I saw the show last night and am overall on the fence about it. There was certainly a lot to like in the performances and some really smart, chilling moments of staging, but I just didn't connect with or understand other elements of van Hove's vision.
Unlike some of the previous comments here, I thought the performances were strong across the board. Saoirse Ronan is terrific in an integral but fairly small role. Even going into the production knowing that Abigal does not have as much stage time as the Proctors or even other supporting characters, I really wanted to see more of Ronan, which is a credit to her performance. Whishaw is a very good Proctor and he has some truly terrific moments, particularly in Act 4. I do understand the criticism of Okonedo's performance because Elizabeth does come off as less than a "real" character than many, if not all, of the others, but I was somehow won over by her performance. Other standouts include Ciaran Hinds, who is perfectly cast as the Deputy-Governor, and Jim Norton. I could easily see either or both of them nominated for Featured Actor come May. Tavi Gevinson made a strong impression, too.
To the elements of the production that I didn't like: My biggest qualm is van Hove's use of the entire stage. There was so much dead space in between all of the characters at all times that the production sacrificed a lot of the necessary intimacy. To me, The Crucible should feel claustrophobic, and the paranoia and rage in such confines, with characters on top of each other, should ignite the show like a tinderbox. How do you capture that intimacy, though, when most of the character deliver their lines to each other standing ten feet apart? I know they're tremendously different works, but van Hove captured that tight, constricted feeling to brilliant effect in A View from the Bridge, where that box felt like a powder keg. I certainly don't wish that he replicated the same staging here, but everything is too expansively staged, and even moments of intimacy between John and Elizabeth are swallowed up by the sheer size and emptiness of the set. I also didn't understand the classroom setting at all or how it enhanced van Hove's vision. Sure, there are simple, perhaps reductive interpretations, i.e. school as a representation of childhood innocence and how this text subverts that trope, but I have to imagine van Hove had something more in mind. Despite these issues, there are some really great moments, and the deposition scenes of Act 3 were very successful.
On a side note, has anyone sat in the right mezzanine for this production yet? I was in row D on the side and throughout the whole evening there was a really loud and annoying metallic clanging, almost like the sound of the jangling of keys, that really distracted me from the proceedings. It's a very quiet show, at times difficult to hear, so that was a hugely irritating distraction. I did mention it to an usher at intermission, but there was obviously not much he could have anyone do with the show midway through.
I'd be interested in revisiting the production much later in the run to see what has changed and how the actors have grown into their roles. I think it's certainly worth checking out, just for the performances alone, through the lottery or rush.
