TORCH SONG Previews

[LYLS3637]

Posted: 9/26/17 at 9:38am

The revival, of sorts, of Harvey Fierstein's TORCH SONG begins previews tonight (September 26) at Second Stage starring Michael Urie and Mercedes Ruehl. More info: https://2st.com/shows/current-production/torch-song 

I'm seeing it on Saturday. Anyone going tonight?

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 9/26/17 at 12:24pm

I'm bummed that I won't be able to see it for while, as it is one of my all-time favorite plays... But I'm thrilled it has been extended through 12/3!

I hope those who saw the original productions are going, would love to hear their thoughts. 

[Jjohansan]

Posted: 9/26/17 at 2:10pm

Just purchased a ticket for next weekend! Looking forward to this one..

[JSquared2]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 10:40am

I was there last night.  It started just after 7:00 and got out just before 10:00.  LONG (25+ mins) intermission.  The show is in great shape for a first preview.  Michael Urie and Mercedes Ruhl are fantastic!  The weak link (so far) is Jack DiFalco.  I don’t get why he keeps getting cast as 15 year olds when he looks and acts 30?  Strong direction by Moises Kaufmann.  The production will keep getting better as the pacing picks up.  Harvey F. was in the back.

Updated On: 9/27/17 at 10:40 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 10:45am

JSquared2, are you familiar with the play? Is it being done as originally written, as three very separate and unique one-acts? (That is, Act I is a one-man show, II is stylized reality performed on a huge bed, and III is a sitcom.)

[AC126748]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 10:49am

I have not seen this production yet, but the promo material states it will be presented in two acts, and quotes an approximate running time of 2:20.

[JSquared2]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 10:50am

newintown said: "JSquared2, are you familiar withthe play? Is it being done as originally written, as three very separate and unique one-acts? (That is, ActI is a one-man show, II is stylized reality performed on a huge bed, and III is a sitcom.)"

Acts I and II are combined (with a brief pause for a set change), then intermission, then Act III which is the "Widows and Orphans First" act.

 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 11:07am

Two acts?  So that explains why they have omitted "Trilogy" from the title.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 11:16am

So is it worth paying $99? Too old for rush now, boo.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 11:30am

They've done away with the Lady Blues singer, right?  Do they do the backroom sequence in the first part (International Stud)?  

When I was 15 I did a community theater production as David in Widows and Children First (what WAS my mother thinking...God love her).  It was a solid three hours, which means a sh*t-ton was cut, including the back room scene.  But we had the Lady Blues singer, and she was magnificent.  

[newintown]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 11:40am

Cutting the back room bit would really sanitize the piece in a way that I find potentially bothersome, although  I wouldn't be surprised if this revival was all about appealing to the burbs and not scaring them. I love Fierstein, but he's really made a huge change from bohemian to mainstream/sentimental (I found Casa Valentina and Kinky Boots to be about as challenging as an episode of The Big Bang Theory).

And if Acts 1 and II have been combined, one or both must lose something of their unique quality.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 11:52am

I actually really liked CASA VALENTINA.  I didn't find it challenging, and I found the ending came waaaaaay too soon, but I was thrilled by the portraits he created (along with that top flight of actors).  I don't know that anything he's done since TORCH SONG TRILOGY, though, has even attempted to play with form that much.  I think he tried to capture lightning in a bottle again with SAFE SEX, but, by then, I think it dipped into preciousness.  

I was very excited to see this, but I've been hesitant to buy a ticket.  Performing in it was such a formative experience (particularly at that age) that I may want to leave well enough alone.  

[newintown]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 11:59am

Oh, I enjoyed Casa Valentina, I just found it facile and shallow. I think there are many playwrights who could have written a much deeper version of that story, some of them straight.

[AC126748]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 12:09pm

newintown said: "Oh, I enjoyed Casa Valentina, I just found it facile and shallow. I think there are many playwrights who could have written a much deeper version of that story, some of them straight."

I agree. I kept waiting for a pivot that never came.

