A STEADY RAIN thoughts, anyone??- Page 2

[bjh2114]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 9:57am

Yah. I think the quality of the writing is the biggest problem here. The script itself is where the problems lie. The actors were both fine, and the direction was fine given what is presented in the text, and even the plot (not the way it's presented, but rather the events the characters are recounting) isn't that bad. It's just the way it's written. This play won't garner many if any various nominations at all this coming season, but it certainly isn't the next Hedda Gabler or Impressionism.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 10:12am

You can't say I didn't warn you all about the script.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 10:16am

From what I have heard, it is 2 guys on stage basically giving monologues.I realize these are two great actors but this does not do it for me. It you want to go just to see them fine.

This is an interesting thought but a few seasons ago Julia Roberts came in with 3 Days Of Rain. We now get A Steady Rain. What kind of Rain is next I wonder.

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 10:20am

Agreed with basically what has been said. The play itself is really not very good. The dialogue is, but the storyline itself becomes very, very tiresome. However, the acting is stellar (Craig is the better of the two) and the use of sets its really, really magnificent.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 10:51am

I don't think it's fair to compare this and IMPRESSIONISM with HEDDA GABLER, which is, you know...one of the best plays ever written.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 11:06am

This past seasons production of HEDDA was awful. No, it was beyond awful and an embarrassment to everyone associated with it. To say that the Roundabout hit a new low with that one is sad considering what they've presented us with lately.

On the other hand, IMPRESSIONISM was a great little play. It didn't set out to change theater, it was just a nice little love story that I found extremely charming and because it wasn't trying to be anything but that, the critics felt the need to shred it.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 11:09am

But, as I read the thread, it wasn't a comparison of the productions, it was a comparison of the plays. And HEDDA, is one of the best plays ever written.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 11:11am

Agreed.

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 12:13pm

The weird thing about this was that it wasn't really a series of two monologues, as there was quite a bit of interaction between the two, especially in the beginning.

Plus I felt the entire construct of the play (two characters narrating past events) was incongruous with the ending.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 4:10pm

MAJOR SPOILERS!!

I agree frogs fan about the ending not fitting with the narrative of the play. Near the end I assumed they were both dead and kind of telling their case to God/some power judging them. It didn't make sense that only one of them was dead the whole time. Where were they the entire time then? Who were they telling the story to? Why did they interact with one another if one was dead?

[InfiniteTheaterFrenzy]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 4:41pm

As someone who falls into the camp of, "Yeah, Hugh Jackman's great, but what is with all of the obsession and hype around him?", I found his performance absolutely tremendous last night. I enjoyed his performance a LOT, thought Daniel Craig was good too, and would give the play itself a B-. However, the direction was intensely riveting at the right moments, and really impressed me as well. I understand why thoughts on this thread are a little gray, and not black or white.

[jimpuws]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 4:43pm

It was clear to me from the beginning that Craig was wearing a detective uniform and badge, and Jackman wasn't so I kind of figured that he would be the "last man standing" as mentioned many times. It is also the theater - you do not have to be logical, just theatrically appropriate, which I thought it was. Both performances were riveting. I think Craig has the harder job because it's less showy, but extraordinarily complex.
Updated On: 9/12/09 at 04:43 PM

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 5:24pm

Wait, Craig was wearing a uniform and badge? I wonder if that changed since yesterday, because if not, I'm blind; I didn't notice that (but I was in the last row of the mezz).

I agree with most of the thoughts already posted. Great acting and use of set, but not a great play.

Someone asked about the stagedoor: I saw the matinee today and both actors came out briefly. There was a HUGE crowd, and there were barricades on both sides of the stage door. At first the barricades blocked off a path for people to walk by on the building-side of the sidewalk, and then right before Daniel Craig came out (he came out first), they added a barricade perpendicular to the building to block the sidewalk off altogether. I lost my good spot because people then filled in that space. I'm sure that makes no sense, and I'm sorry, it's difficult to describe. But there were a LOT of people.
Updated On: 9/12/09 at 05:24 PM

[bjh2114]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 6:00pm

It wasn't a comparison of plays... it was a comparison of productions. Yankee, you're foolish if you think I meant Hedda Gabler as a play. It is not only one of the best plays ever written, but one of my personal favorite plays. I was comparing Steady Rain to the recent production because I was talking about awards. It's not going to get slammed by nominating committees because it's actively awful (the recent Hedda, impressionism, etc.). Rather it won't get nominated because there will be enough things better than it.

