The Crucible Previews- Page 9

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 3/25/16 at 2:16am

I saw this last week and loathed every minute. I almost wonder if Van Hove understands the play.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/27/16 at 9:45am

While van Hove's wonderful A View from the Bridge brought me into the play AND continually made me look at the play very differently than I had, his Crucible only occasionally albeit grippingly brings me into the play and also continually makes me think about the play very differently than I had.  Glass's often heavy-handed score doesn't help.  The set is intriguing but didn't work for me.  What is its purpose?  Are we in a history class?  Are we witnessing society being reduced to its most institutional and didactic?   Is the schoolroom the authoritarian apotheosis of a church-state-court of ideas?  Unlike with the scenic and conceptual elements of Bridge (which to me blended seamlessly with the text), I'm much more interested in what van Hove intended here than in the far preferable letting his interpretive sense hit me while the Miller is also hitting me.  

The acting is all over the place and, as an ensemble, rhythmically very weak - and absurdly so - in the first scene. Whishaw, Okenedo and Ronan all have many fine moments.  And other choices that didn't work nearly as well.  Hinds is giving a powerful performance.  His quiet but frightening rectitude reminds me of a great many smug authoritarians of today.   Count me as one who loved Gevinson, Camp and Norton.   All of whom seem to be giving performances which would be perfectly attuned to a more orthodox presentation of the play; and all of whom give this show a great deal of life.

Updated On: 3/30/16 at 09:45 AM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/27/16 at 10:02am

p.s. I felt equally intrigued-confounded (and simultaneously removed from the play) by the paranormal incidents.  Though, unlike many here, I didn't take them as a suggestion of literal sorcery.   It seemed more like heavy-handed fragmentary evidence of individual (Betty's) or communal hysteria.  Of giving us a window into Mary Warren's susceptible swept-up view of the Devil.   But whatever was intended, it had the same effect of making me think more about the directorial playbook than the play.

(I'd simply amend this to my post of about five minutes ago; but it must be one of those end of the page posts that takes a long time to show up).

Also, I never understood why so many people dislike Gevinson's acting.  I found her performance in This is Our Youth very affecting; her work in Crucible is superb.

Updated On: 3/27/16 at 10:02 AM

[shanphelia]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 5:21pm

I've let about 10 days go by since seeing The Crucible, to see if my thoughts have settled at all. I've found what has stayed with me the most have been:

The positive:

the glimpses of the possible supernatural (up to interpretation as to how they fit into the show), which provided powerful visuals that have stuck in my head and that I keep thinking about -- I have my own thoughts, but wouldn't claim to know the exact reasons for their inclusion!

Bill Camp's performance as Rev Hale -- he truly captures the emotional toll of bearing witness to the descent from the rational/scientific approach he first proposes to the frenzy and paranoia of the proceedings. His was a subtle performance that ultimately had the most resonance with me.

Ben Whishaw and Tavi Gevinson's interactions as John Proctor and Mary Warren. Their performances felt the strongest to me when they were resisting/clinging to each other in succession -- the push/pull of their relationship and their shifting power dynamics were well captured by both

The negative:

The music. Just found it intrusive and jarring.  At certain points, I was reminded of being at "Sleep No More"-- constant moody music.  Detracted from the show for me.

Sound levels.  One of the performances I'd most been looking forward to was Ciaran Hinds' -- and I could barely hear him. So that was a disappointment.

The neutral:

Saoirse Ronan's performance was fine, but didn't bring anything new to Abigail for me. 

Updated On: 3/28/16 at 05:21 PM

[ArtMan]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 6:40pm

Has anyone sat in the $40 balcony seats?  I don't think I have ever sat in the balcony at this theater.  I have read stories on here.  I'm 6"3....but I'll put up with some leg/but pain if it's a good view for the price.

[bfreak]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 6:56pm

I hear that it really sucks. You're better off doing rush or digital lottery (I hear both are easy)

[Alex10]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 7:01pm

ArtMan said: "Has anyone sat in the $40 balcony seats?  I don't think I have ever sat in the balcony at this theater.  I have read stories on here.  I'm 6"3....but I'll put up with some leg/but pain if it's a good view for the price.

