Streetcar Named Desire at St. Ann's- Page 2

[jbird5]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 8:18am

Don't know for Streetcar, but for Nice Fish which was all open, it was fine. There was extra space on the sides that was open. It's not huge and very steep. The back should be fine. 

 

Oh wow, it's in the round?

Updated On: 4/28/16 at 08:18 AM

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 9:12am

Has anyone been successful with the TodayTix rush yet?

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 9:24am

Anyone think this would/could go to Broadway? 

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 9:29am

No. Gillian has said they were specifically looking for a space for the non proscenium set.

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 9:39am

It's in the round and while I'd recommend sitting closer, sitting in the back rows won't take away from your experience.

As for a transfer, definitely not going to happen unless they pulled a Natasha and Pierre and built their own custom theatre. But that won't happen, so bank on another small extension after opening and that's it.

[ggersten]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 9:44am

JBroadway said: "Additionally, the rotating stage gave a feeling of whirling instability that made me feel like I was viewing the apartment through Blanche's intoxicated eyes. "

I saw this in the cinema.  At least in London, and most likely at St. Anns, the rotation of the stage speeds up gradually throughout the second act - not so you consciously notice the increase, but enough to generate that feeling of instability.  

 

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 9:47am

The only way it would work in a broadway house would be if they ripped out the seating and reimagined the space like Dude or Holler if You Hear Me. Not impossible, but impractical for a short run just to possibly win an award or two.

I saw the NTLive screening and at St Ann's Tuesday night. I found Anderson very captivating, but a very by-the-numbers Blanche. Maybe Blanchette's is still to seared in my brain to be blown away by anyone else yet.I was impressed by Foster's intentional "ape-like" physicality, but not the choice of the strong Chi-cha-go accent. I found his acting very stiff, there was never an ounce of charm in his Stanley and I for the life of me couldn't figure out why Stella would put up with him. Kirby's Stella, however, was fascinating to watch. I remember not caring for her in the NTLive screening but in person she was dynamic and layered and very, very natural. When she first entered I was shocked she was now blonde unlike in the screening and very, very sexy. I somehow have only ever seen purposefully dowdy and brunette Stellas). To me, it solidified her and Blanche as family and why Blanche is disappointed in her sister because, frankly, she could leave Foster's Stanley and do so much better.

The modern day setting makes absolutely zero sense and confused me the entire time. The piece is full of mentions of telegrams, popping down the the drug store for a lemon coke, etc etc and every time one was mentioned it took me out a bit. Plus, how we treat alcoholism and mental illness are drastically different today. I'd love to read/hear the director explain that choice because there are clear choices made with the setting as well as when the set starts to spin and when it changes the direction of the rotation. 

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 9:48am

neonlightsxo said: "No. Gillian has said they were specifically looking for a space for the non proscenium set.

 

"

Yeah, cause we don't have any Broadway theaters that can't support a non-proscenium set ??

see: almost every show ever to play CITS. 

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 9:53am

You asked a question and I answered. Calm down.

Why did the production choose St. Ann's Warehouse over, say, Broadway?
We weren't willing to compromise the integrity of the whole of the structure [of the set] for a proscenium. It is as important as anything else in this production. [So] that narrowed it down immediately. It just so happens St. Ann's was in the process of this build and is the perfect place and aesthetic. Having it in Brooklyn between the bridges, the industrial nature of it, and the all-American-ness of that space, it works really well. We are very lucky to have St. Ann's and the malleable space that it is. It feels like it's being re-created as opposed to adjusted for the circumstances.

http://www.theatermania.com/new-york-city-theater/news/interview-gillian-anderson-streetcar-named-desire_76865.html

 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 10:10am

NYfanfromCA said: "Thinking of seeing this, but it looks like seats are limited for my only open night in May.  How are the seats in the last rows or corners? "

I was sitting in the last couple rows during the first half, then moved to the 2nd row at intermission. If the back rows are your only option, go for it, but if you can sit closer, I would recommend doing so. Weirdly, I DID feel quite far away when I was in the back. It didn't ruin the experience, but seeing it from the 2nd row was like seeing a whole different show. 

 
GreasedLightning said "Yeah, cause we don't have any Broadway theaters that can't support a non-proscenium set ?? see: almost every show ever to play CITS."

Have you seen this production? I have a feeling you haven't, otherwise I think you'd understand. It's not just that they want it in a non-proscenium theatre. It's that they need the huge empty space to be able to rotate the entire set. The Circle in the Square is too much of an oval, and I actually don't even think it's big enough.

After seeing this production, I was racking my brains, and honestly I couldn't even think of a single other theatre space in NY that could house this production without drastically re-shaping or re-sizing the set. 

