Review: ‘A View From the Bridge’ Bears Witness to the Pain of Fate

From its opening scene, Ivo van Hove’s revival of Arthur Miller’s play evokes an acute sense of dread and a relentless aura of grim predestination.

Comments: 80

  1. Unless a lot has changed since the previews, I'm surprised Mr. Brantley wasn't put off by Ms. Fox's erratic, uneven performance. Not only did her accent change three times over the course of the play (Irish, Midwestern, then full-on Brooklyn) but her movements and acting choices were questionable. Leaving the theatre, I overheard several other patrons expressing their confusion over why she was cast. That said, Strong and Walker are amazing. Their performances, combined with the powerful words of Arthur Miller, make it worth seeing.

  2. Oh, my goodness, thank you, Jill from NYC! Finally, I am reading from someone else that Ms. Fox's performance was less than ideal. In fact, I could actually forgive as interpretive choice what to me was the strange, unattractive characterization of Catherine (the droopy way she had of carrying her body around the stage - lighting up only for her uncle), choices that to my taste would not have attracted Rodolpho to her. NO, what was FAR WORSE on a very basic level, was that for the entire play, I could maybe hear what Ms. Fox was saying a couple of times. Mostly, it was only because the actors in dialogue with her responded with normally audible voices, and because Miller's writing is so good, that I could fill in what Ms. Fox most likely had just said (read: mumbled) And I was sitting with my friend in the first row of the mezzanine, a spot usually excellent for hearing everything. And, in fact, I heard every syllable that Mr. Strong brilliantly uttered, and most of what all the others said. She may have been going for the perceived Brooklyn mumble, but this is not reality, this is live theater and the audience deserves to hear Miller's words! No, the emotional force of this production was seriously interrupted every time Ms. Fox had a line. Why was the director not checking out these performances from such normally good vantage points. What my friend and I felt was a powerful frustration, not a powerful play. What an awful shame!

  3. I completely agree. Why they spent the money to bring Fox here is beyond me. One of the worst performances I've ever seen. Everyone else was wonderful.

  4. Could not disagree more with comments on Phoebe Fox performance. She provides a magnificent role in the production without which the play would be all the weaker. A young actress with a great future bravo

  5. is there any show from London that Ben Brantley doesn't like? I found it pretentious and over-rated. I'm sure the producers loved it ("don't have to budget for shoes ...") I'm sick of British/European directors taking American classics and "deconstructing" them into something they aren't...

  6. I, too, was underwhelmed by the show. One perplexing aspect was accents. Mark Strong tried to sound like he was from Brooklyn (not very well) and the actors playing the Sicilian cousins made no attempt to sound like anything but Midwesterners. The message about unwanted immigrants and the threat they posed to Carbone was useful and compelling but I left the play feeling exhausted and NOT exhilarated. The pounding sound effects were anything but subtle. But I seem to be in the minority here.

  7. You have to realize that most of the shows that transfer over from London do so because they have been a wild success on the other side of the pond. So, there is a higher probability that they are "good", by most people's standards. FWIW, I saw this show in previews and found it absolutely stunning.

  8. BB is beyond transparent. It all comes down to cash flow I guess.

  9. I nearly talked myself out of seeing this production at the Young Vic. I didn't think I could trust a Belgian director leading a British cast in an Arthur Miller play about Brooklyn longshoremen. I relented, saw it, was gobsmacked, and saw the NT Live version of it twice. I will come to NY to see it again. Van Hove interprets the play as an abstract expressionist painter. It is artful while also stark, raw and piercing. Each element - costumes, set, sound, lighting, acting, and pacing - integrate deliberately and essentially. Like Brantley, I too found that van Hove's use of Alfieri as a Greek Chorus who inserts himself into the play's action elevated it beyond narrative, but served as a connective tissue, not only within the play, but to our own lives and to the larger themes of life and death found in classical literature as well as any other enduring work of art. I believe it was Miller's intention, and that he would be thrilled with this iteration of his work.

    The imagery of this play, the sounds, and the spoken words haunt me to this day, particularly what Alfieri says about Eddie Carbone at the end. It recalls what Dr. Dysart said about Alan Strang at the end of "Equus". I left the theater each time with an ineffable sense of my own base and noble humanity.