 

"

I haven't for this show, but I did sit up in the balcony for Gentleman's Guide and it was, without a doubt, the worst seat and view I've ever had at a theater. I'd definitely rush instead.

[ArtMan]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 8:01pm

Oh, I have been in that theater.  I sat in the mezz for Gentlemen's Guide and I was really cramped.  I complained and second act was moved to orchestra.  Nope, it's not worth it.

[ArtMan]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 8:01pm

double post

Updated On: 3/28/16 at 08:01 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 8:26pm

As much as I love the Water Kerr for its beauty and the many great shows I've seen there, the mezzanine seats are cramped and uncomfortable, and I assume the same is true of the balcony seats.

[Esgred]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 6:15pm

ArtMan said: "Has anyone sat in the $40 balcony seats?  I don't think I have ever sat in the balcony at this theater.  I have read stories on here.  I'm 6"3....but I'll put up with some leg/but pain if it's a good view for the price."

The balcony at the Walter Kerr is just about the worst seats on Broadway - there is no price low enough for that balcony (even free!)  At your height, I can't even recommend the mezzanine unless you are sitting on the aisle (do not sit in the first row as there is less leg room than the second row of the mezzanine).

Also, never ever sit in the mezzanine in the Lyceum Theatre.  My mother has long legs and is much shorter than you, and she couldn't fit her legs in front of her seat there!  The only way we could remain in the mezzanine at the Lyceum Theatre was for her to sit on the aisle.

I highly recommend that you sit in the orchestra on House Left (do not get seats for orchestra House Right).  The lottery is weekly instead of daily, so it is much better than other lotteries in that respect.

I got lottery tickets ($40 including fees) and sat in row G, House Left orchestra.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 6:26pm

The seats you mention in those 2 theaters are indeed atrocious.

[ChiTheaterFan]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 6:35pm

Do you all think this will be in contention for any Tonys?  I am on the fence about whether to see this. I didn't like A View from the Bridge but I was glad I saw it due to Strong's performance. I expect he'll receive a nomination.. I think I am just not a fan of these more modern takes on classics (I liked Lazarus so it's not all Van Hove I don't like) which doesn't bode well for me enjoying this. But I'll likely have seen nearly all of the contenders for the major Tonys for the first time ever. I'm excited about that since I'll have a much better background watching this year and can root for things not based on only having seen a handful of shows.  So if it's likely to be up for a bunch of awards that may sway me toward seeing it  

 

Aside:  I so wish my iPhone would stop autocorrecting to Tony's!!!  And Google asked me if I meant "Tony's 2016."  No!!! I didn't!

[Esgred]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 6:42pm

I spoke to a few people sitting in front of me and next to me while at The Crucible.  All of us came to see The Crucible based on having loved The View From the Bridge.  As I expected, none of us liked The Crucible as much as The View From the Bridge.

If you like The Crucible, Ivo Van Hove, or Philip Glass, it might be worth it to see the play for $40, IMO.  :)

I love Philip Glass music, so I wasn't bothered by the music at all.  Thanks to this thread, I was aware that Ciaran Hinds was going to be difficult to hear (even in row G), so I got myself an assisted listening device (next to the handicapped bathroom).  I never needed the device before the intermission (Hinds doesn't appear until after the intermission).

[bwayobsessed]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 7:39pm

What's the current run time?

[Fantod]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 11:35pm

It was about 2 hours 50 minutes tonight

I thought the production was wildly uneven, but I had never seen the play on stage before, and it plays far better than it reads, so those who may be studying the show may want to see it for that. It goes on for too long, but it's a really good play.

I found the magical elements of it to literally suggest that Abigail was the witch among them, using her powers to trick the town, which is not what Miller had in mind, but is an interesting approach to the play.

Really liked the scenic design, though I don't think the show benefited from the weird period update. The music was alternately annoying and effective.

But the acting is what it all boils down to, and it was totally all over the map. In order from best to worst:

Jim Norton was the best actor in the company to me, and he was the only one that made me feel like I was watching a stage professional.

