No Miss Caswell in this show? The nobody who turned out to be the biggest star in the world after the movie was made deserves a nod.
now that I've actually been to see this, I'm taken aback by the venom of (some) of the reviews. it's probably not five star, but it's far from a train wreck. it is in my view certainly a three or four star show (fwiw). I wasn't in love with the audio visual camera trickery but I didn't find it as distracting as some seem to have, although I'm not convinced it really added much to the play. guessing there might have been some changes since press night (some reviews for example mention the music being constant and intrusive, which I didn't find at all).
excellent performances all round, not just from the leads but the supporting cast too.
not perfect, but plenty to recommend.
3
What did you expect? They're called classics for a reason- the originals' are all classic, and better than any remake; and no bastardization re-creation by some hot shot avant grade director trying to make a name for themselves will EVER be even close to as good or in the same rarified air as those originals. Its the same as the remaking of Rigoletto in Vegas, or Carmen, Traviata and others in modern times have been ruined by taking them out of the composers original settings; having seen the originals, I will love the music but it's not a version a newbee to opera should see. Or B'way's Producers being even 1/2 as funny as Zero Mostel in the movie version. And while we have to presume the actors in this Eve are giving it their all, I'm sure it's close but no cigar. (And by the way as good as it was, Eve should never have bested Sunset Blvd for the oscar that year).
@cagy, but with that as a rule we wouldn't have West side Story, Kiss Me Kate, Sweeney Todd. Some might argue about whether they like Rent (based on La Boheme), but there's no doubt it introduced a very large group of young people to the theater.
And the stage "Network" has raised renewed awareness about the prescience of the movie itself, which had been covered in NYT's Dave Itzkoff's book about a decade ago, but has people talking again: The 1976 film feels like a current topic rather than a 40 year old film.
Maybe as with original ideas: If you do it well, that's great! Awards and hopefully money. If you don't do it well, either update of am oldie or brand new idea - why did you did it, what did it get you, thanks a lot and out with then garbage!
1
Since this comment area is still open, may I add a correction to my comment: "Mad As Hell: The Making of Network and the Fateful Vision of the Angriest Man in Movies" by Dave Itzkoff was just five years ago, February 2014, not a decade ago.
I saw this about a week ago. I’m not always on the same page as Brantley, but he’s spot on here.
1
If Brexit might stop this Eve's exit beyond the Channel it may finally win enough votes in Parliament.
2
Generally, I have enjoyed Ivo Van Hove’s recreations of plays and movies. I loved Scenes From a Marriage. However, for me, this sounds like a complete misreading of Margo Channing’s character. I just rewatched the film recently, and it is clear that Margo is not, in general, afraid of getting older (though she is very aware of the age difference between her and Bill) but rather afraid of what that means for her acting career. Early on, she tries to get her friend and playwright Lloyd to consider writing a juicy role for a woman her age, rather than asking her to continue playing women in their 20s. He refuses to even acknowledge what she is saying. Later on, she tells him she is not interested in playing 20-something Cora, as she looks forward to moving into a new phase of her life and relationship with Bill. She is not at all afraid of mortality, as she eagerly anticipates her next stage of life. So...was Margo correct in her fear that the acting profession did not, at that time, provide strong and interesting leading roles for women in their 40s and above? I think so.
18
@Mindi Reich-Shapiro, regarding "was Margo correct in her fear that the acting profession did not, at that time, provide strong and interesting leading roles for women in their 40s and above?"
That seems true then for the famous serious plays. But for comedies and musicals, maybe it's the stylized nature that allowed Mary Martin to open as Nellie Forbush at 36 and open as Maria von Trapp at 46. (There's the old line that there is after all something about people bursting into song with full orchestra that clues us in that we're not seeing a documentary.) It can go the other way, and the audience can go with it if entertained - like when watching the 1951 "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (thank you, NY Times commenter in this article's thread; how had I missed that?), thinking about Patricia Neal's career, it was astonishing to see that she was only 12 years older than Billy Gray who played her son. In 1971 in "Follies," Phyllis seemed to feel boxed in at 48, an age which at times got a gasp when specified in the 2011 revival. Would Carlotta, with a successful TV career, be amazed that she's "still here" at maybe 48-50 if the show took place this decade?
[The lighter side: As Mrs. Meers claims in her Tesori-Scanlan "Thoroughly Modern Millie" song, she felt she could still play Juliet if the house is big enough.]
