Karen: Hi, Bridget, welcome to Jarod’s Safe House!
Bridget (LOL): Hi Karen! Thanks! I feel like it’s my second home already!
Karen: We both ventured to Boston recently to see Michael in Les Liaisons Dangereuses – was it worth it, ya think?
Bridget: Is the Pope Catholic?
- Jarod (Quote from tP): I believe that’s mandatory.
Karen: What made you fly all the way from the United Kingdom to see LLD?
Bridget: I had missed seeing Michael in “Burn This” in 2004 because I found out too late – I knew as soon as I saw he was going to be doing theatre again I HAD to get to Boston and see this play!
Karen: What did you think of the Stage Setting for LLD?
Bridget: Gosh! You know, I sat down and thought “Wow!” – It was really pretty!; all of the twinkling lights and chandeliers.
Bridget: Did it impress you too?
Karen: I thought it was quite lovely. The chandeliers with their shimmering effects and the way they were moved during different scenes were amazing. I also liked the way the backdrops, being a little transparent, gave way through the play to the various shadowing as the ‘players’ would come and go through their scenes.
Karen: Did you think the shadowing effects made the stage setting more mysterious or do you feel it had little effect?
Bridget: I’m not sure … but certainly atmospheric …… dark and maybe slightly … Dangerous!
Bridget: I thought the music helped the “mood” along with the lighting, what did you think of it?
Karen: The changes in volume, vibrancy, and vibrato were very well placed.
Bridget: It certainly set the scene well.
Karen: Coming into the theatre, did the reviews you’d read by the “professionals” make you wonder why you’d decided to see it for yourself?
Bridget: I’d go to see Michael in anything – but I’d have been keen to see if it was as bad as they’d made out anyway, I think.
Bridget: I see it as a challenge – if critics pan something – I have to see the thing in question in order to make up my own mind.
Bridget: I’ve nearly missed out on some good films by reading what the critics said about them, and I know what you think of the “professionals” opinions!!!
Karen: Oh, you noticed how I despise them, huh?
Karen: I didn’t much care for the way they compared Michael’s stage characterization to John Malkovich’s film role. Live performances are so much more adaptable than film. Once it’s on film, that’s it. With theatre, the actors’ performances can change and develop with each performance, and besides, Michael is NOT Malkovich (he’s MUCH better!).
Bridget: I have to agree – I saw two separate performances, several days apart … they differed quite a bit; it became more polished and fluid as time went on.
Bridget: Weren’t the costumes lovely?
Karen: Oh I thought so.
Karen: Can you imagine the skillfulness that goes into the changing of the wardrobes that are done within sometimes seconds before the actor has to be back on stage?
Bridget: Oh yes! It’s mind-boggling!
Bridget: Were you at all disappointed that the costumes weren’t more “traditional”? Michael’s in particular?
Karen: Not at all. I thought they were all quite lovely. The only thing that I didn’t care for was the “tool” they used to make the ladies’ dresses stand out. That I think could’ve been more creative.
Oh you’re gonna drag that thought out of me are you? Ok, MICHAEL’S attire was great. I loved the different jackets and the way they were cut to fit him so. And don’t even get me started on how he looked like he was BORN into those pants. And those knee-high black riding boots just added so much to his attire. Then, there were those silk pajamas … But that’s another story in itself. {sigh}
Bridget: I loved the boots too! But I was looking forward to seeing him in knee britches and hose!
Karen: Oh that’s a lovely thought; thank you for painting THAT picture.
Bridget: My pleasure, love!
Bridget: The critics were very hard on the cast’s accents – what’s your opinion?
Karen: Were any of the actors French?
Bridget: Nope
Karen: I’d like to hear their French accents … NOT!
Bridget: EXACTLY – this was an American production, in an American city featuring American actors – what DID they expect? My only quibbles (and they’re minor) are the use of American pronunciation for certain words.
Karen: Care to give our readers an example?
Bridget: Europeans would never say “Inqweries” (phonetic) instead of En – quire – ries or “sie – mul – taneously” instead of “sim – il – taneously.” but that’s splitting hairs really!
Bridget: Someone should have told Michael about that, because it did rankle a little with us Brits.
Karen: Well, with that lovely baritone voice of his, did it really matter? Frankly, I was so enamored at hearing him speak live that I don’t think I even noticed the “mispronunciations” a bit …
Bridget: I’m just trying to be honest – but yes – his voice is very nice, and as I have said before, only Michael could make the word “pervert” sound so delicious!
