Per Brantley's review:"Bryan Cranston is all but flaying"; "great, high-risk acting"; "bravura dementia";"electrifying, tear-and-sweat-stained phase of Howard’s epic nervous breakdown, multiplying and transforming his every shade of expression";"frenzy of live action";"Mr. van Hove aims at his audience’s gut, not its mind. And the opening moments of “Network” are as viscerally discombobulating as anything he’s done."
Well, you know what? I would vastly prefer a play which "viscerally" aims at my mind, first, and then my "gut."
Is no one else sick and tired of plays which so easily commandeer our guts because to engage our minds would be ... well, be taboo and too challenging?
Oh well, let's keep it easy with dramas from decades past rather than dramas from today's present which, for sure, this, that or the other victimized interest group would raise a twitter h*ll storm.
14
Complete agreement here with Mr. Brantley’s description of the love affair subplot as tedious. I haven’t seen the play, but remember it from the film. That soapy element seriously distracts from the brilliantly scalding satire at the heart of the story.
I want to go. My husband refuses because he doesn't want to watch diners eating on stage. Any input here?
10
@Npeterucci - "because he doesn't want to watch diners eating on stage".
This is the same answer as was given for "Spring Awakening." If you don't go to the theater to watch non-actors onstage, BE one of the non-actors onstage. Get the stage seats for yourselves.
3
@Npeterucci
Tell him it's not very obtrusive at all - easy to tune out - and provides a few moments of rare comic fun here and there.
7
BTW, I can't find anything yet, so has the food at "Network" been officially reviewed? There is a precedent.
https://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/dining-with-the-demons/
I remembered seeing the food reporter Mark Bittman at the full-day Dostoevsky show "The Demons" and it looks like he did write about the food,
1
The original Network is so well-acted, so we’ll-written, so compelling and still so relevant that they should’ve just re-released it. More important, I wish Hollywood would break free from retreads, sequels, prequels and cartoons, and usher in a new era of experimentation and risk-taking. Get the marketers and moneymen out filmmaking first.
12
"Nick Wyman as a Charles Bluhhorn like corporate mogul..."
Too bad... Mr. Brantley mentions, in passing "Network's" UBS president Ned Beatty, who privately excoriates Howard Beale on the reality of global international/transactional relationships of corporations, money, and power. "There are no nations, no boundaries, no countries..." Most pointedly, there is only the ebb and flow of money and corporate power... This is the essence of Trump, who he is and what informs his choices--it's writ large in that Ned Beatty speech, so that all of Trump's decisions are manifestly a reflection of corporate-capitalism as it leverages global influence... morality and mission be damned--therein is the brilliant subtext of the contemporary "Network," and it is disappointingly missed in Mr. Brantley's review .
9
@James Landi Mr. Beatty had one day to prepare his four page speech, and finished filming in a single day! It's really the linchpin of the movie, but I must remember, live theater and motion pictures are different genres. I was charmed by Peter Finch, but the real star for me was Dunaway's character, and Beatrice Straight, the jilted wife- the shortest performance on film to win a Supporting Actor Oscar. What a movie!
9
I saw this on November 24th. Tony Goldwyn, whom I usually like, was bland, and Tatiana Maslanyi really, really, REALLY should stick to television. Brian Cranston singularly owned the stage.
Throughout the play, I could hear Peter Finch, William Holden and Faye Dunaway in my head. Every line they spoke, they spoke better than anyone on the stage. For one thing, William Holden and Peter Finch were more believable by virtue of their age. They looked and sounded tired, worn out and jaded. Faye Dunaway, maybe due to her starvation diet, was a lit match.
And as for the Belasco Theater, well, perhaps an asteroid could land on it, then no one would have to make the decision to demolish it. It is singularly, the most uncomfortable theater I have ever been in. Barring implosion by celestial accident, no one taller than 5'4" should be allowed to purchase a ticket.
At the end, which I won't give away, the NY audience's reaction was predictably raucous. What a hoot!
18
@Karen, just about "the most uncomfortable theater I have ever been in" - You may enjoy reading this ranking of 41 Broadway theaters in New York Magazine, with a lot of emphasis on comfort. (Your opinions vary, though. The writer of the article lists the Belasco as 11th best out of 41!)
https://www.vulture.com/2018/06/nycs-41-broadway-theaters-ranked.html
3
Oh, Brantley's killer line, so true:
"What’s scary is how his rage taps into an age of anger and confusion . . . of 2018. And an aging madman with a podium and sense of betrayal is perceived as a savior for a troubled nation."
See you, the deplorables and expendables, in 2020, folks!
3
@Karen
"William Holden and Peter Finch were more believable by virtue of their age." Hmmmm!
The film was made in 1976. Peter Finch was 61 at the time, not living long to receive his Oscar in person. William Holden was 59.
Bryan Cranston is now 63.
Hopefully, Mr. Cranston will be around to receive his Tony in person.
10
I fully agree with Mr. Bentley’s review. I saw this play in NY 2 weeks ago and was mesmerized by Bryan Cranston’s electrifying performance, which was more than worth the price of admission. The other performances, with the exception of “God”, were extraordinarily dull and seemed miscast (if Cranston was an 11, the rest of the cast were 2’s). A little warning that this theater has major blind spots (not noted on the ticket). Any seats off to the side will miss major action on the sides of the stage.
18
I was too young for the movie when it came out, so no basis of comparison, but wow, what a story! The ideas that are expressed here, circa 1976, are prescient!
Adding my voice to the choir: Bryan Cranston was excellent. If he was contained as a TV actor, he was positively unleashed here, spewing passion and anger and heart all over the stage (and beyond). I had the good fortune to be seated close to the stage, and could see every line in his craggy face come alive. Some ad-libbing Wednesday night was hilarious.
