NOISES OFF - general consensus?

[CapnHook]

Posted: 1/26/07 at 11:02pm

Just saw the show for the first time at Triad Stage in Greensboro, NC. I have three thoughts:

Act I - tedious
Act II - the best
Act III - unneeded

However, it seems to me these would be my thoughts no matter where I would see the production. Seems like its a script problem and not a direction problem. For those who have seen a problem did you have similar thoughts or was it indeed the direction of the production I saw?

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 1/26/07 at 11:03pm

Probably just the direction. I found it funny both to just read, and to sit through.

[dramaqueen2]

Posted: 1/26/07 at 11:05pm

i always hear mixed things about this show. one of my theatre directors loves it and would jump at doing it. she said the set is really cool with the house completely doing a 180 from act one to two, i think. so, the sets i would want to see.
it sounds interesting.. i am curious.

[elvisitis1302]

Posted: 1/26/07 at 11:09pm

I finished a run of this show in November - one of the best productions to ever be involved with (as long as it's a GOOD production). The writing is spectacular if fully recognized - you cannot simply breeze through this show - each LINE needs to be disected and realized - every action must have a purpose.
Also, you don't have to play each character the same way. For instance, I played "Frederick" and did a totally different interpretation than, say, Broadway or the film.
In addition, if you have a good crew, the set can be spectacular. We had a great set - and it was so much fun to work on!
To anyone who finds an act tedious or unnecessary - it may just be the fault of the actors/director - if this show is done right, it can become one of the greatest theatrical experiences you could have.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 1/26/07 at 11:13pm

Yeah, the show is near flawless, but often gets poorly executed.
I saw the last broadway revival and thought it was excellent, but also saw a Gallery Players production and almost enjoyed that even more.

[Blanche]

Posted: 1/26/07 at 11:14pm

I agree with Elvis. Played Clackett and each act can be a gem if done right. I would do this show again in a heartbeat.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 1/26/07 at 11:17pm

I am sure they had to dryclean the seatcovers in the original theatre run every night. I saw the show in '81 or '82 at The Savoy in London (what an amazing theatre, where so many Gilbert and Sullivan opperettas originated. Then it burned down and now it's a reproduction) and I can remember gasping for breath and gawping in wonder at the incredible comic timing.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/26/07 at 11:21pm

The original Michael Blakemore production (with Dorothy Loudon, Victor Garber, Brian Murray et al) was one of the most consistently funny comedies that I've ever seen, with the comedy building act to act to act. However, the Jeremy Sams revival from a few years ago (with LuPone, Peter Gallagher, Faith Prince, TR Knight, Katie Finneran, Richard Easton et al) definitely had pacing problems and a certain unevenness in the ensemble.

Farce is all about detail and timing and requires clockwork precision from the direction and performances (and, by the way, half of the laughs are NOT on the page). Without that, the humor will inevitably fall flat for long stretches at a time. The performers also have to know when to underplay, when to overplay, when to move and when to stay absolutely still (so as not to step on a joke in another part of the scene), when to emphasize and when to throw something away. It's a very subtle alchemy and going slightly too far in any one direction can kill laughs left and right.

It really all goes back to the direction. Blakemore was an absolute master and created one the funniest comedies Broadway has seen in decades. However, productions I've seen from Sams and others were entirely hit or miss and I would bet that that was the main problem with the production you saw tonight.

[Pippin]

Posted: 1/26/07 at 11:22pm

The first time I saw it was the broadway revival, and I almost fell out of my seat, I was laughing so hard. Capn'- I think it depends more on the performers than the director with this piece. Each act got better when I saw it on B'way.

[BobPopa]

Posted: 1/26/07 at 11:27pm

Noises Off is a great play however it is typically and underperfomrer at the box office because a lot of the humor is "inside theatre humor" the some of Joe Public does not get.

I did ASM a professional production of this several years ago and I somone would have pay me BIG MONEY to ever SM that show

Updated On: 1/26/07 at 11:27 PM

[D2]

Posted: 1/26/07 at 11:33pm

It really does depend on the direction, and I agree totally with Margo's assessment of the two Broadway productions.

I've also directed it, and it is a bitch and a half. Lots of fun, but as Margo said it has to be precisely timed. My production didn't fully gel until about the 5th performance, halfway throught the run, and then it just got better and better. By the time we closed it was running like a Rolls Royce engine.

And Blanche, I also saw Gallery Player's production, and it was absolutely brilliant - as good as the original and better than the revival (and mine.)

[Dre2387]

Posted: 1/26/07 at 11:36pm

The first time I heard of this show was when i saw it at my high school in NJ. Then I saw it at Papermil Playhouse, then the movie, then the revival. Out of all of those, my high school production was the best.

