|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 7, 2018 10:34:56 GMT
Seeing this today - first time I've ever seen both parts in the same day...........that's got to be like 6 hours of theater.........yikes
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 7, 2018 13:40:09 GMT
Sounds delightfully daunting. Hope it's well worth the gluteal numbness from sitting so long.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Apr 7, 2018 16:30:40 GMT
Looking forward to your thoughts on it!
Btwn... AiA, Iceman Cometh, Three Tall Women, Lobby Hero maybe, etc...I should be seeing something in the near future.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 8, 2018 19:12:01 GMT
That actually was like well over 7 hours for both versions - it was pretty exhausting. You don't have to see both parts in one day and unless you are really up for it, I'd space them out.
Most of the performances (except maybe the actor who played Louis is better here) do not top the HBO film version which I still think is the definitive one - but top some of the original play or work in a different way.
Andrew Garfield (your Tony winner as Best Actor I'm 100% certain) is used brilliantly in the way that this is staged - the staging is everything here - it's brilliantly devised. The actual performance is manic and frenzied and OTT but the staging uses his look and body and presence much more than Stephen Spinella or Justin Kirk had been used. He "fits" here, he's the prophet and the messiah and while I am sure this is not the best lead acted performance of the year - the crowd loves him. I would assume his competition - even if its Rylance and Washington, previous winners aren't going to challenge him - no one is going to challenge him period - it's his show (I supposed if Lane gets a lead nod he could split the vote but I doubt he's placed there).
Nathan Lane is pitched somewhere between Pacino and Ron Leibman in Roy Cohn's delusional egotism - he's also winning in Supporting I guess - but I wasn't as knocked out with his later scenes as much. He's still making the most of the dialog but I could have used him to be a bit more venal, a bit more hateful actually. If Prior is the angel, he's the devil but still as a whole I prefer his to Leibman and F. Murray Abraham too.
The staging is spectacular and operatic, significantly more than the original play or film which was more text focused imo. It is much more a celebration of the play - a victory lap for the play really sort of for people who know it and those who are just being exposed to it for the first time.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 8, 2018 20:01:49 GMT
That actually was like well over 7 hours for both versions - it was pretty exhausting. You don't have to see both parts in one day and unless you are really up for it, I'd space them out. Most of the performances (except maybe the actor who played Louis is better here) do not top the HBO film version which I still think is the definitive one - but top some of the original play or work in a different way. Andrew Garfield (your Tony winner as Best Actor I'm 100% certain) is used brilliantly in the way that this is staged - the staging is everything here - it's brilliantly devised. The actual performance is manic and frenzied and OTT but the staging uses his look and body and presence much more than Stephen Spinella or Justin Kirk had been used. He "fits" here, he's the prophet and the messiah and while I am sure this is not the best lead acted performance of the year - the crowd loves him. I would assume his competition - even if its Rylance and Washington, previous winners aren't going to challenge him - no one is going to challenge him period - it's his show (I supposed if Lane gets a lead nod he could split the vote but I doubt he's placed there). Nathan Lane is pitched somewhere between Pacino and Ron Leibman in Roy Cohn's delusional egotism - he's also winning in Supporting I guess - but I wasn't as knocked out with his later scenes as much. He's still making the most of the dialog but I could have used him to be a bit more venal, a bit more hateful actually. If Prior is the angel, he's the devil but still as a whole I prefer his to Leibman and F. Murray Abraham too. The staging is spectacular and operatic, significantly more than the original play or film which was more text focused imo. It is much more a celebration of the play - a victory lap for the play really sort of for people who know it and those who are just being exposed to it for the first time. Glad to hear that it was strong and well worth the exhaustive viewing. Garfield does seem to be our frontrunner at the moment, although I don't think they'll run Lane in supporting because it's such a huge role that has gone (and won in) lead in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 8, 2018 22:15:02 GMT
