The Crucible Previews — Page 4

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

Ray, it was extensively cut and there were substantial changes. For example, the show abruptly ends when Pryor tells Louis he can't come back. Thank you, goodnight!

Intriguingly, in one of the interviews I heard, Kushner said one of the cuts was so effective, he incorporated it into the Signature revival script but he wasn't going to name it since he wanted the audience to see it. However, I heard the interview after seeing the van Hove and years after the Signature revival and I will be damned if I know what he was talking about, and I know that show pretty well.

There was not a hell of a lot of Hannah and not a hell of a lot of Harper. There was no visualization of the Angel. Well, the Angel had no wings. As I said, it was a different animal completely with I want to say at least an hour and a half excised, perhaps more.

A whole other discussion is what a trip it was to read the supertitles which had been translated to English from the Dutch script. Probably my own ethnocentrism had prepared me to see Kushner's original words scroll by, but there were almost none of them. It was fascinating to see what cultural references made the cut. Reddy Kill-o-Watt was in but Come Back, Little Sheba was out. For some reason, the cat was called "Lassie." All references to Ayn Rand were gone, which made some sense when I read Ivo had staged The Fountainhead. I think he's into her.

Updated On: 3/2/16 at 02:08 AM

This is disappointing to hear, as someone who taught The Crucible for *mumbles* years, I was looking forward to it. Sigh.

In fairness, and as already been pointed out, this was only the first preview. Van Hove is known to drastically change his productions during previews. I'm still holding out hope that this will elevate to the level of his other productions.

FindingNamo said: "The big missing puzzle piece in these discussions is Ivo van Hove's Angels in America, which I wish more people saw so we can could hash that one out. Tony Kushner was in the audience the night I saw it and always otherwise engaged or I would have tackled him during a break and asked, "How did this happen?"

The performance was immediate and raw and devastating (with probably the best Roy Cohn I've ever seen), but what it wasn't was Tony Kushner's Angels in America.

Lazarus was a gorgeous gooey Bowie-themed mess and I loved A View... but what I would love to know is how the hell does he get to do what he does? Who gives him the permission?"

I was also at that Angels performance. I couldn't agree with you more. It was so harsh and - as you said - devastating, but it was not the Angels I had known and loved - something totally different. I felt the same about Bridge and I'm sure I'll feel the same about Crucible great way of stating it, Namo!

SLSigafoos said: "So did they revisit the scene at all in Act 2? I'm really curious as to how it works when such a pivotal scene was moved to the opening of the production...and for what purpose?

"

The opening happens as written (I believe) and then when John and Abigail are left alone together, the scene happens. The purpose is to get all of their history laid out before anything happens so that we see right away how vindictive and motivated Abigail is. We see her manipulate the girls and we see her attempt to manipulate John, so the wheels are in motion full blast right out the gate.

It's not revisited in any way in the second act. We see Abigail in the opening up until the "I saw Goody Good dance with the Devil, I saw Goody Nurse dance with the Devil" madness and then she doesn't come back until the court room scene when the girls turn on Mary Warren.

Thanks for clarifying that script change. I will say (particularly after that jaw dropping court room hysteria scene) that I thought the production lost a little steam in that final act -- and moving that John / Abigail exchange might have contributed to that.

I don't think Ronan is under-used, but Abigail (and Ronan) are powerful on stage presences. There is no denying that her relationship with Proctor is arguably the most interesting dynamic in the script, and without that exchange there is less tension in the final act.

Re-reading and remembering that Van Hove's process is to generally not approach the final scene with his actors until the day or two before first performance no doubt contributed as well.

I do think the production potentially will change a lot in previews, so I hope we can try to track its progress on this board.

Also, I love the poster and yes, I'm sure marketing reasons of having your Oscar nominated star front and center played a part, but Abigail is largely the catalyst for the story and Van Hove's thematic approach to the script, so I think for this production it makes sense. The production photograph of Whishaw and Ronan on the cover of the Playbill is also stunning.

Updated On: 3/2/16 at 11:00 AM

wicked_beast4 said ‘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 agree. I thought the production was wrenching and charged. Incredible concept and execution of THE American classic. The set (which like van Hove’s recent View from the Bridge production, was done by Jan Versweyveld) calls to mind a kind of anonymous institutional backdrop, which is an interesting comment on the central theme (for me at least) of the play, which is when enthroned in institutions, human nature can so easily tip into evil....

In any case, what’s always so enthralling about van Hove is that his approach never hits you over the head. The minimalism of his interpretation seems to allow you to have your own. Perhaps that's because the audience is allowed to encounter the text in a way that feels so much more direct, so much more comprehensive than in other productions. And therefore the audience is free to see in it what they will….

I was very pleased by the new production of THE CRUCIBLE at the Walter Kerr. Saoirse Ronan is certainly having her moment, and what a role for her to have chosen to make her debut on Broadway – she seamlessly inhabits the cold, manipulative Abigail Williams, and convincingly exercises the strength of her will over the inhabitants of Salem. Ben Wishaw’s performance as John Proctor is the backbone of the play, and he performs marvelously: His ability to show the range of the character – both a compromised man, and a good one, standing up for what is “right” at the end of the play – steals the show. Sophie Okonedo is understated and lovely, as usual – Elizabeth Proctor can be a difficult character to wrap one’s head around in the original text, oscillating between sick, harsh, wounded, but ultimately forgiving. Okonedo’s interpretation of the character is a pitch perfect balance of weakness and strength, and she delivers the final line of the evening with such gravitas. One wishes that Arthur Miller could see the incredible execution here of his masterpiece.

Updated On: 3/2/16 at 12:01 PM

Well, doesn't seem like the digital lottery has reached "Hamilton" proportions ( to say the least)

i entered yesterday for the week--- won yesterday for tonights performance, and just received another e-mail that I won for tomorrow night as well.

I already bought a ticket and I am excited about seeing this, after being unhinged by Van Hove's VIEW.

But I do have to comment that when a post not only mentions everyone positively but gives the full character names, it feels like a PR firm. I love theater, but I sometimes find myself having to write "the reverend" instead of "Reverend John Hale." Just saying.

"But after the acclaim that A View From the Bridge received I had to see what all the fuss was about."


It just closed like four days ago. You only heard about the acclaim Monday?

Testing1232 said: "Well, doesn't seem like the digital lottery has reached "Hamilton" proportions ( to say the least)

i entered yesterday for the week--- won yesterday for tonights performance, and just received another e-mail that I won for tomorrow night as well.

"

Lucky you! I didn't win but I was able to get a rush ticket for tonight. Seems they were selling quite a few as I didn't get to the box office until about 10:30 and got a ticket despit the 4-5 people in front of me all buying 2 rush tickets each!