THE NORMAL HEART Reviews — Page 5
#102
Posted: 5/16/11 at 10:55am
I saw this last night. I was so moved and electrified. When I was a student at NYU the original production was running at the public. The student center would get comps all the time and I took advantage of this for many repeated viewings. As a young gay man the play served as a base of knowledge for me. New to the city and desperate to explore the sexual life I had desired but not had the opportunity to realize yet.....it scared the hell out of me. It also mobilized me and was the fork in the road that led a significant portion of my life to activism. This play needs to be seen by everyone. It was heart warming to see that the audience had a large young prescence last night. More need to go. We all need to go.
#103
Posted: 5/16/11 at 11:01pm
Just saw this for the first time ever on Saturday night (5/14). I was absolutely blown away. I had chills, I was just mesmerized, frustrated, touched, and angered to the point where I forgot I was watching a show and instead I was all ready to fight with Ned. Wow. What a play.
#104
Posted: 5/16/11 at 11:10pm
It's nearly official that I get to see this in about four weeks. So ready.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
#105
Posted: 5/18/11 at 8:16am
I was at Tuesday night's performance. I had read the play recently, and was astounded at how courageous it must have been to write this play in 1985, and how sad it is that so many of the issues raised are still not fully addressed by society. But let me discuss the performance not as a social commentary but as a performance.
I thought the physical production was spectacular, with the stark white walls that look like cinderblock until you look closer (or the angles of the light change) and you see that there are quotes and statistics relevant to the AIDS epidemic. Scene transitions were fluid and did not interrupt the building dramatic tension.
I thought the performances were strangely uneven. I was not impressed with Ellen Barkin, who has a tendency to pause when she blows a word - making it feel like dialogue rather than spontaneous speech. Her rant with the examining doctor started so angry and tense that she had nowhere to take it, and I actually stopped listening because her voice was so shrill. Joe Mantello gave a strong performance as Ned Weeks although I did not feel as sympathetic to him as I expected. His arc seems to be angry and angrier, and his tenderness is grudgingly given. I thought Jim Parsons was very good - funny and committed and sensitive. His comic timing was superb. (I don't know his TV show so I went in without expectations. ) But the person who truly blew me away was John Benjamin Hickey, in a nuanced and touching performance of tremendous humanity and candor. The two times I found myself crying, it was for something he did or said, both times at a moment that was not a heightened emotional climax but simply a human moment perfectly captured. He created a fully-rounded person, strong and weak, funny and angry, tremendously loving and frightened.
I thought some of the directorial choices were just bizarre. The blocking was occasionally meaningless - characters shifting from one part of the stage to another without any apparent reason (wish I could think of which scene it was that actually had me thinking, well, that was obvious and awkward). SPOILER -
Having Felix's death scene done standing up was totally bizarre and again seemed like a staged scene rather than a living, life-altering moment.
I am glad that this play is being performed and finding an audience. But it did not reach me as strongly as I anticipated. Excessively high expectations going into the theater, I expect.
There was a Talk Out afterwards with Cynthia O'Neal of FRIENDS IN DEED and Anthony Rapp. Very enlightening and inspirational.
I thought the physical production was spectacular, with the stark white walls that look like cinderblock until you look closer (or the angles of the light change) and you see that there are quotes and statistics relevant to the AIDS epidemic. Scene transitions were fluid and did not interrupt the building dramatic tension.
I thought the performances were strangely uneven. I was not impressed with Ellen Barkin, who has a tendency to pause when she blows a word - making it feel like dialogue rather than spontaneous speech. Her rant with the examining doctor started so angry and tense that she had nowhere to take it, and I actually stopped listening because her voice was so shrill. Joe Mantello gave a strong performance as Ned Weeks although I did not feel as sympathetic to him as I expected. His arc seems to be angry and angrier, and his tenderness is grudgingly given. I thought Jim Parsons was very good - funny and committed and sensitive. His comic timing was superb. (I don't know his TV show so I went in without expectations. ) But the person who truly blew me away was John Benjamin Hickey, in a nuanced and touching performance of tremendous humanity and candor. The two times I found myself crying, it was for something he did or said, both times at a moment that was not a heightened emotional climax but simply a human moment perfectly captured. He created a fully-rounded person, strong and weak, funny and angry, tremendously loving and frightened.
