Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Dull stretches? | |
| Posted by: SamIAm 03:53 pm EDT 03/30/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Unusual Occurrence at Iceman on Tuesday (and other subjects) - TomE 03:39 pm EDT 03/30/18 | |
|
|
|
| You mention that this version was free of 'dull stretches'. Has the book been modified? Audiences these days don't have the patience to get to know characters and to sit quietly and appreciate good writing and character development. The previous version done at the Goodman with Lane and Dennehy went to BAM and not to Broadway but I would guess that with a 'star' on the stage and the expectation that audiences of tourists may come to see that star, perhaps they have shortened the book? Anyone know? I am a purist and would not really want to see the play if they tinkered with O'Neill's work. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Dull stretches? | |
| Posted by: TomE 05:43 pm EDT 03/30/18 | |
| In reply to: Dull stretches? - SamIAm 03:53 pm EDT 03/30/18 | |
|
|
|
| They definitely have shortened the book -- the show ran about 3:55, including three (relatively brief) intermissions. In contrast, the Lane version was said, in reviews, to run 4:45, and the Spacey version 4:15. However, to me, the cuts didn't seem all that obvious. And in a couple cases, where I thought I noticed them, it was because I was expecting a redundancy that didn't arrive. For example, as I look back on the text, I think this was cut from Larry's lines about disillusionment with the "movement": "When man's soul isn't a sow's ear, it will be time enough to dream of silk purses." Since Larry had already, in the same speech, talked about "the breed of swine called men in general," I didn't mind losing the additional pig imagery. Nonetheless, as I think about it, given cuts along these lines, Larry probably does now come off as less of a blow-hard and more of a solid antagonist to Hickey, which could be viewed positively or negatively. I thought it worked (and I especially liked David Morse in the role). Also, I guess similar cuts may be why other conflicts between characters struck me as more vital in this production than they have in the past. |
|
| reply to this message |
| Don't worry (spoilers) | |
| Posted by: aleck 05:04 pm EDT 03/30/18 | |
| In reply to: Dull stretches? - SamIAm 03:53 pm EDT 03/30/18 | |
|
|
|
| This is a dazzling production. I saw it Wednesday. The stage is filled with pros doing top-drawer pro work. Everyone is cast perfectly. Even Bill Irwin is perfect. The sets are spectacular and add a degree of magic to the development of the richness of the script -- and changes in the internal lives of the characters -- that I have never seen or imagined with this play. There was some minor tinkering with the ending, but as directed it's a knockout. Wolfe handles some clumsy aspects of the script in brilliant ways. Sometimes I wonder if O'Neill visualized the staging problems with this script. There are long stretches when the stage is filled with characters who do nothing and at the same time are not supposed to be aware of the central action. Weird, but handled well here. With all these great performances (and any one of those actors could have played Hickey) and the performances in Angels, the most hotly contested category at this year's Tonys will be Best Supporting Actor. How will they narrow it down to five? Denzel is Denzel. He has a bag of tricks that he puts to great use here. There is a darkness missing, I think. But that will probably come. My only disappointment? After seeing David Greenspan do all the parts in Strange Interlude, seeing Denzel doing only one part seems almost like a cheat. (Greenspan had no prompter.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| "Even Bill Irwin is perfect"? | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 05:14 pm EDT 03/30/18 | |
| In reply to: Don't worry (spoilers) - aleck 05:04 pm EDT 03/30/18 | |
|
|
|
| As I would expect! (I'll bet he knew all his lines, too ;) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Dull stretches? | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 04:49 pm EDT 03/30/18 | |
| In reply to: Dull stretches? - SamIAm 03:53 pm EDT 03/30/18 | |
|
|
|
| I haven't seen this version yet, but the advertised running time is a couple hours shorter than the Nathan Lane version at BAM, which I did see. Given that, I'd say the book must be altered with cuts. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.012817 seconds.