The Visit Previews- Page 7

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/31/15 at 8:25am

Jks,

Why do you think my final comment was not written with sincerity? I was as sincere as can be.

[tazber]

Posted: 3/31/15 at 9:05am

Leap of Faith is another show that got royally effed up after its out of town tryout.

The version that played at Ahmanson was a good show that just needed a tweak here and there.

Instead they completely re-wrote the show and turned it into a disaster.

[Fantod]

Posted: 3/31/15 at 12:01pm

"I think one of the problems here is she's not on stage enough!"

I'd bet that to even in her one-woman show, she was not onstage enough :)

Well, that's good to hear. I'm still very excited to see this show.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/31/15 at 2:15pm

Mister Matt--I get your point but: "Besides Follies, which other strange Sondheim/Prince show do you mean? Follies (ran 1 year) and Sweeney (a little over 1 year) were both spectacles and had MUCH stronger scores. Merrily had a stronger score and closed in a couple of weeks. Pacific Overtures ran only 5 months. Night Music is nothing like The Visit and ran 1.5 years. Company was very much a modern innovation of its time and again, nothing like The Visit and ran almost 2 years. Forum is nothing like The Visit and ran over 2 years. "

What about Sunday in the Park? granted that was the mid 80s, but it ran a year and a half and Sondheim himself (on the commentary track of the DVD) says, basically "I'd forgotten what a terribly weird show this is."

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/31/15 at 2:20pm

Yes, Sunday in the Park ran less than 2 years and won the Pulitzer. But again, was a run of over a year for a "terribly weird" show more commonplace back then than it is now? How would it prove that The Visit would run as long given the shows have nothing in common?

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/31/15 at 2:20pm

THE VISIT is less abstract and more straight forward than most of those Sondheim shows, but it is certainly similar in terms of peculiarity, and some audiences may be turned off by this.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/31/15 at 2:24pm

"Yes, Sunday in the Park ran less than 2 years and won the Pulitzer. But again, was a run of over a year for a "terribly weird" show more commonplace back then than it is now? How would it prove that The Visit would run as long given the shows have nothing in common? "

Oh, I have no idea lol. I just thought it odd that you didn't mention it as it did seem an example of a show that 30 years back did have what would be considered an artistically successful run despite being a weird show.

I honestly can't see The Visit running past Chita's run (however long that is meant to be,) if even that long. Still, for this material, if it managed to run, say, six months like the original Brooks version in the 50s--which I still think will prove challenging--I'd think the creators would have to be pleased.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/31/15 at 2:38pm

Actually, I find Sunday in the Park far less weird than The Visit, even if it is more unconventional. And to be honest, I think The Visit is ultimately less dull than Sunday in the Park on the whole. Sunday has some truly thrilling moments, but I find the show (especially the second act) something of a chore to sit through.

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/31/15 at 3:00pm

For those who are curious, here's the orchestra and instrumentation.

Associate Conductor/Piano/Celeste: Jesse Kissel; Violin: Paul Woodiel; Cello: Sarah Carter; Bass: Jim Donica; Flute/Alto Flute/Piccolo/Clarinet/Bass Clarinet/Alto Sax: Michael Migliori; Oboe/English Horn/Clarinet: Julie Ferrara; Guitar/Zither/Mandolin: Charles Rosen; Drums/Percussion: Bruce Doctor; Accordion: Charles Sauss

[Amalia3]

Posted: 3/31/15 at 10:16pm

The first time I saw Sunday In The Park, I liked but didn't love it. The second time, I picked up so many more things, and the score was more familiar to me - and of course, now it's one of my favorite shows. I wonder if the Visit might be that type of show. Truthfully, I have no desire to see the Visit again, but I recognize that when you do something that's a little off the beaten path -- it may take more than one viewing to truly appreciate it. I also think that while I'm a huge Kander and Ebb fan, that this is not as good as their other shows. A couple of wonderful moments, though.