I thought some of the directorial choices were just bizarre. The blocking was occasionally meaningless - characters shifting from one part of the stage to another without any apparent reason (wish I could think of which scene it was that actually had me thinking, well, that was obvious and awkward). SPOILER -
Having Felix's death scene done standing up was totally bizarre and again seemed like a staged scene rather than a living, life-altering moment.
I am glad that this play is being performed and finding an audience. But it did not reach me as strongly as I anticipated. Excessively high expectations going into the theater, I expect.
There was a Talk Out afterwards with Cynthia O'Neal of FRIENDS IN DEED and Anthony Rapp. Very enlightening and inspirational.
#106
Posted: 5/18/11 at 12:11pm
We have tickets to see this on 05/27, and I CANNOT WAIT! Based on everything I've read, I have very high expectations, but somehow I don't anticipate being disappointed. I've never read the play but know the basis synopsis and gist. I'm so looking forward to getting to see this in a little more than a week and then (hopefully) watching it pick up several awards on the Tony telecast a few weeks later!
#107
Posted: 5/18/11 at 3:27pm
I did not feel as sympathetic to him as I expected. His arc seems to be angry and angrier, and his tenderness is grudgingly given.
Well, you probably would have hated Raul, then; by almost all accounts, Mantello is much less angry than Raul was.
I find it so strange that people say they stopped listening during Emma's monologue. I can't imagine not being compelled to listen to those words. I think what's weird about that is that people seem to be looking at it with these really elementary theatrical expectations, like she has to "have an arc" and "take it somewhere," as you would your everyday monologue, and they're forgetting that this isn't meant to adhere to those rules, it's meant to be a representation of something real. And in reality, she's not going to start off less angry than she really is. Of course she's that angry! Look what she's talking about. Stuff like this is where the perceptions that the play "reads like a newspaper" come from, and I understand how that can be problematic for people, but sometimes the commentary seems to insist on taking the play for something other than what it is.
Seeing this the Tuesday after the Tonys. My expectations are absolutely through the roof, but I'm hopeful that it will reach them.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
Well, you probably would have hated Raul, then; by almost all accounts, Mantello is much less angry than Raul was.
I find it so strange that people say they stopped listening during Emma's monologue. I can't imagine not being compelled to listen to those words. I think what's weird about that is that people seem to be looking at it with these really elementary theatrical expectations, like she has to "have an arc" and "take it somewhere," as you would your everyday monologue, and they're forgetting that this isn't meant to adhere to those rules, it's meant to be a representation of something real. And in reality, she's not going to start off less angry than she really is. Of course she's that angry! Look what she's talking about. Stuff like this is where the perceptions that the play "reads like a newspaper" come from, and I understand how that can be problematic for people, but sometimes the commentary seems to insist on taking the play for something other than what it is.
Seeing this the Tuesday after the Tonys. My expectations are absolutely through the roof, but I'm hopeful that it will reach them.
#108
Posted: 5/18/11 at 3:50pm
I saw this play on 5/9 and today saw this thread and had to add to the praise. It was amazing. It moved me in a way that no other play has done and left me chilled afterwards. Some of blocking in any other play would feel awkward, but here it just worked building layers with a choppiness that made the end become more poignent for me.
I did not feel as sympathetic to him as I expected. His arc seems to be angry and angrier, and his tenderness is grudgingly given.
See, this is why I loved Mantello. You felt his passion, but he still wasn't the easiest person to deal with. I've met people like that - their view is most definitely right on, but the way they try and present it can sometimes be a...well, unsympathetic and even bitter. I don't know if I would have found it as moving if Mantello had played it less angry - his choices made the character seem flawed and human and that was what drew me in.
