van Hove/Miller

It's interesting that Ivo van Hove directed two Arthur Miller plays within the same Broadway season.

He really outdid himself with "A View From The Bridge". I loved it so much that when it was announced he would be directing "The Crucible" (which is my favorite of Miller's plays) I was stoked - - - and then I saw the production and was completely underwhelmed. It was also telling when the Tony noms came in and most of them went to "Bridge" and not "Crucible".

Has this ever happened before where a director directs two plays by one playwright in the same season?

I don't have an answer to your director question, I'm curious as well, but just saying his Crucible wasn't universally disliked. It was fairly well reviewed. https://www.show-score.com/shows/the-crucible

Agree agree agree. Perhaps if I hadn't seen and been so impressed with View I wouldn't have been so disappointed by Crucible. It wasn't terrible, but I was expecting to be blown away. Plus the reviews all said how it was so scary. I didn't think it was scary at all.

Wonder how I would have felt if Crucible was the production he brought 1st

Updated On: 6/16/16 at 01:29 PM

He said in the long profile piece published in THE NEW YORKER last year that new works do not interest him very much. I think LAZARUS is one of the few works he's developed from the beginning.

henrikegerman said: "I found his View to be a seamless, compelling interpretation of the play, deconstructive yet never gratuitous in his choices. Everything connected for me and the play remained the thing. His style organically served the play at all times."

I couldn't have said it any better myself. That is exactly how I felt about this production.

bandit964 said: "Agree agree agree. Perhaps if I hadn't seen and been so impressed with View I wouldn't have been so disappointed by Crucible. It wasn't terrible, but I was expecting to be blown away."

Yes! I felt that he missed the mark with "The Crucible". I had no issue with the performances - - - it was his vision that I had an issue with. I was trying to figure out what he was trying to say with the choices he made in how he staged it - - - also I felt all the effects were so unnecessary. "The Crucible" doesn't have to be made scary or frightening with these kinds of gimmicks because it's all there in the play itself - - - the words and the actions of the characters. I found it to be quite distracting.

I absolutely detested his View from the Bridge, especially the final moments where the blood rained down on them. The cast was wonderful, but the sense of intimacy was lost from the balcony and I had trouble following what was happening (and I knew the play).

Whereas The Crucible made me fall in love with the show all over again. I was looking forward to each of the pre-act spectacles, which felt integrated into the piece unlike the blood rain in Bridge. The eclectic mixtures of spectacle and intimacy worked for me so much better than in Bridge, and I was never more moved by the final scene. The way he directed each act to rise to one specific moment was thrilling and I found the cast marvelous. I'd see his Crucible again if I was given the opportunity.

Maybe it was thrilling up close. I'm not sure. Clearly the show was directed for the on stage seats and the orchestra. I was so disconnected from every move and word up in the balcony that the show landed with a resounding thud. Whereas with The Crucible, from the front of the mezzanine, I felt right there with the actors and I understood exactly what this production was doing. I was actually surprised during the play, which I've read many times. Maybe that's why I loved it so much.

I hated View from the Bridge (although the acting was great) and almost didn't see the Crucible because of it. I ended up seeing it and really enjoying it. I know I'm in the minority but A View from the Bridge was the one that felt like it was trying way too hard to be "different" to me. I guess I responded to the eeriness of the Crucible for some reason.



I still prefer more classic direction of the classic plays so I would like to see Van Hove direct more newer works. I really thought Lazarus was interesting and am very glad I saw that. I just thought his style worked better for a more modern work, at least to me. Maybe after I've seen a lot of those classic works I'll appreciate the new interpretations more, but I just got into plays a few years ago so this is my first exposure to most of them.

^ I believe the point was that the mass hysteria was not willful cruelty, but something driven out of fear. The girls actually believe there is a witch. Or maybe I'm crazy. I don't know, the production was ridiculous.

I was so upset that the levitation scene was spoiled for me. Then I saw it. I thought someone was going to look like they were, um, levitating. This was like an amateur peter pan, or Angels in America where you're supposed to see the supports.

It's the first time I ever felt that the direction was working against the text. I found the theatrics distracting, and van Hove's explanation - that the audience needs to see/experience witchcraft to connect with the character's hysteria - is so condescending.

Oh, they looked cool, don't get me wrong. If only they made any sense.