The Inheritance - Previews- Page 13

[Wick3]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 4:09pm

If you’re splurging, sit in left orchestra aisle 4-5 rows back closer to center orchestra. Great view and no heads in front of you with better legroom. Bring a seat cushion to make it more comfortable.

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 8:39pm

I'd mentioned when I saw the show that Sam Levine's performance felt like the weak link. Yet I've seen some critics rave about him. Watching his interview today with Broadway.com I'm getting the feeling that he's been trained for television. He may be doing something subtle that carries to the front orchestra. But from the mezzanine his deadpan style caused him to vanish next to his extroverted co-stars.

The standout for me was Andrew Burnap. I'll be interested to see what he does next.

[persephone88]

Posted: 12/21/19 at 11:23am

Should we move our seats? Seeing this over the holidays - we have first row center of the mezzanine. I see that there are also third row center orchestra tickets available for that show. Do you think it is worth switching from front mezz to Row C orchestra, or is that too close? Can you see all the way back from 3rd row, or should we stay front mezz? We saw Angels up close and loved being that close to the actors - not sure if it is as big a deal for this show to risk having a tall person in front of us in third row vs. front of mezz...

[hork]

Posted: 12/21/19 at 12:50pm

persephone88 said: "Should we move our seats? Seeing this over the holidays - we have first row center of the mezzanine. I see that there are also third row center orchestra tickets available for that show. Do you think it is worth switching from front mezz to Row C orchestra, or is that too close? Can you see all the way back from 3rd row, or should we stay front mezz?We saw Angels up close and loved being that close to the actors - not sure if it is as big a deal for this show to risk having a tall person in front of us in third row vs. front of mezz..."

Third row seems too close. The stage is raised so you'd be craning your neck the whole time. Front row mezzanine sounds better.

[hork]

Posted: 12/21/19 at 12:53pm

Actually, I take it back. I think I had third row and it was fine (though I was looking up more than I would have liked). You might also get an actor crawling over you. Either way your seats are fine.

[Swiss Miss]

Posted: 12/21/19 at 5:22pm

I have TDF tickets to both parts for tomorrow. Does anyone know where the locations have been lately? I am concerned as I walk with a cane, use portable oxygen, and have a hard time with stairs. 

[Swiss Miss]

Posted: 12/21/19 at 5:22pm

I have TDF tickets to both parts for tomorrow. Does anyone know where the locations have been lately? I am concerned as I walk with a cane, use portable oxygen, and have a hard time with stairs. 

[220Basswood]

Posted: 12/22/19 at 1:46am

Does anyone know if this show will still be listed on places like TKTS and TDF once Tony Goldwyn takes over?  I am debating between waiting to buy tickets after he starts or buying them now out of a fear that the show will raise the prices when he joins the production.  

[BWAY Baby2]

Posted: 12/22/19 at 2:19am

I had row 3 of orchestra- center- and the seats were fantastic- grab them!

[A Director]

Posted: 12/22/19 at 3:02am

MrsSallyAdams said: "I'd mentioned when I saw the show that Sam Levine's performance felt like the weak link. Yet I've seen some critics rave about him. Watching his interview today with Broadway.com I'm getting the feeling that he's been trained for television. He may be doing something subtle that carries to the front orchestra. But from the mezzanine his deadpan style caused him to vanish next to his extroverted co-stars.

This will answer your question about training. https://www.todaytix.com/insider/london/posts/7-quick-questions-for-the-inheritance-star-samuel-h-levine  You must not have been paying close attention, but he talks about  his training in the Broadway.com interview.

[hork]

Posted: 12/22/19 at 12:11pm

Levine's performance was a weird one for me. I thought his stilited performance as Adam was an interesting choice (and it was clearly a choice), and it gave the character a kind of quirky likability. But then when he played Leo he was still stilted and stiff, just in a slightly different way, so then I started thinking maybe he's just not a very good actor and was using artificial stiffness to cover up his natural stiffness.