  10. The info box says Marco is played by Emun Elliott, whereas the part is taken by Michael Zegen (per the review). Mr Elliott played Marco in London.

  11. I went with friends to see this play in previews, not knowing what the experience would be like. We bought tickets for the stage seating, which only magnified the powerful, explosive, draining, and ultimately exhilarating experience. We came out of the theater speechless, in awe. The cast was amazing and for the entire play I found myself focusing first on one and then another as they moved individually and collectively to the inevitable, but at the same time, completely unexpected and shocking conclusion. The review is right, now I truly understand the cathartic power of Greek tragedy. Do not miss this.

  12. Wow! What a beautifully written review!

  13. Believe me, it's better than the director's self-important version of a perhaps overrated freudian play.

  14. This is currently the best non-musical production on Broadway, and will definitely be a major contender at the 2016 Tony awards. Years from now it will be remembered not only for the excellent ensemble acting and, in particular, Mark Strong's penetrating, devouring performance ( which for me equals that of Michael Gambon's in the historic 1987 London production), but also for its astounding directorial vision. This production is --from start to finish-- a director's triumph, coupled with brilliant set, lighting and ingenious sound design. The power of this production is amazing as it unwinds like a true Greek tragedy. You journey up to the top of Mount Olympus where theatre meets opera, as this production winds itself around you like a python gradually crushing you until you get to the final minutes which will leave you with an image --a true coup de theatre--that you will never forget. You indeed do feel what Brantley calls that "ecstatic anguish" that rips through your core. Mr. Van Hove is a theatrical genius and one can only look forward to what he will do with THE CRUCIBLE ( an even more brutal Miller play) next spring. With the talents of Ben Whishaw and Saoirse Ronan brewing in a theatrical furnace, the Walter Kerr Theatre will probably shake and levitate high to the theatrical heavens night after night. I can't wait.

  15. O.k., fess up, you work for the producers.

  16. This show could only be propped up by the hype of its producers. I auditioned for it and, saw it, 8 times in prep (admittedly, in London). It ain't all that, folks

  17. A small point, but I do not understand this sentence: "He cannot himself; we completely understand why." Surely there is a word missing.

  18. The first paragraph of this review says it all, perhaps unwittingly. Greek tragedies were written in poetry about gods and heroes and historical icons. Arthur Miller wrote superbly, but in prose, prose about real, living human beings. Turning people into symbols makes the drama formal and the action formalized and static. While catharsis in Green tragedy depended on that, here one needs to connect emotionally with the characters and to care about the (foregone) conclusion. This production is not designed to permit empathy, much less create it. The only thing almost as endless and boring was Mr. van Hove's Macbeth, which was unintelligible to boot. His work is strong and confident, but different isn't always better.

  19. I saw this production last week and agree with your comments. I found it grim and tedious at best.

  20. The acid test for me was that I could not connect emotionally with one of the most tragic characters in American theater. The performances were flat, as if the dialogue were being declaimed, not spoken; Van Hove's approach, in everything of his that I've seen, is hyper-intellectual, as if every line, every scene passes through nothing but cold analysis. The last scene was insulting. Audiences don't need that blood flood to experience the horror of the denouement. It's almost an admission that he hadn't gotten the emotional impact needed up to the point, and this was a desperate last ploy. Another miss for Van Hove.

  21. I would commend to you Arthur Miller's essay "Tragedy and the Common Man" to which Mr. Brantley refers. You can find it here:

    I respect your opinion that you found the show boring, although I disagree entirely, but you completely missed the point of the reference to Greek Tragedy. Miller's entire career was recreating Greek Tragedy in the American idiom.

  22. I think Mr. Brantley's review and the Olivier awards raise expectations too high.

  23. Everybody beside me fell asleep and I sit in bleacher...shshshsh

  24. I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find the production credits for this review. Did someone forget to include them?

  25. I've noticed too that is seems the Times no longer publishes this information, which I always liked to read with the review.

  26. Emun Elliott is not in the cast of this production.

    Alongside the Times' misguided removal of design credits has also come notable sloppiness in what listing info you do provide. Cast lists and running times are frequently incorrect.