I did not feel as sympathetic to him as I expected. His arc seems to be angry and angrier, and his tenderness is grudgingly given.
See, this is why I loved Mantello. You felt his passion, but he still wasn't the easiest person to deal with. I've met people like that - their view is most definitely right on, but the way they try and present it can sometimes be a...well, unsympathetic and even bitter. I don't know if I would have found it as moving if Mantello had played it less angry - his choices made the character seem flawed and human and that was what drew me in.
#109
Posted: 5/18/11 at 3:57pm
I'm finding it hard to believe that some people didn't like Emma's monologue. I thought it was the best part of the show.
I know you.
I know you.
I know you.
#110
Posted: 5/18/11 at 4:17pm
My "elementary theatrical expectations" include the expectation that an actor's delivery enhances the meaning of the words coming out of her mouth. I didn't mind her being angry and emotional; that I expected and understood. I minded that, for me, her prolonged shrill, staccato delivery and repetitious phrasing interfered with the impact of the very convincing arguments that she was building.
And I find it "weird" that you are characterizing my reactions to a production I have seen, based upon your presumptions about a production you haven't seen yet.
And I find it "weird" that you are characterizing my reactions to a production I have seen, based upon your presumptions about a production you haven't seen yet.
#111
Posted: 5/18/11 at 4:19pm
that an actor's delivery enhances the meaning of the words coming out of her mouth
That's different than what you originally said. Your original post expressed that the one-note anger got boring.
I said in my post that I was comparing your reactions to those of others, so no, I was not making personal presumptions about MY feelings on a production I haven't seen yet. I was making an observation, and I was very clear about that. But apparently I'm not allowed to discuss what I think the expectations of this text should be if I haven't seen one specific production. I'm not sure how one negates the other. (And for the record, there was another separate thread expressing something very similar about that monologue, and your post made me think of that, too. I was responding to the idea in general, because your post reminded me of that other one, not attacking you, so the snippy tone was really unnecessary.)
A work of art is an invitation to love.
That's different than what you originally said. Your original post expressed that the one-note anger got boring.
I said in my post that I was comparing your reactions to those of others, so no, I was not making personal presumptions about MY feelings on a production I haven't seen yet. I was making an observation, and I was very clear about that. But apparently I'm not allowed to discuss what I think the expectations of this text should be if I haven't seen one specific production. I'm not sure how one negates the other. (And for the record, there was another separate thread expressing something very similar about that monologue, and your post made me think of that, too. I was responding to the idea in general, because your post reminded me of that other one, not attacking you, so the snippy tone was really unnecessary.)
Updated On: 5/18/11 at 04:19 PM
#112
Posted: 5/18/11 at 5:17pm
I've seen both. Raul was hoarse by the end of the show from his anger and yelling. Joe Mantello's performance is more of a silent fury that can boil over at any minute, but isn't over the top. I loved Raul. And it's one of my favorite performances of his. But Joe Mantello embodies this character (and Larry Kramer) so well that I forget he's acting, and to me, that's more important than what the correct theatrical performance arc of anger is assumed to be.
Larry Kramer doesn't have an anger arc. He isn't showing a theatrical journey of emotions, he's showing his real life.
Larry Kramer doesn't have an anger arc. He isn't showing a theatrical journey of emotions, he's showing his real life.
Like a firework unexploded
Wanting life but never knowing how
Wanting life but never knowing how
Updated On: 5/18/11 at 05:17 PM
#113
Posted: 5/19/11 at 2:26pm
Tony Kushner touches on this much more eloquently and extensively than I can in his introduction to the recent edition of The Normal Heart and The Destiny of Me when he writes about what he refers to as the "accidental" theatricality of the play. It's worth a read.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
#114
Posted: 5/19/11 at 2:32pm
Could I ask what year/publisher the Kushner edition is in? I'd be interested to read that.
