first preview reports (unfairly?) trash "Festen" — Page 2

Why or why do people flock to see the first preview performance of a show? It's the first time the actors are in front of an audience and are still finding their way through the text.

We have many people here at BWW (and I fully respect them) who seem to show up at EVERY 1st preview and post their opinions. As an actor, I would resent this. If the actor is doing his job, he's listening to the audience and learning what is working and what isn't. His efforts to create a performance shouldn't be fodder for a public forum like this.

I like to catch a later preview, when a certain amount of adjustments have been made.

---

I directed the one girl in it last year!

Duffy is most assuredly a shill for the show. I don’t know his involvement, but it could not be clearer that this is someone very much involved with the play.

Duffy became a Broadway World member in January, and every one of his posts since has been about Festen (do a site search if you don’t believe me.)

His first post popped up when someone asked if Festen would find a Broadway house.

“My guess is that Festen will announce shortly. From what I've heard it may have some "names" involved. I guess they're waiting to square away all contracts and commitments so that the first you hear from them is a big announcement with cast all in place.”

This post sounds very much like someone in-the-know trying to sound like a guy who just heard some exciting chatter on the street.

Then when someone asked when the show might open, it was Duffy who jumped right in to answer.

“I believe it will be sometime in March. I saw the play in London and truly believe this to be the "one" to watch. It's rivetting, upsetting, funny, and unique. …I'm so excited to hear that Julianna Margulies is going to be in it. She is perfect casting and will be haunting. Yeah. By far the most interesting show coming in.”

This was his SECOND post. And his third one appeared when someone asked what Festen meant. Of course it was our hero Duffy who jumped in with the answer.

"Festen means Celebration in...Danish...I believe. The play is based on the movie called "Festen" which was released a few years back from Dogme films. It too is a remarkable piece of work. Try to rent it and you'll be blown away. Celebration is the ironic title which to say more would be a spoiler. See the play. It's the same director and team from London with an American cast. “

And when someone wondered what business Ali McGraw had on stage, it was Duffy who came to her defense…

“I bet Ali McGraw is very good. If you've seen the play you know that the part of the mother is an icy and closed-off woman with relatively little to say. I think she might deliver a real surprise performance. Don't forget, she has easily 30 years of life experience since we saw her last.”

So let me get this straight - Duffy expects us to believe that he’s just some bloke off the street who just HAPPENS to know about upcoming Festen announcements, contract negotiations, possible casting, the London production, the movie on which it was based, and the definition of the word Festen? Okay, I guess that’s POSSIBLE, but when Duffy is posting ONLY about Festen and NOTHING else, you could see how one might be a little suspicious. And he can toss in phrases like “I believe…” and “My guess is…” as much as he wants, but it’s not throwing ME off the scent.

Next, the conversation turns to possible Tony nominations for Best Play. Guess who Duffy is rooting for? And while he very wisely tosses some half-hearted kind words to his competition, he also systematically discounts each one of them in some way.

Well – “I'm in the minority on this one but I don't understand all the fuss. I found it very enjoyable down at The Public, but was shocked to hear that it was coming uptown to a full blown out Broadway production…For me the play doesn't really break any new ground.”

Rabbit Hole – “A great production, but I don't think it's a great play. It should yield some acting nominations, but the play in itself is a mixed bag.”

Lt. of Inishmore “I'm shocked that this is moving to Broadway…I thought the first act was a total bore... It was received with mixed critical response and I think has a limited audience… IMHO- shouldn't and will not get a nod.”

History Boys – “The subject matter is kind of all over the map and some of the English references may be lost on American audiences.” Also…”I wondered the same thing about the Gayness.”

Bridge and Tunnel – “I do not think it does a service to the play or to Sara Jones to put this in the best play category…In my opinion this is why the category of solo performance was invented, to recognize and inspire this exact kind of work and not let it fall through the cracks.”

Shining City - “Don't know anything about it…It will need to catch fire to go the distance.

And then of course, there’s FESTEN…

“Amazing. It's incredibly theaterical yet manages to be deeply personal and intimate. It is one of my favorite evenings ever spent in the theater… I think a definite nod.”

But perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps I’m just reading into EVERY ONE of Duffy’s posts. Maybe they’re not skewed in any way. I suppose it’s possible. Or it WOULD be if he hadn’t written that term paper in defense of the play and slamming every other poster who has gone to see his crap production on Broadway andf found it a complete and utter mess. He pleads with us, “Don't believe the ‘trash’” when he himself is spewing out completely biased garbage. Shame on you Duffy Square, whoever you happen to be.

Sincerely,

Sherlock Holmes

PS: Speaking of Duffy, and his name, when asked what it means, he explains, “Duffy Square is the name for the TKTS 1/2 price ticket landmark in NY Times Square. I hang out there quite a bit so I guess you could say I'm a little of a Duffy "Square". Absolutely cheesy...I know.” But then in a later post he signs his name D. Duffy, as if Duffy were not in fact his hang-out, but his last name. Jeez, he can’t seem to keep ANY of his lies straight.”

Updated On: 3/26/06 at 01:00 PM

Wow. What serious sluething you have done. For your information I have nothing to do with the show. I wish I had as I think it's a really excellent franchise. I'm very much interested in this particular show having seen it both abroad and now over here. Back in January I became a member because for the first time I felt like I actually had something interesting to contribute. I do have someone that I know in casting who gives some inside information in my life and in the past few months I have taken that little bit of insider information I know and tried to prove my metal on the board. Was it someone casting for FESTEN? NOPE!!! I thought my little bit of inside information might be of interest to the theater community. I would venture to say most people on these boards are either insiders or very interested theater goers...so why is that shocking? I do see a ton of plays. I'm happy to give a long cogent review of any of the plays you mentioned that you think I "ran down" in my Tony round-up if you desire and that proves my legitimacy to you. However as you seemingly have the "Shill" card on the table and now have called into question my veracity, I'll happily withdraw further comments about this play. I actually don't really care if you liked the play or not. I have no idea who you are either. Possibly an actor who didn't get cast in this show. A rival producer. Who ever knows. You take these boards in whatever way you want. I have responded to this play in particular because the subject matter interests me on a deeply personal level. And to Sleeper2 I apologize if you thought that I was referring to your comments being "Trash". I was not. I meant to imply that a preview seems early to "TRASH" a show. You can think what you want. Honestly, discount my opinions entirely as if I'm a member of the producing team or in the cast. I don't really care. And as for the D. Duffy bit of sluething?!? My first name begins with a D. Wow?!? I'm incredibly sorry that I messed up my moniker. It seems rather suspicious to me that someone who joined this board on March 26th, YESTERDAY is going to point fingers. I'll make sure in the future to post about only other shows and I will seriously follow what CHOLLY reports on as well.

????? Whatever. Think what you like.

I'm glad I saw this in London. I wouldn't go so far as to call the play a masterpiece, but I enjoyed myself immensely. There's a certain archness to the piece that maybe plays better with a British accent.

SPOILERS>>>>>>

I say this is because one of Sleeper2's criticisms is that it was obvious to him that Christian was telling the truth. It's supposed to be obvious that he's telling the truth. The point of the play is to witness the absurd lengths to which this family will go to deny the obvious. Which is one reason why it was so savagely funny. (At least in London.) Who the hell continues with a party after that bombshell is dropped? It's one reason why I loved the "last supper" scene. All that deafening silence.

WOW...this play has certainly brought out the best in some posters. I might have to make a special trip to NYC just to see what all the fuss is about.

My $0.02:

Lay off of Duffy, for crying out loud. He (I'm assuming you're male, Duffy) has just as much right to post as anybody, and it's rediculous to accuse someone of unjustly promoting a show. I personally find it curious why some people are so damned determined to make people think this show is sh*t. You have an opinion about the show...you think you were ripped off...you couldn't hear what was said...WHATEVER. I am by no means saying these conditions should have to be tolereated in the theatre, but let's face it - you all know as well as I do that that is the risk you take when going to the theatre (unfortunately). I've seen a ton of shows I payed through my nose for, and walked out feeling pretty damn sheepish, but I didn't turn around and proclaim to the world that I had been wronged. People can figure out for themselves whether a show is crap, and if it actually is, it will crash and burn just fine on its own. It doesn't warrant the caddy remarks seen on this board.

