#1
Posted: 5/14/08 at 12:51am
This was a worthy production, and I'm glad is was NOT overlooked.
Who else is glad "Seafarer" nominated?
#2
Posted: 5/14/08 at 2:03am
I didn't get it. I wanted to get it. I was bored. To me, nothing happened in the first 15 minutes except for 30 jokes about how smelly a bathroom was after an old man used it. Then 40 minutes of jokes about sneaking swigs of whiskey. The reveal wasn't that exciting. I will say the acting across the board was phenomenal.
If the audience could do better, they'd be up here on stage and I'd be out there watching them. - Ethel Merman
#3
Posted: 5/14/08 at 2:06am
I felt that IS HE DEAD? was a better overall production, in terms of acting, writing, and directing.
The two standout performances in SEAFARER were recognized with nominations, but I would have given the Best Play and Best Director of a Play nominations to IS HE DEAD?
The two standout performances in SEAFARER were recognized with nominations, but I would have given the Best Play and Best Director of a Play nominations to IS HE DEAD?
"Winning a Tony this year is like winning Best Attendance in third grade: no one will care but the winner and their mom."
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
#4
Posted: 5/14/08 at 2:21am
Don't know enough about Is He Dead to say.
Seafarer is one of those poignant, dark comedys that not everyone will enjoy. But I think it deserved the nominations it got, including best play (does'n mean it's going to win...)
Seafarer is one of those poignant, dark comedys that not everyone will enjoy. But I think it deserved the nominations it got, including best play (does'n mean it's going to win...)
#5
Posted: 5/14/08 at 3:43am
Well, you can't really say it deserved a Best Play nomination when you never saw the show that was not nominated in its place.
"Winning a Tony this year is like winning Best Attendance in third grade: no one will care but the winner and their mom."
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
#6
Posted: 5/14/08 at 3:49am
Well, that's IF it really took the nomination away from Is He...
What about the others?
What about the others?
#7
Posted: 5/14/08 at 3:54am
Well, my point is without seeing every new play that opened in the 2007-2008 season, you cannot say THE SEAFARER deserved a Best Play nomination out of all the possible contenders.
"Winning a Tony this year is like winning Best Attendance in third grade: no one will care but the winner and their mom."
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
#8
Posted: 5/14/08 at 4:14am
I understand your point, but, I just said "nominated", not "winner" of the Tony. And, perhaps Is He...should have been considered , as you say (I imagine you saw it, obviously), but wasn't, that should not take away from Seafarer deserving one, right?
#9
Posted: 5/14/08 at 5:42am
I wasn't so fussed on the play, but I'm glad it got some acting noms. Those guys really take the material and make it worth sitting through.
#10
Posted: 5/14/08 at 6:26am
THE SEAFARER was one of the highlights of the season.
IS HE DEAD? was a retread of jokes that were corny 50 years ago.
IS HE DEAD? was a retread of jokes that were corny 50 years ago.
#11
Posted: 5/14/08 at 6:39am
I enjoyed The Seafarer thoroughly. Well-crafted writing, direction, and most of all acting. I'm completely happy with the nominations and I'll be rooting for either Hill or Norton in the Featured Actor Category. I'd even go so far as saying that I enjoyed this show more than August:Osage County, but realize that the odds of that particular upset are slim to none.
#12
Posted: 5/14/08 at 7:51am
I'm glad.
Here would be an interesting production of the play to see: It's now on at the Abbey Theatre in Dublin.
Seafarer at the Abbey
Here would be an interesting production of the play to see: It's now on at the Abbey Theatre in Dublin.
Seafarer at the Abbey
#13
Posted: 5/14/08 at 12:03pm
me
I didn't see ALL the other plays nominated this season, but since this has become one of my favorite 2 or 3 plays EVER, I feel OK about saying it deserved its nomination
It's all extremely subjective anyway, as you can see by all the opinions on this board -- they're all over the place
Someone can be bored senseless by a play (or musical) that moved someone else to tears
People are just different
And I imagine that (no matter how much we may hope differently) the Tony voters are just as ruled by their hearts as the rest of us
(and I would love to see the Dublin production, tho I can't. I intend to see the Philadelphia production later this year, and may try to get to Chicago to see the Steppenwolf. Tho I'm afraid that this cast will always hold a very special place in my heart)
I didn't see ALL the other plays nominated this season, but since this has become one of my favorite 2 or 3 plays EVER, I feel OK about saying it deserved its nomination
It's all extremely subjective anyway, as you can see by all the opinions on this board -- they're all over the place
Someone can be bored senseless by a play (or musical) that moved someone else to tears
People are just different
And I imagine that (no matter how much we may hope differently) the Tony voters are just as ruled by their hearts as the rest of us
(and I would love to see the Dublin production, tho I can't. I intend to see the Philadelphia production later this year, and may try to get to Chicago to see the Steppenwolf. Tho I'm afraid that this cast will always hold a very special place in my heart)
You don't go to the dragon without a present - Mark Rylance
#14
Posted: 5/14/08 at 12:37pm
I was surprised and delighted that Seafarer was given some respect. I really thought it was going the way of Corem Boy, which I thought was a beautiful production yet received no awards recognition - (that I recall, correct me please if I'm mistaken).
