THE BOYS IN THE BAND (2018) Previews- Page 5

[Danielle49]

Posted: 5/4/18 at 2:51pm

KingOfThePigPeople said: "Pacing is way way way low. I wonder if a cause of this could be the physical distance onstage between the actors, and something to do with the sound design. It feels very under-miked. Are these actors speaking slowly and with zero agility because they perceive that they need to do so,in order to catch the audience's eye and ear? The physical world of the show is also very "recessed" away from the audience, creating a distance that does not serve the script in acoustic terms and line delivery terms.

The "stop time" thing to illustrate Michael having a drink takes us RIGHT out. If it's in there once, it should be a motif through the night. Otherwise it makes no sense and insults the audience who must be too dumb to follow the protagonist and see him pour a drink as the chaos becomes unbearable for him

"When she acts, she's lethal." Jim Parsons is doing this production no favors. Sorry. Everyone else is pretty much fine (we could do without the contemporary-isms that Andrew Rannells throws in occasionally)but that vase of flowers on the table commands the stage more than Parsons. Not for one second did I believe that anyone would be afraid of the wrath of Michael. You could flick him over with your finger. Not for one second did I believe that anyone would show up weekend after weekend because Michael is actually quite engaging and essential."

As much as I loved the play, these are such on-point criticisms. I do think all but the Parsons thing can be fixed during previews.

They indeed need to work on the sound - there were issues from the first scene between Parsons and Bomer. I think a lot of the issue right now involves all of the movement around the set and its panels.

I got antsy during the phone call scene just waiting for them to pick up cues and move through monologues faster. It was that point when I really felt the lack of intermission. I assume they'll speed up as previews go on and they get more comfortable with the text onstage. Cutting 20 minutes does still seem like a stretch though.

I hope to god that they cut the time-stop moment. They could easily center the eye on Parsons at that moment with a little tightening of the staging. I assumed it was just something they were trying to see if they wanted to implement it more as a device.

Ah, Jim Parsons. I thought he was fine, but considering his comedic background I was irked by lots of his line delivery. I found myself wondering why anyone was friends with Michael at all - and of course he just becomes less and less empathetic throughout the night. The top-billed actors - Parsons and Quinto - were actually my least enjoyed of the night. In reference to the Rannells note, the only reason why I knew the play was set in the '60s was by reading the Playbill. I'm a biased Rannells fan so I still found him delightful.

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 5/5/18 at 11:07pm

Tonight's preview ran two hours without intermission despite the ushers announcing 1:40.

Knowing the film hurts as I found Parson and Quinto one note in comparison. The result was that Rannells and Watkins became the heart and highlight of the production.

The first half comedy is fun but the second half feels low stakes. The film cast seemed destroyed by the party where as this cast tonight bounced back quickly. It makes the play feel insubstantial.

To an earlier question: A house left balcony seat gives you a great (if brief) view of the nudity though it's behind tinted glass.

[Boston Friend]

Posted: 5/5/18 at 11:43pm

Ben Platt was there tonight. He seemed to enjoy it. 

[broadwaynerdnewbie]

Posted: 5/6/18 at 12:11am

Boston Friend said: "Ben Platt was there tonight. He seemed to enjoy it."

I’m sad he didn’t or hasn’t posted about it yet I always look forward to his tweets about the shows he sees. I’m still very excited yo see this show next month. 

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 5/6/18 at 12:38pm

The tickets I wanted went up $40 each overnight, so I gave in and finally purchased them. Hopefully the pacing issues are worked on a little before Saturday - as much as I want to see this show, I want my partner to have a great time. This and Bette’s Dolly return are the only Broadway shows he’s actually cared about in a while and I want this surprise to pay off! 

Looking forward to seeing the merch stand as well. 

[GottaHaveAGimmick]

Posted: 5/6/18 at 12:59pm

Two tickets for sale:

Saturday May 12, 8pm. ORCH H4, H6

Face value $169 each OBO

Send private message. 

Updated On: 5/6/18 at 12:59 PM

[RJEvans]

Posted: 5/7/18 at 12:52pm

Anyone know if/when any of the guys will be out. I'm thinking of a July 4th matinee, but given it's the holiday I think it's a good chance many of them will be out. I may end up doing a Saturday evening instead.

[quizking101]

Posted: 5/7/18 at 9:58pm

I doubt that anyone would intentionally take off during a busy holiday week(end?) unless they had a prior engagement and it was announced in advance. If they are out, it would probably be illness

The run is only 15 weeks long, which isn't that much of a commitment on Broadway these days. If it was an open run, I could see people taking vacations and the like.

