High First Preview

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/25/11 at 11:55pm

Back from the first preview of High tonight. I love Kathleen Turner. A lot. She is such a presence onstage and her magnificent voice fills the Booth with its spine-tingling energy. If you're a fan get to this one quickly. Literally.

Sadly the mezz was maybe a quarter full. I didn't look in at the orchestra, but it didn't sound like it was packed below either (thought Kathleen received a very nice reception during her entrance and final bow).

The play itself is very intense and there were a couple moments I looked away. I think the story is compelling and the characters are juicy enough for the actors to sink their teeth into. The writing isn't always as wonderful as the plot, but it's a decided step up from Looped, which I enjoyed for Valerie.

I don't want to give away any of the plot because it hinges on many surprises and reveals. This could be part of the reason they're having trouble marketing the show. You really can't give much of a summary without spoiling what's to come. Also part of the piece is unraveling the mystery of what's going on/why the characters are the way they are. All three seem to be hiding stuff and it's interesting watch the truth come to light.

I would not want to see this after a bad day at work, but if you're in the mood for a tough drama this is for you.

[defyingravity11]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 12:22am

I was there tonight as well. I had to step out towards the end of the first act because I got lightheaded and I needed to splash water on my face! *SPOILER* There is a lot of intricate detail about shooting up *SPOILER* I also looked away during some of the more graphic moments.

I thought it was intense and sensational, but I need to think on the actual quality of the play. The performances are spectacular and it's definitely worth a visit.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 12:27am

As good as it is, drama on Broadway is an especially hard sell unless it is with a dynamite cast & respected playwright. Even than, stars are no guarantee. Case in point is Driving Miss Daisy which limps to it closing.

[DAME]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 12:27am

I am intrigued.

[Luv2goToShows]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 12:42am

Was there as well, did not know what to expect and it thoroughly captured me. Very intense, very moving.

I was in the orchestra and it was pretty much full, saw a few scattered empty seats. It showed back up on TDF so hopefully that helps with sales and word of mouth.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 12:52am

SPOILER*********
Did any of you wonder what happened to Brody's mother to cause her to become a prostitute? Not that it needed to be shared, but seeing how Father Mike turned out, and assuming that she had two parents who cared about her, I wonder what happened?

Also did they ever mention where the play was set? My only quibble with the acting was Evan seemed to have an accent at times that sort of came and went. I didn't know what that was about. Did others notice it too?

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 1:43am

SPOILERS*******

The addict's name is Cody, Whizzer. Cody Randall. I don't know that his mother did have loving parents. It isn't unusual for siblings from a distressed family to make markedly different decisions when they leave. Maybe Father Michael's way of dealing with it was turning to the Church. His sister turned to drugs. If Father Michael's parents were so loving, why was it that they didn't inform him that she had died?

And no, I don't believe there was any mention ever of where the play happens geographically. Didn't notice an accent. What kind of accent did you think it was?

Posted: 3/26/11 at 1:58am

Great review! Sounds intense, but worth catching.

Updated On: 3/26/11 at 01:58 AM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 2:03am

ghostlight- haha, sorry I meant Cody. I'm catching up on some One Life to Live right now as I'm typing and there was a scene with Brody. My mind must have mixed Cody and Brody up, ha!


SPOILERS*********
I thought they did inform him she was dead when they went to his church out of the blue that one Sunday. I guess there was no textual evidence whether they were loving or not. I just inferred a little from the tone Father Michael spoke of them that they cared for their kids and were frustrated with their daughter who went "down the wrong path."

Interesting point though that the home life may not have been that rosy and they each turned to different outlet to ease their pain.

I thought there were slight traces of a Southern accent at times. My friend thought so too, but it was only on certain words, and seemed to disappear for stretches of time. Just was wondering if anyone else heard it too. Perhaps we could have been imagining it.

Posted: 3/26/11 at 2:03am

Soap operas are garbage for old housewives, Whizzer. Sheesh.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 2:33am

SPOILERS*******

If I heard correctly, Father Michael said he SAW his parents in the distance that Palm Sunday, and since they lived two hours away, he thought that was odd and that's how he knew his sister was dead. That didn't make sense to me, either, but I don't think he mentioned actually talking to them. He just "knew" they wouldn't have come any other way.

I could be wrong. I found the writing overly convoluted, and there was a lot that didn't make a great deal of sense.

[Luv2goToShows]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 12:26pm

Spoiler********* Question

I had an annoying commenter behind me making one line predictions, not worth hushing because I feel that makes more noise, anyway I missed a line or two and this one got me wondering. Between Father and Sister, she asked him why Mary was never told. Does anyone know what she was asking about? Funny the women next to me asked aloud Who is Mary? No one answered her. LOL!

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 12:39pm

SPOILER*****
I guess he did say he just knew when they showed up that she was dead, but I guess I assumed the stayed after the service to confirm this. I didn't think they just showed up in the back of the church, caught his eye, and then left.

I'm not saying it's so much of a plot hole as something that left me wondering when I left the theater. I suppose I thought it could have been something interesting for the priest to reveal about what happened in the past for his sister to fall into that life.

I thought the most interesting and surprising moment of the evening was Kathleen's big reveal monologue in act 2. I absolutely bought every second of the story and can totally understand why her life took the turns it did.

Once Kathleen found out that Cody was Father Mike's nephew it seemed like (in hindsight) that he would have informed her about his past: she was raised by his prostitute sister, the sister was dead, etc. The way he said Cody is my sister's son gave me the impression that Kathleen knew the sister and it now all made sense to her. That's why when Cody initially began telling Kathleen that his mother was dead I actually thought he was lying and she would catch him in a lie. The purpose of the lie being that he was making his background out to be worse than it was since he came from some middle class family and was possibly thrown on the streets for being gay or something.

