TORCH SONG Previews- Page 2

[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.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 7:50am

Skip23 said: "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?"

Odd that Ruehl, who won universal praise and a Tony for Lost in Yonkers, and is clearly Jewish enough in the minds of those two famous gentiles, Neil Simon and Moises Kaufman, here isn't Jewish "at all".... but thanks for your review, Skip23, I'm not saying you're wrong (haven't seen the show yet), I'm just musing...

As to your question, since you are looking for actors more like Harvey and Estelle, while no one is Harvey or Estelle, granted...  how about Josh Gad and Tracey Ullman?  Or maybe Josh and Julie Kavner?





"

 

Updated On: 9/28/17 at 07:50 AM

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 8:08am

PalJoey said: "

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

"

No, jerk. Look in the mirror if you wanna see who gives message boards a bad name. Snooty creeps like you who think your opinion is the only one that matters makes message boards a disgrace. 

All he did was post a review. He is entitled to his opinion and he expressed it clearly. And it sounds like you have not even seen the show. 

Thanks Skip. Great review. 

 

Updated On: 9/28/17 at 08:08 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 8:13am

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

What crawled up your butt and died, Joey? Why do you have to be so twatty to someone who wrote a very cogent opinion that you don't like?

I put it to you that you can be the kind of poster to give boards a bad name, particularly when writing things like that.

 

[kaykordeath]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 8:18am

Skip's  not entirely wrong, but I don't think it detracts from the show at all.

This is simply a different Arnold. Thirty years later, the show now is less about the neurotic and shlubby than it is about the themes and, what is NOW, history/reality (as opposed to optimistic fantasy, then). It's a story about marriage and adoption and raising children as a gay man. It's about how far we've come and the battles fought to get here. Taken on its own, rather than a comparison to the original, Urie's performance is excellent. He and Ruehl really shine. 

Additionally, it's a visually beautiful production. 

[kcguy]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 1:56pm

Does anyone know when tickets are going on sale to non-subscribers for the extension?

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 2:15pm

A friend of mine saw it last night and said that it's a stunning production, but also said that Urie and Ruehl are both a bit miscast.  His big issue with it was that Arnold is supposed to be a type of gay man that doesn't get to be seen very often in the media or in the arts, and yet there are so many people like him.  Whenever there's a gay character it tends to be played by a thin, white, pretty, twink and Torch Song was a show that had a character that went against those stereotypes.  Unfortunately, they cast a thin, white, pretty, twink in this production.  I can't comment on Urie's performance until I see it next week, but I already have problems with his casting.

As for who would be a great Arnold right now, Titus Burgess.  He may not be Jewish, but he would be sensational.

[BuddyStarr]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 2:19pm

GeorgeandDot said:...As for who would be a great Arnold right now, Titus Burgess. He may not be Jewish, but he would be sensational."

He would be hysterical! 

[morosco]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 2:43pm

I hope they're selling bunny bedroom slippers at the merch stand.

[raddersons]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 2:51pm

Trying to buy a ticket to this, but very perplexed by the seating chart from Second Stage... where is the stage? What seats are good?



 

[AC126748]

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

https://2st.com/tickets/seating-chart

[JSquared2]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 2:59pm

GeorgeandDot said: "A friend of mine saw it last night and said that it's a stunning production, but also said that Urie and Ruehl are both a bit miscast. His big issue with it was that Arnold is supposed to be a type of gay man that doesn't get to be seen very often in the media or in the arts, and yet there are so many people like him. Whenever there's a gay character it tends to be played by a thin, white, pretty, twink and Torch Song was a show that had a character that went against those stereotypes. Unfortunately, they cast a thin, white, pretty, twink in this production. I can't comment on Urie's performance until I see it next week, but I already have problems with his casting.

As for who would be a great Arnold right now, Titus Burgess. He may not be Jewish, but he would be sensational."

 

While Urie is certainly attractive --- if you think he's a "thin, white, pretty twink" --- then you must not get out much!!  Have you set foot in Chelsea or Hell's Kitchen in the past 20 years?  Thin and white --- he is, but "pretty" and "twink" --- sorry!  

 

[raddersons]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 3:19pm

@AC126748, thank you! Wasn't looking hard enough.

[gallerygirl]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 3:42pm

I don't recall anything in the script that says Arnold is an overweight "schlub". Certainly none of Harvey's original replacements...David Garrison, Donald Corren, P.J. Benjamin, Richard De Fabees, Jonathan Hadary ....or the international Arnolds, London's Antony Sher and Australia's Tony Sheldon...fit that description. 

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 4:09pm

I don't think Arnold is a "schlub" either, but I think he needs to be a "Funny Valentine" if that makes sense.  Maybe a bit overweight, maybe a little goofy, a little awkward.  

Also, I would consider Urie to be pretty and he is kind of a "twink."  I guess what I'm saying is that he's more of an Every(gay)man and I don't think that, that's what Arnold should be.

[Valentina3]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 4:42pm

"...he's more of an Every(gay)man and I don't think that, that's what Arnold should be."

With due respect, that's just an opinion. A valid one, but an opinion nonetheless. Harvey was involved in this production really heavily. If he didn't think Urie was appropriate for the character, he would put his foot down. Let's see what Urie does with the material. Objectivity can be a difficult thing with beloved pieces such as this, but that's the only thing which will help us enjoy any new work of art.

