After all that, Matthew Broderick excellent in Starry Messenger!

[April Saul]

Posted: 11/30/09 at 2:52pm

I posted about this on the other board, and just felt that because he'd gotten such a bad rap after not knowing his lines during the first preview, it was only fair to express my enjoyment of Starr Messenger this past weekend. The play is way too long, but Broderick's performance is nuanced and moving, and Kieran Culkin is also terrific in this.

[mc1227]

Posted: 11/30/09 at 3:25pm

I totally agree with you regarding both performances. However, you will not get any positive response on this board. They are only interested in piling on and making statements of negativity when it comes to Broderick.

[scripps]

Posted: 11/30/09 at 4:21pm

Positive response here. Saw "The Starry Messenger" last Tuesday night after reading all the vitriol on the boards coupled with some glowing reviews and very much enjoyed myself. Thought Broderick was the best I've seen him and I say that as a child raised on Ferris Bueller and someone who has sat through the good and bad of his stage outings.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 11/30/09 at 5:09pm

I saw it, and I thought the play showed some hope, but was way too long, and his monologue at the end needing some shaping and cutting, but I thought the play was okay, but that Broderick was boring and stiff as usual, but it almost works here, but still, he's not doing anything new. And his "love interest" was an awful actress.

[James885]

Posted: 11/30/09 at 5:15pm

One of my friends saw it last week and said that Broderick was outstanding. After reading some of the reviews here and also some of the press reviews, my interest is definitely piqued. I'm thinking of seeing it in a few weeks.

[mc1227]

Posted: 11/30/09 at 6:28pm

They just extended the show for another week until the 19th.

[After Eight]

Posted: 11/30/09 at 11:47pm

"I posted about this on the other board, and just felt that because he'd gotten such a bad rap after not knowing his lines during the first preview, it was only fair to express my enjoyment of Starr Messenger this past weekend. The play is way too long, but Broderick's performance is nuanced and moving, and Kieran Culkin is also terrific in this."

How lucky we were that you did not limit your opinion to the other board.

Once upon a time I thought that Matthew Broderick was terrific. Sadly, that is no longer the case, and it has been that way for quite some time now. And it has nothing to do with his not knowing his lines. He knew his lines fine when I saw this play. The problem was, just as he was in "The Philanthropist," "The Odd Couple,""and "Taller Than a Dwarf," he was horrible. Not just horrible, but HORRIBLE. "Nuanced?" Nuanced my eye. He's giving the same deadly, zombified performance here that he's been giving for years. And the play is HORRIBLE,HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE. One of the worst things I've ever seen, a moribund, unending, self-indulgent, dead-fish stinking bore.

But thanks for sharing your opinion.


Updated On: 11/30/09 at 11:47 PM

[karma3]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 1:02am

Count me in as a cheering member of Matthew's rising to the cause in TSM. He's divine, measured to be sure, but he's very connected and open and alive in the role. Bravo my boy!

[April Saul]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 1:23am

And how lucky am I, After Eight, to know that you think Broderick is "a self-indulgent, dead-fish stinking bore!" To each his own, but man, what did this guy ever do to you? lol...

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 6:41am

April Saul:


I wrote,

"And the play is HORRIBLE,HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE. One of the worst things I've ever seen, a moribund, unending, self-indulgent, dead-fish stinking bore."

To spell it out for you, the phrases "self-indulgent, dead-fish stinking bore" were referring to the play, not Broderick.

[mc1227]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 7:19am

Broderick's style is not for everyone, granted. Perhaps you saw him on an off night because the two performances I saw were just the opposite. To each his own. I did not see Taller Than a Dwarf, but did see the other two shows you mentioned. I hated The Philanthropist, not because of Broderick, but because that play was HORRIBLE all the way around. There is no way you can put The Starry Messenger in the same category. Besides the fact that it's too long, this play has so many threads of humanity in it that I found it to be very absorbing.

I still don't understand why his Odd Couple performance was so trounced. It really wasn't that bad. I have seen so much worse by actors that were considered to be much better than him yet he seems to draw the arrows the most.

Updated On: 12/1/09 at 07:19 AM

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 7:37am

"I still don't understand why his Odd Couple performance was so trounced. It really wasn't that bad. I have seen so much worse by actors that were considered to be much better than him yet he seems to draw the arrows the most."

Could you tell us specifically whose performances you found "so much worse" than Broderick's? If indeed they were so much worse, then I'm glad I missed them, because it boggles the mind to conceive how bad they must have been.



"I hated The Philanthropist, not because of Broderick, but because that play was HORRIBLE all the way around. There is no way you can put The Starry Messenger in the same category"


I hated "The Philanthropist" because of Broderick and a rotten production. Indeed, Broderick is giving the exact same performance in this play that he did in that one: deadly and zombified. And you're right. "Philanthropist" and "Starry Messenger" can not be put in the same category. The first is a good play, as shown in the original production, superbly acted by Alec McCowen, and the second is a stinker.

[whatever2]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 10:00am

it's possible -- maybe even probable -- that the point-in-time rule applies here. Broderick really was awful in previews (even after the prompter was retired). That said, why is it so difficult to believe his performance has improved? he's a seasoned accomplished actor, certainly capable of embracing a steep learning curve. he may not be to every taste, and people who don't like his method are certainly entitled to that opinion, but it sounds as if his performance here is not to be judged on the early previews.

just a thought ...

[April Saul]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 10:24am

After Eight--
Did you actually see this play and if so, when? Just wondering if we are having such different reactions at the same point in time, or if he could've improved that drastically.