[broadway86]

Posted: 12/22/19 at 1:41pm

MrsSallyAdams said: "The standout for me was Andrew Burnap. I'll be interested to see what he does next."

Yes, absolutely. All I heard about beforehand was Kyle Soller, and he was pretty great. But I thought Burnap was just fantastic.

[NativeNYer2]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 2:20am

I saw  both parts of The Inheritance on Saturday.  Here are my thoughts, and, I'd like to ask some questions and get opinions from others who saw the play.

The Good:

The acting was really excellent.  The real standout for me was Soller particularly because of the reactions he was having to the things happening around him at the end of Part I (trying not to spoil things here).  At the end of the first act of Part I, they have the whole "And then Jason got it... and then Nicholas got it... and then Fred got it..." sequence. and I was ashamed at myself for not having an emotional reaction when people around me were having reactions.  In fact, the person behind me was crying and uttered the word "F--k" and I wanted to have a similar reaction, but did not.  Perhaps because I was a child during the 80s, and did not live through the epidemic aware of what was going on in the gay community, it didn't affect me the same way it might have affected others.  But at the end of Act I, I was indeed weeping... not only to have better understood the losses of the epidemic, but because Soller's reactions were so beautiful.  These moments characterized Eric as kind and caring and listening and everything anyone in their right mind should want as a friend and a partner.  Soller communicated to the audience how profoundly Eric feels things, and that was very effective to me.

The play did not feel like seven hours.  It was an accessible play, very easy to follow, and the direction was very personal.  I particularly thought the comedic timing of the wedding sequence was a directorial feat.  The images at the back of the stage were effective.  My favorite scene other than the end of Act I would be the scene in which Walter shares to Eric what the house means to him.  Young Walter and Young Henry are positioned upstage, one laying with his head on the other's chest, and as Walter described the house and the petals fell, I totally felt a Westchester breeze come across my face and the sun on my back.  I was right there with them.

The Bad:

I don't know how this is going to be received on this board, but I found some of the commentary about gay people rather insulting.  I am an out gay man.  I am not ashamed to be gay; in fact, I'm proud.  But a line like "The best thing about being gay is the orgasms" or "Gay men shouldn't buy underwear in Costco until they are at least 40" makes me feel ashamed to be gay.  I know these lines were intended with humor, but I also believe they are true to the characters' beliefs.  I don't feel the best thing about being gay is the orgasms, and while I admittedly don't buy underwear in Costco, I wouldn't shame someone who did.  The line about underwear implies that gay men have a heightened relationship with underwear over other individuals.  Is this true?  My underwear isn't a focal part of my life.  I have to admit that when I had this conversation with some gay friends, they told me there was something wrong with any gay man who didn't own underwear with a little sleeve to put your member in, and I was confused because I didn't know this existed.  And why do the rules change after 40?  Are people in the post-40 crowd more confident so they don't need provocative underwear, or is that they shouldn't care anymore because they would be considered undesirable by this group anyway?  Also, note that the only character in this group of friends who is never shirtless is Eric, who is the most emotionally available character of them all.  Is this a coincidence, or is there a connection here?  

When Adam tells his erotic tale to Toby, I found it to be sad.  (My friend was unsure if Adam was speaking the truth, or if he was spinning a tale that was aiming to arouse Toby.  What do you think?)  I don't believe I have seen a play in the past in which a character speaks about participating in such a romp, but why did the first character to have a monologue about being ejaculated upon by 30 men have to be a gay male?  I have argued with people that gay men do not care more about sex than individuals who are not gay men,. but speeches like this make it harder for me to prove my case.  As a point of cultural reference,.when the show Queer as Folk was on TV, as a show about a gay group of friends in Pittsburgh, why did it have to have its opening credits be men dancing in their underwear?  Why was there a line on Desperate Housewives about one of the gay characters having sex with 100 people?  Why must there be a link between gay men and rampant permiscuity?  Why are straight writers more reluctant to have their characters portrayed as permiscuous (although it certainly happens sometimes), when it exists in their culture too?  Or am I fooling myself, and reluctant to accept the possibility that while it does happen in the straight community, it's a drop in the bucket as compared to the gay male community?  Maybe I'd expect this from a homophobic playwright who wanted to portray his gay characters as not caring about commitment and love, but somehow it's always gay writers who portray gay characters as totally preoccupied with sex.  

