Who' is The Big Bad Wolf?

...

Interesting to hear your opinion of the current production, buddy5. I agree that the balance seems to be right. All the best to you!

---

Maybe people like me are part of the problem. I have no strong desire to see this play right now, just as I had no driving desire to see Salesman and Streetcar last year.

My memories of seeing and loving Turner, Irwin, Dennehy, Franz, Blanchett in excellent productions which seem too vividly recent (in some cases they aren't all that recent but they still seem that way) are indelible. It's almost like I'm protecting my memories, holding them sacrosanct. I don't want them corrupted. And I may well be the one missing out, but that's how I feel.

I'm not proud of feeling this way. And it may be ridiculous. But it's still true; am I the only one?

And, for some reason, this seems more true for me with plays, and particular great dramas, than with musicals.

I'm very excited about seeing The PIano Lesson - a play I cherish as I do memories of the original production - tomorrow night. But I don't think I would have been particularly interested in seeing a revival of it 15 years ago.

I went to the play with a group of seven the Saturday matinee after Thanksgiving and was shocked to see the house only about 60% full. The upper level was nearly empty and the ushers had no problem with us moving.

I'm a huge fan of Woolf, it's brilliantly written. Last time I saw it on Broadway was with Colleen Dewhurst, Ben Gazzara, Maureen Anderman, and Richard Kelton who died tragically and way too soon. I interviewed Maureen earlier this year regarding Richard III. She was Albee's go to girl until she started having children and she learned a lot from Colleen.

That said, until Saturday, I thought that production and the movie were pretty much the definitive Woolf.

No. I was wrong. This production is IT. Like the opening of Un Chien Andalu, I feel my eyes have been newly cut and opened anew.

Tracy Letts puts George into a new realm. Playing with precision and strength opposite Amy Morton's less than shrill Martha, we now feel that at one time this may have been a loving, caring couple. And maybe, just maybe, now that the charade is over there's a little hope for them. Letts just nailed it.

After this version, I now feel Colleen and Elizabeth were too over the top and shrill. I never felt their vulnerability until the very end. Ben seems now too one note and Richard was pathetically unlovable. Neither had the depth Letts did. A tour de force performance.

Madison Dirks is a very worthy opponent for George, and I might add super nice. He happily posed for a picture with my daughter after the show. And Carrie Coon, god love her. A really thankless part but she makes one helluva drunk.

Four in our group were young adults who had never seen Woolf in any incarnation and their reaction was telling. They were exhausted, a little bit confused which is understandable, and they couldn't stop talking about it. Repeating the classic lines and commenting on the great acting and bizarre plot.

In short they loved it, and I am so happy that my daughter's first Woolf was this big bad one.

At dinner we discussed the poor attendance. My husband thinks it should have come out in the spring and at this time of year people don't want to see something so heavy and depressing. He may have a point. Too bad. I hope it gets filmed. This version is memorable.

Updated On: 11/28/12 at 06:57 PM

Thank goodness I wasn't the only one who saw this thread title and thought of Doctor Who.

I think the problem is that too many people are familiar with the play (or the movie). I keep telling people how much I enjoyed the current revival and most of the reactions I receive are along the lines of, "We've had enough of Virginia Woolf."

---

I agree, too soon, and the fact that no one besides Chicagoan Theatre go-ers have ever heard of any of the actors (as brill as they are), don't help.

Most people I know have never seen the play. And despite the raves, they still aren't coming. Sad, sad, sad.

Broadway is approaching community theatre status when the same plays and musicals get revived every ten years or so.

There's also the question of star power.

Look at Al Pacino, giving a fairish performance in a so-so production of a recently revived play, one that is far inferior to Virginia Woolf, and yet, he's boffo at the box-office.

To sell the third revival of a very well-known play, you need stars to bring in the crowds. The actors here are great, but they are not names that sell tickets. If you had George Clooney and Julia Roberts as George and Martha, it would be SRO.

Updated On: 11/29/12 at 10:59 AM

Although, The Performers had a few names, familar to theatre go-ers and the masses alike and had virtually no advance in sales and failed, the source material was debateable, but the reviews were mostly kind. Woolf, other then online, I've not seen a lot of marketing for in the city. I've seen Woolf, and it's pitch-perfect, and it is certainly a shame that theatre isn't filled nightly- as the review suggests, it's a necessary ticket- timing aside in regards to revival, it needed to be seen! It's mesmerizingly good! I saw Grace the same day I saw this, and that theatre was full, which adds to the star power argument. I think the time of the year argument brought up by another poster is a valid point, especially in a season saturated with Christmas musicals and young casts! The more adult stuff is getting drown out!

You picked the one undiplomatic statement in my post! I try to remain diplomatic in my posts, unless its purely an opinion on my part. Many have suggested this particular production and performances take a different approach to the material, I was only familar with the Burton/Taylor movie, as a theatre student, this was my first experience seeing it live- so yes, future generations NEED to see this type of material, I believe this is the reason for revivals, to expose the "Glee" generation to truly great source material- look at Shakespeare, its constantly trotted out, because the material is great! As for the price tag, that's your right, I got student rush, so no complaints, and we moved center before the show even began because, as the reason for this thread suggests, the theatre was woe-fully undersold!

Revivals of serious plays will always be a hard sell particularly without stars.

Now let's get to the good part. How much was the original production's payoff? To the positive, it is a one set (where nothing flew), 4 character play that ran 18 months in NY, had a movie sale and spawned one or two national companies. To the debit side, every role was double cast in NY and George and Martha were double cast on the road. In NY at least, the matinee casts were names to one degree or other.

I'm not asking exactly how much you made, but what was the percentage return or how much on the dollar?

---