Karen: Honest is good, yes. Honestly, I didn’t really notice. All of the scuffling about in the audience (not to mention my own uncomfortable state) I did miss a tad of dialogue here and there.
Bridget: The ladies in the cast were an odd mix accent-wise; strangely, though, it seemed to work for the most part, with only a couple of blunders that I could make out.
I did have problems with making out some of what Cécile said, early on, but the actress is very young, and she grew with confidence as the play went on I thought.
Karen: I think a lot of understanding what she was saying was due in part to the extremely high-pitch tone used in her dialogue not to mention how fast she had to speak it.
Bridget: I have a running argument with my friend who also saw the play – she refuses to find anything about it amusing – what’s your view?
Karen: I believe that this particular production was meant to be amusing. The film version I didn’t find at all amusing but rather depressing. This production however was inundated with one-liners and funny little anecdotes that you couldn’t help but laugh at.
I think the seriousness of the many developments throughout the production opened way for those anecdotes and gender walloping.
Bridget: Oh yes – it was very much played for laughs, but there are scenes which can’t really be viewed that way. For instance – the “de-flowering” of Cécille – it was still done light-heartedly, but, whichever way you look at it, Valmont rapes the girl!
Karen: Well, yes and no. She seemed more than willing …
Bridget: I suppose it shows what a good actor Michael is, because, in that particular scene, his enjoyment of her distress and confusion made me want to get up on stage and thump him!
She was a child! A child can’t be willing to participate in something she doesn’t understand!
Karen: I suppose.
Bridget: And he abused her trust in order to get close enough to her to take advantage of her. Valmont is truly despicable in that part of the play (well done Michael!).
Karen: Fine Point; I agree there.
Bridget: And yet at other times, he comes across as vulnerable and boy-like. You’re never really sure whether you hate him or love him.
Karen: … as if his {Valmont’s} life is nothing if he doesn’t get his way …
Bridget: Yes – it’s a very shallow existence he leads, and you do start to feel sorry for him at times. But then … he brings it all on himself … by playing these “games” with Mme. de Merteuil.
Karen: What did you think of the relationship between Valmont and Mme. de Merteuil?
Bridget: It’s strange – they were supposed to have been lovers in the past – but you get the feeling it was maybe purely physical on her part. Or maybe she was drawn to his power and social standing. I certainly don’t think it was love!
Karen: I sensed that too. I think she played him for a fool; knowing his ego and how he just couldn’t help himself.
Bridget: Perhaps that’s why he sacrifices his love for Mme. de Tourvel – to prove his love to this cold woman who doesn’t really give a damn, and why he ultimately sacrifices himself to the sword, because he realizes she wasn’t worth it. I’d like to think that anyway!
Karen: Her cold-heartedness really comes out with the engagement she makes with him only to be found with Le Chevalier Danceny (Cécile’s intended).
Bridget: What a bitch! And so calculating!
I think the actress playing the role of Mdm de Meurtil did a really good job of getting that across. She seemed completely without remorse or pity. Where I come from we’d call her “hard as nails.”
Bridget: I have to say a few words about the supporting cast, here, because they were so very good, don’t you think?
Karen: Weren’t they wonderful; so well-placed at each juncture along the way.
Bridget: Seth Fisher as Valmont’s man-servant Azolan – what a little sweetie! (Both on stage and in real life) Jeff Barry as Danceny was almost painfully endearing and both Jennie Israel as Emilie and the genteel Alice Duffy as Mme de Rosemonde had significant input which enhanced the production.
Karen: Ok, why don’t we elaborate a little further on the characters? Let’s talk about Seth Fisher (Azalon), shall we?
Bridget: Seth Fisher – what a shame he didn’t have a bigger part!
I know, on the whole, this is Michael’s play, (his presence is all-encompassing), but without the sweetie that is Seth, the play would have been lacking a certain something ……. which I can’t quite pinpoint.
You liked Seth very much, didn’t you?
Karen: Yes I really did; not only his stage presence but meeting him in person. What a treat.
The biography provided by the Huntington credits Seth as having been a part of the US Soap: All My Children at one time. I’ve been doing some research and so far I haven’t been able to find who he played, when, or for how long.
Bridget: Yes – I read that too! Very strange that there’s not a lot of info about such a nice young man!
Bridget: I was fortunate enough to attend the actor’s forum on 1st Feb., and although disappointed that Michael didn’t attend, it was, none-the-less a very fun and informative experience!