[jimpuws]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 6:08pm

I was sitting in the orchestra, about the 8th row. Detectives don't wear "uniforms" per se, they wear jackets, ties, and badges, and yes, it was clear that he was wearing a detective badge pinned to his belt. I'm not sure that it was revealed when he took off his jacket and put it on the back of the chair or I could see it before, but I definitely saw it.
Updated On: 9/12/09 at 06:08 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 6:09pm

Saw it on the first night but didn't have Internet access:

The audience was a bit annoyingly squealy in the beginning, the entrance applause lasted way too long, and one jackass took a flash photo early on, but the play is somber stuff and the exuberance quickly died down. (I fully admit I was in a Grinchy mood that night.)

Anyway, as far as the play goes, without its stars I would have been shocked if it caught someone's eye as a potential Broadway transfer. It's not bad, but it's not amazing, either. Then again, the far worse Coram Boy came in from London, so what do I know. I really don't get why this play, of all things, caught Craig's eye, but what the hell. *shrug* Maybe because it's such an actors' showcase - a two-character one-act with a set that consists of nothing but two chairs and a backdrop. Craig and Jackman have to hold the audience with pretty much nothing but their voices for 90 minutes, and they succeed admirably.

The events the two characters are recalling throughout are hugely melodramatic, and I think it's the alternating-monologues format that keeps the play from entering Titus Adronicus horribleness territory. But the format is also a limitation that Huff runs up against a few times when he makes Joey and Denny use somewhat poetic descriptive language. Those characters would never talk that way, and with virtually no set, that can make it tough for the playwright to paint a picture in the minds of the audience. But he still should have stayed within characters' voices.

I wish I'd been sitting closer than I was so I could catch more of Craig's performance - my eyesight just isn't up to catching finer facial expressions from the mezzanine, and the part of Joey is the quieter one of the two. The casting is the reverse of what you'd expect, as everyone's been saying, but both actors find their ways into their characters anyway. The material they're working with isn't the best, but they really are good theatrical craftsmen, and that's a pleasure to see.

Jackman's accent wandered a bit, but when it did he went into a flat American newscaster's accent, not an Australian one, so it wasn't too bad. And he never suffered from the strangled, affectless intonation that strikes so many actors who use so much of their headspace on maintaining an accent they don't have resources to spare for actual acting. He had some great acting moments that pretty much consisted of just a change in vocal timbre. Craig had a greater tendency to get mumbly enough for me to have a hard time making out the words, but his accent was almost totally consistent.

Both actors did some fantastic body acting - Jackman can convey a world of hostility and rage just by standing still and wordless on the side of the stage, and Craig did a good job seeming physically cowed by him when necessary.

I think their chemistry is going to get better with time, but even now they had an easy finish-each-other's-sentences rapport that occasionally rose to make them more than the sum of their parts. Their comedy timing together is solid. And the reversed casting isn't really that much of a hindrance - Jackman's tremendous underlying charm and charisma might be the only thing that can keep the audience from turning on his utter bastard of a character. He plays Denny completely unapologetically and counts on it to work, and it does. Joey's bastardry sneaks up on you more. :P

What frustrated me a bit about this play is that underneath there, the skeleton of the show is very solid. The changing relationship between Joey and Denny is an interesting one, and they're interesting characters. The writing just isn't...quite there. (See, this is why I failed as an English major.) But you can see why Joey would follow Denny so far down his path of self-destruction, and how Denny self-immolates over the course of a summer.

Anyway, if you don't like to hear about bad things happening to children, don't get anywhere near this play. The audience was gasping in shock multiple times, and by the end there was a palpable sense of dread as everyone wondered what awful thing was going to befall Joey and Denny next. But thankfully, that also stopped the squealing and picture-taking cold so the evening was about the play and the acting, not the leading men's chests. Which you don't get to see, unfortunately - the most skin they show is their forearms. :)

Updated On: 9/12/09 at 06:09 PM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 6:21pm

Ugh, it's just monologues? I feel like that is such a cope out sometimes.

And Yankee, say what you will about Hedda, but as that was my only outlet to the play, I thought it was awfully boring.

[Plum]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 6:24pm

The play is a sort of set of monologue-conversations. Both characters are telling the story of a series of events they went through, but occasionally they'll interrupt each other briefly or exchange a bit of dialogue, arguing or joking together or something. This happens more as the play goes on...and I'm not going to spoil it any more than that. And frankly, a lot of the stuff they talk about I'd rather not see acted out. The proposed movie adaptation sounds distinctly less appealing to me now.

[pushdabutton]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 6:33pm

Does anyone have any stage door photos they can post?

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 6:55pm

I caught the matinee today and I'm sorry but this show is just plain boring. It's the equivalent of the two officers in what will I'm sure be a very good movie, each in a series of monologues - describing all the action we needed to see in order to make this play interesting.

It's like listening to your uncle talk about his day on the job when all you really want to do is put the TV on. People all over the mezz were falling asleep. Even the beauty of Jackman and Craig couldn't keep them awake.