(In the midst of that fury, Mr. Cranston's gentle and touching nod to Pres. GHW Bush was an oasis.)
Wonderful, powerful night of theater.
22
I remember enjoying the movie in 1976. In a movie theater. At that time, I found the movie quite amusing but unbelievable. I didn’t think anything like this could happen.
Fast forward some years later, I watch the movie on television. Again very amusing, but this time quite believable! Of course this could happen.
Looking forward to seeing the play. My wife and I could only score tickets at opposite sides of the theater. So I consider myself lucky.
4
I don't go to the theater very often, and was disappointed with the last couple of plays I saw. However, this did not disappoint! I'm not going to analyze my reaction, just to say that it was an amazing experience and Bryan Cranston was brilliant (as was the staging). I was attracted by the fact that it is a National Theatre Company production (I'm originally from the U.K.) and enjoyed the whole experience. Go see it!
11
I am not the sophisticated theater-goer but I've seen quite a bit over the years. The number one reason to attend this play is to experience Bryan Cranston's amazing performance. The emotional energy spent makes me wonder how he can do that 8 times a week. I did enjoy the staging and thought that the camera work was really helpful in viewing his acting up close from way up in the balcony. The only negative comment is that I see no use for the tables set on the stage and actually those people, I think, have the worst seats in the house for viewing the play. On a side note, it was fun to see some of the old 70's commercials running on the smaller screens (can be distracting at times but NEVER when Cranston is on stage).
7
I saw the show in London last March and thought it to be one of the top five thatrical experiences of my life. (I'm 55.) Bryan Cranston's performance is the heart and soul of the play, but the midlife affair is not the only other piece to this magnificent puzzle. The main point is that corporations have taken over the news and what we get is a mix of infotainment and corporate-approved nonsense. More true now than in 1975. I was blown away by the brilliant production, Cranston's spectacular performance, and the unfortunate satire of how our news is created and delivered.
12
Totally agree with this review. If you go, it is to see Bryan Cranston's performance. He is superb and the rest is flat. I was also offended by the dinner tables on stage where I got to watch people willing to shell out mega bucks, eat. I thought the staging would have been so much better if they didn't take up a quarter of the stage. They were a distraction as well.
10
Several comments here (and in the review) about the cost of the seats on the stage. In the London production, there was an upcharge for dining - similar to the cost of a fancy dinner out - but the seats were allocated by ballot. There wasn’t a hideous premium for them.
2
Hmmmm… A missing link. I think the collective reviews give you a pretty good overview of this production. All cite Cranston has phenomenal, and he is. It's the chief reason you're going to see it, and that doesn't disappoint. The middle part where the famous "I'm mad as hell..." scene occurs is not only furious, but very sad and pleading - and it's the best part of the whole play. It's also one of few scenes (another is when Tony Goldwyn and his wife finally stand still and just talk) that you can actually focus on one thing. The concept is to have the audience become enraptured in a media frenzy, and it definitely achieves that. But empty media proving that we viewers are nothing more than lemmings who follow what is told to you us (hint?????) can get tired when that's all there is. As a result, the subplots of extra marital affairs by two miscast name actors (Tony Goldwyn looks fantastic for a middle aged compadre of the main character) really are just devices for the overarching concept of human connection and truth being lost in this age of mass multimedia. That said, aside from discarding the element of focus (for the actors as well as the audience) the show is more a performance piece than a play. Nonetheless, it is still powerful in convention and performance by Cranston. The message is still sadly clear: We haven't learned much since the mid seventies; in fact, we've just gotten worse.
6
"Network" is flat-out brilliant and Bryan Cranston proves himself a theater god. Bravo to the director and all those who made this show a technological marvel. Because of the innovative and highly skillful use of live camera work every seat in the house is a good one. Run and buy a ticket for a glorious experience of theater! Enjoy!
12
Lightning strikes the Belasco Theatre eight times a week in the formidable presence of Bryan Cranston who, in NETWORK, is giving an indelible, unforgettable performance for the history books. Suffice it to say that the directorial genius, Ivo Van Hove, has shaped and molded a spectacular stage production which honors and yet expands upon Paddy Chayefsky's original Oscar winning script, brilliantly adapted for the stage by Lee Hall. There are so many moments that take your breath away: e.g. Cranston's horrifying mental breakdown as if in a dream sequence in undershirt and undershorts, ranting around the stage reminded me of all the demented King Lears I have seen in their respective storm scenes. Though what is truly startling, as Ben Brantley states, is that what Chayefsky wrote about 43 years ago has slowly evolved, filtered into and has now become our national nightmare, affecting so many differing aspects of our everyday lives. I could go on and on, so will you after you experience this fabulous production.
34
@robert
I wish you would go on and on. You ought to be reviewing theatre! Thank you.
11
@Robert, when you say "what Chayefsky wrote about 43 years ago has slowly evolved, filtered into and has now become our national nightmare" - some of the examples seem so close to show that did show over the years that I can't help wonder if the Chayefsky "prediction" was actually on some writers' or show creators' minds (intentionally or not) when they did the actual Tv show many years later. (I guess for a modern example, the way that Paul Zindel play, whether legally borrowing or not, had to have been in the back of the mind of whoever brought the idea for "Shape of Water" to del Toro. Close enough thieve been a direct inspiration, not close enough to "legally" be a borrowing.)
PS. The news about Faye Dunaway coming back to Broadway appearing within hours of the "Network" opening - that can't be a coincidence, though. (I'm kind of hoping for Pasek and Paul to find Ms. Dunaway a character and at least one showstopper for the inevitable stage version of "La La Land" to tie in to the accountant's error that she announced. Whatever about Norma Desmond or not for her, she can certainly sell that if they write a number with her in mind.)
1