    This is easily available information. And I guarantee the shows are informing you of the errors immediately, yet they sometimes take days to fix. Its become embarrassing.

  27. I saw this production in an NT live broadcast In London's West End. Brantley is dead one; this show is explosive. No smallness of sentiment anywhere here.

    I couldn't help feeling, though, that Miller's naturalism was violated. Yet I wonder if audiences would have sat though such naturalism today, and that we didn't benefit from the pared down, minimized explosiveness of the current production. It points to the underlying tragedy of all common lives lacking awareness of their fallible actions. And who doesn't come from a family with these currents running though it? I do.

    Our lives spiral out differently today; we all have so much more latitude to make adjustments, opt for freedom, just move away from an untenable situation. We are not quite as trapped as the Carbones. Think of us all looking down at that family from the great Bridge. We pity them.

    The piling on at the end was like a great Titian painting of disaster.

  28. I couldn't disagree more with this review. The production is reductive, static, terrifically indulgent, with unbelievably poor casting choices (Fox, Tovey). I suspect Miller would hate it. Maybe if you've never seen the play, and you're told by critics that the director is a genius, you'll have a more satisfying night in the theater than we had. For those of us who know the play well, this was a travesty. And Hove seems to hate actors. The production is all about him, not about the play or those poor actors, given nothing to do and no place to go but walk back and forth, back and forth. Mark Strong is a good actor but one-note throughout. And what was the point of robbing the Italian cousins of their dialect? The cadence and syntax of their lines demand it, and without it you can't get a sense of where they've come from, the horrors they've escaped from (circumstances we should be able to relate to, today). I was immensely disappointed in this production.

  29. I too was disappointed after reading Brantley's review. First off, as others have commented, the dialect coach should be fired! I heard British, Irish and pathetic attempts at working class Brooklynese all over the place. And what is with the Faure Requiem music at the beginning and then as annoying background Muzak throughout the production? Mark Strong is a great actor but is there a shortage of talented American actors out there? This is Arthur Miller in Brooklyn with dock workers not Mary Poppins! Ditto for the remainder of the British cast; would the Brits be so hospitable to a cast of Americans butchering Shakespeare at the Globe? I think not!

  30. I thought of Clive Barnes' review of Osborne's Luther. He said that Finney's performance made the theater 10 feet tall. Mark Strong is on the same stage. And the rest of the cast is close behind. But Von Hove 's VIEWis not Arthur Miller's VIEW. His concept is not supported by the script, it is layered on top and used. For instance. When Eddie comes home and Kate jumps up on him and wraps her legs around his waist and hangs from his neck, Bea, Eddie's wife says nothing. She's non-plused. Why? Because it's not in the script. What woman especially at the time of the play, in a tight kit family, would not say something when an 18 year old girl does something as provocative. She can't because it's not in the script. Miller's story is obvious. It's greek tragedy. And we all know where it's going. But to underline it and add other obvious elements that defy the script makes the story even thinner and less durable. So for me if it wasn't for the incredible acting... this would have been a confused and bloodless VIEW.

  31. The over the top blood-drenched finish left me wishing I could wash up, and not in a good way. Mr. Brantley's a sucker for this type of thing, apparently.

  32. I was a member of one of the preview audiences, fortunate to have a stage seat. From that vantage point--sharing part of the same physical boundary space relative to the actors as does Alfieri--one seemed to become part of a chorus engaged in silent interlocution with the lawyer/narrator.

  33. This "Bridge" is a tour de force and well worth seeing in spite of the fact that the structure and momentum of the play suffer from Miller's late addition of the second act after the one act play he originally crafted had failed. "Bridge" delivers enlightening insights into several aspects of the human condition:

    1) The virtually inescapable danger of tragic consequences for anyone who dares to fully embrace the totality of life -- the low as well as the high -- to be "purely himself," as Alfieri tells us Eddie was, and that he loved him for it;

    2) The adaptive compromises most of us make in order to "live with half" so we can avoid the tragic human collisions caused by pursuing and embracing the totality of life and being purely ourselves;

    3) The delusional aspect of such adaptive compromises, for in the end we are all interconnected and mutually affected by the pervasive unity of the human condition, the high and the low; as Miller liked to remind us, "the fish is in the water and the water is in the fish," and that rather than mere bloodshed is the real symbolism of the final scene of this magnificent production; the universal rain of life waters us all.

