THE PARIS LETTER reviews
THE PARIS LETTER reviews
THE PARIS LETTER reviews#0
Posted: 6/12/05 at 8:46pm
Broadway.com's review
Updated On: 6/12/05 at 08:46 PM
re: THE PARIS LETTER reviews#2
Posted: 6/12/05 at 10:34pm
The AP:
AP Review
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/13/03
re: THE PARIS LETTER reviews#3
Posted: 6/12/05 at 10:55pm
Theatermania:
review.
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/26/04
re: THE PARIS LETTER reviews#4
Posted: 6/13/05 at 12:12amRatz. I love watching Rifkin work and I was holding out so much hope for this play.
A click for life.
mamie4 5/14/03
re: THE PARIS LETTER reviews#5
Posted: 6/13/05 at 12:29am
Variety is Mixed:
"Two gay New York men whose lives are lived in different yet equally arid states of self-denial are at the center of Jon Robin Baitz's "The Paris Letter," which has been staged by "Doubt" director Doug Hughes with his customary crisp economy in a stylishly designed Roundabout production. A half-hour and one intermission shorter than in its three-act Center Theater premiere in Los Angeles in December, the play is graced by elegant writing and sensitive observation of the compromises that inhibit the pursuit of love and happiness. But the sprawling, complex work takes too long to reveal itself and, while always absorbing, it feels frustratingly unfocused and emotionally remote."
Variety Review
re: THE PARIS LETTER reviews#6
Posted: 6/13/05 at 12:32am
A friend LOVED it. He found it well acted, an engaging story that's truly moving. I panicked when he mentioned a nude scene, for the thought of John Glover and Ron Rifkin naked is terrifying. Alas, it's not them.
re: THE PARIS LETTER reviews#7
Posted: 6/13/05 at 12:34am
I agree wholeheartedly with the Variety review.
And yes, both Rifkin and Glover keep their clothes on.
re: THE PARIS LETTER reviews#8
Posted: 6/13/05 at 12:51am
Isherwood (NY Times) is Mixed:
"'I told you so." That evergreen taunt has a mournful sting in the final moments of Jon Robin Baitz's new play, "The Paris Letter," which opened last night at the Laura Pels Theater in a clean production from Doug Hughes, the Tony-winning director of "Doubt, a Parable," that can't disguise the play's tendency toward clutter.
_______________________________________________________________
The plot hinges on an urgent missive sent with a foreign postmark, but despite its broad scope, "The Paris Letter" lacks the substance of a major epistle from the gifted, always interesting Mr. Baitz. It more resembles a series of disconnected postcards."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/theater/reviews/13lett.html?8hpib
re: THE PARIS LETTER reviews#9
Posted: 6/13/05 at 1:22am
Newark Star Ledger is Mixed:
"A disconsolate story fraught with family and friendship complications, Jon Robin Baitz's new play opened yesterday at the Steinberg Center. Superior acting in this Roundabout Theatre Company production keeps "The Paris Letter" interesting, but the busy, choppy, downbeat piece leaves a sour taste."
____________________________________________________________
"Essentially the problem with Baitz's work is that such a complex, tragic saga would best be rendered not as a play, but as a Michael Cunningham-style novel ("The Hours") that could accommodate all of the particulars the story needs. Moreover, the pleasure of reading beautiful prose and Baitz is an expressive writer might mitigate the painful nature of such a bleak tale. Experienced as a play, however, Sandy's struggles too simply look like a series of wrong-headed decisions."
http://www.nj.com/entertainment/ledger/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-0/1118638516289660.xml&coll=1
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/13/03
re: THE PARIS LETTER reviews#10
Posted: 6/13/05 at 9:44amFWIW, I saw it Sunday (opening "night") and loved it also.
re: THE PARIS LETTER reviews#11
Posted: 6/13/05 at 9:50amI saw it in previews. Turgid and forgettable.
re: THE PARIS LETTER reviews#12
Posted: 6/13/05 at 10:26amJohn Glover was certainly not terrifyingly nearly-nude in Love! Valour! Compassion!, although that was many years ago. I enjoyed the site of him in that show very much.
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/13/03
at least it aims high(er)#13
Posted: 6/13/05 at 11:16am
Whatever one thinks of this play, or others of Baitz: he writes ambitious work that dares to have more than one thing on its mind at a time. This play's gnarly structure and focus issues, while flaws in the strict craft sense, also, in the plus column, demonstrate its rather daring range. In an impatient, I'll-give-you-only-90-minutes climate, Baitz makes people wait, listen, be patient, hold two thoughts simultaneously, and to consider that seemingly unrelated issues -- say, sexuality and corporate corruption -- could be linked in inexplicable ways.