[indytallguy]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 4:11pm

Saw the matinee today and agree with those who have said this would not be on Broadway were it not for Chita.  Interesting, well-staged eccentric little piece that was pleasant enough all around, but I would have no need to see again.

Chita was wonderfully regal and in fine voice, but I'm not sure this is a Tony-winning performance. While I appreciated some of Roger Rees' acting, if I never hear him sing again that would please me very much.

And a very anti-climatic final 10-15 minutes.

Updated On: 4/1/15 at 04:11 PM

[brdwydreamer]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 5:46pm

So I just signed up for TDF, and while I REALLY would love to see this show, I want to see it once it's officially opened as opposed to in previews. Do you guys think it'll still be available on TDF after opening night or should I not miss this chance now?

[jv92]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 6:57pm

What IS a Tony winning performance, indiantallguy? A lot of loud, over-indulgentness courtesy of Kristin Chenoweth? 

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 8:53pm

Saw it this afternoon (center row D of the orchestra, 11:50 a.m. TKTS). No matter what one thinks of the show, there's a real event here: Rivera.  She's (still) in every possible way remarkable. Yes, she is on stage for most of the show, and to my surprise, sings a significant piece of the score.

The Times reviews of the last two incarnations, the Signature and Williamstown (this production, last summer), pointedly find fault in the contradiction of mining a chilly, society-damning tragicomedy for deeper emotional nooks and crannies. I didn't have a problem with that, and to the contrary, late in the show, Rivera's embrace of her youth (no spoiler as to how it's done) provides welcome heartbreak. I was startlingly moved after not expecting those colors to surface. In this immoral fable we can certainly use a stab of pure unbridled feeling, and it sends shivers, thanks to Rivera's simple elegant, work. (If it slightly steals comparable moments from FOLLIES, it's still welcome.) The ending is a slightly blurry resolution, not rushed but not entirely satisfying. But I'd lay that at Dürrenmatt's feet, not McNally's and Doyle's. 

But again, the real, perhaps for many only reason to go is Chita Rivera. At 82, it's no hyperbole to report she's still at the top of her game, demonstrating a triple threat's control and intense focus, on-stage for most of the 95 minutes, a singular presence. I was especially taken with her singing voice, which even notably husky has the old strength mostly intact. She sings the Kander's melodies with assurance and great musicality. This is not a show for everyone -- perhaps not for most people -- and I'll freely admit its darker recesses are more my taste than lighter fare. But it's worth seeing for the myriad ways Doyle builds the production around it's unmistakable star. She's billed as the event, and she is nothing less than one.

Updated On: 4/1/15 at 08:53 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 10:56pm

"I'm unkillable," says Chita, and draws applause. And rightfully so. Not only is she unkillable, she is the lifeforce of this production.

Otherwise, though, The Visit left me wanting more. It feels in many ways like an experiment, not a full production- something to be seen in a black box as a proof of concept.

In stripping the show's book bare, Doyle has effectively erased the build and tension of the plot. The townspeople are poorly defined and don't seem to have any dilemma at all; they all strap on their yellow shoes within minutes of being offered their blood money without much fuss. There is no sense this is a town being corrupted- it just suddenly is. The town's populace feel less like people rationalizing a dark deal and more like requirements to sing the score. They are as much the story as Anton and Claire- but Doyle treats them as mere necessity.

Doyle also slathers on conceptual direction: symbolic color, metaphorical set, expressionist and Brechtian visuals and staging, an ominous (and twirling, always twirling) coffin. It feels like a portfolio of his past productions. But the hand of Doyle smothers the comedy and humanity in the story. The ending is inevitable from the beginning in the text- Anton even says as much- so why is everything else in the production telegraphing it? Why are we robbed of the horror and squirm of a production number rationalizing trading life for wealth? Why don't we see how men of god, of law, of science, and of learning allow blood to stain their hands? Even the Schoolmaster's eventual turn on Anton seems unearned.

