SALESMAN Revival Announced with Pierce, Clarke, and DeShields — Page 3

Looks like that was an error that no longer exists. It states I put it a promo code (AMEX) but I never did that so prices are back up again. Bummer.

Sutton Ross said: "Looks like that was an error that no longer exists. It states I put it a promo code (AMEX) but I never did that so prices are back up again. Bummer."

Dang, glad I was able to use it this weekend. It even knocked off fees, which was nice considering the box office doesn't open until later this month.

The optics in today's world are just wild.

imeldasturn said: "RippedMan said: "I forget that they changed directors, no? So will this be a carbon copy of the West End show?"

They didn't change directors. Marianne Elliott andMiranda Cromwell directed the London production together, and Cromwell is still directing. If this will be a carbon copy is anybody's guess, frankly I suspect it's the same production but without Elliott's name so that nobody can complain a white woman is directing an all black production."

If that’s the case, then why didn’t anyone call out Stephen Brackett for directing A Strange Loop?

jkcohen626 said: "Yeah, I would say it's much more likely that Marianne Elliott is just a VERY in-demand VERY busy director and producer, so it doesn't make sense for her to use her time and energy on a transfer when there is already a capable and willing director in Miranda Cromwell."



Not buying that. Directors routinely keep their billing on any first-class transfers, regardless of whether they are physically present, or have an Associate do the work and they only show up on Opening Night. It's part of the SDC Collective Bargaining Agreement. This is definitely an "optics" move designed for the new Age of Wokeness.

EDSOSLO858 said: "imeldasturn said: "RippedMan said: "I forget that they changed directors, no? So will this be a carbon copy of the West End show?"

They didn't change directors. Marianne Elliott andMiranda Cromwell directed the London production together, and Cromwell is still directing. If this will be a carbon copy is anybody's guess, frankly I suspect it's the same production but without Elliott's name so that nobody can complain a white woman is directing an all black production."

If that’s the case, then why didn’t anyone call out Stephen Brackett for directingA Strange Loop?"

People tried only to be promptly shut down by Michael R. Jackson himself. He addressed it on his social media

jkcohen626 said: "So I was looking to buy tickets for this and some seats have a drop-down menu where you can select "regular" their "Lounge Upgrade" or "direct mail" and "direct mail" is significantly cheaper. Does anyone know what that means and why it's so much cheaper?"

It's likely they've programmed the code for an upcoming mailer and it was a glitch that you could access it.

Some things to note on this topic:

1. Cromwell said in the NYTimes that there will be some changes under her solo tenure.

2. Marianne Elliott is billed, but separately: “Directed by Miranda Cromwell; London production co-directed by Miranda Cromwell and Marianne Elliott.” So her contributions are being credited, to some extent, but it’s true that she presumably wouldn’t be Tony-eligible unless they made an exception.

3. It is an unusual move, and not consistent with standard billing practices. There’s no way that all of Elliott’s directorial influence has been removed from the production, so for her not to credited as a co-director is, for all intents and purposes, a factually inaccurate billing. A more accurate billing would’ve been: “Co-directed by Miranda Cromwell and Marianne Elliott, Remount direction by Miranda Cromwell” or “Directed by Miranda Cromwell, with additional direction by Marianne Elliott” or “Directed by Miranda Cromwell, based on co-direction by Miranda Cromwell and Marianne Elliott”

4. Considering the above, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the current billing is a symbolic gesture. I can’t think of any technical reason for it - unless I’m wrong about the production, and it actually does remove most or all of Elliott’s influence. But at the Young Vic, I thought Elliott’s directorial style was written all over the production. So I figure the billing is either symbolic, or this is effectively a different production.

5. I don’t support the people in the thread who flippantly dismiss it with language that carries derogatory/trivializing connotations, like “wokeness” or “optics.” But I also think it’s probably incorrect for other people to imply that this choice ISN’T symbolic in the first place.

6. For my money, I don’t object to the symbolism of it. But it does irk me slightly if the billing is literally an incorrect description of the production’s artistic DNA.

Updated On: 8/3/22 at 05:40 PM

We now know you have a go to question judging by threads for closing shows this weekend. :)