Rialto Chatter: Nathan Lane-Led ANGELS IN AMERICA Heading to Broadway? — Page 2

Robbie2 said: "Jordan Roth will have the August Wilson available this fall...I believe he's involved in the move

I also heard this today. Hopefully everything will work out. It'll be wonderful to have Angels in America back on Broadway.

No, it's implying it'll be closed by some point in the fall.

I was wondering who might be seeing Part 1 of Angels in America tonight? The Fathom events showing in California is tonight.

I'm excited to see this. I saw the original Broadway version and really enjoyed it. Saw the HBO version which was..."ok". This looks really good with a great cast.

I don't think I'll be able to make it to New York if it transfers, so this is my chance.

I'm interested to hear folks feedback.

I'll be seeing the NT Live screening of part 1 tonight! I did a two show day back in May and the production is really magical, I'm very excited to revisit it.

I saw this onstage back in May. As good as other Roy Cohns have been (Rob Leibman and Frank Wood in especial) Nathan Lane is even, somehow, better. I think it's his comic timing. Which is possibly the greatest America has to offer at the moment. DO NOT MISS HIM. I see to be alone in not loving Andrew Garfield but James McArdle is the greatest Louis I have ever seen.

"I see to be alone in not loving Andrew Garfield but James McArdle is the greatest Louis I have ever seen"

I feel the complete opposite. I thought McArdle was awful, but Garfield was transcendent.

Has anyone heard anything about a transfer? I want to see the screening but would much rather wait to see the live production as I have never seen the show before and would prefer my first experience to be live theater

I have heard solid confirmation that Jordan Roth wants to do it but nothing further than that

Owen22 said: "I see to be alone in not loving Andrew Garfield but James McArdle is the greatest Louis I have ever seen."

Agreed.

Dancingthrulife2 said: "Saw it yesterday. From what I witnessed, which was a magnificent masterpiece, a full Broadway transfer would be quite difficult to pull off.

First, the length is a big problem. This is not a play where it's okay to ditch one part for the other. Two parts together, this production runs nearly 8 hours with two 15-minute intermissions in each part. As much as I love theatre and have seen a lot, the length did take a toll on me as the day goes into night. I doubt a regular tourists-abundant Broadway crowd would be able to sit through even 4 hours. Not everybody is happy with the recent revival of Long Day's Journey into Night. Then again, seeing only Part 1 without Part 2, one won't be able to understand a lot of important points about the play itself.

Second, Lyttelton has a huge stage and the production makes full use of it with no doubt. Definitely not for August Wilson and other small to medium playhouses. Vivian Beaumont should work though.


I have to say that I disagree with you on a couple of assumptions: (1) that it would be sold as a single ticket vs. two separate performances with separate ticket purchases possible.; and (2) re having to see both parts.

(1) I can't think of a really long production, e.g., Nicholas Nickelby, Wolf Hall, Norman Conquests, The Kentucky Cycle, where you didn't have the option of buying 2 or even 3 tickets involving single or different days. Only those who want to see the play in a single day have to do so.

(2) Re having to see both parts, when it originally opened, Perestroika did not even open in the same season as MA. I venture that a lot of people have probably only seen MA because of that. I also seem to recall that Perestroika did not have as many performances as MA, but may be wrong. While the whole of Angels is justifiably considered a major work of art, I do recall Perestroika not being as wildly praised in its original run as was MA.

Personally, I have seen MA four times, but have only seen Perestroika two times, because -- as much as I love MA -- I found myself getting very bored in parts of Perestroika. While Perestroika closes up all the loose ends, (1) it is pretty pretentious at times and (2) who says you have to close up all the loose ends. MA stands on its own merits as a major masterpiece.

Updated On: 7/20/17 at 08:27 PM

VintageSnarker said: "I went to check the grosses for Wolf Hall Parts One and Two since that seemed like the most similar situation in recent memory. It wasn't very encouraging.

https://www.broadwayworld.com/grosses/WOLF-HALL-PARTS-ONE-TWO

I do think the cast would help but 8 hours is asking a lot even from opera audiences.



I guess the limited engagement aspect does create some issues that did not exist for the original production, in terms of demanding that audiences see both parts in a very short time table (I personally always try to see on the same day, but that was not possible 20+ years ago, at least if you saw MA early in its run, as I did. Of course, on the other side, it means that there are only so many tickets available and that, if you don't move quickly, you COULD miss out).



As for comparison to Wolf Hall business, there are several MAJOR differences:

1. Angels has not one but two stars. The biggest star who works regularly on Broadway (Lane, if anyone is unsure) and a young movie actor who had a stunning 2016. Wolf Hall had, in the US, unknowns.

2. Angels has recognition, and with that cast a vibe that Wolf Hall did not have, at least here. Most interest, certainly mine among them, it was because of its success in London vs. its story line, yet another look at life around the court of Henry VIII.

3. I personally thought Wolf Hall was a big bore, made worse by the fact that I saw it all in one day; of course, I never would have gone back if I wasn't already there and had already paid for the ticket to Part 2. The decreased business over its run was clear evidence that word of mouth was not good, and audiences just weren't spreading the word that it was a must see. I remember how tepid the applause were at the performance(s) I attended, despite the actors putting themselves out there for a day. That must have hurt.

The only issue I can see them having -- and, God knows, I have been wrong before -- is selecting a theatre that is too small for the length of the engagement and the cost of opening and ongoing operating costs..

Just got home from the screening! I very much enjoyed it! Nathan Lane has never been better. He was absolutely mesmerizing and terrifying. Denise Gough as Harper was equally good-- devastating and alive.

I have to say, I did not get Andrew Garfield's performance. It was so over the top and inauthentic. In the moments where he dialed the camp back, he was truly effective, but it didn't happen nearly enough for me.

Caught the screening tonight and was dazzled by Denise Hough--the best Harper I've seen. Also adored James McArdle as Louis and Russel Tovey's Joe. Garfield was the weak link to me, but I've yet to see a Prior that I love (of a limited number--just Borle, Kirk, and now him). Overall, a pretty extraordinary evening. I hope I get the chance to see it in person.