[nealb1]

Posted: 5/8/18 at 10:12am

Saw the show last night.  Incredibly talented cast.  I had never seen the play or the film before.  It was very depressing and just so.........off putting.  Self-loathing characters who have to bring everybody down with them.  Who would be friends with someone like that and continue to tolerate that abuse? 

Is there nudity in the original play?  I just felt it wasn't necessary - what was the point? 

[broadwaybabywannabe2]

Posted: 5/8/18 at 10:23am

nealb1 said: "Saw the show last night. Incredibly talented cast. I had never seen the play or the film before. It was very depressing and just so.........off putting. Self-loathing characters who have to bring everybody down with them. Who would be friends with someone like that and continue to tolerate that abuse?

Is there nudity in the original play? I just felt it wasn't necessary - what was the point?"

i would normally thank you for this preview review but since you went into this play without knowing one thing about the play or film that followed i think you can be excused for your ignorance...this is a time capsule of where Gay men were in the late 60's...i was there and this is how we as Gay men were being portrayed in society...what there is here is strength in numbers and when Gay men hung out together,  this play shows us the various types of men that inhibited the scene back then...and depressing?...A LONG DAYS JOURNEY INTO NIGHT/A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE/THREE SISTERS....now those are truly depressing plays...albeit masterpieces of theatre...

one more thing...there are so many great lines in this play that Gay men have used for decades...and they all are truly funny lines...this play lives on as all great theatrical plays do...

 

Updated On: 5/8/18 at 10:23 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 5/8/18 at 11:44am

nealb1 asked: "Is there nudity in the original play?  I just felt it wasn't necessary - what was the point?"

No, I believe that there was not, although in the movie, there's a quick flash of Donald's butt as he gets in the shower early in the evening.

Is that the nudity in this production, or is there more? Mantello does love naked men on stage...

[BWAY Baby2]

Posted: 5/8/18 at 12:56pm

To me, that is the essential question I ask myself when I ponder returning to NYC just to see this production- as Nealb seemed to feel- will it be a depressing roll in self deprecating mud- witty and catty and entertaining as that might be- or will it say something to me that is truly important- will it shed light on my own identity and dignity as a gay man- and touch me deeply- as all good theater does to me- Iceman Cometh being the latest masterpiece that blew me away- so I am still on the fence- deciding if flying to NY from Atlanta is important enough to leave my partner who is suffering now with gall stones- but I LOVE theater and one night away won't be the end of the world. Still trying to make up my mind.

[broadwaybabywannabe2]

Posted: 5/8/18 at 3:04pm

BWAY Baby2 said: "To me, that is the essential question I ask myself when I ponder returning to NYC just to see this production- as Nealb seemed to feel- will it be a depressing roll in self deprecating mud- witty and catty and entertaining as  but I LOVE theater and one night away won't be the end of the world. Still trying to make up my mind."

well i am flying in from Palm Springs just to see this theatre event...it is potentially one of the major theatrical events of the new 18/19 season...as with any theatrical piece you take your chances, but my feeling is i wont be disappointed...just look at the cast...i know to some here who are much younger seeing an all male Gay cast is nothing to sneeze at, but i am of another time and this is something i do not want to miss...

P.S. LOVE THE SHORTENED NAME LIKE MINE!...bitch...:)

[Capeguy]

Posted: 5/8/18 at 3:20pm

I was there last night. I came of age in the early 70s so I really identified with this show. I went to parties like this (not quite so dramatic) but with friends like all of the characters in the play. Was it funny? Yes. Were there some 60s lines that made me squirm a bit -- only a few -- it was not depressing at all. For the most part the play is really timeless. A lot has changed since 1968 but at the same time, many of the issues of identity and masculinity are the same today. This is an important part of gay history. The cast is strong and it's still an early preview -- a great set -- good direction. Regarding the question of nudity. There's a split second of Matt's butt. It depends on where you sit whether or not you'll even see it. The audience loved the show. The stage door had a huge crowd and the cast came out and went through the entire line signing autographs and most posed for selfies. I had expected the audience to be primarily gay men. There were as many women and straight couples as gay men. I wonder if it will extend with replacements assuming many of actors may have prior commitments?

[geoffreyC]

Posted: 5/8/18 at 3:59pm

broadwaybabywannabe2 said: "nealb1 said: "Saw the show last night. Incredibly talented cast. I had never seen the play or the film before. It was very depressing and just so.........off putting. Self-loathing characters who have to bring everybody down with them. Who would be friends with someone like that and continue to tolerate that abuse?

