I was fortunate to be in Williamstown this weekend and caught both The Elephant Man and Far From Heaven (the latter has been discussed at length here, so I'll stick to the former). In all, the production was pretty entertaining with some very fine performances. That said, the overall show felt like a stately Roundabout production: not exactly bad, but far from exciting.
As you can imagine, the primary interest for many WTF attendees was the opportunity to see Bradley Cooper on stage, at least that's what I could discern from the couples I spoke to and general chatter around town. One person compared buying tickets to trying to get concert seats for a Justin Bieber show (and I'll agree: it was not an easy task). Cooper's performance was quite transformative. His "formation" occurs on stage (if this is standard, please forgive my lack of knowledge as this was my first time seeing this play on stage) and *SPOILER??* begins with a perfectly formed, very toned, and very shirtless Cooper on stage (I'm sure very attractive is obvious...) and ends with a horribly misshapen man. The change is pretty startling. More impressive still is Cooper's choice of speaking voice: sounding like a cross between a deep-throated man with a lisp and Henry Higgins. I can still hear that voice in my head two days after the performance. In hindsight, Cooper was very good on first witness, but after some reflection of his performance: very impressive.
Sadly, I can't say the same for Patricia Clarkson, whose performance has soured a bit with some reflection. Truth be told, I was most excited to see Clarkson -- a talent not seen enough on stage. True to form, her performance was humorous and charming and by the end, very very sad (though unfortunately not heartbreaking). Clarkson's take was a woman "larger-than-life" - so large that she was more than willing to chew the scenery. And chew she did! I won't for a moment say the performance wasn't thought out, but until she spoke her last lines on stage, I felt like I was watching a caricature and not a character. An entertaining caricature, true, but lacking all the same.
Finally the production (and here is where the Roundabout comparisons really come in) was effective but all together very safe. A bare stage serves as the principal "set" with a curtain drawn in by a clothesline through various scene changes. The grey and black slitted-walls and overhanging hospital lights gave the production a drab mood. Scott Ellis's direction was solid but like his work with Roundabout (seeing a trend here?) not very interesting. The story is told straightforward without interpretation. Some might find this to be a blessing. I thought it highlighted the play's weaknesses.
Personally, I find the real problem with the Elephant Man to be the play itself. Pomerance tries to mash so many ideas and concepts within the 2 hour running that nothing ultimately develops. I'm sure there are many advocates for this play, but I can't count myself as one. An interesting story told with fine writing, but that's about it...I guess I wanted more.
Thankfully, the performances (including a very strong ensemble) made this a very good day at the theater. That along with the Berkshire air and few days in charming town made for a fantastic and relaxing weekend.
Yes, the transformation is written to be shown on stage. If I remember correctly, its during one of the doctor's monologues that discusses his condition.
Thanks for your comments on the production. I have very fond memories of performing in this play, so it holds a special place in my heart.
I'm with you, dramamama. This was the first show I did in high school, so it's always going to be viewed fondly by me, and bad productions will make me sad. Glad to hear that my future husband (I wish) is doing well in the show and giving a good performance.
i'm not familiar with this show...is the 'transformation' involve make-up/prosthetics? Or is it more of the actor using his body and face to show contortion and deformity?
Great review. In a recent New Yorker "Talk of the Town" bit, Cooper talks about his obsession for the play (which actually stems from being given the video of the Lynch film when he was 12). Honestly, he sounds slightly out of touch (he mentions one reason he can relate is because he apparently has one hip that's not even with the other one, and has buggy eyes... Umm, right...), but it's great to hear he has a handle on the role.
I have only seen comments from people who are going to Far From Heaven--and just did a quick search to see if I missed a thread--nothing yet from anyone who *has*, so would love to read your thoughts on it.
I have to admit upfront: I really really liked it! Though I feel that I may be in the minority with this one, and perhaps my enjoyment of it comes from my love of opera. I think Scott Frankel and Michael Korie have created something that is very un-Broadway, and with a little more fine-tuning could find a home at many American opera companies: Minnesota Opera and Opera Company of Philadelphia come first to mind.
I suppose the opera comparisons come from the heavy use of recitative, that is, the book is more often than not sung and not spoken and the line between songs and dialogue is very thin. I recall a poster in another thread say something to the effect of "there are very few breaks for applause." Much like 20th century opera in particular (Wozzeck, Lulu, Peter Grimes, etc.), there are no breaks: merely a gradual progression to an end...often a tragic end. People in other threads compared the music to Adam Guettel, but I think the music is closer to the jazz-rooted work of Michael John LaChiusa. Had I not know the composers' work in advance, I certainly wouldn't have thought that this was the creation of the same writers who wrote "Grey Gardens."
I found Greif's production to be effective if not overly inspired. The use of video screens will strike many as reminiscent of his work in the Rent revival. Considering the number of scene changes involved, the plot is easily guided through by the video backdrops, but many (myself included) may miss the absence of a tangible set.
As for the plot, the musical closely (slavishly?) follows the movie -- many would find issue with this, but loving the movie as much as I do, I cannot complain. The plot is more conducive toward musicalization (is that a word?) than...say, "Women on the Verge."
As for singing...wow... Kelli O'Hara and Steven Pasquale simply made me drool. (The latter for multiple reasons...) Except for Kelli's big 11 o'clock number, I don't recall much in the way of show stoppers, but she carries many of the recitative-like numbers. Pasquale was just too wonderful to watch and to listen to, though his closeted-and-anguished scenes did seem a little overwrought at times. Many characters and numbers could have been eliminated (the reporter, many of the kids' songs). I can't recall who played Patrica Clarkson's character in the musical (and how cute is it that she was performing in a theater attached to the "Heaven" theater?), but she was also quite charming and enjoyable. I was sad to see Yazbeck all but unused and I think Victor Dixon may need a little more time to find his character.
I really don't see this having a chance on Broadway, but judging by the production values, top-shelf cast, numerous producers in the audience (who only like to make too clear that they *are* producers),I think that is the intention. I will say one thing is clear, if the production lands on Broadway (after Playwright's Horizon): unless Audra lands another musical next year, this is Kelli's best shot yet at a Tony. She is simply enchanting.
joined:7/10/09
Posted: 8/1/12 at 09:24am