 

 

Updated On: 4/28/16 at 10:10 AM

[ChiTheaterFan]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 11:54am

Just bought a ticket next month during the extension when I'll be in NY. Very excited!

[Broadwaywest]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 1:08pm

Glad to hear that it seems to have transfered well. Seeing it in a little over a week and super excited. I did catch the NT live, what astounded me about the production, was I actually had a little bit of sympathy for Stanley. I'm not sure if it was Ben Foster's performance, or the direction. It seemed to me, they really amped up the idea that Stantey suffered from extreme PTSD. Not to forgive the terrible things he does in the show, but this production had me viewing him in a different way. 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 4/30/16 at 12:46am

This is the show I'm dying to see, and I don't mind paying full-price, but the only date I'm available next week, the only seat options are wheelchair. What happens to those seats if they don't need them? Can I purchase them? Is that a day of question?

[BwayinVan]

Posted: 4/30/16 at 12:54am

Seeing it tomorrow afternoon. So stoked! 

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/30/16 at 3:44am

I caught the cinecast last year as well.  I found it a strongly acted and compelling production.  But I'm with Nasty Khakis--the update simply did not work for me.  At best, it wasn't a big distraction except in some of the especially dated dialogue (dated in terms of references as Khakis mentioned)

[nycward]

Posted: 4/30/16 at 11:33am

Every year I try to get to St. Ann's to catch something special. I have never really been disappointed. Last year's Let The Right One In and previous productions of Julius Caesar, Brief Encounter and particularly, Black Watch have been some of the most extraordinary evenings that I have spent in the New York theatre. Add to this Streetcar (I know, it sounded like I was setting up a letdown:) 

What an exciting production with such dynamic performances. Check out the previous posts for the raves, all of which I agree with. I also have to join the chorus of complaints about the updating of the production values. The script just doesn't support the time warp. Every note of Williams' script is clearly set in the post WWII era so many of the costume, music and set choices kept me confused, particularly, if you look and listen closely, there remain snippets of period moments everywhere. It was a testament to the strong cast, ingenious set concept and yes, the talent of the director that kept me riveted for almost 3 1/2 hours! 3 1/2 hours!!!! How do you expand on the leisurely rhythm of the play to extend it by 45 minutes? It sounds indulgent but damn if it didn't work for me. Go and enjoy.

[BwayinVan]

Posted: 4/30/16 at 6:22pm

I caught this afternoon's performance and I have to say that I really enjoyed it. It didn't feel too long and I am a huge fan of the way in which they staged it. The cast are all great and Gillian Anderson kills it as Blanche. It's my first experience seeing a non Broadway show in NY and I'm happy I made my way out the o Brooklyn to catch it. An enjoyable afternoon at the theatre and if you can, get over to Brooklyn to see it. You won't regret it. 

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 4/30/16 at 7:20pm

I was there this afternoon too and I find my thoughts most aligning with nasty_khakis', although I think I liked it even less. 

 

Anderson is very good (and basically the only reason to make the trek out to St. Ann's to see this), but really it's not going to erase Cate Blanchett's brilliant interpretation from anyone's memory anytime soon. 

 

I really hated the modern dress and set design. Why was Blanche complaining that it looked liked a dump? It looked like a perfectly acceptable IKEA showroom to me. Everything was so white and antiseptic looking; hard to ever imagine the sweltering heat everyone kept talking about. The last Broadway revival felt like you were in a dirty, claustrophobic sweat box and it added all to the more to the intensity of play and heightened Blanche's descent. 

 

It made sense in the 1940s for a woman like Blanche to be holding on to the old plantation life and customs. It definitely loses something of her character to move the action to the present, and the appearance of a newspaper collection boy becomes downright ridiculous in 2016. (They might as well have Blanche just ask him outright what a newspaper is!)

 

The transition felt interminable and overall a 3 hour 20 min runtime is absurd. How can you pad nearly 40 minutes to the normal runtime of a play?! The rotating set did nothing for me except obstruct my view now and then. 

 

I agree with the comment about Foster having no brutish charm. Only brute. Kirby couldn't hold her accent and it was a little distracting. I agree that it was nice to see a beautiful Stella who looked like she could be Blanche's sister, but she's so skinny that when Blanche commented on her weight gain at the beginning you didn't know if it was a joke or not.

 

There was nothing particularly inspired about the last Broadway revival, but Nicole Ari Parker was good and the production was at all times appropriate and effective. 

 

After seeing this all I could think of was where is Bart Sher when you need him? After his gorgeous revivals of Golden Boy and Joe Turner's maybe it's time he started tackling the Tennessee Williams (& Arthur Miller) canons to wash the bad taste some of these recent revivals have left in my mouth. 

