Chicago production

There are a couple of clips of the Chicago producetion at youtube, placed there by a PR company working for Chicago Dramatists here and here.

How did the Broadway production compare?

I'm not too impressed.

Well according to the reviewers the Chicago production was the best thing since sliced bread and the guy that played Denny won all the awards and I believe the play did also.

Personally, I liked the Broadway one better, but then I'm freely and happily biased.

I'm with LT, the 2nd video when played out by Craig and Hugh was awesome to watch, it felt like staccato after staccato, their chemistry was palpable and it really felt like they were finishing each other's sentences and building on each other's comments. In this one, not so much. I guess I do see where people say Hugh played it a lot "bigger" than how it was in Chicago, but that to me is a good thing and I feel like Craig delivered Joey's lines with more passion I guess. But like LT, I do see where I could be a teensy bit biased, just a teensy bit.

I felt the Broadway version felt more empassioned and emotive, personally.

Yea but of course to some people, that means "over acting"! I think some were just bitter because they loved the Chicago production so much, didn't want to praise the 2 movie stars.

Being completely unbiased, I think everything becomes more powerful if played by big time Hollywood movie stars, who also happen to be good-looking guys. Their sheer stage presence, the aura created by them makes the play more memorable, and not necessarily the acting.

But I do think the acting was better by Hugh and Daniel. These Chicago actors seem kinda worn out, unenthusiastic, but maybe that was intentional.

There's always room for more than one interpretation. Naturally, we're all biased, and of course I prefer director John Crowley's take, especially his improvements as the weeks passed. But I can see how a very low-key interpretation of Joey could work to the play's advantage. His being practically a non-entity only heightens the shock of his eventual betrayal of Denny, reinforcing the latter as the tragic figure of the play. That is probably a contributing factor as to why the actor playing Denny reaped the accolades in that production.

That seemed very amateurish by comparison. The Broadway version acted out the moments more as if they were feeling and responding to the events in real time. The Chicago guys were retelling events more dispassionately, more removed.

I get the feeling it's at least partly stylistic. The Chicago version seems to go for a more naturalistic, "if it really were two guys in a room talking about crap that happened" feel. The Broadway version felt more definitely like someone telling a specific story to the audience. It was more openly presented-for-your-digestion rather than listening in to two regular guys talking shit at each other.