Death of a Salesman

[skynyc]

Attention must be paid...

 

To this stunning revival of a remarkable play. I find it incredible that although I read it in high school, and again in college, I have seen it performed a couple of times, and seen a couple of film/TV adaptations, and every time I come away from it I am astounded how much I had either forgotten, or am seeing new. I forget how sad this man is. I can still hear my wonderful 11th grade English teacher, Miss Kowitt, saying "his name is Low-Man," a very unsubtle point that I had missed as we read it, and suddenly a lot of dramatic interpretative windows opened in my mind. I grew as a student that day.

 

And I continue to learn from this play.

 

Philip Seymour Hoffman is fifteen years younger than the character he portrays. I looked it up and he's 45. And yet he completely embodies this man beaten down by life, by his hopes and expectations, by his self-delusions. And yet Hoffman's youth also gives Willy a vigor in some scenes that is vital and empowering. You can truly see the man that so enamored his son, that when the illusion was broken, so was the youth. Hoffman's mercurial character doesn't have the dignity I have seen in Willy before, because the rage and frustration is too big, too strong.

 

Linda Emond's strength as Linda anchors the play, and her final monologue is so simple, so shocked and disbelieving, that the woman across the aisle from me couldn't control her sobbing.

 

I have read several reports that film actor Andrew Garfield, making his Broadway debut in the role of Bill isn't up to the task. I am not familiar with Mr. Garfield's work, but he must be improving, because I totally bought into his portrayal of this shattered young man who was so built up by his father that when he learned the truth about his dad, he realized what a fraud he was himself.

 

Happy, played perfectly by Finn Wittrock is going to get great reviews here...and deservedly so. Of sturdier build than his older brother, he is still unable to get out from Biff's shadow And although he truly becomes the son of Willy's dreams...he remains unnoticed as such.

 

The supporting cast is wonderful, and director Mike Nichols' decision to use the scenic design and musical score from the original 1949 production is great. The house is tiny on the stage, dwarfed by the apartment houses around it. And the haunting jazz score pulls you in from the first plaintive note, even before Willy enters, trudging painfully across the stage.

 

This is supposedly a limited run, opening on March 15th and closing June 2nd. I imagine that film commitments will prevent an extension. But I do recommend folks make an effort to see what I believe is a nearly flawless interpretation of one of America's greatest plays.

[Kevin Slater]

Thanks for the review. I see it tomorrow and am looking forward to it even more now!

 

Kevin Slater

[+ Lucky]

How could I miss Phillip Seymour Hoffman in a role like this?

[Kevin Slater]

How could I miss Phillip Seymour Hoffman in a role like this?

 

I wasn't crazy about him in Othello. I felt like he mostly just shouted his lines, which was odd as the actors were miked (miced?).

 

Kevin Slater

[+ Lucky]

So Kevin, may I ask what is attracting you to see Death of A Salesman? have you seen it before. For me, it is PSH. He is such a fine talent that I know he will do a great job, and I want to see it.

[Kevin Slater]

So Kevin, may I ask what is attracting you to see Death of A Salesman? have you seen it before. For me, it is PSH. He is such a fine talent that I know he will do a great job, and I want to see it.

 

I read it in high school, remember the broad themes but not much else. I know I liked it. And I do love PSH, I just didn't care for him in Othello. And it wasn't so much my choice as the client's, which isn't to say I wasn't looking forward to it. And indeed, I loved it. Hoffman was great, the wife was great. I think Biff was a good actor, but miscast. He was far too scrawny, especially vis-à-vis Hap, but that didn't detract much. And he has great legs (though they would look better on my shoulders...).

 

Kevin Slater

[justaguy]

Salesman is a perfectly realized play, but I can't stand it. Instead of the sympathy I'm supposed to feel for Loman, I just want to give him a swift kick in the pants.