Just to add I'm incredibly jealous of everyone getting to see this production, I'm a PhD student studying HIV/AIDS in theatre which ironically means I can't afford a trip to NY to see this!
Just to add I'm incredibly jealous of everyone getting to see this production, I'm a PhD student studying HIV/AIDS in theatre which ironically means I can't afford a trip to NY to see this!
Maybe I'm on nobody's side
http://phdconfessions.blogspot.com/
#115
Posted: 5/19/11 at 2:35pm
It's this one!
http://www.amazon.com/Normal-Heart-Destiny-Me/dp/0802136923
It was my first copy and I highly recommend it. You can find first editions floating around, too, which have the introduction by Joe Papp.
This is totally taking the thread off the rails, but I'm curious to know what you're writing about.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
http://www.amazon.com/Normal-Heart-Destiny-Me/dp/0802136923
It was my first copy and I highly recommend it. You can find first editions floating around, too, which have the introduction by Joe Papp.
This is totally taking the thread off the rails, but I'm curious to know what you're writing about.
#116
Posted: 5/19/11 at 2:44pm
Thanks so much-my treasured copy is the first edition one so could do with a 'working' copy.
I'll PM you so as not to bore the rest of the thread!
I'll PM you so as not to bore the rest of the thread!
Maybe I'm on nobody's side
http://phdconfessions.blogspot.com/
#117
Posted: 5/19/11 at 2:47pm
You're welcome. I picked up a first edition that I stumbled upon at the BC/EFA Flea Market a few years back for only a dollar. I could use a real "working" copy, though. Raul signed my recent edition, and it's tattered to hell with pages literally falling out, so it doesn't ever leave my house. (And I love knowing that other people subscribe to the "working copy" method of book ownership, but I digress...)
Sounds lovely!
A work of art is an invitation to love.
Sounds lovely!
#118
Posted: 5/19/11 at 2:50pm
That doesn't sound boring at all, SoonerorLater! And, anyway, when has a thread on here NOT gone off the rails?
"Art, in itself, is an attempt to bring order out of chaos."-Stephen Sondheim
#119
Posted: 5/19/11 at 3:04pm
haha fair point!
In a nutshell then, I'm looking at representations of HIV/AIDS in British theatre/performance and the impact on British theatre(caveat for live/performance art as opposed to so called 'traditional' theatre)
The rationale being we haven't produced much in the way or 'original' response in the sense that most plays/performance has been imported from the USA (and a notable Australian exception) therefore that begs questions of our audience reading/artistic interpretation. Alongside this writing at this point in time allows me to look at the revived versions of the plays something that hasn't been done in great detail.
Academic attention has also focused on the USA in this area.
Phew! hope that covers it!
PS oh yes I'm a big fan of the 'working copy' vs 'That copy doesn't leave my sight'
In a nutshell then, I'm looking at representations of HIV/AIDS in British theatre/performance and the impact on British theatre(caveat for live/performance art as opposed to so called 'traditional' theatre)
The rationale being we haven't produced much in the way or 'original' response in the sense that most plays/performance has been imported from the USA (and a notable Australian exception) therefore that begs questions of our audience reading/artistic interpretation. Alongside this writing at this point in time allows me to look at the revived versions of the plays something that hasn't been done in great detail.
Academic attention has also focused on the USA in this area.
Phew! hope that covers it!