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 5/1/16 at 7:04am

Whizzer--exactly in terms of the updating  I know it sounds silly but--keep with me--in the diary I keep of productions I  have seen, I wrote that it seemed as inane as updating Company to the present. The play's themes are timeless. If anything, and this is awful to say, Stanley's rape of Blanche does not work now -with Williams' tract- when placed in the here and now. In a modern setting, Stella's final take seems less that if a woman with no options, than that of a cruel sister. 

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 5/1/16 at 7:26am

I didn't like the way the rape was presented at all with Blanche being completely passed out the entire time. I'm not onboard with having her start to enjoy it as I've seen in a past production, but I think she should be awake for at least the start of it. I agree that Stella seems extra heartless with her final denial of Blanche's claims. 

 

Blanche's highfalutin ideals and mannerisms make sense when the play is set in the 1940s. They still get a laugh now and then, but you can easily imagine a woman like her existing. Set in 2016, Blanche comes off like an After Eight-type, buffoonishly living in a past so far removed from reality that you wonder if it's not all a put on or a case of anemoia: nostalgia for a time you've never known. 

[kimalysong]

Posted: 5/1/16 at 7:35am

I saw the play and I am kind of missing where it said it was set in 2016. I also didn't think the set was entirely modern. Granted I didn't think it took place in the late 40's (which is when the play was actually written) But it had this kind of anywhere/anytime quality to it, making the story feel a bit timeless to me. Granted some of the dialouge dates it but I was never transported out of the story because they didn't set it exactly in the time the story was originally written because while watching I didn't think of the year at all. 

Also the set definitely worked for me. It looked like they lived in a small apartment in the projects. Hardly glamorous. And Blanche would always be right on top of Stanley...There was barely any privacy and I think the show displayed that quite well. 

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 5/1/16 at 7:50am

They never explicitly stated it was 2016, but when Blanche entered with her Louis Vuitton luggage and modern dress I assumed it was set in present day. 

 

The set was all white, with a shiny chrome kitchen set. Yes, it was small, but it felt more like a tiny New York apartment than something you would find in the French Quarter. It looked more IKEA than Southern/New Orleans. 

 

Maybe in the 1940s a little, shabby (though this place wasn't exactly "shabby"- just small) apartment would have horrified Blanche, but taking place in the present as I took it to be how could she  look down on Stella and Stanley living like this post-recession and with a baby on the way? It makes Blanche look (even more) out of touch. Things like this are the unintended dangers of removing a play so rooted in its time and place away from its milieu. 

[kimalysong]

Posted: 5/1/16 at 8:26am

Louis Vuitton doesn't date the play though. Louis Vuitton has been around since before Street Car Named Desire was written. 

And I didn't really think any of the clothes in the story were very specific to any time period. 

[cknick]

Posted: 5/1/16 at 8:35am

I saw the broadcast and am seeing the show next week.  The time period, or lack of, didn't bother me at all.  In fact, I kind of liked it.  I thought that the various period references, while made in this setting, only helped to augment Blanche's downfall.  

I find I care less and less about "period perfect" productions.  I felt the same way with "A View from the Bridge" this season and suspect I will feel the same with "The Crucible" when I see it.  It just doesn't bother me.  Certainly I understand the benefit of staying true to period, but when the performances are as good as Anderson and Foster, who cares? 

Updated On: 5/1/16 at 08:35 AM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 5/1/16 at 9:12am

It's true that Louis Vuitton was around before the play was written, but this specific style of bag is a more recent one, certainly setting the play within the last decade. 

 

I thought the clothes looked rather modern, especially Stella's outfits. 

 

cknick, some people obviously don't care and as evidenced by this thread and those for van Hove's revivals this year many are enjoying this current trend of revival. But others, like myself, do care. The two women sitting next to me who walked out at intermission yesterday cared. Some seem to be finding the text illuminated by taking these classics out of time and place and others think the directors are in fact doing the opposite by shrouding the text (and performances) with gimmicks and filler. Why exactly does the set spin clockwise until flores para los muertos when it begins to spin counterclockwise? Why is the set even spinning at all? 

 

Personally, I think Tennessee Williams did just fine illuminating what he wanted to through his text and he doesn't need much "help" from any director getting his points across. I think it's a shame that Anderson's performance had to compete with the modern setting, musical transitions and spinning set. 15 years from now when I think back on this production, most likely having seen five or six new Streetcar productions in the interim, it will be the gimmicks I remember and not her performance. 

 

I say truly, without sarcasm or snark, that if this production does it for you and it deepens your love and understanding of Williams' text then more power to you. I would never begrudge anyone finding joy in one of the great plays of the 20th century. I'm only expressing my own personal disappointment and anger in not being able to find that magic that once was there.