    These themes largely mirror St. Augustine who said: "I used to think that the higher things alone are good, until wisdom taught me that the higher things and the lower things together are better than the higher things alone."

  34. Eddie Carbone ignores his need for balance and adaptation in order to preserve his primal, incestuous obsession with his niece, Catherine. Like Adam, Eddie embraces the forbidden fruit and this tragic flaw affects everyone around him. As Arthur Miller once observed, “the fish is in the water and the water is in the fish” – the universal rain of life drenches us all. And that, rather than mere bloodshed, is the true symbolism of the powerful final scene of this production.

    This "Bridge" is a tour de force and well worth seeing in spite of the fact that the structure and momentum of the play suffer from Miller's late addition of the second act after the one act play he originally crafted had failed. This production, itself, also has two serious weaknesses that prevent it from reaching its full potential:

    1) The over-the-top physical interactions between Catherine and Eddie are more suitable to a farce than a tragedy; they are an insult to the intelligence of the audience and destroy the impact of the gradual revelation that Eddie’s love for his niece has devolved into a tragic, lustful obsession.

    2) The moment when Catherine and the others realize that Eddie has “ratted” on his wife’s relatives lacks the dramatic buildup and punch it merits and the play requires.

    Fortunately, however, the raw power of the play and especially this production of its final scene and the catharsis it produces more than compensate for any weaknesses.

  35. I saw this on film -- with camerawork and closeups -- a few months ago, when the filmed version of the British production showed in a few places for a couple of days. (I saw it at New York's Symphony Space.) It was the best theater I've ever seen. Ever. Because of the closeups, what I saw may even have been better than sitting in the theater.

  36. I found it very distracting that the people were barefoot. No longshoreman walked around barefoot! The play would have come across better if the actors had worn shoes.

  37. I was very excited to see this production. So I was extremely disappointed to discover that, from my front mezzanine seats, when the actors turned away from the audience they were inaudible. My husband and I both missed nearly all of Alfieri's closing monologue, as did others sitting near us.

    In mounting any production, shouldn't the theater's acoustics from all parts of the house be addressed?

  38. From the balcony it's even worse. Same acoustic issues. In addition, the curtain is low enough to cut off the view of the heads of actors standing on the rear wall - which they do a lot in important scenes! Don't these people take the time to check out sight and sound from all parts of the theater?

  39. I am absolutely dumbfounded that once again BB gives the coverage he does for yet another play of this caliber. The mind wanders to ugly conclusions as to why Brantley trips all over himself to promote such a substandard performance. To me it's not whether the play was enjoyable or not as much as it is the continuos transparent "glowing" reviews from BB that border on disingenuous. Very, very upsetting but such is the business end of show business I guess.

  40. Saw View from the Bridge last night. After the lavish praise, this production was a let-down. It is impressive, to be sure, but what we see is a director's concept of a play, and not the play that the playwright wrote. The actors were miscast; not for a minute did I believe they were Italian-American, or Italian. The Catherine was particularly problematic, with a terrible costume. Beatrice, the wife, came off as the clearest, most realistic character, but again with an odd costume. The visual effects were impressive; they reminded me of some opera productions I have seen in Germany--showy but phony. I don't think they serve Arthur Miller's play very well.

  41. Couldn't agree more. This says it all: director's concept of a play, and not the play that the playwright wrote. I still haven't seen this play after this dreary production.

  42. I agreed almost completely with Mr. Brantley. This was mesmerizing theatre. The show did not appear to be miked -- hallelujah! -- so some lines were missed. An acceptable trade-off in my opinion. What I didn't get was the Pieta image at the end of the show. In what way was Eddie Christ-like?