Is there nudity in the original play? I just felt it wasn't necessary - what was the point?"

i would normally thank you for this preview review but since you went into this play without knowing one thing about the play or film that followed i think you can be excused for your ignorance...this is a time capsule of where Gay men were in the late 60's...i was there and this is how we as Gay men were being portrayed in society...what there is here is strength in numbers and when Gay men hung out together, this play shows us the various types of men that inhibited the scene back then...and depressing?...A LONG DAYS JOURNEY INTO NIGHT/ASTREETCAR NAMED DESIRE/THREE SISTERS....now those are truly depressing plays...albeit masterpieces of theatre...

one more thing...there are so many great lines in this play that Gay men have used for decades...and they all are truly funny lines...this play lives on as all great theatrical plays do...

"

Calling someone ignorant when their criticisms are actually quite valid but happen to differ from yours is not really productive and rather mean-spirited.  

 

[BWAY Baby2]

Posted: 5/8/18 at 4:04pm

Hey Sistah wannabe broadway baby 2, 3..ad infinitum and beyond- I tried to change my name- but could not figure out how to do it. I am a transplanted New Yorker- living here in Atlanta for many years- and have a partner of 22 years. Saw all the shows in the sixties as an adolescent- Barbra in FG- Liza in Flora- Angela in Mame...etc. Love theater and go in to visit my family regularly- and always see several shows- last month Iceman and MFLady- both A Plus. You have me thinking I need to get in to see Boys- with a matinee of Three Tall Women- gonna make my plans and do it. Thank you for the push. 

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 5/9/18 at 8:27am

The thing about nudity is, it should be a directional or dramaturgical choice that ultimately serves the play. In Angels, if the actor playing Joe does not take off all of his clothes in a certain scene, he is not doing his job right--the scene requires nudity to make sense and work. In Boys, however, I don't see what Mantello is trying to achieve that scene by having Bomber go half nude other than some eye candy gimmicks. It takes the audience right out of the world of the play without a legit reason to do with.

Updated On: 5/9/18 at 08:27 AM

[yesraccoons]

Posted: 5/9/18 at 9:53am

I saw the show Saturday and what has particularly stuck with me and has kept reminding me of the play these past few days is Rannell's delivery of the line about getting the phone upstairs to Hank. My friend and I have been constantly discussing how Rannells performance was the best in our opinion and are repeatedly blown away the more we think about it. The other actors were good but Rannells has great. I may not be the biggest fan of him personally but he really was very good in this show. Don't know if others agree and liked his performance best but I wish this had opened before the Tonys so he could be nominated. 

Updated On: 5/9/18 at 09:53 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 5/9/18 at 9:57am

"Don't know if others agree and liked his performance best but I wish this had opened before the Tonys so he could be nominated."

It did open before the Tonys - the 2018-19 Tonys.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/9/18 at 10:16am

Dancingthrulife2 said: "In Angels, if the actor playing Joe does not take off all of his clothes in a certain scene, he is not doing his job right--the scene requires nudity to make sense and work. In Boys, however, I don't see what Mantello is trying to achievethat scene by having Bomber go half nude other than some eye candy gimmicks. It takes the audience right out of the world of the play without a legit reason to do with."

I have yet to see BOYS...but I disagree with everything in this post.

David Marshall Grant did not fully disrobe in the 'winter Atlantic' scene in the original Broadway prodcution (nor did his replacement Jay Geode).  I've since seen the scene played with the full nudity and I don't think anything was lost in the original production by not revealing Joe's genitals.  

And I disagree that nudity at that moment of Boys in the Band is a gimmick.  It established the comfort Donald has with Michael and with his surroundings.  

 

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 5/9/18 at 10:47am

And I disagree that nudity at that moment of Boys in the Band is a gimmick.  It established the comfort Donald has with Michael and with his surroundings.

I agree.  This brief split-second moment happens within the first few minutes of the play and instantly establishes their friendship relationship.  In mid-conversation taking place in the bathroom, one is doing his thing and the other is doing his thing (getting into the shower) all while talking.  Its not a sexual moment nor intended this way.  Its equivalent to having a husband and wife talking in their bathroom and the wife using the toilet while her husband is shaving.  

[yesraccoons]

Posted: 5/9/18 at 1:56pm

newintown said: ""Don't know if others agree and liked his performance best but I wish this had opened before the Tonys so he could be nominated."

Itdidopen before the Tonys - the 2018-19 Tonys."

Lol I'm aware I meant so that it was eligible to be nominated.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/9/18 at 1:59pm

He is eligible to be nominated - next year.

[yesraccoons]

Posted: 5/9/18 at 2:44pm

newintown said: "Heiseligible to be nominated - next year."

Is the nitpicking needed? I think it's clear what I mean. If not, eligible to be nominated for this year.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/9/18 at 2:49pm

What difference does it make what year he's eligible? Is the world ending between now and June 2019?