rOcKS @ 'A Steady Rain'

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 9/24/09 at 10:48pm

Per usual, BWW Mobile is acting up and won't let me edit my thread about the ridiculousness that happened at the stage door tonight to tack on my review. So I have to start a new thread. Crucify me.

I actually liked it more than I thought I would. I basically have to echo the general sentiment which seems to be that the material is very mediocre but the performances are really stellar. The play is very unevenly written with some shocks and some stories that work better than others (there's really no JOY in this show at all...the doom and gloom gets a bit repetitive and at times implausible). It felt like Craig and Jackman, truthfully, were reading a screenplay for a movie. This show definitely would work better as a movie and I wouldn't be surprised if it happens. It's just the two of them onstage basically telling the audience what they did, how it felt, how they did it, what was going on at the time, what they said to each other, etc. It felt like a screenplay to me...and it felt very cinematic at times. A lot of the twists, particularly the last two minutes, felt rushed and totally unreal.

And I'm not so sure I liked the idea of just having it be the two of them telling their story. It was hard to feel their pain, love, hurt, anger, passion etc towards other characters who never materialized onstage. It's hard to understand these feelings when there's only one side being fully represented. It's an uneven work but it's a quick 90 minutes and it's being given the golden treatment because it's being performed by Craig and Jackman.

The two of them onstage create electricity and sparks that would probably not happen otherwise. Their chemistry is palpable and they really give their all. I was a bit nervous Jackman would have an edge on Craig but I was totally wrong. None is better than the other. They're truthfully equally great. They are the reason the show is such a success and rightfully so.

I loved the set design. I thought it was ingenious, really. So simple but so gorgeous. The sets looked so REAL it was eerie. The lighting design was boring but appropriate I suppose.

The direction is fine enough and keeps the show running at a smooth pace even if there's really not much for the two of them to DO in terms of blocking.

So basically, it's a mediocre play performed by two stellar actors. I'm stuck between **1/2 and *** but finally, I have to go with:

**1/2 out of ****

Questions?
Updated On: 9/24/09 at 10:48 PM

[James2]

Posted: 9/25/09 at 1:09am

That's pretty much exactly what I thought when I saw the show Wednesday night. However, I thought the lighting was pretty lovely. Aside from that, you were spot-on, WiCkEDrOcKS.

[April Saul]

Posted: 9/25/09 at 9:29am

I liked it a bit more than Rocks, I'd give it three stars. I thought Craig and Jackman were both excellent, and I'd read reviews of this play from another production and strongly suspected going in that the material wasn't going to blow me away. There's a thread on the other board that calls this "Event Theater" and I agree with that; done off-Broadway with other actors, it'd be just okay. Then again, I am the kind of theatergoer that doesn't get bored with monologues; I was enthralled by Faith Healer while people around me were nodding off! Craig and Jackman, for me, elevated the material--and the event--into something not amazing, but exciting; and I think that's valid. I enjoyed this as much as this season's Hamlet.

[taylorPHENOMENON2]

Posted: 9/25/09 at 10:28am

My problem when I saw the show was Daniel Craig. He was stumbling over his lines and had no comedic timing. I'm assuming he improved from your review