The Crucible Previews- Page 4

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 1:23am

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

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 1:26am

I have a feeling more directors than not think they have the brains and the skill to take a hatchet to a playwright's work and forge something even better, but there are systems in place to protect writers and their work.  As much as I loved the three Ivo things I've seen, I'm beginning to think he sees himself as the fancy delivery system and the scripts as merely "content" he uses to realize his vision and that consequently the text is undervalued in the way music and writing are just the stuff nobody feels like they should pay for anymore after they buy their expensive tech to access it.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 2:08am

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

[trentsketch]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 6:44am

Yeah, Abigail Williams is an important part of the play, and a memorable one, but it's not a particularly large part. The popular film version used the character more.

[ChildofEarth]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 7:12am

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

[SLSigafoos]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 7:58am

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.

 

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? 

 

[Play Esq.]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 9:21am

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.  

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 9:24am

Here is a link to the "Theatre Laid Bare" article on Van Hove in the New Yorker, which ColortheHours mentions earlier in the thread.  It is a very interesting look into Van Hove's processes.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/26/theatre-laid-bare

 

I personally don't believe Van Hove's missive is to 'correct' or 'make better' the scripts he deconstructs.  I think he comes to each project with a particular theme he is interested in highlighting and most of the changes are done to heighten it.  It may be a controversial approach but the results have obviously been powerful enough to give him the career, reputation and trust of authors and estates that he has.

 

I think what will make THE CRUCIBLE even more provocative is that the production is debuting "on Broadway" with a star cast.  Given Ivo Van Hove's directorial style and development process, it's a little surprising to me that he is allowing Broadway audiences in the room with no other production to try out his ideas.

 

Typically, Van Ivo doesn't even let the actors rehearse the final scene until the day before the first public performance. And, of course too, I'm sure there will be some audiences who will be disappointed if they come to a "Broadway revival" expecting to see a traditional staging.  

 

But for anyone who is intrigued by experimental theatre, this is a rare and I think exciting opportunity to see him build his production from the ground up.

Updated On: 3/2/16 at 09:24 AM

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 9:33am

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!

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 10:00am

This is a quote from the New Yorker piece:

 

Kushner says that one of van Hove’s gifts is to “make the audience confront the failure to create completely convincing illusions—and the power of the theatre is that failure to create convincing illusions. It is the creation of a double consciousness.

 

You could, in a way, argue that part of what Van Hove does, in a career largely focused on familiar and well loved texts, is this double consciousness. It's as if, in his abstractions, he is asking you to confront what is familiar (and comfortable) and perhaps presumptive in what you think the play is about.  The Van Hove experience truly is the creation of productions that stand separately in their observations of the play being presented.  "Revival" almost seems misleading as a term for what he is doing.

Updated On: 3/2/16 at 10:00 AM

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 10:41am

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.

[SLSigafoos]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 10:59am

Thanks for clarifying! Ok, good, so then it's not a 'rewrite' so much as, like you said, it's used to lay the groundwork for the story. But, like others, I'm surprised to hear that Ronan is underused in Act 2. To be honest, I'm much more of a fan of Whishaw than anyone in the cast, and that aside, I've really felt like The Crucible is more focused on John Proctor and Elizabeth's relationship and reactions to what's going on around them. Yet, Abigail is the one used for marketing purposes. I can't fault Ronan for that, and she is an incredible actress. I'd probably have used some imagery of ALL of the big names in the cast, for marketing purposes. 

Updated On: 3/2/16 at 10:59 AM

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 11:00am

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

[dave1606]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 11:29am

I saw this last night and largely found it frustrating. I loved a view from the bridge and found that stripped down production a thrilling piece of theater. I thought the text really shown through there, but here, despite a strong cast, everything seemed muddled and the pacing was deadly. 

In this case, I think the text is swallowed up by this production.  I hated the classroom setting (which is quite an ugly set by the way), and the transitions last night were dragging down an already slow piece. I think during one of the scene changes, we made it through about 6 verses of the hymn that was playing! That can be tightened up, but right now they are jarring (sometimes the transition music would just cut off abruptly).

I found the cast very strong. Saorise is very, very good. I was craving for her to have more stage time. I thought she was excellent in her part. Many may feel he is miscast, but Ben Winshaw was a highlight for me. I though he gave one of the strongest performances of the night. Shouts to the always excellent Jim Norton and Ciarán Hinds (nice to see them both onstage again, as I loved them in The Seafarer). Tavi Gevinson was excellent as well. 

I really had an issue with the set and costumes. Ben Winshaw looks like he walked off the L train in his outfit and beard.  I thought both this and the 1950s esque classroom just distracted from the text. The effects in the act 2 were nice and I occasionally appreciated some of the visuals, but overall I found it very hard to be involved with what was going on.

Also, I disliked the way the ending and curtain call happened. I thought it ruined the power of the final moment. 

 

[rodriguezlindsay683]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 11:43am

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….

[hankcolson]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 11:50am

Still reeling from the preview yesterday.  I’ve never seen an Ivo Van Hove production so in some ways I’m coming to the party late.  But after the acclaim that A View From the Bridge received I had to see what all the fuss was about.  And I did.  Everything from the design to the Philip Glass score was impeccable, and also incredibly powerful.

It was only the first preview and Saoirse was completely confident and her Abigail was fully achieved. Ben Whishaw never disappoints – I’m confident he’s in the top 3 of theatrical talents of his generation.  And Tavi Gevinson was a huge surprise and incredibly moving as Mary Warren.  It’s an amazing company.  Ciaran Hinds is always worth the price of admission. And Bill Camp was the perfect Reverend Hale. He brings such nuance and emotion and texture and detail to everything he does.

[mg730]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 12:01pm

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

[BroadwayNYC2]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 12:03pm

3 new accounts give good reviews within 20 minutes of each other? Not suspicious at all. 

And you used "price of admission" twice....

Updated On: 3/2/16 at 12:03 PM

[Testing1232]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 12:12pm

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. 

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 12:15pm

 

BroadwayNYC2 just made me LOL

[wonkit]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 12:22pm

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.

[BroadwayNYC2]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 12:28pm

Slow day at the internship

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 12:55pm

"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?

[Baiseur82]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 1:04pm

FindingNamo said: ""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?

 

"

You win the Internet with this FindingNamo

[Baiseur82]

Posted: 3/2/16 at 1:06pm

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!