Mrs. Warren's Profession Starts Previews Tonight — Page 3

- POSSIBLE SPOILERS -

wonkit, a socialist tract would have retained sympathy for the working class Mrs. Warren to the end. The fact that Shaw shows her as corrupted and ultimately rejected, tells me that he was a dramatist first and a socialist second. The points about prostitution and the exploitation of women were simply facts that didn't require a socialist disposition to see. And unless you equate feminism with socialism I don't get your issues with Vivie.

I know very well what Shaw's opinions were. I'm rejecting your agit-prop word "tract".

---

wonkit, I appreciate your articulate and informed responses. I think we're probably in general agreement. It was just that word "tract". Maybe I shouldn't be so sensitive.

---

Can someone descirbe the curtain or post a picture? I am very curious now.

---

Thanks WayTooBroadway! Very interesting article :)

---

Just got back from a matinee and found it to be a near miss. Sometimes the elements of something just seem so right you go in expecting real magic.

Largely the problem is Doug Hughes' laid-back, tension-free staging. The big problem of Shaw's play is that it doesn't really start cooking until the end of the first act and all before that is quite talky and lacking flavor. But still, I think energetic direction and a tight ensemble could overcome these issues. Hughes can't quite bring the former and doesn't have the latter. This is one of those period productions where everyones approach seems to be at odds with the other. Jones has brilliant moments, but her Pioneer woman American-ness is an ill fit here and, while I didn't have trouble understanding her, the accent was in and out and sometimes not there at all. She seems to have stepped out of DESTRY RIDES AGAIN. Hawkins is an even bigger problem, ranging between dull, twitchy and histrionic she seems cut off from the rest of the cast altogether. The play is all about what to do with Vivie and Hawkins just really doesn't seem worth it. Mark Harelik has some nice moments, but Edward Hibbert is really the only cast member who hits the bullseye. Had the cast found a mutual approach the relationships of the first act wouldn't have seemed so nebulous and could have overcome the lack of tension in Shaw's writing.

Still, even mismatched actors and stiff staging can't diminish the power of Shaw's writing at the end of each act. Suddenly the writing catches fire and you're riveted. For my money, these scenes are some of the most compelling Shaw ever wrote.

So...a mixed afternoon. Hardly a disaster but not the home run its pedigree suggests.

---

Saw this last night. I had, thanks to a poster on this board, read the play beforehand. I thought both Cherry Jones and Sally Hawkins did an amazing job. After reading the play, their characterizations were perfect. As for the changing accents, Jones' change in accent is intentional. In the play, the directions call for her to revert back to her lower-class accent.

I found Adam Driver's performance pretty bad. Frank is supposed to be a cad and yet for the entire first two acts, he gave a monotone performance. He improved in the last two acts, but he was the noticeable weak link. I thought Edward Hibbert did great with Mr. Praed and really brought him to life. The men are written fairly one note as Shaw wanted this play to be about women.

As for the stage door, I only saw Michael Siberry, Adam Driver and Sally Hawkins. Sally is absolutely the sweetest thing ever and talked to me quite a bit.