  43. I confess to attending this play strictly to see the chameleon known as Mark Strong in person, so from that perspective, it was successful. I also sat in the front row of the mezzanine to the side and spent much of the play with my hands cupped behind my ears to make it easier to hear (didn't work). I found the bare feet distracting, but probably less distracting than watching scuff marks being made on the white stage floor would have been. The modern costumes were distracting. The accents were distracting. The miscasting was distracting. Producing a play about New York Italian-Americans with English actors may have gone over well in London, but we weren't in London, so I was distracted by that. Catherine's repeatedly jumping into Eddie's arms was distracting - what 17 year old girl in 1955 would have done that? It seemed like multiple plays stitched together - I'm still trying to understand how the relationship between Eddie, his wife and his niece had very much to do with his conflict with Marco. If this had been a movie, I would have said that much was left on the cutting room floor. On the whole, disappointed, and, of course, annoyed at the cost of the ticket.

  44. Couldn't agree more with this review. Brilliant production that moved me to tears. Kudos to everyone on and off the stage. Hours later and I'm still in awe.

  45. Very effective reimagining of Miller's potboiler in this new, Spartan production. I was engaged throughout the uninterrupted two hours, which, for me, is quite difficult to do with most of the playwright's work. Mark Strong is terrific.

  46. As I sat listening to the monotonous, unyielding tapping of the single programmed conga drum, I began to wonder, after 10 minutes or so of it, if it was in fact a glitch in the sound system. The superfluous, overwrought operatic background wailing equaled melodrama and nothing more. We also couldn't help wondering about the drain in the stage floor, and coupled with everyone being conveniently barefoot, we have to laugh at the pretentious comments the director has made about the actors' lack of footwear. The wildly sexually inappropriate behavior of Eddie and his niece Catherine tells the audience from the get-go how this is all going to end and Eddie strikes a modern audience as obviously not an anti-hero but as a sexually troubled narcissist.

    PS Kudos to the lawyer for being able to maintain a fetal position for two hours: Alas, we will never hire you.

  47. Never hire Mark too.....

  48. I found this to be be a remarkable, brilliant production of what can be a rather turgid, lumpen play. Mark Strong was mesmerizing. Nicola Fox was excellent, as was Michael Gould. I sat on the bleachers on the stage and really appreciated an unmiked performance. I thought the staging was innovative and highly effective. And if you are going to an Ivo van Hove production of *anything* and looking for realism in the staging and direction--re: all the carping about barefooted actors, wonky accents etc--you get what you deserve for not doing your homework. I wish New York served up more of this caliber of theater.

  49. The man to my left fell asleep. So did the guy to my right. If I only had my ambien.

  50. I was disappointed in this production and this review. What came thru more than anything was the leaden heavy hand of the director, for whom the subtlety apparently does not exist. Like others have stated, he branded his own vision of the play, but unfortunately it's not the play Miller wrote. I don't think I've ever seen such a vast chasm between the material and the production. I had seen another wonderful Broadway production and left riveted and emotionally depleted. Here I felt exhausted, but in the worst possible way, from the choral music to the drawn out bloody ending to that ridiculous sounding bell-boxing sound. And God when would that curtain finally come down.
    While the actors tried hard, there constantly shifting accents were a bit ridiculous. Also I never felt much chemistry between Catherine and Rudolpho.
    The material was all there for the director. Let it breathe. Here the director suffocated it with his misguided vision.

  51. Agree......and don't forget Mark decided to bring his partner and 2 kids to come here, look likes the 2 boys not go to school for entire 20 weeks long, what the heck.......seem Mark himself does' mind.......yuck

  52. A play that depends on a naturalistic approach for full audience immersion and belief is here gratuitously "conceptualized," an approach that constantly calls attention to itself--why are the actors barefoot? Why is the entire cast drenched with "blood" when only one character meets/must meet his doom, etc.--thus also exposing the play's dramatic infelicities.

    The world of the play isn't infinite; it happens in a time and place, and this centering too is gone. And, if I may say so, having sat on the stage--though the actors don't neglect to play sufficiently to the folks on the side, the stage picture is lost. One should see this family, look on it, whole.

  53. The world of the play is not infinite. But it is universal, and that is what the director was going for in staging this as a Greek tragedy rather than a domestic drama. If this production had been staged in the 20th century as written, it would have seemed impossibly dated not matter how strong the performances.

