Posted: 5/9/17 at 3:39pm
I'm with you, EthelMae. I preferred this to that last revival, which was praised to the heavens. I went into to the Sam Gold production expecting to hate it, based on what I read about the concept, but it was surprising and quite wonderful. Field and Mantello were terrific. I wish I had the time to see it again, but not now. It deserved a much better fate.
Posted: 5/9/17 at 4:48pm
Got scared for a second I'd have to do some last minute replanning. Luckily it's still open this weekend when I have tickets for.
Posted: 5/9/17 at 8:27pm
So disappointed - was hoping to catch this in June. Any chance of it being recorded? The Cherry Jones production was recorded last month in London.
Posted: 5/9/17 at 9:01pm
Callum, is the Jones video going to be released?
Posted: 5/10/17 at 9:21pm
cknick said: "Callum, is the Jones video going to be released?
"
I read that it was being recorded for the Victoria & Albert Museum archives, so not the typical NT Live cinema broadcast. Unfortunately I don't know much more than that or even if there will be public access. That just production just ran for three months over here in London and was probably the longest it could have ran before ticket sales became very problematic. I very much enjoyed it though, and I'm disappointed not to be able to see Sally Field's interpretation of Amanda. Still, Sienna Miller and Jack O'Connell have Cat on a Hit Tin Roof coming in August, so will be able to get my Williams fix then!
Posted: 5/11/17 at 11:27am
EthelMae, I can't speak for anyone else, but my mistyping of "Field" was just a slippery finger on the keyboard.
Posted: 5/11/17 at 11:30am
Too soon for a revival, bad word of mouth, Sally isn't a hot star anymore, the play is not very appealing, low sales. It is a mystery why this was revived to begin with, there are so many new and old exciting plays to be done.
Posted: 5/11/17 at 11:37am
It would be interesting to know who initiated this project - Rudin? LCT? And what did they expect? A succès fou? Or just a bit of prestige?
Posted: 5/11/17 at 11:51am
newintown said: "It would be interesting to know who initiated this project - Rudin? LCT? And what did they expect? A succès fou? Or just a bit of prestige?
"
A little bit of all of the above, I'm guess. Sally Field wants to play Amanda on Broadway. Sam Gold has a nontraditional staging that he wants to bring to New York. Scott Rudin sees it as a winning proposition. He's already got his blockbuster for the season; this could be a nice little prestige vehicle, or maybe a surprise hit. He partners with LCT, as he's done in the past (the IVH View From the Bridge), to add something of a built in audience.
But what everyone ended up with was something much less than the sum of its parts.
Posted: 5/11/17 at 11:59am
wonderfulwizard11 said: "That's a shame. This production wasn't my favorite thing I've ever seen, but it had some really lovely moments and was certainly riskier than most less interesting fare, even this season.
Thank you for saying this. I will always take a production that takes great risks and succeeds even only part of the time than not.
Posted: 5/12/17 at 11:53am
Smaxie said: "Glad the "too soon" police have weighed in, and will continue to keep Broadway safe from revivals they deem unnecessary.
"
Your snarkiness is all well and good, and I really do understand where it is coming from; however, there are reasonable business related reasons to have waited longer to bring this play back to Broadway.
The previous production was critically acclaimed and was a big draw to audiences. Those who are interested in this play and make yearly trips to New York are not likely to pay big bucks to see a revival of a play that they just recently saw. In terms of business, the timing seems wrong. Had there been a few more years between, there may have been more interest in another production.
Posted: 5/12/17 at 12:00pm
While "too soon" may be a factor for the type of people who post on this board, I think we vastly overestimate the percent of audience members who know when the last revival of anything was, let alone went to it. Also, people rewatch their favorite films and reread their favorite books every few years - why isn't five years a long enough gap for a great play?
Posted: 5/13/17 at 2:07am
Was initially planning on pushing this off until June after I got home from school, but Happy I went in March. Got Front row center, and was a spectacular experience that was (except for the water dripping underneath the stage onto me and my stuff) LOL. But I really enjoyed it a lot, the performances, set, and utilization of the theater space too was very well executed, in my opinion. Sad it wasn't as successfully as it could have been. Although it seems to be a tough season fro excellent plays, and the worst play is doing the best (Play That Goes Wrong)...go figure. M. Ferris was so great in this show, as was Sally Field and Mantello.
Posted: 5/13/17 at 2:43am
M.O.A.I. said: "While "too soon" may be a factor for the type of people who post on this board, I think we vastly overestimate the percent of audience members who know when the last revival of anything was, let alone went to it. Also, people rewatch their favorite films and reread their favorite books every few years - why isn't five years a long enough gap for a great play?
"
Because people don't fork over more than $100 to reread their favorite book or rewatch their favorite movie. Don't forget that straight plays have a bit more of a niche audience than musicals do. Those who see straight plays are more likely to follow the scene. Those who wanted to see a production of The Glass Menagerie likely saw the last one especially after it got such great reviews. If you just forked out more than $100 to see a play five years ago, are you going to rush to see another production of it now for that same price? What if it had mixed to negative reviews? It is possible that some of the less favorable reviews are due to comparisons being made to the production from five short years ago.
The same can actually be said for movies. Valmont was released a little less that a year after Dangerous Liaisons. Nobody was interested in seeing the same story so soon, even if the cast was arguably more charming in Valmont. Or let's look at The Jungle Book. Disney just had a huge success with their new version,but Warner had planned on releasing a version around the same time. Now Warner is stuck sitting on their version until the public has had time to forget the new Disney version. Timing is important when selling a product to an audience, and in the case of The Glass Menagerie, the timing may have been off.
To make matters worse, that five year old production is still in the news now because it is currently playing in London and getting a fair amount of attention and has garnered several Olivier Award nominations. This production is fighting against the memory of a previous production that isn't dead yet. I think another five years were needed to separate the two productions. This one may have been viewed more favorably if that were the case.
Posted: 5/21/17 at 10:14pm
Was anybody at today's final performance?
