The Crucible Previews — Page 3

Hm...... I don't know the play at all, so I'm curious.

He is definitely love it or hate it, but I think as you say Whizzer, when Ivo Van Hove directs a play, the draw really is to see his deconstructed, abstract interpretation of it. As such, I don't really think you can say that he is 'working hard' to do Arthur Miller, because you just can't compare his productions to any traditional stagings of the authors works. That of course would also be the case of Ivo Van Hove's takes on STREETCAR, LITTLE FOXES, HEDDA GABBLER, etc. They are almost presented as an 'alternative' take on the material for an adventurous theatre goer. Not for all tastes of course.

Updated On: 3/1/16 at 11:48 PM

What was on display tonight definitely didn't have the cohesive power or laser focus of A VIEW FROM A BRIDGE, but I do think we have to keep remembering that BRIDGE came to the US after a year of work in the UK. Tonight was the very first public performance ever of his take on THE CRUCIBLE. I'm sure the production will be a work in progress during previews.

Updated On: 3/1/16 at 11:54 PM

QueenAlice said: "What was on display tonight definitely didn't have the cohesive power or laser focus of A VIEW FROM A BRIDGE, but I do think we have to keep remembering that BRIDGE came to the US after a year of work in the UK. Tonight was the very first public performance ever of his take on THE CRUCIBLE. I'm sure the production will be a work in progress during previews.

"

It will definitely grow and take shape during the preview period, of course. I don't deny that. But van Hove isn't some young wunderkind director fresh out of grad school. He's been working professionally for almost two decades. This is a man who knows what he wants and gets it from his actors and production team. While I assume there will be tweaks here and there, this is - by and large - the finished product. I'm not saying I expect all of his work to be as polished as AVFTB, but this is finger painting. Carefully calibrated finger painting, but finger painting.

I've recently been thinking somebody needs to do the Lazarus of Crucible productions.

In the interviews I've read with Ivo Van Hove, he has spoken that his approach is essentially to embrace heightened theatricality (as opposed to cinematic realism which has become much more common in the 21st century) to highlight the text. More often than not for me, he succeeds, and I always feel like I come away from one of his productions with some new understanding of the play being performed. And I do feel that is the case for the CRUCIBLE as well. At least the first preview beginnings of it.

But yes, of course anyone who goes to see this hoping for a classic Broadway revival will be disappointed. That's just not Ivo Van Hove's thing. I frankly find it a miracle he is working on Broadway at all, but am glad that if we are going to get a revival every four years of these classic plays, we are at least getting one take that is wildly unique.

ColortheHours --- Actually Ivo Van Hove's productions have been known to change a lot as they are developed. I understand his vision for BRIDGE changed greatly throughout the performance period in the UK. So I do expect THE CRUCIBLE to have his usual 'play in the sandbox' - throw everything at the wall period.

Updated On: 3/2/16 at 12:14 AM

It's so funny-- this was my third Van Hove production this year, my second in the past two weeks, and though conceptually he may operate in the poles ("stripped down" yet emotionally explosive/raw), I don't think his point is to elicit immediate emotional devastation in his audiences. I always find his approach to leave me percolating, simmering in a charged state. I think he does a brilliant job at stripping down the latent structure of our American mythologies (which are arguably what Millers plays are) and making them undeniable-- I never find that Van Hove is trying to strip down his works in ways that devalues the conventional/traditional portrayals of the texts, and often they gain their brilliance in knowing that much of the audience is familiar with the tropes of these now-canonical characters.

It was far from perfect, and it still feels like a piece in flux (as would any show at its first preview, especially a classical reinvention), but damn I loved it. Whishaw still seems to be finding his Proctor, and I too felt Ronan was underused (though I also think my perceptions of the size of that role have been altered by the Daniel Day Lewis film version). I was personally enthralled by Okonedo-- the bizarre tension of her broken-resilience was captivating to me. Hinds seems especially well cast, and Gevison was special, I agree.

Also, I don't think Miller will ever need help in making his plays socially relevant, especially the Red Scare allegory that is the Crucible, but I thought this production did an effective job at pushing that relevance into extreme topical territory without being at all condescending or clunky-- subtle is never a word I would use to describe a Van Hove production simplistically, but his morals and the relevance are deftly conveyed.

(as you can tell, I'm a fan of Van Hove.)

Updated On: 3/2/16 at 12:23 AM

I think the reason Ronan felt underused was because her Act 2 scene with John was tacked onto the opening scene. Which was weird, tonally, that early in the play and really diminishes Abigail's presence. In my opinion.

ColorTheHours048 said: "I think the reason Ronan felt underused was because her Act 2 scene with John was tacked onto the opening scene. Which was weird, tonally, that early in the play and really diminishes Abigail's presence. In my opinion.

"

Something that definitely felt "first preview" and hopefully open to some playful change was some of the structuring of scenes and (perhaps moreso) their transitions. I'm still puzzling out the flash of schoolgirls at the top of the show and the brief moment of flight, and how's those factored into the larger structure of the production

Updated On: 3/2/16 at 12:30 AM

The estates and authors who give Ivo Van Hove permission to do their works do so knowing that they are going to get a wildly different take on the material. I really think you have to look at his works through the prism of 'deconstruction' or 'alternative'. And the estates allow it because he is largely brilliant at what he does. There is value to a good deconstruction of a play because it shows that the play has strength and structure as a piece of writing. And since his productions obviously don't take anything away from the gazillion other productions of THE LITTLE FOXES or THE CRUCIBLE or even ANGELS IN AMERICA being done all around the world in very traditional productions, why not?

Kushner has said that he found van Hove's production emotionally devastating. It's brought up in the New Yorker's article on Ivo titled "Theatre Laid Bare," which is a really good read if you like van Hove or just want to learn more about where his approach comes from.

I think van Hove, if nothing else, makes us confront why we find the structure of plays so precious today. One of the great grad school playwriting exercises is to write a play in five scenes and then mix up the order of those scenes. If it still works, you were successful. If it doesn't, the play never had the power in its story.

I have no problem with him taking a scalpel and some kitchen knives to preexisting works. I wish more directors had the guts to do that. But sometimes "because why not?" doesn't cut it (no pun intended). It has to serve a purpose.

FindingNamo, not to threadjack too badly here, but having taught and read (and seen) ANGELS IN AMERICA a bunch of times, I'm really curious to know what you mean about the text of ANGELS IN AMERICA. Was it extensively cut? Or were there other major changes? Curious to know now because that play feels so specific but I also know Kushner provides different ways to perform the play.

Updated On: 3/2/16 at 01:23 AM