  54. "Why is the entire cast drenched with "blood" when only one character meets/must meet his doom, etc.--thus also exposing the play's dramatic infelicities."

    I took it to mean that everyone -- from the niece, to the wife, both brothers, and even the narrator/lawyer -- was complicit in the tragedy.

  55. And destroyed by the tragedy.

  56. I saw the play tonight. I was mesmerized and am still feeling a bit of shellshock after seeing this incredible performance. I admit that Mark Strong's performance was one of the reasons why I went, but the entire cast is incredibly strong. I do not agree with most of the comments' complaints about the production: I thought the staging and the sound drew you in and drove the appropriate amount of tension all the way through the climatic end. I loved it.

  57. I thought it was a powerful show. Maybe the sound/music was a bit, well, didactic. Had no idea Tovey could act so well on stage - Strong of course was no surprise. Sounds like a lot of people hated Fox's performance, but i think it would have been fine if I could have understood more than 50% of what she was saying. Totally unclear what kind of an accent she was supposed to be putting on, if any.

  58. OK so now we are back with "Director's theater" where the concept is all. Fine. But why do we then need movie music to tell us what to think, feel and expect? And why the loud percussion to tell the stupid audience that THIS is an important moment? If the text is clear, the direction illuminating, the actors strong we don't need music to control our thoughts and emotions!
    As for Ms. Fox, i thought maybe the family adopted her from England but then i realized she didn't do her dialect homework. But most of the time i couldn't hear her anyway. Can we ban movie music as a substitute for dramatic clarity?

  59. ***Spoiler Alert***

    Oooohhh, that SMELL!

    If you think the low level drone of ominous movie music was an obnoxiously obvious cue to the audience, how about the bloody AND smelly shower to cap things off?!

    The stink of whatever crimson liquid used was a difficult olfactory memory for me to shake.

    Thoroughly unpleasant - when I want to expose myself to such adolescent hijinks, I can pop in a DVD of PULP FICTION, or any number of films, and enjoy a carotid shower in the comfort of my own home.

    I was seated onstage, and was the only person I could see who didn't rise to a standing ovation.

    I didn't even clap.

    So gratified to read other people here were similarly underwhelmed

    The teenagers I had in tow spoke immediately post-show about the garbled and confusing vocalizations of Ms. Fox and Ms. Walker.

    Come on, people - there's no denying the enormous accent/projection problem here with the ladies.

    Mark Strong, at least, lived up to his surname - clear as a bell.

  60. 110 percent agree....nausea so much

  61. Snuck over today and bought a single ticket for the matinee, which wound up being one of the stage seats. It ended up blown away by the show -- the slow pacing of the lines, the insistent music, and Eddie Carbone. Maybe it started to repeat a bit midway, but I never looked at my watch -- the build up was so slow and unstoppable. And then that final operatic scene! At first I thought it gimmicky and well, stagey, but the actors' scrum -- statuesque like the Iwo Jima memorial and slightly swaying -- then moving away to reveal Eddie in a pool of red, swiping it away to reveal some white... Left my in tears I was not expecting at all. Wouldn't stop and crying got worse as the walls descended. Cathartic theater experience for me.

    I came to this site wondering what the experience would have been in the house seats. It was so intimate being on stage. Like a college black box. But it's a Broadway theater, obviously. Seems like the actors -- especially the lawyer -- had to address three different audiences. Worked for me on stage, wondered how it was elsewhere in a big theater. But I'm kinda stunned by the negative comments. Jeesh, I loved this show.

  62. I had great expectations - -which weren't met.

    I slept through about half the show. Why? The acoustics are terrible and part of the reason are the seats on the stage. Actors can only face in one direction. When they talk to the stage seats, I couldn't hear them in the orchestra. When they spoke softly, forget it even if they were facing me in the orchestra.

    Microphones should have been used so EVERYBODY could hear what was said regardless of their location.

    It was difficult to hear the actors over a sound effect of dripping water. It felt like Chinese water torture.

    I'm glad there wasn't an intermission. I don't know if I could have sat through a second act.

