I don’t get to see enough Broadway shows to make theater-reviews a regular part of the site, but if I catch one worth talking about afterwards, I think it’s worth mentioning. And The Heiress is one of those shows.
Roughly a year ago, I gave the (then) red-hot play Other Desert Cities a mixed review, and have found that the buzz doesn’t always match the excitement for plays. [It would help if critics had to pay a hundred dollars of their own money to watch the shows. I think that might alter their perspective a bit.] But I’m happy to report that The Heiress really and truly delivers on its great reviews.
The play has a relatively simple plot, and no flashy pyrotechnics to distract us. It’s a character piece that just has to use three great performances as its only real selling point————–how old-fashioned, no wonder The Heiress is set in a time before telephones————-and, luckily, they really deliver.
Jessica Chastain plays the awkward, “plain Jane” daughter (I know, talk about miscasting…but it works) of a wealthy doctor (the great character actor David Straithairn, who you’ve seen in everything from the Bourne franchise to Lincoln, and will almost certainly recognize the face of if not the name) who worries that his socially-inept daughter will have a tough time marrying. Enter Downton Abbey’s Dan Stephens as a penniless charmer who sweeps The Heiress off her feet, although he may be a gold digger…Straithairn’s father disapproves of the union, putting Chastain (and the audience) in the middle, and asking a deceptively simple question: “Just what are this suitor’s intentions?” Even if you think you know the answer, the play keeps surprising you, and is just clever and twisty enough to transcend its setting and seem completely relevant to 2013.
Although it has a nice structure, no one really goes to see a play like this for the plot dynamics. You go to watch three great actors at the top of their game, up-close-and-personal so you can try to figure out just who is playing who (this is the rare play where a seat towards the front may actually be better than one in the balcony). Stephens excels in the tricky role of an ambiguous seducer, and Straitharn may be even better as the stern, sly father.
Still, it’s Chastain’s show, and her transformation is Tony-worthy. [Chastain often gets compared to the young Meryl Streep, and after watching this play and Zero Dark Thirty within a day of each other, it’s not hard to see why.]
To go into much detail would be to spoil a true acting revelation, but let’s just say that she is clearly savoring a role that allows her to be this romantic, vulnerable, sneaky, and shy, with hidden layers merely hinted at. Chastain seems to be playing a woman you’ll never fully know, and maybe that’s better than any twist ending.
Quick Note: After a Broadway show, there is usually a waiting area outside the theater where you can get your Playbill signed and maybe take a few pictures with the actors in the show, if they’re nice enough. Well, Chastain was nice enough (as was Dan Stephens, to his credit, getting mobbed by adoring young girls that watch…Downton Abbey? hey, it’s Broadway, so the mindset is slightly different than your NFL groupies). The weather was dogshit outside———-I’m talking cold, I’m talking rain, and I’m even talking snow———but she came out and signed everyone’s Playbills and took pictures with anyone who wanted one. This may not be very interesting, but she was a genuinely nice person…I know, I wish there was something more gossipy to report…oh, how about this…
Interesting tidbit: She is surprisingly short, probably no taller than 5’2, although I don’t know for sure. And everyone was really stunned to see how completely different (i.e. beautiful) she looked only five minutes after playing “an ugly duckling” for two and a half hours. I know she’s a serious actress, but she may be the rare real talent that can also be a movie star, scoring magazine covers at the exact same time she’s winning a mantle full of critic’s prizes.