[operalover21]

I think Death of a Salesman and Arthur Miller, in general, to grossly overrated. Give me Edward Albee or Tennessee Williams any day of the week. But I'd see it for Hoffmann who is a fine actor (except for the film Doubt in which he was badly miscast).

[+ WilliamM]

I liked the 2002 Broadway production of Miller's "The Man Who had All the Luck," but that may be because Chris O'Donnell was SO cute.

[operalover21]

Chris O'Donnell is really cute. The perfect boy next door gymnast type. Really gets me going. It was the only reason to see that play.

[+ Lucky]

Tonight was my turn to see Death of A Salesman. I went in expecting it to be great and I was not disappointed. I agree that Andrew Garfield did not meet the description for his character. He hardly looked like an athlete, much less like a guy who had been working shirtless on a farm.

Attention must be paid, if I can overwork that line, to Finn Wittrock, who plays the other son, Hap, and does not get top billing. As skynyc predicted, he would be popular here as he is drop dead gorgeous, and a fine actor too.

 

This is my third time to see Death of A Salesman. The first was with Brian Dennehy as Willy, and he was quite good and I appreciated the show much as a first time viewer would. The next time I saw it was at The Old Globe in San Diego, where Jeffrey DeMunn played Willy. The show here was in the round, or literally, theater in the square. With only four rows of seats surrounding the stage, you felt right there, and the emotional impact was strong.

 

But, with this fine cast tonight, every nuance was perfect. Phillip Seymour Hoffman did not overwhelm from the start, but slowly let his character develop. It was because of the fine cast that when we reached the intense climax of the show, I was squirming in my seat. It was simply gut wrenching. Lots of sniffling could be heard. And not a bit of it seemed contrived. When Hoffman came out for the curtain call, he looked as exhausted as any actor I have ever seen at that point.

 

So I see Tonys, and very well-deserved ones at that.

[+ WilliamM]

Andrew Garfield

 

I saw Death of A salesman on Saturday, May 12. I mostly agree with your comments, Lucky. However, I did think that Andrew Garfield's performance get stronger in the second act as did Hoffman's. I saw the play from the rear mezz, it seemed like a football field away from the stage.

 

After the performance, I was talking to friend for a while in front of the theater. Even the folks at the stage door finally left.

I guess Garfield waited until almost everyone has gone before walking quickly from the stage door. He is very thin, and dresses down---looking nothing like the actor in The Social Network. I would not have recognized him but for just seeing Andrew on stage. He walked across the street and into the W Hotel. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on stage concerning his non-athlete looks, but seeing him so close I agree that Garfield is miscast, badly miscast.

 

I shall write more later. I liked Cock but have major reserevations concerning Gentlemen Prefer Blonds, and a transfer.

[citylaw1]

Hoffman and Garfield received pretty bad reviews for their performances. I couldn't disagree more. I was especially impressed with Andrew Garfield; so impressed that I stalked him after the play, following him to the bar across the street ... purple corduroys, black hoodie and a hot smile.

[+ Lucky]

Hoffman and Garfield received pretty bad reviews for their performances. I couldn't disagree more. I was especially impressed with Andrew Garfield; so impressed that I stalked him after the play, following him to the bar across the street ... purple corduroys, black hoodie and a hot smile.

 

It is certainly news to me that Hoffman and Garfield received pretty bad reviews. I had the opposite impression.

[citylaw1]

It is certainly news to me that Hoffman and Garfield received pretty bad reviews. I had the opposite impression.

 

NYT: http://theater.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/theater/reviews/death-of-a-salesman-with-philip-seymour-hoffman.html

 

Such emotional distance sprang, for me at least, from a feeling of disconnection between the leading actors (all, I would argue, miscast) and their characters. The three names above the title for this production all belong to people whose work I have greatly admired: Mr. Hoffman, as Willy, the Brooklyn salesman; Linda Emond as Linda, his protective wife; and Andrew Garfield as Biff, their 34-year-old son, an athletic hero in high school who has never found his place in life.