i also thought the fact that the actors did not have (other than Andrew Burnap around his bellybutton) a follicle of hair to be irresponsible.  If the play is a celebration of gay men, and it only portrays gay men as having one kind of body, then it subliminally sends a message that this is how the gay body should look.  I cannot believe that all of those actors are naturally hairless.  I don't find hair sexy or unsexy... but they didn't have to show all bodies as being the same.  Is this a play about a group of gay friends or a play about a group of gay twinks?  I could say the same about no one being overweight, but perhaps an overweight actor might have felt uncomfortable doing the dancing in Part II.

I understand that depriving Eric of the Westchester house was necessary to reference the most crucial plot point of Howards End, but this ultimately did not become a source of conflict in The Inheritance.  There was no payoff to that plot point, and Eric kind of shrugged it off when he heard about it.  This did not seem realistic.

The Questions:

Did anyone find it distracting that the play made a point of letting us know Eric was Jewish, when it never became relevant in the play?  I mean, if I was writing a play, and I decided to make a character diabetic, and they never had a diabetic episode the entire play, that would be peculiar.  The audience would wonder: Why did I have to know that character was diabetic?  The same goes for Eric's Jewishness.  Why did we need to know that if it doesn't affect the play at all?  Also, did anyone catch that his Holocaust-surviving grandma was in an urn?  This also should bear explanation.  Why would a Jewish woman of that generation be cremated?  It would have been entirely against the norm, and is too peculiar to go unexplained... unless this was a detail that the dramaturg missed and it is in fact a mistake gone uncorrected.

I found it odd that Henry Wilcox became such a powerful tycoon as a gay man at that time.  I would not be surprised if today a gay man led an empire and had that kind of money, but in the 80s and 90s, it seems unlikely.  We know that at one point he was married to a woman.  Did he use this to pose as straight even after her death, and is this denial of his sexuality what allowed him to be so wealthy?  Or was he functioning as an out gay man who somehow rose to the top?  

Also, the fact that Henry has bajillions of dollars makes it harder to believe that he would deprive Eric of the house.  I mean, why would he care if Eric gets the house?  He has three other homes, and more money than he knows what to do with.  He could use dollar bills as toilet paper and never go through it all.  I know that in Howards End, Henry deprives Margaret of the house, but the Henry of the novel is not nearly as wealthy as the Henry of The Inheritance, making it less likely that Henry would even care about who gets that house.

Eric is the kindest,most loving character on the stage.  He also has an interest in literature and film.  We are told he is not as attractive as the others.  We also see him turn down sex from Adam, when he is clearly interested in him.  Are we supposed to make a link here that having an interest in literature and film, being less attractive, and being able to resist one's sexual desires and impulses are indicative of a kinder, more loving soul?  Are these qualities in him what ultimately allows for the interactions at the end of Act I?  After all, he felt like a chosen person in those moments.  Those interactions would not happen with any mortal, and they do not happen with others who are in the house.  Is a message here that we should aspire to be less preoccupied with beauty, interested in great art, and able to resist our sexual desires so that we can have more transcendent lives?  

Updated On: 12/23/19 at 02:20 AM

[clever2]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 3:47am

NativeNYer2 said: "The Good:

The acting was really excellent. The real standout for me was Soller....These moments characterized Eric as kind and caring and listening and everything anyone in their right mind should want as a friend and a partner. Soller communicated to the audience how profoundly Eric feels things, and that was very effective to me.....the direction was very personal. 