That actually was like well over 7 hours for both versions - it was pretty exhausting. You don't have to see both parts in one day and unless you are really up for it, I'd space them out. Most of the performances (except maybe the actor who played Louis is better here) do not top the HBO film version which I still think is the definitive one - but top some of the original play or work in a different way. Andrew Garfield (your Tony winner as Best Actor I'm 100% certain) is used brilliantly in the way that this is staged - the staging is everything here - it's brilliantly devised. The actual performance is manic and frenzied and OTT but the staging uses his look and body and presence much more than Stephen Spinella or Justin Kirk had been used. He "fits" here, he's the prophet and the messiah and while I am sure this is not the best lead acted performance of the year - the crowd loves him. I would assume his competition - even if its Rylance and Washington, previous winners aren't going to challenge him - no one is going to challenge him period - it's his show (I supposed if Lane gets a lead nod he could split the vote but I doubt he's placed there). Nathan Lane is pitched somewhere between Pacino and Ron Leibman in Roy Cohn's delusional egotism - he's also winning in Supporting I guess - but I wasn't as knocked out with his later scenes as much. He's still making the most of the dialog but I could have used him to be a bit more venal, a bit more hateful actually. If Prior is the angel, he's the devil but still as a whole I prefer his to Leibman and F. Murray Abraham too. The staging is spectacular and operatic, significantly more than the original play or film which was more text focused imo. It is much more a celebration of the play - a victory lap for the play really sort of for people who know it and those who are just being exposed to it for the first time. Interesting review. I wouldn't pencil in Andrew Garfield as unbeatable in Best Actor though. He just lost the Olivier Award for Best Actor In A Play to Bryan Cranston for Network. And it's not as if the Oliviers disliked Angels In America either, as it won Best Revival Of A Play and Best Supporting Actress In A Play for Denise Gough. If Garfield can't win at essentially his hometown stage awards and Tony equivalent, he's not some undeniable juggernaut (I think a win for Garfield at the Olivier's would have defintely filtered back to Broadway and strengthened him as a frontrunner. Losing at the Olivier's doesn't mean he can't win the Tony, but it hurts any sense of inevitability they might have been hoping to build on). I can see Rylance re-entering the conversation for the win, and of course, Washington could be a strong challenger if he gets the reviews. It'll be an interesting race. Washington might (if he gets the acclaim) also benefit from being considered a huge snub when he wasn't nominated for Raisin' In The Sun. I noticed BroadwayWorld when doing cast bios for previews on The Iceman Cometh noted him as "the most lauded stage and screen actor of his generation". He's definitely the type of actor likely to end up a multiple Tony winner. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 8, 2018 22:59:33 GMT
Interesting review. I wouldn't pencil in Andrew Garfield as unbeatable in Best Actor though. He just lost the Olivier Award for Best Actor In A Play to Bryan Cranston for Network. And it's not as if the Oliviers disliked Angels In America either, as it won Best Revival Of A Play and Best Supporting Actress In A Play for Denise Gough. If Garfield can't win at essentially his hometown stage awards and Tony equivalent, he's not some undeniable juggernaut (I think a win for Garfield at the Olivier's would have defintely filtered back to Broadway and strengthened him as a frontrunner. Losing at the Olivier's doesn't mean he can't win the Tony, but it hurts any sense of inevitability they might have been hoping to build on). I can see Rylance re-entering the conversation for the win, and of course, Washington could be a strong challenger if he gets the reviews. It'll be an interesting race. Washington might (if he gets the acclaim) also benefit from being considered a huge snub when he wasn't nominated for Raisin' In The Sun. I noticed BroadwayWorld when doing cast bios for previews on The Iceman Cometh noted him as "the most lauded stage and screen actor of his generation". He's definitely the type of actor likely to end up a multiple Tony winner. Eh, I wouldn't say that hurts Garfield's chances at the Tony, because he lost to a performance that isn't up for the same prize this year. It doesn't make him undeniable, true, but hardly anything would in a year chockfull of strong contenders and previous Tony favorites. Angels in America buzz is at a fever pitch right now and it's the perfect "climate" for it to make a big splash stateside, especially as they've even taken to using Trump's connection with Roy Cohn as advertisement for the play. Washington's definitely a heavy threat, and one can never count out Rylance (the Tonys' answer to Daniel Day-Lewis) either. But I'd still put Garfield as the slight favorite. Winning the Olivier would've been gravy and cemented him more, but just looking at the state of the race thus far, it looks good for the kid. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 8, 2018 23:06:07 GMT
I don't really think you can put Garfield as favorite over Washington, till Washington's reviews are out. Garfield is the favorite over all the other reviewed contenders to this point, and that's still an accomplishment.