 

Certainly his performance here is more fully sustained than those in “The Seagull” (for Mr. Nichols) and “Long Day’s Journey Into Night.” But as a complete flesh-and-blood being, this Willy seems to emerge only fitfully. His voice pitched sonorous and low, his face a moonlike mask of unhappiness, he registers in the opening scenes as an abstract (as well as abstracted) Willy, a ghost who roams through his own life. (And yes, at 44, Mr. Hoffman never seems a credible 62.)

[+ Lucky]

I read the review differently. Because he is a critic, he must necessarily critique, but to say that Hoffman received a "pretty bad review" is going too far:

 

Mr. Hoffman, Ms. Emond and Mr. Garfield all exacting inteexacting intelligence and intensity to their performances. They make thought visible, but it’s the thought of actors making choices rather than of characters living in the moment. Their reading of certain lines makes you hear classic dialogue anew but with intellectual annotations. It’s as if they were docents showing us through Loman House, now listed on the Literary Register of Historic Places.

That Mr. Hoffman is one of the finest actors of his generation is beyond dispute. His screen portraits, whether in starring roles (like his Oscar-winning turn in

) or supporting ones (“The Talented Mr. Ripley,” “Boogie Nights”), are among the most memorable of recent decades. Though he was brilliant in the 2000 revival of Sam Shepard’s “True West,”his stage work has been more variable.

Certainly his performance here is more fully sustained than those in “The Seagull” (for Mr. Nichols) and “Long Day’s Journey Into Night.” But as a complete flesh-and-blood being, this Willy seems to emerge only fitfully. His voice pitched sonorous and low, his face a moonlike mask of unhappiness, he registers in the opening scenes as an abstract (as well as abstracted) Willy, a ghost who roams through his own life. (And yes, at 44, Mr. Hoffman never seems a credible 62.)

Mind you, there are instances of piercing emotional conviction throughout, moments you want to file and rerun in memory. Mr. Hoffman does terminal uncertainty better than practically anyone, and he’s terrific in showing the doubt that crumples Willy just when he’s trying to sell his own brand of all-American optimism. (His memory scenes with his self-made brother, played by John Glover, are superb.) What he doesn’t give us is the illusion of the younger Willy’s certainty, of the belief in false gods.

***

 

 

How many actors would give their right nut to have the NY Times say of them that they give intelligence and intensity to their role, that they make thought visible, make you hear classic dialogue anew, are like docents giving us a tour of a classic play, that one is one of the finest actors of his generation and gives a fully sustained performance with instances of piercing emotional conviction throughout- moments you want to file and rerun in memory, terrific in showing Willie's doubt, superb scenes with Glover, etc.

Brantley is reviewing one of the hardest roles for an actor, not Arsenic and Old Lace. If this is your idea of a "pretty bad review" then you must have more exacting standards than just about anyone who saw the show. And, for the record, I saw Brian Dennehy perform this role. He did well, but Hoffman was better.

[citylaw1]

I read the review differently. Because he is a critic, he must necessarily critique, but to say that Hoffman received a "pretty bad review" is going too far:

 

Mr. Hoffman, Ms. Emond and Mr. Garfield all exacting inteexacting intelligence and intensity to their performances. They make thought visible, but it’s the thought of actors making choices rather than of characters living in the moment. Their reading of certain lines makes you hear classic dialogue anew but with intellectual annotations. It’s as if they were docents showing us through Loman House, now listed on the Literary Register of Historic Places.

That Mr. Hoffman is one of the finest actors of his generation is beyond dispute. His screen portraits, whether in starring roles (like his Oscar-winning turn in

) or supporting ones (“The Talented Mr. Ripley,” “Boogie Nights”), are among the most memorable of recent decades. Though he was brilliant in the 2000 revival of Sam Shepard’s “True West,”his stage work has been more variable.

