SYLVIA Previews and Reviews- Page 4

[Petralicious]

Posted: 10/28/15 at 11:04am

such an odd pairing. 

Annaleigh Ashford  was incredible in and STOLE "You Can't Take It With You"

Matthew Broderick was sleepwalking and STOLE my money in "Nice Work If You Can Get It"

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 10/28/15 at 11:05am

Patash said: "It's always such a good idea to go see an actor do only half a play then go out and brag that you saw that actor's performance.   How incredibly rude and unfair -- whether your "review" of that performance is good or bad -- you really didn't see it."

 

First of all, I clearly saw the whole play since I made comments on Sella's portrayal of Leslie and the epilogue. I don't really think any of the performances changed from the first and second acts with the slight exception of White's abrupt 180 at the end. I don't really know why you have such a hard-on for this show and feel the need to berate people for giving their opinion.

 

[vitamins]

Posted: 10/28/15 at 11:30pm

I wanted to like this show, but the play is just awful. It should be a 20-minute vignette, not a full-length play, and CERTAINLY not almost 2 1/2 hours. Matthew Broderick is as dull as ever, Julie White is wasted in a flat character, Sella's actions reek of the 90s, and Ashford's schtick gets very tired very quickly. I'm a dog owner, my dog is the love of my life, and this play did nothing to stir my emotions. Skip it. 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 2:37am

I have to disagree Clyde. I thought Sella was the only reason to see this. He's hilarious in his turns as Phyllis and the Therapist. I really loved what he did with those parts. But yes, the play is too long. Broderick is doing his same ol' schtick and Asfhord is doing her same ol' shtick. So if those things work for you, you'll love it. I, however, was very bored. I thought the sets were pretty beautiful thought. 

[Patash]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 8:16am

Clyde Barrow, what is your problem? Yes we have different opinions of the show, but isn't that allowed? 

 

And I realize that you saw the whole show -- I never suggested you didn't.  But what I took issue with was your SUGGESTION to others to "go for Ashford's performance but leave at intermission because you're not missing anything in the second act."

 

I still maintain it's unfair to "to go see an actor do only half a play then go out and brag that you saw that actor's performance. "

 

Of course, you can disagree with that and you clearly have -- but I'll stand by my opinion that if a person only sees one act of any play then he hasn't seen the actor's full performance and it is unfair to comment on it (even if he has read someone else's opinion on a chat board what the second half was like).  OK?

Updated On: 10/29/15 at 08:16 AM

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 10:19am

Patash said: "Clyde Barrow, what is your problem? Yes we have different opinions of the show, but isn't that allowed?

And I realize that you saw the whole show -- I never suggested you didn't."

 

My problem is that you've come on here to try and negate the criticisms of others including myself and little_sally. If you truly believe people are allowed to have differing opinions then you wouldn't try so hard to negate ours. In my own review I stated that I was perplexed by those who liked it, I didn't try to tell them why they were wrong for liking it. Also when you say things like "whether your 'review' of that performance is good or bad -- you really didn't see it" in direct response to something I said then it seemed to be pointed at me. Honestly I'm done talking about this matter because I couldn't care less about this show.

 

[Patash]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 10:41am

What part of "differing opinions" is too difficult for you to understand?  I could just as easily say that you and others with views different from mine are trying to "negate" my opinion.  But that would be silly.  There's nothing wrong with opposing views and expressing and explaining them.

 

But meanwhile your argument seems to be that it is perfectly fine for someone to only see half a performance then critique it as if you've seen the whole thing.  That's all my post you quoted took issue with -- not your opinion of the show at all. You are a bright poster.  Why is this so difficult for you to understand and why are you trying to make such an issue that I think it would be wrong to see half a show and then pretend you saw it all?  Go back again and again if you need to, to see that was my ONLY point with that obviously sarcastic "always a good idea" post.  I have no idea why you're trying to interpret it as anything else.  

 

But I'm also sorry if you couldn't understand the hypothetical situation of leaving a play and then using the word "you" would naturally only apply if YOU were the person who left.  That should be clear.  If YOU didn't leave, then obviously it didn't apply to you.  Have you never heard the expression "if you ___, then you___"?  

Updated On: 10/29/15 at 10:41 AM

[goldenboy]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 11:33am

Charles Isherwood " A. R. Gurney’s dark drama about a psychopath with tendencies toward bestiality,"

I can't believe a New York Times Drama Critic missed the whole point of the play. This play has nothing to  do with bestiality. The lead character is hardly a psychopath.   It about the special bond between humans and their pets and the joy pets give them. It is about the dynamics between couples when the pet is showered with more affection than the spouse. It is about a man with a mundane existence whose life quality is perked up by a pet.

I can't believe I have to start explaining plays to misguided NY Times Drama Critcs, NY Times Drama Critic...indeed.

 

While people are entitled to their opinions, this is no way shape or form is a play about a psychopath or bestiality. 

I think a psychopath is someone who sits through a play stonefaced without any emotion and never cracking a smile and giving it a rave review. Or a pan. Or misunderstands the play. Yes Mr. Isherwood does that.

 

 

Updated On: 10/29/15 at 11:33 AM

[mc1227]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 3:01pm

Well said, Goldenboy.  Even if someone did not care for this play, how anyone can come away from this play thinking it's about bestiality is beyond me.  Also, they should not be employed as a theater critic for any publication, much less the Times. 

Updated On: 10/29/15 at 03:01 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 4:17pm

I'm not sure how anyone can read Isherwood's full review and not see that opening paragraph as using a liberal amount of irony.

[haterobics]

Posted: 10/29/15 at 4:29pm

goldenboy said: "This is no way shape or form is a play about a psychopath or bestiality."

 

Then I'm definitely not going.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 10/30/15 at 10:03pm

"and am telling you... I'm not going.."