  63. I could hear fine....

  64. Why Mark and his partner and 2 boys in US?....the kids need go to school in UK, while in US doing nothing just watch their dad perform every single night, his kids is not his bodyguard, just do what suppose the elementary student in their school with their mum watch over them. I tell this because 5 different times from December until January 27 the boys and their mom in the audience co-incident sit with me 4 times, I know because she shushing the boys to sit still and because their dad show start. Very disappointed .

  65. After show run less then 25 minutes the people's surrounding me fell a sleep .......WHY.....this like hypnotist technique , leave me fell alone in bleacher even in the middle 50 people...tired

  66. Non musical Broadway show,Rudolpho sing in stage, Catherine and Rudolpho dance together in stage,.... well there is theme song before the curtain open, so still put in categories non-musical? But all actor performance just about average kinda feel exhausted more than exciting by the end of it, they need use microphone poor actor used a lot energy just because of show.

  67. After the show done the only person not interesting of fan is Mark, why he 's try to avoid fan, they need respect to right (like Carbone said in show "Give him Respect", in real life a lot people line in cold and snow pile everywhere he just walk away) or may be because his family with him so he don't like to interact with people, this is New York man, everybody busy and time is money, waiting for him after watching show in quite long time and just walk like that , not very nice, hopefully someone give him explanation about this, because the other actor is greatly open their arm for everybody who's waiting and make a good conversation , chit chat with people, well that' s make everyone happy,

  68. In back stage door everybody line in long waiting for the cast to sign but Strong look annoying when a lot people with him, so I step back worry about his feeling and let other people many of them to approched him, and find every single cast with me but no Strong, may be because his family keep following him, that make him uncomfortable to be with his fans, anyone there please let him know to make a bit appreciation to all people and have much more time with them, I promise everybody who already watch the show is harmless , they have good job because good education and more than good paycheck to pay the high price ticket,. Maybe he should go to work by him self (without his kids and spouse) 4or 5 days a week, so there is more room to everybody to talk, take photo, autograph, a conversation ........sound fair right.

  69. I disappoint , the ticket price too high but the show ...... not too much, and I have a degree also in drama school from here in NYC, is there any more show to performed after Feb 21?? Or they on US tour from state to state???? Appreciate anybody can reply.

  70. Is Strong play also in Miller Crucible this coming Feb???

  71. I have master in drama and acting, but this VIEW more like horror movie in the end, with blood and lighting feature is not very match. How about to fix the light effect especially at the very end from my Premium seat the VIEW more like a slaughter house of horror , I'm not kidding, and they face front audience a lot . I wonder so the Stage seat only sea their back most the time???? They should see the actor face too, let 's do it Ivo before it finish. And I watch 3 times , all three performance a lot different one after another after another, for example why Rodolpho not said "And I can make a dress too" after that line than Carbone said " And he cut snip...snip...snip into 3 pieces, and make a new dress". I planning to watch 3 or 4 time in the same premium seat , hope on that time they correcting the dialogue , buy the way I'm here to teach in one of NYC art professor.

  72. One thing very unattractive is the costum and lack of prop, following inaudible sound especially in balcony with partial actor face can be seen. Or may be the balcony is to high to everybody, first I choose premium seat, second I sit in balcony, especially without mic the sound is on and off, but in premium seat the water and blood splash to my face, literally joking , and both experience is gross....

  73. It will be double triple more score if the stage not empty, too dull and stiff for actor and audience , I believe a little more stage setting will be better, and with no shoes it between yes and no, people behind me cannot stop laughing because of them, I am not blame them for feeling funny or gross, how about keep traditional out wear going on like it should be .

  74. I feel exhausted at the end , make it more enjoyable and relax a very good idea, without interrup the meaning of story

  75. 2.5. star out of 10 for this show, the VIEW to boring from many angle in the audience , should be more bright color too for the costume

  76. Okay, Mr. Brantley, I get it. This production of A VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE is a relentless downer. Now, please explain to me why I want to see it.

  77. Because it was fantastic. Such an exciting dramatic experience, although you want to cry for these characters.

  78. At the end, all I wanted to do was sob! It was so powerful. Such tragedy. You really care for these characters and they are so real.

  79. Amazing. Most impactful thing I've seen in years and I am a regular theater goer. This is a dark, brooding, harsh, minimalist and savage play. Just the way I like my theater.