[JSquared2]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 12:20pm

newintown said: "Cutting the back room bit would really sanitize the piece in a way that I find potentially bothersome, although Iwouldn't be surprised if this revival was all about appealing to theburbs and not scaring them. I love Fierstein, but he's really made a huge change from bohemian to mainstream/sentimental (I foundCasa ValentinaandKinky Bootsto be about as challenging as an episode of The Big Bang Theory).

And if Acts 1 and II have been combined, one or both mustlose something of their unique quality."

 

The backroom scene is still there (it didn't seem to be sanitized at all) --- and Urie is wonderful in it. 

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 12:23pm

That's awesome.  Thanks for letting us know!

[Auggie27]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 1:12pm

Saw the original three times, including when Court Miller went back in with Harvey, so I'm curious how much has been cut to create this running time. My guess is, a larger part of act two.  Just a guess. "Widows" would almost be a complete evening today (about 70 pages of text; the full script is in front of me). 

[newintown]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 3:38pm

"I'm curious how much has been cut to create this running time. My guess is, a larger part of act two."

Yes, I remember that Act II was the one no one much cared about back in the day, but I thought it was perfect as a contrast to the other, showier acts.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 3:44pm

Looking forward to seeing it Sunday!

Glad to hear they didn't cut the backroom scene.

Updated On: 9/27/17 at 03:44 PM

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 3:49pm

Can anyone report what has been omitted in this production?

[Skip23]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 11:16pm

Saw the show tonight.

It's a sweet, heart-on-it's-sleeve history lesson mixed with good ole vaudeville one liners.  Caused quite a stir when it premiered.

But here, Michael Urie is miscast.  Love him, and he's a fine, detailed actor, but the whole point of the show is the view from the life of a neurotic, Jewish, overweight, overwrought, drag queen, dramatic, gushing, sentimental homosexual-justifying, Brooklyn boy/man.  Urie feels vaguely neurotic, not Jewish at all (sorry...we need a stereotype here), not overweight or even hungry, and surface-y emotional and very millennial.  Arnold has to GUSH emotion. 

Hell, we need Harvey Fierstein.

And we need Estelle Getty.  Just the physical contrast between "The Mother" and the original Arnold was enough to create laughs.  And Getty's delivery was spot on and priceless.  Ruehl is fluttery, fussy, again not Jewish at all, with a focus all over the place.  Granted it's the 3rd preview, but... 

Ward Horton as Ed is missing a dose of butchness, which is a key factor in Arnold's attraction to the character.  Jack Difalco is WAY Catskill and WAY too old as David.  Roxanna Hope Radja does what she can with the bland role as the wife.  Only Michael Rosen as Alan hits the mark.

 

I was wondering:  Who else would make a good Arnold and Ma today?

 

 

 

[Alfie6]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 12:02am

I saw this tonight and really enjoyed it granted I did not see the original show or the movie so went in completely fresh and have no point of comparison. I thought that the whole cast was fantastic especially Mercedes Ruehl, this did not feel like an early previews performance and everything/everyone was in top form. As someone commented above yes the intermission feels long because they are putting the set together. I thought Michael Urie was excellent but it's hard to believe he is supposed to be a shlub since he's definitely an attractive guy, I had this issue also with Signifigant Other where I couldn't believe someone who looked like Gideon Glick could not find a boyfriend or at least a date. That backroom scene was an absolute highlight, shout out also to Jack DiFalco who didn't do anything for me in Marvin's Room but really gave a strong performance. I am really curious also what the major cuts were.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 12:03am

 

Sheesh, Skip23--what did YOU have for dinner? You're the kind of poster who gives message boards a bad name.

 

Updated On: 9/28/17 at 12:03 AM

[SweetLips]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 2:57am

No,how silly to say that he gives the board a bad name----he is just giving an honest opinion as he seems to know the play extremely well--thanks Skip for your well rounded and thoughtful review.

 

The above comment is typical from this seasoned regular.

[devonian.t]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 4:17am

This is a play that means a great deal to many people.  Feelings will be strong.

But I have to confess, he doesn't look like Arnold to me.