The way it appeared the Father Mike kept holding back information I was thinking that there might have been a big secret about what happened to his sister.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 12:43pm

SPOILER********

Luv2go- I thought that speech was about why Mary wasn't told by the angels when they came and announced she would have a son what would ultimately happen to him. If she knew her baby would grow up to be crucified, etc would she have still gone through with the pregnancy. Kathleen says she wouldn't had she known.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 1:16pm

Also, whizzer, Kathleen Turner's character's name is Sister Jamison Connelly. I figure you know that but it's odd when you refer to the other characters by their names but refer to Turner's as Kathleen. Please, this play is confusing enough on its own
It's a wonderful ensemble but not a very well-written play. It's been rewritten many times, and loose threads from the original versions still remain. Newer threads aren't well thought out, or are half-formed. The Father Michael from Act 1 bears little resemblance to the Father Michael of Act 2. There's a play in there somewhere, but I think it's too late for them to find it. Very strong performances, though.

I also think we need to rename this thread High's first preview with spoilers :)

And on that note ******SPOILERS*****
Yes, Mary refers to the mother of Christ, but don't feel bad about your confusion, Luv2go. People all around me who could hear perfectly well were asking the same question. It seems as though the playwright was trying to draw some sort parallel b/w Sister Connelly and Mother Mary - Connelly wouldn't have taken on Cody if she'd known he was Father Michael's nephew? Wouldn't have if she'd known that Cody was so far gone? Wouldn't have if she'd known from the beginning he killed the kid? It's clear the writer is trying to make a point of some sort, but damned if I know what it is, and the playwright definitely needs to clear that up or drop it. It doesn't make a lot of sense as it is. I even heard someone afterward on the street ask "Who was Mary?"

******END SPOILERS*****

Someone upthread used the word "sensational" to describe this play. I'd agree, but I wouldn't mean it as a compliment. It's sensational like the National Enquirer. The much talked about nudity is contrived and ineffective. If you're a fan of Kathleen Turner's, go. She is something to see onstage, and the rest of the cast is excellent. The play, on the other hand....


Updated On: 3/26/11 at 01:16 PM

[defyingravity11]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 8:04pm

^ I used the word "sensational," although sensationalist may have been more appropriate. Reflecting more on the play today, I think that a stronger argument for religion would have helped. If it's suppose to be about the struggle between religion and addiction or the blurry line between the two then I certainly feel that there could have been more of a struggle between the two.

[Luv2goToShows]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 8:40pm

Thanks WhizzerMarvin TrinaJasonMendel & ghostlight2

again Spoiler***,

"It's clear the writer is trying to make a point of some sort, but damned if I know what it is, and the playwright definitely needs to clear that up or drop it. It doesn't make a lot of sense as it is". I agree ghostlight2

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 10:11pm

I am curious to know what in this show is so graphic that would cause people to look away. (Just for the record, I have no intention of seeing this show)

[bjh2114]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 10:31pm

I just got back from the show. It's easily my least favorite new play of the season (not counting Elling). The whole thing was so cliche. From the dialogue to the subject matter to the structure, everything was just so "done", as it were. Stephen Kunken does the most with his small role. He actually acts. Kathleen Turner, while good, is just being Kathleen Turner. Nothing exceptional. And the kid is awful.

Honestly, I found nothing terribly graphic about the play. Granted, I was in the mezz, so perhaps I was far enough away that I wasn't grossed out. There is nudity for an extended scene (that goes on WAY too long). But the stuff involving the shooting up looked so fake that it didn't really bother me. If you're going to skip one this season, folks, this is it.
Updated On: 3/27/11 at 10:31 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 10:37pm

I respectfully disagree 110%. :)

[binau]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 10:38pm

For those who attended other performances, how was the attendance?

[CockeyedOptimist2]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 10:52pm

The orchestra looked pretty full tonight, but I don't know about the mezz. It certainly sounded quiet up there. I didn't love the play, but thought it was well performed.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 10:59pm

The mezz was empty except for the last 3 rows. The orchestra had a lot of empty seats towards the front of the theatre.

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 11:55pm

This play seemed to have followed the trajectory if the author's previous effort, "Looped." The first act was decent, with some sharp lines, then the second ran down badly. Again, as in so many other plays nowadays, a character directly addresses the audience, and it's deadly.

Kathleen Turner did a good job.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 3/27/11 at 1:03am

"I used the word "sensational," although sensationalist may have been more appropriate."

Sensational works for me, defyingravity. From Merriam-Webster: arousing or tending to arouse (as by lurid details) a quick, intense, and usually superficial interest, curiosity, or emotional reaction ie: "sensational tabloid news", an almost perfect description of the play. I mostly agree with bjh2114, except that I think Evan Jonigkeit, like Kunken, is doing the best that he can with what he is given. I also agree with After Eight, except for me the play started to slip towards the end of Act 1. The original act 1 ending was actually quite powerful, ending abruptly on a very uncertain but hopeful note. Now it's just cliched.

I think I'd say the play was better last summer than it is now. I think the reviews will be kind to Turner and will say the same about Kunken that I just did. Not sure how they'll react to Jonigkeit. I have seen him in other productions and know him to be a good actor, but his character here is so one note, there's not much he can do with it. If the sets and lights are mentioned, they'll be praised, rightfully so.

Lombardo won't fare very well.

"Kathleen Turner, while good, is just being Kathleen Turner."

True, but you have to admit, nobody does that better

Updated On: 3/27/11 at 01:03 AM