Seafarer was one of the few shows in which I left the theatre feeling as though I'd received entertainment worth the price of the ticket. Congats to them.
Seafarer was one of the few shows in which I left the theatre feeling as though I'd received entertainment worth the price of the ticket. Congats to them.
#15
Posted: 5/14/08 at 2:25pm
Seafarer was one of the best plays I've seen in many years, I was very happy to see its nominations, though I'd have loved Ciaran Hinds to be nominated as well.
#16
Posted: 5/14/08 at 2:28pm
Not me! I felt sooooooo bored with THE SEAFARER! 
J*
J*
#17
Posted: 5/14/08 at 2:57pm
I liked SEAFARER a good deal, but I can see why it wasn't everybody's cup of tea. I'd have liked to see David Morse and Ciaran Hinds get a nomination for Best Actor.
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." Thomas Pynchon, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick
My blog: http://www.roscoewrites.blogspot.com/
#18
Posted: 5/14/08 at 3:18pm
OK, since this thread will eventually get all the Seafarer fans in one place, I hope you don't mind if I ask a question I've been dying to ask --
What I didn't like about Jim Norton's performance was that it never changed. I saw the show 9 times, and his delivery, timing, expressions, EVERYTHING was exactly the same, every show
What I DID like about Morse, Hill and Hinds was that they played off each other. They seemed to try different things emotionally with their characters (right up till the last weekend even) and when one changed, the others reacted to it and changed how THEY played that scene
(I'm not just talking about trivial stuff, like standing in a different place -- I mean changing the emotion of how they played one scene or another)
To me, THAT is good acting. It's being aware of what the other actors are doing and playing off of that -- REALLY living in the moment
And that's what made the play interesting for me -- over and over. If EVERYONE had played it exactly the same, every time, two viewings would probably have been enough. It was the immediacy of it that made it endlessly fascinating (again, for me). It made the characters real people
My questions (you thought I'd never get there, didn't you?) --
Did anyone else feel that way about the way Norton played Richard? Or is it just me?
And in general, do others feel that that spontaneity is important in acting? Or, if someone gives a rock-solid performance, is it just GOOD -- whether it changes from day to day or not?
I guess if you only saw the show once, you wouldn't KNOW a performance never changed...
I'm sorry, I don't mean to ramble
But I've been turning this over in my head for awhile, and I'd love some other opinions
Hopefully I was at least clear enough that you know what I'm trying to ask
Thanks for reading this far
What I didn't like about Jim Norton's performance was that it never changed. I saw the show 9 times, and his delivery, timing, expressions, EVERYTHING was exactly the same, every show
What I DID like about Morse, Hill and Hinds was that they played off each other. They seemed to try different things emotionally with their characters (right up till the last weekend even) and when one changed, the others reacted to it and changed how THEY played that scene
(I'm not just talking about trivial stuff, like standing in a different place -- I mean changing the emotion of how they played one scene or another)
To me, THAT is good acting. It's being aware of what the other actors are doing and playing off of that -- REALLY living in the moment
And that's what made the play interesting for me -- over and over. If EVERYONE had played it exactly the same, every time, two viewings would probably have been enough. It was the immediacy of it that made it endlessly fascinating (again, for me). It made the characters real people
My questions (you thought I'd never get there, didn't you?) --
Did anyone else feel that way about the way Norton played Richard? Or is it just me?
And in general, do others feel that that spontaneity is important in acting? Or, if someone gives a rock-solid performance, is it just GOOD -- whether it changes from day to day or not?
I guess if you only saw the show once, you wouldn't KNOW a performance never changed...
I'm sorry, I don't mean to ramble
But I've been turning this over in my head for awhile, and I'd love some other opinions
Hopefully I was at least clear enough that you know what I'm trying to ask
Thanks for reading this far
You don't go to the dragon without a present - Mark Rylance
#19
Posted: 5/14/08 at 3:47pm
Well, only having seen the play one single time, I can only say that I found Norton's performance was entirely excellent. He seemed to be connecting to everybody, and all that.
If the performance was right (and it was, the night I saw it at least), why tinker with it. If Morse and Hinds wanted to make little changes, alter things from show to show, fine. Let them. I don't think it diminishes a performance if it is the same from show to show.
If the performance was right (and it was, the night I saw it at least), why tinker with it. If Morse and Hinds wanted to make little changes, alter things from show to show, fine. Let them. I don't think it diminishes a performance if it is the same from show to show.