Certainly his performance here is more fully sustained than those in “The Seagull” (for Mr. Nichols) and “Long Day’s Journey Into Night.” But as a complete flesh-and-blood being, this Willy seems to emerge only fitfully. His voice pitched sonorous and low, his face a moonlike mask of unhappiness, he registers in the opening scenes as an abstract (as well as abstracted) Willy, a ghost who roams through his own life. (And yes, at 44, Mr. Hoffman never seems a credible 62.)

Mind you, there are instances of piercing emotional conviction throughout, moments you want to file and rerun in memory. Mr. Hoffman does terminal uncertainty better than practically anyone, and he’s terrific in showing the doubt that crumples Willy just when he’s trying to sell his own brand of all-American optimism. (His memory scenes with his self-made brother, played by John Glover, are superb.) What he doesn’t give us is the illusion of the younger Willy’s certainty, of the belief in false gods.

***

 

 

How many actors would give their right nut to have the NY Times say of them that they give intelligence and intensity to their role, that they make thought visible, make you hear classic dialogue anew, are like docents giving us a tour of a classic play, that one is one of the finest actors of his generation and gives a fully sustained performance with instances of piercing emotional conviction throughout- moments you want to file and rerun in memory, terrific in showing Willie's doubt, superb scenes with Glover, etc.

Brantley is reviewing one of the hardest roles for an actor, not Arsenic and Old Lace. If this is your idea of a "pretty bad review" then you must have more exacting standards than just about anyone who saw the show. And, for the record, I saw Brian Dennehy perform this role. He did well, but Hoffman was better.

 

I suppose that you're right... "pretty bad review" was overstating the facts. Brantley did refer to them as "miscast," however, he never did say that their acting was flawed. I saw the play and thought that they were both very good. And I agree with you that this is one of the toughest plays to pull off as an actor.

[+ Lucky]

We are given to overstatement sometimes when speaking of the theater. I don't know why that is- perhaps because it so often brings out deep feelings. I thought Hoffman was great, and Garfield very good. Garfield just did not look the part...or so I think!

So you pursued him after the show? I wonder if anyone will ever catch an actor by doing that...a date, or more? I wrote a fan letter once, my only one to a stage actor, and we ended up in bed several times. He was just as good on stage as in bed, and vice versa.

[citylaw1]

We are given to overstatement sometimes when speaking of the theater. I don't know why that is- perhaps because it so often brings out deep feelings. I thought Hoffman was great, and Garfield very good. Garfield just did not look the part...or so I think!

So you pursued him after the show? I wonder if anyone will ever catch an actor by doing that...a date, or more? I wrote a fan letter once, my only one to a stage actor, and we ended up in bed several times. He was just as good on stage as in bed, and vice versa.

 

Garfield didn't really look the part, but I think he was very good. I agree, Hoffman, as usual, was fantastic. I can't imagine how draining their respective parts are each evening. I found myself admiring Mr. Garfield's lovely bare-feet throughout, and then following him like a nutcase across the street. I drank a beer and ogled him for a bit, leaving before I embarrassed myself. He is very sexy in person.

[+ WilliamM]

Garfield II

 

I found myself admiring Mr. Garfield's lovely bare-feet throughout' date=' and then following him like a nutcase across the street. I drank a beer and ogled him for a bit, leaving before I embarrassed myself. He is very sexy in person.[/quote']

 

Garfield was just a quick glance as he walked quickly past me. But, I did not think there goes a very sexy guy. Guess I should have followed him into the W Hotel bar. Is that were you saw him?

[citylaw1]

Garfield was just a quick glance as he walked quickly past me. But, I did not think there goes a very sexy guy. Guess I should have followed him into the W Hotel bar. Is that were you saw him?

 

It's directly across the street from the theater. I don't think that it's a hotel bar but it might have been. I didn't even realize that the W Hotel was right there? Pretty large bar with plenty of tables and food.