Review: ‘Death of a Salesman,’ Diluted by Too Many Experiments

But “Death of a Salesman” endures not because of the tricksiness of its timelines or the perpetual resonance of its themes. It lasts because of Willy and the queasy surfeit of admiration and contempt with which Miller portrays him. There’s such ache in watching him fool himself and catch wise and fool himself again. Or there should be. (Quoting from Review) Amen, I say, amen. I have read the play numerous times, discussed it with students, watched the film version and seen a fine production at Stratford Festival some years ago. The play resonates every time because Miller so captures the "tragedy of the common man" who chased the American dream and found it to be lacking. Willy needs no stage gadgetry.

"Death of a Salesman," by Arthur Miller, directed by Ruben Polendo, and reviewed by Alexis Soloski, July 17, 2017.
Would I like to read Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass" revised and edited by
a twenty-first century poet? Or read "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen, modernized by an Austen expert? Such revisionist horrors are mercifully not visited upon us. However, directors who maul and mangle masterworks of drama are dime a dozen. "Death of a Salesman" directed by Ruben Polendo is the latest such travesty to come our way. This play is Miller's masterpiece that still shakes us up by showing us the cracking up of a father who believed if there is one country where his son Biff can succeed it is America. Maybe he was wrong to have a dream like that, but Miller saw him, and thousands more like him, in the late forties in the United States. Done with absolute fidelity to the text, this play still touches audiences in Beijing, in Mumbai, in Cairo, and wherever there are theater-goers. I don't believe that Mr. Polendo means to mock the play. Not at all. He thinks he is updating the tragic spirit of the play. But audiences of different generations whose first exposure to "Death of a Salesman" occurs in the classroom would like to watch the play unfold before them the way it was written by our revered playwright, the great Arthur Miller. Respect the text, Mr. Polendo.

Stop messing with Arthur Miller's profound Death of A Salesman! Produce it as is, and write your own play if you feel so inclined. I met Arthur Miller in Wilmington when the movie studio was active here, and he indignantly said in no uncertain terms that he wouldn't allow directors to presume to rewrite his work.

Thought of seeing this, but after seeing a clip on youtube, decided against.
You go to be entertained and think, but not to the point of second guessing
what everything represents.

Sounds dreadful. As long as BAM didn't spend its money on this, only the donors to this misguided theater group have to regret it. Best of luck to them in their next fundraising effort--such fiascos (like Playwrights Horizons' "Rancho Viejo") only serve to slash the subscription base.

Sorry, Alexis, you got this one ALL wrong. This is a beautiful and revelatory staging of Miller's great play. Simply one of the best things I have seen in years.

reduction nearly always "eclipses the classic instead of illuminating it..."

if there is a punching bag aspect of a character, for example, the reduction or eclipsing of all the rest of him or her, strips metaphor of its power to provoke and settles the very issues that playwrights put up for consideration...as in argument, premature conclusion ends debate.

when stephen colbert drew groans with his (now habitual) insertion of his trumpdiss at the tony awards, he said "must be some trump fans here," missing the point that a theatre full of folks who did the same thing he did for a living (and were generally not fans of trump) thought his gag was just a bad piece of craft effort...the same for shakespreare in the park, the theatre leadership was quick to blame the "right" for the critical pushback against its trump dress-up of julius caesar, failnig to note that a lot of the finger wagging came from liberals who found the reduction trite (and its execution less than deft)...audiences have to be given a chance to get on board, invited to make a journey for all its twists and turns, for all its questions and revelations...if instead, we're just asked to show our papers, questions in bold type, answers provided instantly, what's the point of going to the theatre, cable news is cheaper.

If this is an accurate description of the production, shame on the BAM for countenancing and presenting it. And shame on the Director for making himself more important than the script. I used to tell my students, decide who you want to present as being at fault, the parent or the child. Don't do Lear when you want to do Salesman and don't do Salesman when you want to do Lear. And now I guess, don't do Kafka when you want to do MIller.

" What does a lightweight like Happy, a fabulist with a talent for bedding other men’s women, have to do with a weathered heavy bag?"

Happy (really Miserable) and Biff (really Fib) represent the two halves of their father's split psyche, Willy's tragic flaw.

The brothers plan to start a sporting goods business.

Happy IS a punching bag.