it doesn't really give an audience a lot to be invested in for the first 3/4 or so, unless looking at pretty sets and costumes (and giddy joy just at SEEING actors you like) is enough for you.

[wonkit]

Posted: 9/6/10 at 12:27pm

I'll be at the Wednesday matinee this week. I love Shaw, but I make a point of reading his plays just before seeing them. I need to be reminded what the arc is so that I don't let all the words get in the way. I've never seen this in production before. Doesn't seem like an easy choice on Roundabout's part.

[Calvin]

Posted: 9/8/10 at 11:48am

Did any of you guys ever watch the series "Spaced"? Cherry Jones' accent reminded me of the landlady from that show.

At any rate, I'm with a lot of the earlier reviews after seeing it last night. A bit plodding in spots, but well-performed overall and a nice debut for Sally Hawkins (if you haven't seen Happy Go Lucky, put it in your Netflix queue, btw). Certainly one of the least problematic productions launched by Roundabout in recent years. Just sitting in that theatre makes me shiver about some of the things I've sat through in there. The Philanthropist still ranks as one of my most miserable experiences on Broadway ever.

Btw, did anyone notice the glaring error in the Playbill article about Cherry Jones where they mention her co-star Alison Pill?

[wonkit]

Posted: 9/8/10 at 9:26pm

I was at today's matinee, and I was very impressed by the beautiful physical production and the wonderful ensemble playing by everyone in the cast. Cherry Jones' accent coming and going didn't bother me because it seemed that her coarser accent always came out when she was upset. I thought Sally Hawkins has an excellent grasp of her character, but I did have difficulty understanding her from time to time, especially when she was facing away from me. I particularly liked both Edward Hibbert (as Praed) and Adam Driver (as Frank). Let's face it - Shaw's plays are always rather like reading a well written Socialist tract, so it isn't easy to "like" his plays, but this production is very effective.

[mallardo]

Posted: 9/9/10 at 2:04pm

What aspect of Mrs. Warren's Profession brings to mind a "socialist tract"?

[brightasyellow]

Posted: 9/9/10 at 4:45pm

I'm seeing this on the 23rd. Do you think reading the play ahead of time would help since some of the dialogue is hard to hear?

[wonkit]

Posted: 9/9/10 at 4:46pm

mallardo re: your socialist tract question:

Where do I start? And the following discussion is probably a SPOILER - if you haven't read or seen the play, or don't know its history, or Shaw's.

Every word out of Kitty's mouth about the limited opportunities for lower class women is meant as a condemnation of the capitalist exploitation of women for the benefit of the upper classes, as demonstrated by Crofts' appreciation of his 35% return on capital from Kitty's "private hotels." Vivie is herself an outcast because she intends to work and live more like a man than a genteel woman (shades of Eliza Doolittle, BTW). Frank will come to nothing because he cannot earn a living and won't live off a working woman's money (although he is directed to marry well, as it is socially acceptable to live off an heiress's funds).

If you know anything about Shaw's own political views, which he was not at all shy about expressing, it is clear that he very much wanted his dramas to have a point of view, and it was not a view favorable to the inequities of English society. The early outcry against PROFESSION was said to be on moral grounds (how can he be so supportive of prostitution?? the censors cried) but it was also the English society of the day closing ranks against SHaw's suggestion that it wasn't prostitution that was bad, it was poverty.
Updated On: 9/9/10 at 04:46 PM

[jnthnxlent]

Posted: 9/10/10 at 9:37am

Saw this last night in previews, and here's what I thought:

First off, I thought the curtain was pretty cool it didn't bother me too much. The show itself...not so much. Let me say right off the bat the acting was pretty phenomenal from the entire cast. The sets were the best I've seen from a play, like i mean they were ridiculously good and were built to what seemed like a very high standard. Now the story itself was mildly interesting but not reading the book beforehand I was very confusing during many points of the show. They did not explain many things, and from scene to scene the relationships between the characters kept changing very drastically. This me either think that Sally Hawkins character was either bi-polar, or I was missing something. Towards the end (leading up the final scene) the play becomes increasingly drawn out and dull, and though the final scene packs an emotional wallop...I did not appreciate how it ended as I felt extremely depressed after it was over, not so much moved and depressed as I usually feel with plays such as this.
Overall I think it may be worth seeing for the sets and performances alone...but if you are not a fan of "kinda boring" plays...I'd skip this one.

[wonkit]

Posted: 9/10/10 at 9:51am

brightasyellow - I would definitely read the play before seeing it (see my earlier post). Shaw is very wordy, like someone who is showing off at a party about how smart and socially conscious he is. If you read the play beforehand, it will help you sort out who's who, and perhaps better understand why Vivie and her mum don't get along. It seems to me that the reason I liked Praed and Frank as characters is that they are the best written of the lot. How like Shaw to make the female characters sympathetic but less "playable." Ironic really.