All-star ‘Death of a Salesman’ flawed

PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN: As Willy Loman. Photo: Brigitte Lacombe

DEATH OF A SALESMAN
By Arthur Miller
Directed by Mike Nichols
Ethel Barrymore Theatre
243 West 47th Street
(212-239-6200), www.DeathOfASalesmanBroadway.com

By David Nounou

Attention must be paid to every detail when staging a masterpiece such as the likes of Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman. This is truly one of the five best American plays written in the 20th century, and to mount a revival of this drama, casting is of the utmost importance. Yes, it is wonderful to see stars attached to such a venture, because it has been proven that big names are a necessity for the success of a revival, but just adding big names for names’ sake to attract a wider audience is not enough. The insight of one of America’s most brilliant directors, Mike Nichols, should have had the keen eye to see this.

Set in the late 1940s, mostly at the Loman home where Willy (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and Linda (Linda Emond) live, and where now their two sons Biff (Andrew Garfield) and Happy (Finn Wittrock) have come for a visit. Willy has been working as a salesman for his company for 36 years, and he is tired and spent. He now talks to himself a lot and lives with the ghosts of his past. He cannot seem to make those long hauls to New England to sell his wares; instead, he gets into accidents because of his wandering mind. His salary has been cut and he lives on commission. His friend and next-door neighbor Charley (Bill Camp) provides him with $50 a week to pay off the mortgage on his home and the premium on his life insurance. Willy is a broken man and lives with his demons and fantasies of the American dream and success. Success comes to everyone around him, but not to Willy or his family. Even his sons, both of whom were his prized treasures, have turned out to be wastrels and failures.

This is such a beautifully textured play that has at least 20 universal themes interwoven throughout. It has been 63 years since this play opened, and it is still as relevant today, if not more so than in 1949. Because we still live in life’s turmoils, losing jobs, paying bills, fear of failure, and life’s disappointments and missed opportunities. And the only way to do this play justice is to cast it with perfection and direct it in a seamless manner.

Individually, the performances are good, but as a whole they do not mesh properly. Their styles are so varied and nothing was done to rein them in as a unit. This play needs a succinct “on the same page” style of acting. Philip Seymour Hoffman as Willy is stylized, mannered, and relies heavily on the method. Ms. Emond’s Linda is good indeed, but she is saccharinely sweet and needed a little more hardness to her performance. Next, there are the two sons/brothers. Not for one second can one believe these two can ever be brothers in real life, or worse yet, on the stage. The casting was totally off here. Andrew Garfield, as the older brother Biff, is acceptable and imbues his character with earnestness. For the life of me, I have no idea what Finn Wittrock, as Happy, the younger brother, was doing on that stage. I will just chalk it up to a bad night, giving a lackluster performance. Where was Mike Nichols when he was needed to oversee this?

In actuality, the supporting cast was more cohesive than the four leads. The standouts here are Bill Camp as Charley; Fran Kranz as Bernard his son and Biff’s loyal friend; Remy Auberjonois as Howard, Willy’s boss; and Glenn Fleshler as Stanley the waiter. They were exceptionally true to the style of the piece. Is this a great revival? No. Is it worth seeing? Yes, because attention must be paid to such brilliant pieces of theater since they come around so infrequently.

Edited by Scott Harrah
Published March 15, 2012