[B3TA07]

Posted: 1/26/07 at 11:51pm

I really like the film.

[ILoveMyDictionary]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 11:33am

I've heard people say the last act is the best and the second act wasn't necessary. IMO The second act is the best and the third act isn't needed but it's still funny. The first act is the most important, but if the acting isn't all that great it drags on forever.
A lot of how great the production of the show is rides on the actor's shoulders.

Updated On: 1/27/07 at 11:33 AM

[karen24]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 11:41am

I totally agree with Margo about the Sams production. I had seen a community theater production earlier, and never laughed so hard in my life--the timing was perfect, and it was really, really funny. I was so looking forward to seeing the Sams production with LuPone, etc., and while it wasn't terrible, I didn't laugh nearly as often. I felt that the actors weren't working together well, and were sometimes playing too much to the audience. The show is supposed to get funnier and funnier as things increasingly fall apart, but that didn't work as well in the Sams production as it did in the much more modest local production I'd seen earlier. So I know the show can definitely work when done right, but it's very tricky!
Karen

[JustinRZB]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 11:43am

Oh man that's not at all right, i dont think. If Act III is done right it can be amazing. Just the sheer exhaustion and anger of the cast by act 3... and all the burglars.

No way.

Entire show = hilarious.

[GoSmileLaughCryClap]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 11:55am

Most farce relies upon physical humor, but Noises off takes it to a degree that borders on full out choreography. And what's so hard about the play is that along with maintaining the duality of the actors and the characters they portray, there is constant locomotive action that takes an enormous amount of teamwork to pull off.

The orginal broadway production was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. I can still summon up Dorothy Loudon's crazed eyes at will.

The revival felt effortful, and I remember feeling that the cast was working like crazy. But working like crazy isn't funny.

[Sant]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 12:21pm

Having seen the film, a local production and the recent London's West End revival of this play I can say that the play is simply brilliant when it's done properly! The movie was ok, didn't like the casting too much, only Marilu Henner, Christopher Reeve and the girl playing Brooke were good, all the others (esp. John Ritter) were overacting their a**es off the whole time and ruining the film.

The local production was a nightmare.

The London revival was FANTASTIC!! There was nothing forced or overdone in the production, the whole production team and cast seemed to understand that they didn't need to highlight the comedy, just play it. Of course the Act II (the backstage act) needed some 'extra' comedy because all the lines are what you hear from "the play", so... But I don't think I've ever laughed that much watching a play!

[madbrian]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 12:30pm

I think Nicolette Sheridan played Brooke in the movie...

I wasn't crazy about the movie, but I saw the recent Broadway revival twice. Jane Curtain took over Clackett from Patti Lupone, and Curtain is a much better comedienne. Katie Finneran was a well-deserved Tony winner as Brooke, but I haven't seen or heard anything about her since.

[ILoveMyDictionary]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 12:31pm

Updated On: 1/27/07 at 12:31 PM

[Sant]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 12:33pm

It was a couple of years ago.

[mattonstage]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 12:48pm

Timing is everything with this piece. IMHO, the first and third acts are directed, and the second act is choreographed. I'm sure it must be quite a task taking it on. But, I agree, it's one of the funniest plays ever if done correctly. You need an incredidbly nimble cast, with crack timing.

[Pippin]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 12:53pm

OH, I would have loved to see Curtain. She is great for that role.

I think this situation is the same thing with the recent Chorus line revival. Those who saw the original weren't very blown away with the new version, while people who saw it for the first time came away overwhelmed (yes, this is a generality. I know there are exceptions)

for me, the revival of Noises off! was the first time I had seen it live (I had seen the movie and was bored, but knew it had potential) so I had nothing to compare it to, and therefore, it was superb to me.

With this show, it also depends strongly on the energy that the actors get from the audience, and I saw a matinee and the audience was wonderful, and the performers had us in the palm of thier hands.

There are so many variables that go into whether the production you see will be a hit or miss. for me it was a big, big hit.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 12:56pm

I cant imagine Triad pulling this off, TTTT. Their thrust stage isnt condusive to the play to begin with, and they're not exactly known for their bang up productions (Their MOON FOR THE MISBEGOTTEN was so appalingly bad that, halfway through the second act, I wanted to shout at the characters in the play, "Okay, guys, get over it and move on, huh?"

I love NOISES. And I've found that the smaller the stage, the more intense the comedy becomes. Sierra Rep, whose stage is 20-0 wide and 12-0 high, had one of the best I've ever seen.

[Dyllew]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 12:59pm

I just finished the show and the keys are timing and pacing. You cannot just read through the show, and you certainly cannot read though it too fast. All actors and actresses should be on the same page. I personally loved being in the show, but after being in it, I may nit pick at the show, and I'm never like that with any other show that I have been a part of.