PS oh yes I'm a big fan of the 'working copy' vs 'That copy doesn't leave my sight'
Maybe I'm on nobody's side
http://phdconfessions.blogspot.com/
#120
Posted: 5/19/11 at 3:08pm
That's a really interesting angle, and I'm about to read your PM, but there's some really interesting literature on British productions (Declan Donnellan's in particular) of Angels in America. Dunno if that helps you/you're probably already looking into it, but I found it fascinating.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
Updated On: 5/19/11 at 03:08 PM
#121
Posted: 5/20/11 at 4:05am
I did my MA thesis on Angels (the 2006 London production specifically) and found a lot of information on the National Theatre production (Donnellan's). I'm 'hanging' this study off 4 key productions: The Normal Heart, Angels, Rent and Holding The Man (Conigrave/Murphy 2006) and then looking at the 'bigger picture' of the smaller productions surrounding those, wider cultural picture (what was going on in theatre the year 'Philadelphia' came out that sort of thing) Of course Angels and Rent aside there is less and less written or archived-even 'The Normal Heart' here was limited in it's impact (comparitivly)
Maybe I'm on nobody's side
http://phdconfessions.blogspot.com/
#122
Posted: 5/20/11 at 12:45pm
The Normal Heart was a vital play when first produced. I saw the current Broadway production this week and for me it felt very much like a play of two distinct parts.
The first act felt very dated - so much has happened since those early days and I really questioned what presenting the play today achieves?
The second act felt much more personal. The pain of the characters shines through - life and especially loss sadly remains a big part of the lives of those touched by HIV/AIDS.
What I'd like to see now is a play that addresses the struggles of getting HIV/AIDS on the agenda, the progress that has unquestionably been made over the years and the challenges that remain.
The first act felt very dated - so much has happened since those early days and I really questioned what presenting the play today achieves?
The second act felt much more personal. The pain of the characters shines through - life and especially loss sadly remains a big part of the lives of those touched by HIV/AIDS.
What I'd like to see now is a play that addresses the struggles of getting HIV/AIDS on the agenda, the progress that has unquestionably been made over the years and the challenges that remain.
#123
Posted: 5/20/11 at 1:50pm
All this discussion about Emma's monologue. . .
As an actor and a director myself, I fully understand where much of the criticism is coming from. There is nothing quite so beautiful in theatre as a perfectly delivered dramatic monolog. It does indeed "arc" and build, and when delivered with a melodic almost poetic feel it is indeed something of a wonder. And Ms. Barkin's delivery of her monolog did indeed fail that kind of delivery. But instead, what I saw was not an actress performing, but rather a totally believable angry woman who -- yes indeed -- started too angry to have much to build from. It was all kind of "one note" and that is exactly what impressed me. This character is a woman filled with anger that her work is going unsupported, that no one wants to do anything about this epidemic, or worse yet that they really don't believe it at all. To me, Ms. Barkin delivered something far more effective than a perfectly delivered actor's monologue. I believed her -- not as an actor -- but as a real person whose limits had been reached. It was brilliant.
As an actor and a director myself, I fully understand where much of the criticism is coming from. There is nothing quite so beautiful in theatre as a perfectly delivered dramatic monolog. It does indeed "arc" and build, and when delivered with a melodic almost poetic feel it is indeed something of a wonder. And Ms. Barkin's delivery of her monolog did indeed fail that kind of delivery. But instead, what I saw was not an actress performing, but rather a totally believable angry woman who -- yes indeed -- started too angry to have much to build from. It was all kind of "one note" and that is exactly what impressed me. This character is a woman filled with anger that her work is going unsupported, that no one wants to do anything about this epidemic, or worse yet that they really don't believe it at all. To me, Ms. Barkin delivered something far more effective than a perfectly delivered actor's monologue. I believed her -- not as an actor -- but as a real person whose limits had been reached. It was brilliant.
#124
Posted: 5/20/11 at 8:34pm
Patash, you described what I was attempting to far better. I don't understand why anyone would complain that these aren't formulaic, predictable performances. This play doesn't need "beautiful" monologues to be evocative. I think anyone who's still expecting that by the time of her monologue has missed the point of the show.
Like a firework unexploded
Wanting life but never knowing how
Wanting life but never knowing how
#125
Posted: 5/21/11 at 1:33am
Just can't state enough how much I loved this production. Cried my eyes out. Beautiful. Moving. Forceful. Amazing.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95