Saoieieaierse Ronan was pretty impressive too, with her bitchiness being worn on her sleeve. I never thought it possible to hate her, but I did it with ease (as I was supposed to) here.

Ray Anthony Thomas made a good impression in his minimal role.

Ben Whishaw was quite good in his quiet moments, but felt severely overwrought when he was supposed to stand up for himself.

Cairán Hinds was alright, but he never felt scary enough nor earnest enough to make the character frightening. Unlike others, I had no trouble hearing him. 

Bill Camp and Jason Butler Harner made almost no impression whatsoever

Tavi Gevinson looked like a lifestyle guru who one day decided to be a broadway actress. Oh, what do you know, that's what she is.

Sophie Okenedo, what can I say? She was horrid. Every line reading felt stilted and awkward, and she effectively shut down the play every time she walked onstage. I understand she is a very talented actress, so I'm gonna blame van Hove for that.

Overall, I'd say the play is good enough to make it a passable night of theatre, but man should the production have been better.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/30/16 at 12:16am

Bill Camp made no impression whatsoever?!!!!!

Ok, well, as Kinsey said, everyone's different.

[TerrenceIsTheMann]

Posted: 3/30/16 at 12:58am

^ LOL RIGHT?

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 3/30/16 at 1:13am

So glad someone agrees about Sophie Okenedo. Her Tony win for Raison totally baffled me and I found her performance in this to be embarrassingly amateur.

[mordav]

Posted: 3/30/16 at 1:48am

Saw this tonight and for the most part was thoroughly engaged. But I think that's down to Arthur Miller.

I thought Jim Norton and Bill Camp were excellent and Hinds was fine. I thought Whishaw was bland and Okonedo was not good, too passive, coming across as unaffected by the events, all events around her. The result was that there was little genuine, earned emotion in the final scene of the two of them together.

I was perplexed by Gevinson as at first I thought this is some of the most wooden, "I'm saying my lines like I'm reading them off the script" acting I have ever seen ( and kept thinking of Scarlett Johannson). Then I started to warm to her and thought if she is playing Mary Warren as slow-witted and simple then this is great.

The music was intrusive, especially its repetitiveness in the first scene after intermission. 

The set was ok and to be honest wasn't something that contributed or took away for me.

oh yeah. I almost forgot. Saorise Ronan was in it.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 3/30/16 at 9:50am

TotallyEffed said: "I saw this last week and loathed every minute. I almost wonder if Van Hove understands the play."

 

He definitely understands the play. You obviously just don't understand Van Hove, and that's fine. He's not for everyone.

 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/30/16 at 10:24am

Mary Warren as a slow witted, simple, guileless, susceptible sheep is clearly the point.  Hardly an unusual interpretation of the role.  And, as it happens, an extremely effective one.  Especially during this election cycle.   

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 3/30/16 at 10:28am

bwayobsessed said: "What's the current run time?"

In early previews it was 3 hours. I don't anticipate it got much shorter. It's not a new text.

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 3/30/16 at 11:46am

I actually do understand Van Hove. In the last year alone I saw his productions of Angels in America, Antigone, Lazarus, A View from the Bridge, and now The Crucible. I found The Crucible to be an uneven and perplexing mess and I'm clearly not alone in that opinion. I loved Lazarus, thought Bridge was very strong and was open to his interpretation of Angels. Antigone was a miss for me.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/30/16 at 12:04pm

Thought Okenedo and Whishaw had some great moments.  I found Okenedo especially fine at the final curtain. Where her performance really fell flat for me was in her pivotal last scene with John.  She looks as if she's been through the hell of imprisonment - exponentially magnified.  They both did.   But the physical condition she and to a lesser extent Whishaw were playing - and particularly her vocal performance during that scene -  was jarringly incongruous.  She in particular seemed like she was approaching the scene from a detached, completely different place than Elizabeth was in.  It was odd.

Much about this production is odd.  To the point where one pointedly reflects on, is often consumed with, the enigmatic directorial choices while watching it.  Instead of reflecting on what's happening in the play.  In this respect, the experience of seeing it is very different from that of seeing van Hove's View from the Bridge. 

Updated On: 3/31/16 at 12:04 PM