How wonderful to have two new American plays on Broadway that take on something so old fashioned as...ideas. And it frightens me how the presence of an emotional confrontation these days is invariably referred to as "close to melodrama..." A steady diet of irony-tinged cartoons has made the theatre a place where a heart worn on one's sleeve is rarely treated with respect. Bravo to Baitz, an intellectual writer who cares about emotions.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/13/03
re: THE PARIS LETTER reviews#14
Posted: 6/13/05 at 11:25am
I stayed for the post-show discussion on Sunday and learned that the show underwent major changes as recently as 2 weeks ago. Apparently a big scene was removed and replaced with 10 pages of new text (I did not get a chance to ask which scene). The actors went live with the new dialogue that night. Either Hughes or Baitz (I forget which one), went on stage before that preview and explained to the audience that the actors just received 10 new pages that day and to please be patient with them as they will be doing those 10 pages with book in hand.
re: THE PARIS LETTER reviews#15
Posted: 6/13/05 at 3:56pm
NY Post is Mixed:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06132005/entertainment/45304.htm
Newsday is Mixed:
http://www.newsday.com/features/printedition/ny-etparis4302222jun13,0,4930331.story?coll=ny-features-print
re: THE PARIS LETTER reviews#16
Posted: 6/13/05 at 4:01pmI saw the original LA production (which, aside from Mr. Rifkin, had an entirely different cast) and the first preview of the New York engagement. Between LA and NYC, the play lost 45 minutes and went from three to two acts. The plot is very interesting and the acting could not be better, but it seemed to me to be rather unfocused and confused. I am, however, seeing it again in three weeks to survey the changes made between the first preview and opening night.
Chorus Member Joined: 2/8/05
re: THE PARIS LETTER reviews#17
Posted: 6/13/05 at 4:10pm
Thanks for that tidbit, Madame X. Did anything else interesting come out of the post-show discussion?
I saw the show last week and while I agree with some of the criticism, I found the relationship between the two men, both in the past and the present, to be quite moving. Certainly a lot of the credit for this goes to Hughes and the cast. The play does have its problems but I admire the ambition, and I think it succeeds more than it fails.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/13/03
re: THE PARIS LETTER reviews#18
Posted: 6/13/05 at 5:20pm
Sure.
**Spoilers**Spoilers**Spoilers**Spoilers**Spoilers**Spoilers**
**Spoilers**Spoilers**Spoilers**Spoilers**Spoilers**Spoilers**
* The play was written so that each actor would play multiple parts. It was meant for the audience to ponder these relationships. (ie - Michele Pawk - mother/wife, etc, etc)
* Anton is pissed at the end and that's why he euthanizes/murders Sandy (thought that was obvious, but it was discussed). Discussed, but didn't conclude (isn't that the beauty of it all?) on why Anton calls it euthanasia.
* They will not share how they get the blood to splatter in that scene...there needs to be some secrets after all, they say w/ an impish chuckle.
* Much was talked about Doug Hughes and how he understands actors, being from a family of actors.
* Rifkin said in former versions of the play, the Dr. Psychiatrist (sorry forget his name) used to have these comedic monologues. He hated them as he felt they undermined the seriousness of the character. After all, why would Sandy go to him twice(?) a week for x number of years if the Dr was a complete fool. He was glad when this was taken out.
* As noted in one of the final scenes, Anton actually was there for that scene and wasn't just the narrator hanging out. I'm still not sure why he was there though or how he got to be there.
* Someone asked how Daniel Eric Gold and Jason Butler Harner researched their roles since being gay today isn't the same was it was in the 60's (some would beg to differ, but that's not what this post is about). They discussed an actual movement in the 60's (I forget the name of it), where gay men actually went to shrinks to be "cured." Jason said if they had any questions, Baitz was at most of the rehearsals to answer any questions they had or any references they didn't understand. Jason then shared a touching story about his father, who came out at age 52.
* Since Jason came on board so late in the game, he basically took any direction thrown at him.
* They talked about the rewrites...and that's how the 10 new pages came up. They were initially told they'd rehearse the 10 new pages and then do the old version during the show that night. Then later on, Hughes said, hey, why not go on with the new pages. Ron Rifkin did not take that well according to Jason. :) But Hughes (I think it was Hughes) made the pre-show speech and they went on with the new pages.
**End Spoilers**End Spoilers**End Spoilers**End Spoilers**End Spoilers**End Spoilers**
**End Spoilers**End Spoilers**End Spoilers**End Spoilers**End Spoilers**End Spoilers**
That's all I remember for now. I'll post more if I remember later.
Chorus Member Joined: 2/8/05
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/13/03
re: THE PARIS LETTER reviews#20
Posted: 6/14/05 at 4:55pmRifkin also mentioned that we were a VERY quiet audience since the previous audiences were laughing all over the place and we'd only laughed sporadically. I personally can't picture the play with that many laughs...I think it would throw off the tone of the piece. But we (the audience) taught them that even if we're not laughing, it doesn't mean that we're not enjoying the play. The actor's inclination is to say "stupid audience" (he said something to that effect, not those words exactly), when the audience doesn't respond they way they expect them to, but really, it's not necessarily a bad thing.
Stand-by Joined: 4/15/05
re: THE PARIS LETTER reviews#21
Posted: 6/15/05 at 11:28pmI just got back from The Paris Letter and I agree with the mixed reviews. I would like to see the original LA version since I have a feeling all the editing has caused the lack of focus. The acting was first rate. My favorite scene was the talk between Lillian (Michele Pawk) and Young Sandy (Daniel Eric Gold). So powerful and moving. The staging was quite inventive although I probably had the worst seat in the house (Row D, Seat 11). They should not be selling that part of the house since the stage (and actors) faces the other side.
Videos
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