1
Thank you for sharing those ideas. Mary Martin was, as Lloyd Richards says, “ageless.” It is interesting that at 46 she was playing the role of Maria Von Trapp who, when the story begins, is in her early 20s. That was, indeed, the point that Margo Channing was making about playing 20-something Cora when she was 40. Last November, when I saw Laura Benanti and Harry Haddon-Paton in My Fair Lady, I was struck by how much it changed the dynamic (for the better, I thought) that Eliza Doolittle and Henry Higgins were age contemporaries. Eliza had a maturity that gave the role depth. She had more power in the choices she made. I think that in theater today you see many more dramatic leading roles, as well, for women 40 in age, in which they are fully-realized people.
4
@Mindi Reich-Shapiro, your comment brings back memories of seeing first Rebecca Luker and then Laura Benanti in "The Sound of Music," for some reason within a week or two of each other. (There was no way of saying one was better , though they were different, an R&H equivalent of "I love Barbra and Liza, I cannot choose. I wouldn't have missed either for anything.).
A couple of years later, this is true: Laura Benanti was here (picking up a demo CD, I think; it was before it was so easy to email mp3's) and heard I was having terrible trouble dealing with our new puppy's teething on me, and she said that's easy, if you put your hand in the puppy's mouth this way, it won't draw blood and will stop. So she's Laura Benanti, dog whisperer, too! Of course, it worked, and for the next puppy a year later, too.
PS. I am noticing that there's no MFL performance at all on Liza Doolittle Day ("the 20th of May") since it's Monday. Last year, May 20th was Sunday, and Lauren Amrose had to stop doing the Sunday matinees between buying and the show. But it seemed they were ready and even had an answer ready; that yes, the box office will exchange, but "to make sure you know Liza Doolittle IS in the show today, she just won't be played by Lauren Ambrose."
I’m curious: a previous comment stated d that the film “All About Eve” is nearly a perfect movie. What would have made it perfect?
Also, I had heard that Cate Blanchett was slated to star as Margo in the London production. What happened?
1
@Daniel, it probably is perfect, but would have been even more perfect if Bette Davis had a moment like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzWq_0s9KWg
(Someone in the lobby mentioned she actually saw Bette Davis in a musical of "The Corn is Green" that closed out of town, but she was really good. In a world like 2019, can you imagine how high premium price would have been for Bette Davis in "Applause?")
4
Cate Blanchett chose to do When We Have Sufficiently Totrured Each Other at the National Theatre instead. Lesser of two evils & all that ...@Freddie
2
Ivo van hove is a parasitic director. His production concepts are not fully supported by the play. There are not always answers to the questions he raises in his concept. And that causes a conflict for the audience and the authors intentions built into the play. So the play becomes a mere host for a cannibal like concept. If you look at Sam Gold's Hamlet, as strange as it was, it was Hamlet and the play answered the questions of the concept. But in say Network, or View from the Bridge, the original source went one way and the concept the other... Yes, his productions for the most part are well acted and somewhat entertaining.. but he is far from a genius director. More like a college director being different academically.
16
I loved that movie! It's a shame the director had to run the play into the ground.
2
It sounds as if the director is trying to do something interesting with the old movie (which I love). There would be no purpose in simply transferring that to the stage, because its peculiar perfection can't be improved. Whether the director succeeded can be discussed. Whether he successfully duplicated Mankiewicz’s original doesn't seem particularly relevant.
7
OK, is there any other bodily function or fluid that this director has not thrown up on stage? And of course when he runs out of that he resorts to vegetable juice and chocolate syrup to demean his actors and his audience in the name of artistic license. There is no there there. Only an overriding need to leave his “Mark“ on the stage. Of course he brings a video camera into the bathroom. Typical. Can we get over calling him a genius now?
17
Regarding "bodily function or fluid," doesn't it depend on how it fits. I won't spoil "God of Carnage" for anyone who's never read or seen it, but the special effect in that regard can strengthen the script for the rest of the performance if done well. (There are quite a few videos online where theater companies show how they did it, so I guess it's used by regionals as a marketing tool, too?) Depending on how well the Judge Turpin in a "Sweeney Todd" production sings, the Judge's "Johanna – Mea Culpa" can add a lot, but of course the bodily function there can offend more than the murders. (I loved Jane Lapotaire in "Piaf" but could have done without Piaf graphically relieving herself, but I was very much in the minority on that.)
It seems to me that all your examples are an explicit part of the authors intention. This director more often than not imposes them on the text. This signifies to me of that he doesn’t trust the writing and or the actors. Or sadly, that he doesn’t care about either.
11
@Rocco Sisto, very interesting distinction. I hadn't noticed that.
By now, it's possible that the "All About Eve" screenplay is controlled by people whose concern is more about the work having visibility and continued life (and maybe income, too) rather than artistic specifics.
I noticed that for "Network" on Broadway, a member of Paddy Chayefsky's family is in the cast, so there, some of the family is certainly watching what is done with that script. And that Broadway stage version has brought renewed discussion and attention to the 1976 film, which can be seen as it was then.