Seth Fisher was very entertaining and told how, one performance, he actually didn’t make his cue in time! He was supposed to come and “dress” his master, but was engaged in conversation backstage with Jeff Barry (Danceny) and didn’t appear in time! Michael (according to Seth) stood there for a while, looking at an imaginary watch then, as a last resort, ran down the stage stairs, changed himself and re-appeared, just as though it was part of the play! Michael, what a pro!!!!
Bridget: This is a complex play, with a great amount of complicated dialogue – isn’t it amazing that the cast only had two weeks to rehearse?
Karen: Yes it is! What was it you were telling me about the novel and how it is based primarily on letters between the various characters?
Bridget: The novel is primarily about letters between Mme. de Merteuil and Valmont, Czécile and Danceny and various others.
Yes, there is no actual inter-action between the characters – there’s just the letters. The play brings the characters together.
Karen: Can you imagine how much they rehearsed in those two weeks to make it work??
Bridget: They must have sweated blood to make it work! I take my hat off to them – all of them.
Karen: I felt like he was really in love with Mme. de Tourvel, even tho’ he was having this fling with Mme. de Meurtil.
Bridget: That’s because he’s a MAN!
Karen: Oh here come the insults. {Laughing} Anything else you care to add?
Bridget: Men can’t say “no” to anything offered to them on a plate!
Karen: Well actually, I was wondering if you wanted to add anything more about Jeff’s performance. {Sigh}
Bridget: Sorry – you know what I’m like about MEN.
Karen: Yep, I’m learning very quickly to have a sock handy when you’re around anyone of importance.
Bridget: Jeff’s performance was just fine – I just thought he (meaning his character) was a bit of a wazzock! But Jeff did a good job with what he was given. (IMHO)
Karen: Oh do let the British words fly! Let me get you to explain what a WAZZOCK is.
Bridget: A wazzock is like an idiot, someone you don’t want to know!
Karen: Oh ok, so basically MOST men. See, now you’ve got me started.
Bridget: Emilie. I have a HIGH regard for the actress that played her. To walk those stairs in those heels – and in THAT outfit!!! I would have been worried about something “popping out” if I were her, but … she gets to rest over Michael’s lap so … waaaa-waaaaaa!
Bridget: Ah-hem! Sorry … what are your thoughts on Emilie?
Karen: Did you read the vile comments made by one of critics?
Bridget: about Emilie?
Karen: He said (and I quote) “Jennie Israel makes her Huntington debut by descending the stairs as a leather-dominatrix — should Ms. Israel grow any more ample, Mr. Weiss could play checkers on her back, let alone write a letter on it.
Bridget: Miss Israel was a breath of fresh air – in this world of Barbie clone stick insects – I was pleased to see a REAL woman for once!
Karen: THANK YOU! Me, too!
Bridget: Alice Duffy – what a great actress! Only a small part but she gave it her all, and a lovely lady in real life, too!
Out of all the accents – I thought she was spot on!
Karen: Yes she is. She is wonderful as Valmont’s aunt Mme. de Rosemonde. Even knowing what kind of conniving and despicable creature her nephew was, she still loved him.
Did you know she has been in several films including Housesitter, School Ties, and The Autumn Heart?
Bridget: This is part of what the play has to say, in my opinion – Men are despicable, slimy, untrustworthy creatures – always have been – always will be, but we put up with them because a) they’re fun and b) they give us children. If it weren’t for those two things – they’d be extinct by now!
Bridget: I feel sorry for the actress playing Mme de Volanges because she has a very important role to play but only because Valmont hates her so (hence the two middle-fingered salute he gives her behind her back which is so very funny!) He only refers to her as “that Volange bitch” and I found that a little bit sexist. It was the way he made the extra effort to leap down the stairs and do it right to her back!!(That made it so entertaining!)
Karen: That was quite well done, wasn’t it!
Bridget: I wonder – what would have been Valmont’s reaction if she’d have turned and seen him?
Karen: Well, I bet the entire audience would’ve been in stitches at that!
Karen: Mme. de Tourvel?
Bridget: One thing I want to emphasize about her (well, two really): Is that a) she should have thumped Valmont HARDER!!! (I told the actress this when I met her and she AGREED!), and b) her distress and grief at his breaking her heart was down-played a little too much.
It cannot be forgotten that this woman DIED because of Valmont’s stupid games!
Karen: I couldn’t agree more. Valmont strung her around so long waiting for her acceptance of him that her “distress” was quite a disappointment.