The Bad:

.....a line like "The best thing about being gay is the orgasms" or "Gay men shouldn't buy underwear in Costco until they are at least 40" makes me feel ashamed to be gay....I don't feel the best thing about being gay is the orgasms, and while I admittedly don't buy underwear in Costco.....My underwear isn't a focal part of my life..... they told me there was something wrong with any gay man who didn't own underwear with a little sleeve to put your member in....And why do the rules change after 40? Are people in the post-40 crowd more confident..... or is that they shouldn't care anymore because they would be considered undesirable by this group anyway?

When Adam tells his erotic tale to Toby, I found it to be sad. (My friend was unsure if Adam was speaking the truth, or if he was spinning a tale that was aiming to arouse Toby. What do you think?).....Why must there be a link between gay men and rampant permiscuity?.....somehow it's always gay writers who portray gay characters as totally preoccupied with sex.

....If the play is a celebration of gay men, and it only portrays gay men as having one kind of body, then it subliminally sends a message that this is how the gay body should look.....Is this a play about a group of gay friends or a play about a group of gay twinks? I could say the same about no one being overweight.....

.....depriving Eric of the Westchester house .....There was no payoff to that plot point, and Eric kind of shrugged it off when he heard about it. This did not seem realistic.

The Questions:

Did anyone find it distracting that the play made a point of letting us know Eric was Jewish, when it never became relevant in the play?

Eric is the kindest,most loving character on the stage. He also has an interest in literature and film. We are told he is not as attractive as the others.....Are we supposed to make a link here that having an interest in literature and film, being less attractive, and being able to resist one's sexual desires and impulses are indicative of a kinder, more loving soul?

ERIC’S JEWISH?!

I’m kidding, I’m kidding. But like so many things in The Inheritance, that detail only matters when Eric describes the history of his apartment (while using language no human being would ever use).

OKAY. You had quite the experience. Let me preface this by saying I have seen this play three times. Not because I love it, but because I’m fascinated with what a missed opportunity it is in almost every way. Within those seven hours is a three hour long work of art. But the fat of those seven hours so overcomes the meat, it really is a struggle to discern what in the world Matthew Lopez is trying to do. 

Personally, I believe Daldry and the dramaturgy and the producers really failed the playwright in this case. I think everyone saw stars and lightning bolts signifying the next Angels in America. Two part, seven hour long expression of the gay New York experience nearly 30 years after Angels in America first premiered on Broadway. I don’t think anyone ever sat down with the author and said, “Matt, there is a magnificent play hiding within all of this muck. Let’s sit down and try to find it.” I believe they all revered Lopez as infallible, and so now we have this train wreck to contend with.

remember throughout this comment that I opened by saying there is a magnificent three hour long play hidden within this show. I can’t stress that enough.

you seem to have high praise for Kyle Soller as an actor, which he richly deserves. I think his performance may have tricked you into thinking Eric is something more than he actually is. Eric Glass is milk toast. He has no personality. He reflects the characteristics of the people around him. He works for a nondescript activist group, which isn’t a real job. His understanding of music, art, and film is very generic and predictable. he is also a Gold digger. An out right Golddigger. The kind of Gold digger who would reject his friends and their beliefs in order to maintain the wealthy life he has gathered for himself through his heartless, emotionally detached relationship with Henry Wilcox. The only moment in the play in which Eric expresses any true humanity is when he freaks out at Toby Darling at his wedding. and that moment is so hateful and brutal, revealing to me what I believed Eric’s true character was, that it honestly made it impossible for me to give a damn about that person, regardless of Kyle Soller.

by the way, this is Andrew Burnap’s play. His is the only performance that truly evolves into a complete metamorphosis. In lesser hands, that character would be insufferable. But Burnap paints such a gut wrenching portrait of a broken man hiding inside of all that physical beauty. What Burnap does on stage is short of miraculous and, honestly, the only reason to see the play in its current form. 