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 10:54am

Yes, I saw the play in previews; he had already learned his lines. If he has improved drastically, well, good for him. The problem is, he was giving the same exact performance he gave in "The Philanthropist." So that's what his acting has devolved to nowadays, as it has for some time now. Maybe that's an acting style you enjoy; I certainly do not. And I do not like to see the same bad acting style repeated again and again in every play in which he appears.

Whatever 2: The problem with your hypothesis is that the reviews were equally divided over his performance. Some critics indeed noted that he was giving the same dull performance he had given in "The Philanthropist," which seems to undercut the notion of his "embracing a steep learning curve." It is clear from this thread that some people like his acting style. Others hate it, like me.
Updated On: 12/1/09 at 10:54 AM

[whatever2]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 11:50am

actually, i've seen the show twice, so it's slightly more than a hypothesis. he improved. if you dont like him when he's on his game that's entirely fair, but he's definitely upped that game over the course of the run.

[amoni2]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 12:02pm

"The problem was, just as he was in "The Philanthropist," "The Odd Couple,""and "Taller Than a Dwarf," he was horrible. Not just horrible, but HORRIBLE."


Wow, what's the matter, did Matthew pee on your Playbill? HORRIBLE is he? Not just in his current show but also in his last three shows too, BUT you continue to see his shows. That says more about you than anything about his work.

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 1:01pm

What it says about me is that I'm interested in the theatre, not just Matthew Broderick. In fact, I would go so far as to say I love the theatre. So much so, that I'm willing to go see a play he's in, despite his repeated bad performances.
Updated On: 12/1/09 at 01:01 PM

[mc1227]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 7:38pm

That was going to be my reply to after eight, but you beat me to it. I'd be damned if I hated a performer so much but paid good money to see them and they continually disappointed me.

"The problem with your hypothesis is that the reviews were equally divided over his performance. Some critics indeed noted that he was giving the same dull performance he had given in "The Philanthropist," It is clear from this thread that some people like his acting style. Others hate it, like me".

Sorry to disagree with you, but the reviews were not equally divided over this production. They were decidedly favorable both for the production and Broderick's performance.


In terms of other performers getting panned, just recently Bill Irwin has been criticized for his over the top performance in Birdie, as well as John Goodman last season. Good actors sometimes give bad performances, sometimes they give good performances in bad productions, but the bottom line is no one is forcing us to go see them and then come onto a theater blog and bash them. It was quite evident from the pre-opening of both this show and The Odd Couple that someone had an axe to grind. It's almost unheard of in most other productions that the AP newswire reports something that goes on in previews of a Broadway show. It isn't like Broderick is this mega superstar that is coming to Broadway for the first time. He is a theater rat. Perhaps it's because he's married to a high profile celebrity but whatever.

I do love theater as well and can usually find something positive about a show even if it's not something I really like overall. I think that's what loving theater is all about.

Updated On: 12/1/09 at 07:38 PM

[whatever2]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 11:18pm

mc1277: i don't mind being disagreed with, but i never referenced the reviews in either of my previous posts. what i was intending to suggest was that viewers in general and the posters here in particular who dislike Broderick's method and style have come by their opinions honestly, and certainly are entitled to them ... he is an idiosyncratic performer with a mixed recent track record.

but i thought he was fine here, myself.

[mc1227]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 11:23pm

Whatever,I just copied and pasted his response to you, which is what I was disputing. He states that the reviews for this play were evenly divided and I was stating that they were not. I'm sorry to have included your name in the paste.

He's obviously not a fan of Broderick's and that's fine with me. I just don't get why he keeps going to his shows.

[MiracleElixir]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 11:29pm

I saw this tonight, purely because I generally like Kenneth Lonergan, but not too enthused due to the mixed response -- and man, I was really not expecting to be this knocked out. It's not a big, showy play, but I was shocked how enraptured I was by every minute; the structure, themes, and arcs of each of the characters are subtle, but brilliantly constructed.

I hate when people resort to knee-jerk hyperbole, but damned if I didn't think this was a flat-out masterpiece -- dare I say my favorite play since AUGUST: OSAGE COUNTY (though this could not be a more different piece). The open-endedness of certain plot elements are absolutely perfect, and somehow MORE satisfying than if they were tidily resolved.

And for the record, I think literally every cast member was outstanding; though Kieran Culkin and the woman who played the borderline-sociopath student didn't have as much to do, I think everyone did fantastic work.

I'm still working out my thoughts on the play as a whole -- there's so much to chew on -- but I was really blown away by how much I loved this. It's (clearly) not for everyone; it's very easy to dismiss as boring/talky or declare "it's not about anything," but it's a play I think a select few (though maybe more -- the majority of my audience surprisingly seemed to like it) are going to cherish.
Updated On: 12/1/09 at 11:29 PM

[whatever2]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 11:48pm

no worries, mc1277 ... the quotation marks confused me!

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/2/09 at 6:26am

"He's obviously not a fan of Broderick's and that's fine with me."

On the contrary, it doesn't seem at all fine with you. In fact, it seems to bother you quite a bit.


"I just don't get why he keeps going to his shows."

I already explained it to you. I guess that proves the old adage, "there are none so deaf as those who will not hear."

[mc1227]

Posted: 12/2/09 at 7:41am

After Eight, I heard your reason why you continue to see his shows. I just don't buy it. Perhaps you get freebies so it doesn't cost you anything. Then it would make more sense.

Again, to each their own. Just stating what I feel as you are. No hard feelings, I enjoy the banter and passion of the board.

Updated On: 12/2/09 at 07:41 AM