Washington beat a similarly hyped performance in Alfred Molina's Red to win his first Tony for Fences, so I definitely think a wait and see approach is smarter, than declaring Garfield the inevitable victor.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 8, 2018 23:16:35 GMT
I don't really think you can put Garfield as favorite over Washington, till Washington's reviews are out. Garfield is the favorite over all the other reviewed contenders to this point, and that's still an accomplishment. Washington beat a similarly hyped performance in Alfred Molina's Red to win his first Tony for Fences, so I definitely think a wait and see approach is smarter, than declaring Garfield the inevitable victor. Hence why I said "at the moment." Washington is very much still waiting in the wings. I'm just saying that sight unseen of Washington, Garfield has a lot going for him, and I think the timeliness of the play could very well help propel him to a win, so if we have a frontrunner at this current second, it would be him. The only worry is that Lane is getting very strong notices as well, and I think both men will be run as lead (funnily enough, back in the plays' original runs, Spinella won both the supporting prize and leading award for Prior Walter in consecutive years), so it could very well result in a vote split. But Washington could very well come in and blow everyone away. It's a beloved play and part. And I do seem to recall giving you similar advice back in 2014, so I'll certainly cool my jets on declaring a frontrunner. In any case, looks to be a bang-up year for Best Actor. Shame Cranston's not in it this year. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 9, 2018 14:36:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 9, 2018 19:24:39 GMT
I think the Angels In America guys (Lane and Garfield) will probably be running into some vote splitting issues as well if both nominated, because if this Goldderby article plays out (talking about Lane as a potential Best Actor winner), nobody is buying the notion being floated that Lane can be put in the featured category to game the system. If Lane gets nominated, I think it's in Best Actor. www.goldderby.com/article/2018/nathan-lane-angels-in-america-tony-awards/ |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 10, 2018 10:53:01 GMT
Its possible that Lane is in Lead, as I said in my previous post but I tend to doubt it because Prior is the focus of this production and Lane diminishes to me - not just the performance but the character - as you go on - he could have won Lead (his 3rd) if these were separate pieces but he seems like Supporting when you see it as one piece which is how its being campaigned this time. The Tony award is a problem imo because "gaming the system" is what the Tony's are for 20 years...........but we'll see how it shakes out. It's nice to see a strong non-musical play line-up. What is interesting of course is the players involved all have history with the plays - some people think Lane was the definitive Hickey a couple years back at BAM (didn't see it), George Wolfe, director of Iceman is the original production director of Angels in America. Usually male performances that get nominated have to be on Broadway or just recently off to get nodded or win when nominations are announced - so Washington has that in his favor - he'll be among the "most recent" appearances and Rylance off course being Rylance ignores that completely and just does whatever he wants regardless (I think he left Broadway end of March this time). His 3 Tony's are almost like playing with the Tony committee as a personal joke to him - I'll come when I want, in new plays/old plays/anything I want and give me the Tony or not, I don't care.  |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 24, 2018 18:00:53 GMT
Outer Circle Critics Awards today, typically wackadoodle picks of theirs On and Off Broadway - no Rylance, no Washington (or the play), and there is Nathan Lane (in Support, I'm still saying he's not Lead) but there is a perfectly ok/overrated Garfield .......I expect the Tony's will be BS in their own way.........David Morse got a nod for Iceman
OUTSTANDING ACTOR IN A PLAY
Sean Carvajal - Jesus Hopped the 'A' Train
Andrew Garfield - Angels in America
Tom Hollander - Travesties
Gregg Mozgala - Cost of Living
Michael Urie - The Government Inspector
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 26, 2018 14:42:43 GMT
The only slightly more (yes, MORE) ridiculous Drama Desk Awards announced today - again Garfield with Lane in Support (McArdle in Lead?), only David Morse nominated again from Iceman..........no Denzel, no Rylance.........I expect that will be different for Tony nods but no one is beating Garfield and Glenda Jackson this year (I didn't see Jackson but.....) - the award was decided once each of them was cast.
Again, the Tony's/Drama Desk/Outer Circle are all ridiculous awards anyway ......
Johnny Flynn, Hangmen, Royal Court Theatre/Atlantic Theater Company
Andrew Garfield, Angels in America
Tom Hollander, Travesties, Menier Chocolate Factory/Roundabout Theatre Company
James McArdle, Angels in America
Paul Sparks, At Home at the Zoo, Signature Theatre Company
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 26, 2018 15:37:01 GMT
Is Tom Hollander Tony-eligible? I'm starting to get a sneaking suspicion he might swoop in. Guy has crazy momentum and respect in the industry now.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 26, 2018 16:12:31 GMT
Hollander is Tony eligible and I agree he is likely to be more of a threat than the Oscar/Tony winners - especially if McArdle is in lead and takes votes from Garfield..........but I think they aren't stupid enough to put Garfield in that position. But we'll see......
Hollander is a hot property that's true, I don't really know much about Travesties (a Tom Stoppard play) so I don't know what that role is like but you know, Stoppard-dialog is a wonderful gift to actors.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 2, 2018 22:31:30 GMT
|
|
