| re: Clearly, I would be a terrible,critic | |
| Posted by: | Ann 09:02 am EST 11/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Clearly, I would be a terrible,critic - Delvino 08:28 am EST 11/17/14 |
|
| |
| What risk did Jackman take with this play? Saying that implies some kind of possible personal hit. I don't see anything risky about the play (which I liked, but did not find revelatory or daring, already being a fan of the playwright, who isn't an unknown) and even if it had bombed, I don't see how he would have suffered some kind of career damage. I can appreciate - very much = stars bringing new work to light, but for someone like Jackman, I don't think I agree that "risk" is the right word. (And, personally, I appreciate more their bringing attention to new plays being produced outside of Broadway.) | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Clearly, I would be a terrible,critic | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 03:05 pm EST 11/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Clearly, I would be a terrible,critic - Ann 09:02 am EST 11/17/14 |
|
| |
| >> Saying that implies some kind of possible personal hit. i couldn't agree more. not playing it entirely safe (coming in with a revival of a musical) is not the same thing as taking a risk. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| Of risk and play development. | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 11:40 am EST 11/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Clearly, I would be a terrible,critic - Ann 09:02 am EST 11/17/14 |
|
| |
| I take your point, but still somewhat respectfully disagree. This issue for me is the evolution/development of a play, which does have risks (of a sort) attached. I still subscribe to Marsha Norman's adage that every script takes three productions to get right. Many writers support her contention, there's a process built in; plays grow. And we know that Butterworth continued to work on this play in New York, adjusting the last few lines several lines, likely instigating other changes. Playwrights learn as they go, and texts are seldom frozen this early in the process (DISGRACED changed, moving from Chicago to London.) No, Jackman didn't take a personal risk except to lend support to a newish project still finding its stage legs. I can't help but compare that to Bradley Cooper -- and honestly, I'm not criticizing Cooper here -- who chose to return to Broadway in a role long polished by the playwright, proven, tried, and re-tried. It's been a vehicle for everyone from David Bowie to (fill in the blank). Ask actors, that's more of a risk-averse choice. So if we grade risk on a scale (and I know we do not need to), I'd certainly put Jackman's in a different league than Cooper's. It's still good news both men are here, pulling crowds. On the other hand, Jackman followed West's performance in London. Creating a role is where the (degree of) artistic risk is taken. No writer knows if a play -- or character -- work until a production. Sometimes more than one production, as noted above. Perhaps we're parsing risk, unfairly, inappropriately. Personal career risk is somewhat different from artistic risk. I 100% agree that artists more frequently taking risks outside of New York would be exciting and nurturing to new work and play development in general. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Meryl Streep went to Seattle Rep to do a workshop of AN AMERICAN DAUGHTER by Wendy Wasserstein. On B'way it was Kate Nelligan. But Streep helping Wasserstein find the play early on was a true gift to that play's development. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of risk and play development. | |
| Posted by: | Ann 11:50 am EST 11/17/14 |
| In reply to: | Of risk and play development. - Delvino 11:40 am EST 11/17/14 |
|
| |
| I think Cooper's situation is quite different, as he has a long history with the play and, from what he has said, was happy to be doing it at Williamstown, without initially thinking about Broadway. A really different track from Jackman and The River, to me. I'll agree to disagree with the risk here. The way I see it, even if it failed, regional theaters would still pounce on The River - simply because it was done. Jackman assured that - not risked it. And it wasn't an unknown to those involved. I'm just not seeing a whole lot of risk on this one, but that's why they make chocolate and vanilla (but, wait, I like both chocolate and vanilla!). ... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of risk and play development. | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 12:21 pm EST 11/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of risk and play development. - Ann 11:50 am EST 11/17/14 |
|
| |
| Solid points, good discussion; thank you. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Just read the London reviews of the play | |
| Posted by: | lowwriter 09:56 am EST 11/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Clearly, I would be a terrible,critic - Ann 09:02 am EST 11/17/14 |
|
| |
| I looked at the London reviews of the Royal Court London production last year with Dominic West (another wonderful actor). The reviews were very positive so I'm not surprised the show was produced here. The Royal Court is a small theater and so is the Circle in the Square. | |
| Link | Independent UK review |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Important note re the London venue for The River | |
| Posted by: | NewtonUK 11:06 am EST 11/17/14 |
| In reply to: | Just read the London reviews of the play - lowwriter 09:56 am EST 11/17/14 |
|
| |
| The River was not produced in the Main House, but in the Jerwood Theatre Upstairs - which has a maximum capacity, depending on confioguration, of ninety (90) seats. (This is also, coincidentally, the theatre where Rocky Horror Show was first performed. Imagine THAT experience!) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| clout is probably the better word than risk | |
| Posted by: | dramedy 09:48 am EST 11/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Clearly, I would be a terrible,critic - Ann 09:02 am EST 11/17/14 |
|
| |
| because taking on an iconic role like Willy Loman or Hamlet or Macbeth can be very risky for an actor since the comparisons to previous actors successes will find their way into the reviews. HJ uses his clout to get new works to Broadway and other actors should try to do the same. I've never really felt revivals are all that safe for actors--just investors. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: clout is probably the better word than risk | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 05:37 pm EST 11/17/14 |
| In reply to: | clout is probably the better word than risk - dramedy 09:48 am EST 11/17/14 |
|
| |
| Good points. Any reminted Willy or Blanche enters a crowded museum filled with ghosts, beloved ghosts, used as sometimes cruel yardsticks to measure work. As a first-time player, the creative risks are lower in that sense, because no one faces the gold standard(s) to hold the performance up against. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
All That Chat is intended for the discussion of
theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)
Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.
[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Sound Advice Upcoming Releases CDs/Books/DVDs, etc. | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]
Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2014 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]
Time to render: 0.055808 seconds.