I'd love to see an unabridged version and a larger production. Otherwise, this production is pretty much summed up by its central visual: Chita, a vision in white and bedecked in jewels, in otherwordly light, walking through darkness.

 

 

 

Updated On: 4/1/15 at 10:56 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 11:35pm

^I respectfully disagree, though only to a point. What you see as flawed, I see at musical adaptation strategy. I don't think the central plot -- its catharsis delayed, then its resolution attenuated in the talky, original 3 act structure (I re-read it when I got home) -- easily sustains in 2015, because the emotional suspense generated isn't strong enough to hold us. Doyle may have opted for a (to some, facile) bald shorthand, but he doesn't belabor the strained turns (and skips the in-town marriage and other distractions).  It's always been a kind of one-joke story, a log-line of a plot that can generate as much audience impatience as curiosity.  So if this production is a brief(er) meditation on the original, it uses the sharp score to cut some corners best cut, in my opinion.  It's a very bizarre, imperfect show to be sure.  But other than the end, which has a strangely confusing set ot cliche-ridden tableaux, it does its job with economy.  Maybe it's as simple as an attention span issue, or as complex as an inability to inspire investment in unappealing people. Less turns out to be enough for me, if not more.  

[AAO26]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 11:44pm

love the show- but agree with Auggie in that "The ending is a slightly blurry resolution, not rushed but not entirely satisfying". From my perspective it has to do more with the direction and staging.

**Spolier alert**

Chita suddenly coming out in a new dress and wig and walking away with the coffin is not sufficient. With a little "theater magic" and better re-staging of that scene it could make for a more satisfying ending"

The ending will always be the same-- it's just how its presented. It's theater after-all, a little "theater magic" wouldn't hurt. Leave the audience in awe... Hope they do something about it, or are aware of it. The ending has been staged in a very similar way in all previous incarnations.

All in all its a great show, great score, great performances- especially by Chita...Theater is seldom perfect-but I hope they tweak the ending and get as close to perfect as possible...

[Kad]

Posted: 4/1/15 at 11:50pm

I had no issue with the final image. What theatre magic is needed? Claire is done. She takes what she came for and leaves the town wallowing in their blood money, doomed to live in the cycle of boom and bust of greed. 

[AAO26]

Posted: 4/2/15 at 12:02am

the final staging is literal and flat...they are many ways to stage the final scene the show with a bit for theatricality.

do not intend to list all my ideas here.

But don't get me wrong-- i love this piece- being a fan since 2001. and seen all the productions and will go see it again...

[indytallguy]

Posted: 4/2/15 at 12:13am

"What IS a Tony winning performance, indiantallguy? A lot of loud, over-indulgentness courtesy of Kristin Chenoweth? "

Not in my book by any stretch although I have yet to see Chenowith in her current role.

Don't get me wrong. I think Rivera is giving a strong performance, but I don't think there was anything exceptionally special about it or that the role is particularly challenging. 

 

I like my Tony winners to bringing their A game to A roles, each bringing the best out of each other.  I know that often is not what gets rewarded for a variety of reasons.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 4/2/15 at 12:15am

I'm still wondering if Donna goes on for Chita, what kind of advanced anouncement will be made. Secondly, I wonder if Chita has any scheduled absences? For me, the only possibility why I'd go and see this is if I know Donna's going on.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/2/15 at 12:59am

I saw Donna at the show on sunday. I'm sure at some point they'll announce she will be going on for a week or two. 

[ljay889]

Posted: 4/2/15 at 1:07am

Not sure how someone could think that Chita is not bringing her "A game" to this role, but an opinion is an opinion. It's a wisely restrained performance, purposely not over-the-top, avoiding camp. I think the critics will be crazy for her performance, as they were out of town. 

[Robbie2]

Posted: 4/2/15 at 2:48am

 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 4/2/15 at 4:16am

Anyone know where the rush seats have been located? Are they off to the side partial view? Woudl I be better off with a balcony seat?