The Crucible Previews- Page 8

[ChildofEarth]

Posted: 3/13/16 at 9:09am

bwayphreak234 said: "^ It was three hours when I was there last Saturday.

 

"

Ooooof that's a bit long. Thank you!

[bfreak]

Posted: 3/13/16 at 9:56am

Since this show is 4 hours and there is only one intermission, so my question is how they distinguish to the audience the break between Acts One and Two and Acts Three and Four. Thank you.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 3/13/16 at 9:58am

The curtain falls for awkwardly long breaks. Or at least, as of early previews. 

[bfreak]

Posted: 3/13/16 at 10:00am

Thanks.

[SLSigafoos]

Posted: 3/13/16 at 10:04am

Article about Whishaw's Proctor role in today's The Guardian.  http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/mar/13/ben-whishaw-soulful-brit-who-charmed-new-york-the-crucible?CMP=edit_2221

[little_sally]

Posted: 3/17/16 at 11:28am

I was there last night and overall, enjoyed it very, very much. There were even parts of it I loved. I've always been a fan of the text, and I was glad to see an out-of-the-box production of it. However, I don't quite know what to make of the institution classroom setting. I don't think it necessarily added anything to the play, although the effects with the blackboards were certainly cool. I do agree that there was way too much space on stage, and at times the actors felt so far away from one another. I agree, the play should feel claustrophobic.

 

The acting across the board was very strong, my favorites being Ben Whishaw (who was the draw for me but I admit, I was worried he was miscast), Ciaran Hinds (much better here than as Big Daddy), Jim Norton, Tavi Gavinson, (whom I liked here way more than in This Is Our Youth), Jim Norton, and Bill Camp, whom I hope gets a Tony nomination for his work.  Ronan is strong in what is essentially a bit part, and I wonder how many people are going to be disappointed that she's essentially not the start of the show. I know she's the biggest name in the cast but wish the producers hadn't built the whole marketing campaign around her.

 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

The ending felt awkward and abrupt. Why wasn't there another blackout or curtain drop between Elizabeth's last lines and the curtain call?

 

Yes, it's still running nearly three hours but I have to say, it didn't drag at all. The score (and the lighting!) is fantastic too, doing a great job building tension, momentum, and anxiety.

[Play Esq.]

Posted: 3/19/16 at 8:47pm

We all have so many experiences to bring to a show like The Crucible...and I greatly appreciate each of your views.  My addition is simply that, after seeing this play on many occasions (most notably and recently, Dominic Cooke's superb production in London almost a decade ago), I have never seen a production that provocatively removed the McCarthyism skepticism of the play and suggested 

 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

nay argue, that in some form, the town was being controlled  by a witch (if not more than one).

Maybe others here can refer to other productions that have made this leap, but I was somewhat shocked that the Miller Estate would let this occur.  I will say, it was a leap that seemed at once obvious and at that same time, incredibly novel.

It's almost unnecessary to go through each performance: this is an amazing ensemble production and Von Hove made sure that each of his players were performing at his exceptionally high standards.   Simply, there is little more to say than: this Crucible is one to witness and one that will be remembered.  

Updated On: 3/19/16 at 08:47 PM

[SLSigafoos]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 2:41am

Finally had a chance to see the show tonight (makeup from our tickets during the first cancelled preview night). I needed a few hours to wrap my head around it. The acting was, as I expected, superb. Ben and Sophie, in particular, really stood out. We were in row H and it was very difficult to hear, so there are definite sound issues to work out. I also fully agree with those of you who pointed out that the stage is so large and it, at times, engulfed what was happening on it. I noticed John Proctor was utilizing most of the perimeter of the stage, but a majority of the others largely stayed in one place. As for the show itself...

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

The levitation happened so fast that it may as well be cut from the show, unless the only idea is to totally enforce that the girls absolutely were practicing witchcraft. The courtroom drama shifted to all blame on John Proctor so fast that it felt like we were supposed to, by then, forget about the witchcraft. I'm also not sure what the vortex of air, flying papers, and debris was supposed to signify, either. And John's removal of his shirt just before intermission...were we to believe he was being drawn toward the sun, or...???

Edited to say I found the background music quite distracting by about ten mins into the show, as well. 

Updated On: 3/20/16 at 02:41 AM

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 10:02am

I was there last night, as well. Honestly the only person I had trouble hearing was Hinds, who was virtually inaudible. I was in Row F of the orchestra and his voice was a whisper. It was also a very weird, low-key performance from him that really didn't cross the footlights. 

The best acting in this production comes from Sophie Okenedo (devastating, and I really don't get the criticism from some that her performance was overly stylized) and Tavi Gevinson (who is really developing into a fine actor). Whishaw is so wrong for Proctor and he just can't overcome it. It is clear that van Hove is not going for the sturm und drang acting style that Liam Neeson or Daniel Day-Lewis have brought to the role, but Proctor needs to have some center of gravity. Whishaw falls short.

The supporting cast varies from excellent to amateur. Ronan is fine but I've never seen a production where Abigail felt so inconsequential. It seems like a directorial choice rather than a fault of her acting though.