---

Updated On: 3/27/06 at 01:01 AM

NO SPOILERS!

This production is going to be one of the more controversial ones of this season, because of those 3 camps Iflit delinteates. That's a good thing, and means the play has the unique ability to stir up strong feelings.

I personally wish I could fully embrace it, for its blend of "shocking" elements and black comedy. To be fair, just when I was ready to write it off in act one, a moment of Orton-esque black humor surfaced (those hysterical drinking songs!) that made me reconsider. But I awoke this morning more troubled by that mixture than stimulated. To me, underneath a lot of theatrical trickery -- beautifully, at times artfully employed -- there lurks a fairly commonplace Lifetime "issue" move, albeit one without any fresh insights. Most soap operas have used this plot twist/issue over the past twenty years -- it's a very popular backstory for troubled characters whose behavior need explaining -- exploring it with more subtlety and depth. So if soaps find more drama than a play...well, that doesn't spell revelation.

To me, this play lifts the lid on a stage-worthy subject, and then comes closer to exploiting it that using it to illuminate aspects of family dysfunction. By act two, the play tends to get buried under an increasingly busy staging -- operatic effects without music -- as it treads water toward an unsatisfying, if wholly predictable, conclusion. Too bad, because the first 15 minutes promise something boldly original. If "FESTEN" had the courage of those earlier convictions, and dared to dig under the rocks it uncovers, it might be the "shocking" evening it purports to be. It feels like an outline for a play -- or a screenplay, which is where it began, after all.

---

Updated On: 3/27/06 at 10:54 AM

I'm just praying that there was enough music here to qualify for a "Best Score" Tony.

It's daddy's birthday! Oh yes it is and it is today!

GENIUS!

I'm with Robbie about Sisto. The first 15 minutes belong to him, he so dominates; as a result, we are cruelly promised a far more interesting and complex play, one in which his character's arc and catharsis will figure prominently. Alas, no. But we do get a lot of Hayden's catatonia. Sisto jumps in feet first, and makes the A.D.D.-like behavior wildly honest (and entertaining). Yes, yes, a *fine* (both meanings of the word) Stanley K he would make. As for the dollop of arcane racism that floats over the lesser 2nd act (to momentarily add drama, as the main story treads water...), it's so baldly set forth as an added element, the deck only gets stacked against a family that's already dangerously cartoon-like.

---

I have seen the show both in London and I recently caught an early preview on Broadway.

Let me say, these are two different shows.

Actually, they look exactly the same--designed and staged identically--but that is where the similarities stop.

This show was electrifying in London, as the critics said. It was an absolutely thrilling night of theater--stunning performances, precise direction--it packed a serious punch and left me and the three other people I saw it with, very chilled and moved. It was everything theater should be.

The preview performance I saw last week in New York was a mess. The casting is all off. Michael Hayden, Jeremy Sisto and Larry Bryggman do not do justice to three fantastic, textured roles. They miss all the subtlety and tension. Ali MacGraw is just plain embarrassing as the mother. She really can't act. It's ridiculous that she's in the show. Julianna Marguiles does just fine, but the rest of the weak links pretty much sink the show.

Everything about the West End production that was understated, tense and kept me on the edge of my seat was overblown, hammy and ridiculous in this production. It looked messy and amateurish. The tone of the peice is a very delicate, very important thing to nail and it was all over the map.

I know that these are all talented actors and that Rufus Norris clearly did a spot-on job directing the show in London, so I'm hoping that many of these things can change by opening night. However, there are so many bad choices made in terms of casting and performance that I worry the production is too misguided to turn it around at this point.

I hope I'm wrong, because I LOVED this show in London. A big disappointment.

With yesterday's announcement that a certain actress would be returning to Broadway, I went looking for threads about her only previous Broadway credit: this play, which I missed back in 2006. Given the responses, it seems clear why the show didn't last long. But after all the flare-ups and accusations of "shills" this week, I thought the most interesting part of this thread was seeing that, 18 years ago, people were already accusing people of being shills and arguing about it. Some things never change, huh? (Also interesting to see who's still around!)