The Crucible Previews — Page 10

I don't understand why you made such a sweeping statement as " I almost wonder if Van Hove understands the play." if you've seen so much of his work. He certainly understands the play, I repeat. You may not agree with him, and that's fine. I just don't think it's right to declare he doesn't understand it.

Saw the final preview last night, very good production but didn't quite understand the set, but that was probably just me. Happy opening

You don't have to purchase two tickets, just that you can purchase two if you like (as opposed to the rushes that only allow one ticket per person).

"didn't quite understand the set, but that was probably just me."

Not at all, Drewski. Read this thread. You are far from alone.

Saw this last night. It's one of my favorite plays, but this production is a mess. I agree that van Hove definitely understands the play, but I just don't see his reasoning for suggesting that the witches are real. (Is he suggesting that, though? It's so hard to make sense of it.) I think that's what he's getting at with Betty flying and the trash blowing in and light exploding when Abigail and the girls get hysterical, but I just don't see the logic of it. My best guess is that there is some kind of demonic force in Salem (maybe connected to Tituba?) that Abby unwittingly summons, and once it's unleashed there's no stopping it. But that's just conjecture and nothing else in the production really supports it.

Performance wise I thought it was fine. Never anything outstanding, though Saiorse is the most interesting to watch. I always forget how little stage time Abby has, and how long the scenes are. It drags. And I get that it was a clear decision to have the Proctors be the only ones that speak with British accents, but that doesn't explain why Elizabeth is Cockney. The way she sounds onstage is pretty close to her natural speaking voice, but I feel like she's been directed to play it up ("Abbygail!" for a narrative purpose that's never clear.

The setting is confused and confusing. Why are they in a school? Nothing is gained by taking the play out of its usual 1692 setting, and if the production is trying to comment on paranoia and witch hunting in modern society, that argument is muddled by the fact that van Hove seems to believe the witches are real.

Also, for some reason there's a wolf.

I have seen many Crucibles over the years and found Van Hove's production fascinating. No, it wasn't perfect but it was always more than engaging. I found the supernatural effects to be spot on. No, they were not to be treated literally. It is the embodiment of Mass Hysteria. As a Psychotherapist trust me on this. The citizens of Salem needed to see all of this to justify the neurotic fear of the Devil that was deeply rooted in their societal purview. How can you just trust a few school girls who make crazy sounds with jerky movements? They absolutely saw the devil so mass burnings were truly justified. The fact that this never really happened is the great tragedy. As for the set. I think Van Hove really wanted a site specific experience and tried to recreate that in a theatre. Not sure that it really worked but bravo for trying. And the filmic underscoring by Philip Glass helped with the mood. Was it relentless? Yes. But that was the point. You don't hire Mr. Glass for subtlety. Over the top. Yes. But again, bravo for going there.

Updated On: 4/7/16 at 05:23 PM

I had a lot of problems with this production. A lot.

But I don't interpret it as suggesting that the witches are real. Instead it boldly invites us to join the hysteria, to think we see what Mary Warren might have thought that she'd seen, by depicting it. And, like Mary Warren, to question our selves.

Frankly, that's one of the few things this production does extremely well.

Of course that's just my opinion, the fact that so many have the opposite take suggests otherwise.

Updated On: 4/8/16 at 09:45 AM

Another seating question for the group. Is the stage high at this theater? There is a discount code on BroadwayBox, but the options are somewhat restrictive. Was looking at row C aisle seats on either side. Otherwise, have to go pretty far back or pretty far to the side.

I think people are reading too much into this. We are over a half century removed from the McCarthy era- I'm not sure too many people will make the connection. Ivo is just staging a play and trying to entertain us. There's precious few moments in this piece where he can do his thing. On second viewing, I'm not sure it works. The scene with the Proctors just drags. They're just not sympathetic people (and that perm is just too distracting). Norton adds some humanity but the real life Giles beat a man to death. The raison d' etre for this piece seems to have passed.

This is my first exposure to this play. Do you guys think it's a good idea to read the play first before I see this production since someone mentions that they think the director doesn't really understand the play?

Updated On: 4/11/16 at 07:43 PM

Alex10 said: "oh-bwayhereicome said: "Anyone know if they are selling merchandise yet? Or if there is any way to order it online? They weren't selling anything when I went to one of the last previews...



"

I was there on 4/2 and they were selling merchandise, but they didn't seem to have the widest range of things to choose from.



"

I remember t-shirt and window card.

Dancingthrulife2 said: "This is my first exposure to this play. Do you guys think it's a good idea to read the play first before I see this production since someone mentions that they think the director doesn't really understand the play?"



I would read the play first if you can, but please disregard the comment about the director not understanding the play.



Jordan, so glad you enjoyed.