This play, in this form, is not a celebration of gay men. It is not inclusive. It does not care about you. Right now, this play doesn’t care about anybody. There are moments, yes, that emotionally manipulate audiences to feel something extreme because they are blindsided by said manipulation. This play, in this form, is a celebration of what could only be termed best as the generic gay man. The generic gym rats. The generic art lovers. The generic fire island gays. The generic drug use. The generic gang banging. The generic political discussions. The generic mentions of categories of queer outside of the ones we see on stage, such as a four second shout out to members of the trans community, as if that one mention is supposed to satisfy a quota. “Better mention those trans people or someone’s going to get angry!”

I don’t buy my underwear from Costco either. My underwear is all the same. Black boxer briefs. It’s been that way since I was a teenager. Absolutely no person I have had sex with in the history of my sex life has ever paused for a moment to contemplate my underwear as he was undressing me. Never. It’s a stupid thing, this underwear business. Yes, there’s an obsession with it among a certain type of people. But those are the people who tend to flock together and have conversations less interesting than those I suspect two aardvarks would have. So, who cares what they think and what they believe is insanity in regard to the type of underwear you wear. What a ridiculous issue that I can’t believe I just spent an entire paragraph talking about. And that Lopez has used this extraordinary gift, this opportunity, this platform and allowed room for underwear propaganda is very telling.

yes, the play is about one kind of body. The play, 98% of it, is also about one kind of race. But that’s a whole other can of worms. So let’s talk about bodies. There is discussion of Eric being the lesser attractive of that entire group of friends. And yet Kyle Soller is an otter prince. He’s absolutely adorable. I don’t think that can be even something to question. So to have a beautiful person (Toby) accuse another beautiful person (Eric) of not being attractive…It’s laughable. I know the audience gasps at that moment, the moment of the insult. But they’re only gasping at the drama. They’re not gasping at Toby’s blatant honesty and reacting to something they’ve known all along, which would be that Eric isn’t good looking. But Kyle Soller is good looking. He may not be everyone’s type, but no one is everyone’s type. Regardless, the moment is disingenuous and means nothing other than “oh girl, no you didn’t!” 

i’m going to bite the bullet here and tell you that Adam is lying about Prague. His cocky, knowing glance out at the audience at the end of that scene is proof enough of that. Adam, as a character, is a big mistake. What should have happened is the removal of Adam and combining some of his personality traits with Leo. So when Toby first hires Leo and he shows up at Toby’s apartment, Leo could have all the arrogance that Adam has and the Prague story could have been part of their first encounter. Leo has Henry Wilcox for a client. Leo should not look like he’s broken and dying all the time. Leo is financially doing pretty well if he is dealing with clients like Henry on any sort of regular basis, which I assume he probably is. So wouldn’t it be interesting if Leo started with Adam’s personality and then those walls eventually crumbled and revealed behind them was a scared kid? That interests me far more than the character of Adam being shoved in my face throughout part one as someone who is important who I am supposed to care about, only to have him completely vanished from the play. Adam, as a character, results in nothing. Nothing that Adam says or does is relevant to anything. Toby and Eric already have thousands of reasons to break up. They did not need Adam to act as a catalyst for that.

Like I said, there’s a lot of junk surrounding what I believe is probably a wonderful play. But that wonderful play is annihilated by a very distracted playwright, a playwright who no one was honest with during the creation of this play. And it shows. We can talk about the acting, the direction all the live long day. But the text is a mess.

what breaks my heart is that could have been one of the most powerful plays to have hit the Broadway stage in a long time. And it isn’t. But it should’ve been.

also. The end of part one? The moment of the play that everyone is talking about? That is the end of the play in the wrong place. That moment is how the entire play should end. There’s a way to fix that and the entire play itself. I hope someone gets real with this author soon. And I sure hope to God what is at the Barrymore right now won’t be the final draft of The Inheritance.
 