2
Reading the review, it reminds me of the time I looked into the heart of an artichoke!
Mankiewicz's script is tighter than the face of a UES "lady who lunches." His writing is void of any fat; no gristle exists. Listen to a tap of the movie – audio only. It holds up as a radio play. In fact, with no performance to focus, the brilliance of the script intensifies with greater punch and duel meaning.
Rip the facade away on the main characters, and you have killer survivors that operate within a world that not only are they masters in navigating but also created many of the rules by which the game is played. Though I haven't seen the play reviewed by Mr. Brantley, his description of close up of the ‘face mirror' projection reminds me of the closing scene in Dangerous LIaison when Glenn Close removes her ‘war paint' in defeat. I don't know about you but Margo, as with the other characters--failure will only come in death.
4
@Peter Carzasty, “Listen to a tape of the movie – audio only. It holds up as a radio play.”
I never tried that, but doesn’t that raise the question of why make a movie at all if ANYTHING works just fine with only audio?
I wonder if part of this is that there’s a relatively huge audience that will see a film, that won’t imagine listening to a radio play. And in the 2000s, there’s an audience willing to pay a lot of money (more than I can imagine paying) for an experience with a lot of people sitting in sometimes cramped seats joining them in laughing, cheering, applauding as a group.
It’s always been like this for rock and pop music in my lifetime, people who can watch a group on TV for nothing willing to pay $100 or $400 or more a ticket to be in the room, etc, with 1,000 to 20,000 other people. Theater is accelerating in catching up, for worse IMHO price-wise but in some ways not totally bad for the art form. (It makes lots of rich investors willing to speculate with their "extra" mad money somehow.).
And it seems that even as the list of choices of things you can watch by yourself or with just your family at home keeps growing, people are wanting to experience “Live Onstage” - and even pay for it if it means the best seats. (I recall the price being $400 to see Denzel and Viola in "Fences." And not just the greatest prime seats. it seems like a bargain price now.) 900 channels on your TV and it feels like there’s nothing you want? Try live entertainment.
Just saw the movie, and it is great. So why "redo" it as a play? And why cast the insipid Lily James in the meatiest role?
Ah, the redo allows today's auteur to add those modern touches; to boldly go where they just wouldn't go in 1950.
And so they add graphic shots of vomit. Now I get it -- that's what was missing from the original film. Genius!
13
I get giddy casting the Broadway version of EVE:
Can you imagine Glen or Patti or Laura or Christine or Cherry
or Betty having a go at Margo ?
and the cut throat little Miss Evil in the hands of ???
I'll leave that to Joe Mantello to figure out with his Addison (Nathan Lane)
7
Mr. van Hove's streak of fascinating work had to get broken at some point. (Even Sondheim's extraordinary streak of amazing adventure that started with "Company" hit a major snag with "Merrily,' which he kept going back to.) It's too bad this is the one, since you can sense from what he's said that this was very important to him, so maybe he'll come back to this.
From the review, it sounds like this "All About Eve" could have benefitted from some uses of the "lab" process that US musicals have, that had the recent Equity vs. producers controversy - but maybe having finally hit so big in his late 50s, he might want to take advantage of a time when audiences (and investors!) are excitedly looking forward to what he does next.
1
ALL ABOUT EVE is an almost perfect film. Why, in God's name, do we need to see it on stage. What's next, ROSEBUD, a musical version of CITIZEN KANE? Aren't there any good new playwrights out there so we don't have to have rehashes of great films? You couldn't pay me.
26
@Jeff Laffel THE WISDOM OF EVE is the play that ALL ABOUT EVE was based on. It was written by Mary Orr. Your almost perfect film was based upon a very good play.
12
@Carol, it looks like the musical APPLAUSE was based on Mary Orr's work also, so since Addison DeWitt wasn't in Mary Orr's work, he isn't in the musical.
It suggests on wiki that the movie people only allowed material from the film script into the musical somewhat late in the process for Comden & Green and Strouse & Adams, so while they worked in as much as time allowed, Addison DeWitt never could be written in. (The Tony seasons were so different then that APPLAUSE opened about a month before COMPANY, yet both were the Tony Best Musicals of their different seasons.) Also ironic given the "treachery in the theater" theme of this material but such a treasure trove of happy songs, is that Strouse and Adams, now 90 and 94, were (maybe are?) recently embroiled in a lawsuit between them about their work!
3
@Freddie
Joseph Mankiewicz wrote the firm from a bare bones story by Mary Orr (who later wrote a radio play). The writers of Applause were denied the use of the Fox film until the last minute. I'm hoping it comes here anyway -- perhaps in time for my biography of Herman (see Citizen Kane!) and Joe, which will be published in the fall.
4