[proptart101]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 7:14pm

Posted this (a few changes here) over on ATC:

One thing - this is NOT two guys giving alternating monologues. There is a far amount of dialogue here - however, it is more like two guys recounting a story to an audience, with the other chiming in where appropriate. It's very clear that each of the characters has details that he other does not, and all those various details come out within the context of the play.

The play itself - way too much happened to be believable in the course of one summer in two mens lives.

My first impression of the play was as if two action movie superstars were making a complex pitch of a new type of "cop buddy" film to skeptical studio bosses (the audience). Perhaps I would have felt differently had the actors not been action movie superstars....

After a while the technique did grow on me - I felt like I was privy to one of those evenings when several old friends get together and retell stories form "back in the day" except in this telling, they were both giving details that most people would have kept secret. An interesting storytelling technique - my argument was there was too much of the amazing action cop movie stuff and not so much character revelation.

I thought the staging was particularly effective - use of the opposite sides of the playing area, when the characters crossed into "the other's space" it was always for a defined, motivated reason.

I thought both actors did a very passable job - I'm considering going to see it again near the end of the run to see how much they evolve the characters. As it stands right now, I did not expect both men to have fully fleshed out their roles yet - they each have about 45 minutes of dialogue to memorize, plus some fairly subtle blocking (most of which worked for me). They seem to be in a good place vis-a-vis the process, assuming that they'll continue to grow into their characters through previews.

The alleys lurking in the background worked for me very well - reminded me more of the Bronx than north side Chicago - especially now that most of Cabrini is gone - maybe it was supposed to be the Henry Horner Housing projects - not sure.

Two things absolutely didn't work for me - hopefully they'll resolve it.

One was the visual of the woods - I'm not sure why but that pulled me right out of the story and placed me back in the theater - maybe it was too massive for a wooded area in or near Chicago.

The other was more of a problem with the script - Aside from the over abundance of improbable action described by the characters - I found the concept of "A Steady Rain" seemingly lost other than a few passing mentions. Frankly, the only reference to the rain which really made sense was the throw away joke about moving to Seattle... I never made a solid connection as to why the rain was so important to the story - important enough to call it "A Steady Rain". I don't know, perhaps I'm just dense - but I think if there were more "it never rains but it pours" type cliche's, or something.

Overall it was an enjoyable evening. There was a lot of details the needed tweaking (very uneven sound mix, especially with Daniel Craig, but it's very early in the process for that to be evened out.)

The end of the evening? My wife and I spent as much time talking about the character's story as we did about the production itself (we're both in theater). I always find it satisfying when a show makes you want to talk it over afterward.

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 7:15pm

#1Elphie, the exact same thing happened to me with the barricades last night. I had a spot on the barricade facing south and then when the second barricade was added I ended up being six people back. At least I got home earlier...

ETA- In response to Plum's post above. I also found the staging to be very well thought out. Each actor had a clearly defined space and when that space was invaded it certainly heightened the drama. One of my favorite moments was when Joey sat down in Denny's chair. Updated On: 9/12/09 at 07:15 PM

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 8:31pm

pushdabutton, I didn't get any good stage door photos because of my bad spot, but these are the best ones I took (one of each actor):

[wolfpit228]

Posted: 9/12/09 at 9:02pm

I have to say that I thought that it was pretty good. The acting excelled the actual script, especially Daniel Craig in my opinion. Being in the orch, row c, centre, gave us an exceptional view and an insight into not just A Steady Rain, but just really how worthy both actors are, of their star billing.

As for the stage door - I spoke to Hugh on his way into the theater but he had his hands full and was unable to take my wifes gift from me. He was very gracious and polite. Some time later, a rather unpleasant guy kept appearing from the stage door. So I politely asked him if he would take it from me, to pass on, he said no and continued to mumble and grunt at me as he was closing the door. In my opinion,manners costs nothing, so I just put it down to him being an ignorant old fool, simple as. I then spoke to a really nice guy who obviously had experience with the SD. He had seen the performance and advised me to bring it to the crush barrier as soon as the lights went down, which I did. Shortly after, I was able to pass it on to an assistant when Jackman came out of the exit. It contained my wifes details, so she is right now hoping to have ANY form of feedback! Hugh appeared happy to chat briefly with fans, and I was also ablt to take several photos, and get the Playbill signed by both actors. Incidentally both actors did say when signing outside of the SD that they wanted to concentrate primarily on playbills.I think Hugh Jackman stayed out a little longer than Daniel Craig. I did have my stub with me in case I needed it to stay in line but it wasnt requested.

To be honest I think I could sit through it again, the 90 mins didnt seem to drag at all. As for the seating, being tall, I didnt have too much discomfort, unlike at the New Amsterdam, where I found it a little cramped.

[joeyinpa]

Posted: 9/13/09 at 9:46am

Do they have window cards for sale yet? TIA