 

 

Updated On: 12/23/19 at 03:47 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 8:42am

I know I’m in the minority, but I did not find the end of part one moving. I found it manipulative. It gains its power not from anything in the play itself but from the audience’s knowledge- and own memories of loss- of the AIDS crisis.

And the fact that Eric experiences what would be either a massive psychotic break or an incredibly transcendental moment of transformation for him and is barely changed at all is telling. In fact, he spends most of Part 2 preoccupied with the fact that Henry doesn’t want to have sex with him. In the actual plot of the show, there arent supernatural or heightened elements- the Forster stuff exists only in the meta theatrical framing device- yet Eric just saw and interacted with like two dozen ghosts. And shrugs it off.

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 9:10am

This play has become the closest thing to Star Wars for me this fall. A piece of entertainment aimed directly at me that has gotten stuck in my head since I saw it. For its flaws as much as its strengths. I wish more people in my life would go see it so I could debate it with them. I've enjoyed the discussion on this board.

Updated On: 12/23/19 at 09:10 AM

[clever2]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 9:38am

Kad said: "I know I’m in the minority, but I did not find the end of part one moving. I found it manipulative. It gains its power not from anything in the play itself but from the audience’s knowledge- and own memories of loss- of the AIDS crisis.

And the fact that Eric experiences what would be either a massive psychotic break or an incredibly transcendental moment of transformation for him and is barely changed at all is telling. In fact, he spends most of Part 2 preoccupied with the fact that Henry doesn’t want to have sex with him. In the actual plot of the show, there arent supernatural or heightened elements- the Forster stuff exists only in the meta theatrical framing device- yet Eric just saw and interacted with like two dozen ghosts. And shrugs it off. "
 

I wasn’t moved either. I even predicted it was going to happen a moment before it happened. And I admit the version of the play that exists in my head would be a wildly different experience from the one that exists now. That’s why I believe, in a severely cut and rearranged version, ending the play with that moment would no longer be manipulative. Instead, I believe it would be perceived as transcendent, as you said. because that would be it. There would be no moment after it, no follow up. The way it is now, it’s tacked on.

 

[haterobics]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 11:28am

clever2 said: "I even predicted it was going to happen a moment before it happened."

This hardly would make you a useful clairvoyant.

[clever2]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 11:30am

haterobics said: "clever2 said: "I even predicted it was going to happen a moment before it happened."

This hardly would make you a useful clairvoyant. "

The man I’d never seen before walked onto the stage, introduced himself to Eric Glass, and I thought, “I know what he is and I know what’s about to happen all over this theater.“ It’s not about being clairvoyant. It’s about the ability to predict the obvious. 

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 11:42am

Saw Pt 2. last night after Pt 1 3 weeks ago. Great seat, Orchestra N center (about ideal) and on TDF.

Not much to add to the discussion, and I appreciate all of the posters who feel Pt. 1 is a fully satisfying stand-alone theater piece. I think Daldry's staging of the second half is exquisite, and Crowley finds new ways to vary his minimalist designs. Some beautiful imagery makes a further case for the structural elegance in the play proper. This glowing slab in the middle of darkness keeps surprising us, as does Daldry.

My reservation about Part 2 matches my overall reservation I felt after reading the entire play in the fall. Eric, as protagonist, is never quite as compelling as Lopez wants -- or needs -- him to be. The other characters' responses to him sometimes feel very much about the playwright's requirement that Eric deeply impact their lives. I take nothing from the hard working Soller, who has one of the more challenging jobs right now, to make this sometimes cipher-like man the fulcrum in this 6.5 hour drama. His journey in part one feels very much like that trajectory of youth. His self-absorption is understandable, and he tries to find footing in a city that swallows whole young men like him. But the play keeps making a case that he's special and wonderful and beautiful in complex ways. If others see it, I don't. A stranger sitting next to me said very much the same thing after the second act of part 2, during the 3 minute hiatus. "Okay, he's supposed to be the good guy. But who ELSE is he?" I believe that's well said. He's also got a spot of cruelty which I find more interesting than the posters who find it off-putting. That mean-spirited retaliatory side of Eric makes me listen to him more. I welcomed a shift away from so much voiced pain. The final minutes explain what became of Eric, and the heroism in that part of the narrative is all reported, not really shown. Oddly enough, coming at the end of seven hours, it felt rushed. On the way out, people were saying "wait, so he does all of THAT? Later?"