There is probably not a bigger fan on van Hove around than me, but the production left me totally cold.

 

[NYadgal]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 12:14pm

I was also there last night (orchestra Row E...)

I'm still processing it.  I was captivated by the production and many of the performances.  I agree with AC.. that Sophie Okenedo gave a devastating performance.   When she was on stage it was hard to take my eyes off of her.  And her eyes.  Tavi Gevinson was another stand-out.    

I appear to be in the minority but I was very taken with the production.  I'm not sure I've ever paid closer attention to the language (and I've seen The Crucible performed many times).   The contemporary, institutional setting worked for me, and the lush language set against the cold environment was very thought-provoking.  

I thought the blackboard effects and the Philip Glass music were brilliant.  

I am going to recommend that anyone who has an interest in this production go see it.   It worked for me.  In a very powerful way. 

[little_sally]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 12:17pm

I agree that Abigail being inconsequential is probably a directorial choice but why build the entire marketing campaign for the show around Saoirse Ronan.

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 12:22pm

Oh Addy, I wish I'd known you were just one row ahead of me. 

As far as the marketing campaign being centered around Ronan goes...I mean, I think it's fairly straightforward. She's having a moment, so it makes marketing sense to highlight her, even if she really is not a major part of the production. 

[NYadgal]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 12:23pm

I wish I'd known you were there, also!

Agree about the marketing.  

[indytallguy]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 12:31pm

I don't live in NYC so maybe locals are seeing marketing that really stresses Ronan and her name.

But if we are talking only about the poster/ad visual of her, the girls are still the catalyst and she is the most logical solo representative of them in artwork. I find that image to be very powerful.

[BroadwayNYC2]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 12:58pm

Agreed, Abigail and the Girls are the catalyst. Even when they aren't on stage, their presence is known. 

[billyelliotfan123]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 1:21pm

Is the show still running almost 4 hours?

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/20/16 at 1:23pm

The running time was never almost 4 hours. I think you're thinking of SHUFFLE ALONG. 

Last night's performance was around 2 hours and 50 minutes. 

[indytallguy]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 8:18am

Short USA Today article on Ronan and Whishaw with some insight into their character choices.

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/21/16 at 8:50am

I think that Whishaw's view of John Proctor, as espoused in that interview, comes across in his interpretation; I just don't consider it successful. He goes too far to one side.

[rizzuto2]

Posted: 3/23/16 at 2:50pm

Saw this last night and was won over by it -- terrific performances in a wonderful show. I'll admit that I have no clue about what the windstorm was all about.

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Or the dog (whose performance was nearly as amazing as that of the actors), for that matter.

As for the background music, people I know either love Phillip Glass or find him really annoying after about 90 seconds (sometimes less). 

[10086sunset]

Posted: 3/23/16 at 2:52pm

If anyone is interested, next Wednesday night is up on TDF.

[indytallguy]

Posted: 3/23/16 at 5:29pm

I saw one of the early previews and am thinking of going back after it opens. Has anyone who has seen it more than once noticed substantive changes that can be shared?

[wonkit]

Posted: 3/23/16 at 10:34pm

I saw this a week ago. I can't discuss the production without spoilers so on the most superficial level: I hate Arthur Miller generally and this play in particular seems to be incredibly over-written with unlikeable or incomprehensible characters. The physical production didn't particularly trouble me, although it didn't clarify anything in the text, so far as I can tell. I generally found most of the cast to be badly cast and/or disappointing except for Jim Norton as Giles Corey,  Bill Camp as Reverend Hale, and Tavi Gevinson as Mary Warren; these three seemed comfortable in their roles and consistent in their character development. I found both the Proctors to be badly miscast as neither has the gravitas for the central couple and they had no chemistry to speak of. S. Ronan did nothing for the character of Abigail, and delivered so much of her dialogue in an artificially flattened voice which suggested to me that she was struggling with the accent. I was completely won over by VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE and was hoping this production would redeem CRUCIBLE for me. All it did was make me see all of the dramatic pitfalls that have always seemed to be there for me. And possibly the worst idea for a curtain call that I have ever seen. So disappointing.

Updated On: 3/23/16 at 10:34 PM

[bjh2114]

Posted: 3/24/16 at 12:25am

I must be going crazy.  I saw this last night and found it truly atrocious from top to bottom.  Poor Jim Norton and Bill Camp do their best to turn their smaller roles into something memorable, but I found everyone else to be pretty terrible.  And to top it off, Tavi Gevinson was the WORST one for me.  Everyone on here is saying how great she was, but I found her to be unbearable.  It's the most overacted, schmacty performance on Broadway this year.  Not a fan.

[TerrenceIsTheMann]

Posted: 3/25/16 at 1:26am

I saw this tonight, and I really did not think it did the play justice. Van Hove is a genius, but I feel as though he was a bit off-the-mark here. The entire production just did not gel for me. I didn't feel connection between any of the actors, except for Ronan and Whishaw. The performance that stood out to me was Bill Camp as Hale. Truly masterful. It's what I'll remember the production by.