>>
You only get to experience that miracle live. I agree... to a point.
As you note, we're both trained in design. Yes, there are some designs that can only be experienced live: the original FOLLIES is a breathtaking example, because photos dont even come close to telling how amazing that set was... and then again there are some that you look at the working models and the production photos and you think "WTF?" LITTLE MERMAID was one — and I generally love Tsypin's work. But here he simply blew it by imposing a manufactured style onto something that didnt need expression in heavy plastics. The Met's last iteration of DON GIOVANNI, with its relentless brick walls, is another: I sat there watching this thing for three hours and had no idea what the designer was trying to do or say about Mozart or the opera. There was simply nothing there that worked
with the material — in fact, in both those cases, I'd say the designs ran
counter to the show's style. To cite an even more egregious example, look at the world of difference between the Sydney and New York productions of PRISCILLA: in the former, the set helped tell the story of the Outback; in the latter, they might as well be in Nebraska.
So if it feels like Im being harsh with PORGY, it's because it, like the FOLLIES revival, is an opportunity wasted. There is so much visual information about this production available on the Net that, aside from Audra's performance, I doubt I'm missing much of anything by not seeing it live, sorry. It is clearly a show where the budget for the physical presentation was so limited that all they could afford was a single platform and a backwall and some bits and pieces of furniture — and then they called in the lighting designer to save the day, because I doubt it took very long to see how incredibly limited that design was.
People have said, "Oh it changed from ART to Broadway," but no one's said
how, which makes me think probably not much — again, because there's nothing else showing up in the countless resources out there on the web. The show's trailer on YouTube looks just like the one they did for ART. The photos with all the reviews show the same thing as presented at ART — so where's the difference? Would someone kindly tell me?
So sorry, but for me, this was just a plodding, facile, dull design, with no imagination and no core concept beyond "Oo! Driftwood!" — because no one involved had one. Paulis could have put this on a bare stage — and for all intents might as well have — and gotten the same effects with her lighting designer sweating his (or her) ass off to give this thing something in the way of visual style. If I go to see it the next time I'm in NY (which is next month BTW should anyone care to join me for dinner some night) it will be for the performances — there's obviously not much else.
YRMV.
http://docandraider.com