Bridget: I want to touch on the “It’s beyond my control” scene…
Near the end – Valmont goes to Mme. de Tourvel and does his “It was fun while it lasted” speech and keeps repeating those words that Mme de Merteuil quoted “It’s beyond my control,” and she’s on the floor, bereft, and he’s distressed, his voice hoarse, and he exits the stage, and I’m SURE I saw tears, real tears fall from Michael’s face! I was really impressed with the emotion Michael put into that scene with Mme. de Tourvel at the end – he was cruel and quite physical, but the hoarseness of his voice told you he wasn’t unaffected by it.
THIS is what acting is about!!!!! People in the audience being assaulted by RAW emotions!; having that feeling at the back of your throat like you can’t quite breathe and your heart thudding away in your chest like you’re in dire need of medication! THIS is what Michael is capable of! and I will THUMP (hard!) anyone who says otherwise! ‘Cause I was THERE and it happened to ME!!!!
Karen: Speaking of Michael’s excellent acting ability, I couldn’t help but notice a small misstep that he took on the staircase. I must say, my heart was in my throat at that point. I was so afraid he was gonna fall and injure himself. What really got my attention tho’ was how well he continued through that. He never stuttered, never missed a line, it was like it didn’t happen. What did you think about his transition through what could’ve been a disaster?
Bridget: LOL – I think there would have been a long line of ladies waiting to catch him if he fell!!
Karen: I was prepared to leap over all of them. LOL
Bridget: Seriously, he was a complete pro; it didn’t seem to faze him in the slightest! I think we were all very relieved that Michael didn’t fall and hurt himself.
Karen: Of course, as good as he is, he probably would’ve found a way for it to look like that was supposed to happen.
Bridget: Which brings me to the sword fight … this also has been targeted by the critics as being below par – what’s your view?
Karen: What do they know? I’d like to see them try and do better. I wasn’t expecting an all out war but I believe it was done pretty well.
Bridget: I think that given the limited space on stage and the very short rehearsal time involved, Michael and Jeff did a brilliant job.
Karen: Yes, very little room on the stage, plus ‘fighting’ as they were descending the staircase; that took some work. I thought it was extremely well done. I, personally, thought it funny when Michael (Valmont) snatched the sword out of Jeff’s (Darceny) hand. It was sort of like: “Well that’s what you get for toying with me.”
Bridget: How did you find Michael’s death scene? Bring a tear to your eye?
Karen: Gosh, did it?! I knew it was part of the script, but seeing that he (Valmont) was so miserable and angry with himself for his actions, it made it all the more saddening when he caused his own death.
Bridget: I was quite surprised that he chose to end it like that. I’d always assumed he just died in the fight. So yes, it was doubly sad that he died by his own hand.
I have to say that the death scene on the final performance was better than the one I’d seen earlier, but hey – that’s live theatre.
Bridget: I must say a few words about the final scene – you were there – you saw how affected I was. I think maybe it was because it was the last show, but, at the very end, when Michael throws down the first letter and the others follow suit, there was something so seriously, utterly FINAL about it. I got very emotional and shed a couple of tears at that point – remember asking me if I was OK?
Karen: Yes I do.
Bridget: I thought my heart was breaking! Yet, it never affected me the first time I saw it! Very strange.
Karen: It was a very emotional scene. It was like, after all of the broken hearts and the conniving and scheming, it was just OVER.
Bridget: As a footnote, it was mentioned at the actor’s forum on Feb 1st that the letters falling symbolize the falling of heads via the guillotine during the French Revolution which was due to happen shortly after the play is set.
Bridget: Yes – very sad, very final.
Karen: With that said, I think we’ve covered all the bases. Bridget, how would you sum up your Huntington experience, and would you be willing to travel that far again to see Michael if the chance arises?
Bridget: I shall never regret traveling to Boston to see Michael perform live theatre – it has already become a treasured memory and I applaud the Huntington, its staff and everyone involved for making it an experience well worth the effort.
Should the ever-so-talented Mr. Weiss decide to return to the theatre (either in Boston or elsewhere) as long as I have the means and the breath in my body, I will be there! (Anyone who tries to stop me will get thumped!)
Karen: Bridget, I want to thank you for sitting down with me to make this review happen.
To our readers: I hope you find this informative as well as amusing. And I hope you enjoyed it just as much as we did creating it.
Bridget: Thank YOU for letting me contribute to your wonderful web-site, I look forward to working with you again very soon.