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." Thomas Pynchon, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick
My blog: http://www.roscoewrites.blogspot.com/
#20
Posted: 5/14/08 at 3:56pm
The only thing that makes me happier is the hopes that it will lose.
BroadwayEd
#21
Posted: 5/14/08 at 4:43pm
"The only thing that makes me happier is the hopes that it will lose."
Ouch! I thought it was one of the best plays I've seen so far this year (Macbeth was pretty outstanding). One of our local theaters is performing The Seafarer as part of their upcoming season, so I'm glad my friends and relatives can see this gem (though the Bwy cast is hard to beat!)
Ouch! I thought it was one of the best plays I've seen so far this year (Macbeth was pretty outstanding). One of our local theaters is performing The Seafarer as part of their upcoming season, so I'm glad my friends and relatives can see this gem (though the Bwy cast is hard to beat!)
"NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH!"
Updated On: 5/15/08 at 04:43 PM
#22
Posted: 5/14/08 at 6:24pm
Other than "August" (and I actually think "Seafarer" is/was tighter show), the best play I have seen in years !!
Really so glad Hill was given a nom !!!
Really so glad Hill was given a nom !!!
#23
Posted: 5/14/08 at 7:42pm
"To me, THAT is good acting. It's being aware of what the other actors are doing and playing off of that -- REALLY living in the moment"
I think it might have something to do with the characters. Playing a blind man, Norton may have had less to play off of. It's easier to improvise with an actor when you are looking him/her in the eye. A lot of the 'playing off each other' I saw the other actors do (mostly between Morse and Hinds, if I'm remembering correctly) had to do with these looks they were throwing each other and, depending on the intensity and timing of the look, a different kind of response to it. Not being blind also means more freedom of movement for the other actors--they had more choices in how and where they could move in response to the other.
I can't fault Norton's consistency at all. There's this notion of keeping a play 'fresh,' but I don't think that has to be so much about changing how things are done as it's to do with staying vital in your performance, which I think Norton always did (at least on the days I saw it). I think one could see him as the rock around which the others could play a bit here and there. Not that I think we should overstate the variations. From the few performances I saw, I would say Hinds and Morse were the ones most varying in their performances. It seems Hinds, maybe, was trying to keep Morse on his toes (him being the 'divil himself' and all he could get away with that sort of thing!)--throwing him different kinds of looks at different times and varying the degree/kind of menace he threw his way in their scenes alone. But I think some of the variations worked better than others, so one could almost wish they'd been a bit more consistent, so long as they were consistent in the right way.
I think it might have something to do with the characters. Playing a blind man, Norton may have had less to play off of. It's easier to improvise with an actor when you are looking him/her in the eye. A lot of the 'playing off each other' I saw the other actors do (mostly between Morse and Hinds, if I'm remembering correctly) had to do with these looks they were throwing each other and, depending on the intensity and timing of the look, a different kind of response to it. Not being blind also means more freedom of movement for the other actors--they had more choices in how and where they could move in response to the other.
I can't fault Norton's consistency at all. There's this notion of keeping a play 'fresh,' but I don't think that has to be so much about changing how things are done as it's to do with staying vital in your performance, which I think Norton always did (at least on the days I saw it). I think one could see him as the rock around which the others could play a bit here and there. Not that I think we should overstate the variations. From the few performances I saw, I would say Hinds and Morse were the ones most varying in their performances. It seems Hinds, maybe, was trying to keep Morse on his toes (him being the 'divil himself' and all he could get away with that sort of thing!)--throwing him different kinds of looks at different times and varying the degree/kind of menace he threw his way in their scenes alone. But I think some of the variations worked better than others, so one could almost wish they'd been a bit more consistent, so long as they were consistent in the right way.
#25
Posted: 5/15/08 at 3:58am
I have to agree with DoranC---If you have ever watched a blind person, they do not seem to have such a range of emotion in their faces or body. Perhaps this is due to the fact that they are concentrating intently on their sense of hearing. Also, they cannot be as vibrant with their body movements, as they can only 'feel" their proximity to others, and have to be careful not to throw themselves "off balance" or "bump" into something.
And the clincher......right, they cannot have that important "eye contact" with the other actors, so Norton HAD the disadvantage here.
However, just by doing what he did, he "captured" the essence of his character, no doubt. Could he have done it with a twist? OF COURSE! This would have given his character a more "personal" characterization, and his part might have "upstaged" the others. An oportunity I would have definitely taken as an actor!
And the clincher......right, they cannot have that important "eye contact" with the other actors, so Norton HAD the disadvantage here.
However, just by doing what he did, he "captured" the essence of his character, no doubt. Could he have done it with a twist? OF COURSE! This would have given his character a more "personal" characterization, and his part might have "upstaged" the others. An oportunity I would have definitely taken as an actor!
Updated On: 5/15/08 at 03:58 AM
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95