[LYLS3637]

Posted: 9/29/17 at 9:48am

Granted, I've only seen the film, but I never was under the impression that Arnold's physical appearance was that important. It was more about his self-confidence and how he saw himself and his place in the community. His troubles within the gay world were more about his lack of self-worth combined with the domesticated life he envisioned for himself. 

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 9/29/17 at 10:04am

"Oh I've been pretty.  And God knows I've been young.  But never the twain have met.  Not so's anyone would notice anyway."

There's definitely stuff in there about Arnold's physical appearance and what he thinks of it.  I find Urie very, very attractive, especially up close.  But on stage, he has enough of a quirk about him both physically and in his performance style that I think he might make a fantastic Arnold Beckoff.  

[whatever2]

Posted: 9/29/17 at 10:11am

Physical appearance is one element of schlubbiness (grammar, accent, presentation can be others). The juxtaposition of self-confidence with schlubbiness was always part of Arnold's appeal to me.

That said, I thought Urie did a fine job, and I don't see the point of a belabored comparison. Judge him as Arnold, not as Harvey-playing-Arnold.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/2/17 at 8:42am

Michael Urie and Mercedes Ruehl DESTROYED me last night and brought the third act (now the second act) of Torch Song to an astonishing level of depth and humor. What Ruehl lacks in Estelle Getty's comic timing and natural attitude, she more than makes up for in the way she captures the fierceness of that generation of tough Jewish women. She is much more like Anne Bancroft was in the film, except she lands every joke that Estelle Getty did.

The posters on this thread seem to be hung up on physical characteristics. Ward Horton who plays Ed is plenty butch enough for the part, and he captures that 1970s version of bisexual ambivalence brilliantly. And although Michael Urie will never be thought of as zaftig, his Barbra-inflected Brooklyn Arnold was completely believable as an emotionally barricaded funny-looking guy with a pattern of attracting only the wrong men. And I saw not only Harvey do the role (multiple times) but also Jonathan Hadary on the national tour, and he was brilliant but not particularly large. (By the way, if you think that pretty people automatically have satisfying love lives, you need to spend some time reading the Facebook statuses of all my perennially single actor/dancer/model friends! If they have such trouble finding and keeping boyfriends, why wouldn't Urie's Arnold?) And speaking of gorgeous actor/dancer/models, Michael Rosen is exquisite. If they sold Michael Rosen plush toys at the merch table, I would have bought two.

The acting and direction of the newly combined first two plays of the trilogy is fine, but it's in "Widows and Children First" that this production attains its brilliance. Ward Horton really grows into the part of Ed in this act, and Jack DiFalco is a delightfully different and refreshingly funny David. But Urie and Ruehl reach startling levels of anger and grief and humor, in a series of duets that are near-Wagnerian. I don't know if mothers still say the same level of horrible things to their sons, but they certainly did when I was coming out: "Do you have to throw your gay sex life in my face?" Your homosexuality killed your father." "How DARE you compare your one-night stands to my 35 years with your father!"

Estelle Getty's Borscht-belt delivery of Harvey's punch lines gave you comfort that something funny would follow those lines to undercut the meanness. But Mercedes Ruehl's comedy is clearly her defense mechanism, and when she says those mean things you know she means it: He DOES throw his sex life in her face, but he also throws his crotcheting and his cooking and his love.

And when Michael Urie's Arnold throw it back at her, he is clearly his mother's son. They are a match in meanness, as they are a match in love. As I walked away from the Tony Kiser Theater, I was transported back to conversations with my own mother and how true the underpinnings of Harvey's play still are.

My only reservation is that combining the first two acts and losing the trilogy aspect removes a bit of the epic quality the original had. It was a marathon, the gay Ring Cycle or the gay Nicholas Nickelby. But times have changed, attention spans have shortened--and Tony Kusher gave us another gay Ring Cycle (that will NEVER, I hope be shortened!)--and I guess two acts of Torch Song are all we need anymore.

But, boy, that last act is a kick in the rubber parts!

(And, yes, it is "enough."

 

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 10/2/17 at 10:13am

Does anyone think this might extend or move to Broadway for a limited run?

And Pal Joey you just made me want to see this more than I already did.

[Valentina3]

Posted: 10/2/17 at 10:49am

"Does anyone think this might extend or move to Broadway for a limited run?"

They extended it once (was 19th Nov, now available until Dec 3rd). Urie is doing Hamlet from January 16-February 25 at STC so further extensions, if any, would be not more than a week or two.

I'd love a transfer but I doubt they'd want to compete against this season's heavy hitters like Angels In America and heavily-rumored The Boys In The Band which will have similar audience.

[little_sally]

Posted: 10/2/17 at 11:31am

I saw this Saturday's matinee and overall enjoyed it quite a bit. I understand the reservations about Urie in the role but I think he's so terrific that it doesn't matter. He's giving a great performance. In fact, the whole cast is quite good. The second half is better than the first (I found the Fugue in a Nursery bit dragged a little) but overall, this is one of the better things I've seen lately. If you can get a ticket, please go! After Government Inspector, and now this, Urie continues to impress me on stage. I've already got my ticket to see him as Hamlet in February.

Updated On: 10/2/17 at 11:31 AM

[Boston Friend]

Posted: 10/2/17 at 1:04pm

There seemed to be some new text written for David.  For me, some of it was a little awkward.  Jokes about "open marriages" and referring to Ed as "Daddy."

Otherwise, it was a wonderful production.  Beautifully staged.

[martysil]

Posted: 10/2/17 at 7:47pm