It doesn't take anything from the achievement. Lopez is young, supremely gifted, and his play is wildly ambitious; he’s bound to ruffle feathers in a work that presumes to illustrate and annotate LGBTQ history while paying homage to and actually folding in Forster. Whatever my subjective reservations about his protagonist, I’m in awe of that audacity. The execution is still deeply moving.

And I join those wowed by Andrew Burnap. MILD SPOILER: His aria-like monologue at the top of Act 3 of Part 2 is effing bravura. I'd read it, but in performance I literally leaned forward. Nothing quite tops it, and he's masterful. But then, well, something arrives that comes close. Lois Smith. At 89, at the top of her game. Her sheer presence -- and the commanding voice and no-nonsense precision in her speech ground this woman in mysterious ways -- adds immeasurably. I understand the many reservations about the character's 11th hour intrusion. We don't need to know anything she says. Much of it is in other plays about the epidemic (on the page I thought of "AS IS," the play no one mentions.) But the audience last night was in her palm, and her character's, the real point. She is surely a special gift to this production, and if you see only part one, you miss her. For some, reason enough to go.

[NativeNYer2]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 11:47am

Eric Glass is milk toast. He has no personality. He reflects the characteristics of the people around him. He works for a nondescript activist group, which isn’t a real job. His understanding of music, art, and film is very generic and predictable. he is also a Gold digger. An out right Golddigger. 

Clever2, are you saying that you believe his passion for literature and film is not genuine?  I know those people certainly exist.  But what clues do you have that Eric is fraudulent in this way?  Perhaps his love of great art, film, and literature is symbolic of his ability to connect with the past, which makes him more susceptible to have the emotional connection with gay men of the past.  Also, I did not find him to be a golddigger.  His desire for Henry seems misguided.  It does seem that he is desperate to love someone, and is taking the first offer to come alone, but I also believe that if Henry did not have the money, Eric would still be interested.  And remember that Eric was interested in Toby long before Toby came into his own.  Remember that the ghosts CHOOSE to communicate to him, which implies that he has a rare gift.  I would argue that the fact that he is chosen to have such communications implies that he is a special human being among us, and perhaps lends legitimacy to his appreciation for great art, literature, and film.  The ghosts are NOT speaking to the individuals wearing bikini briefs.  They are speaking to  the one character who isn't.  

There is discussion of Eric being the lesser attractive of that entire group of friends. And yet Kyle Soller is an otter prince. He’s absolutely adorable. 

Here you are responding to my comment that Eric is characterized as less attractive than the other men. Please know that I spoke to Soller after the play and drowned in his eyes, and went home and dreamed about cuddling him.  I agree with you that he is adorable, but I think sometimes writers ask us to believe that a character is less attractive than the actor portraying it (perhaps because truly unattractive people are not given the right chances by casting directors).  If you watched Mad Men, Elisabeth Moss's character was supposed to be unattractive, and she is not.  And on Downton Abbey, the middle daughter was supposed to be unattractive, and she really wasn't.

As I traveled home after the play, I felt privileged to see some of the things on stage, but I also felt sadness because I felt like I don't have a place in the gay community because I don't value orgasms and underwear over love.  I know that seems ridiculous, and it may not be a normal reaction, but I did feel that way in response to the play.  If I knew a crazy homophobic person who does not believe that gays should marry because they have no morals and are sex-crazed lunatics, and I took them to this play because I thought a celebrated play about a group of gay men (correction... gay twinks) would dissuade them of their beliefs, I do not believe I would be successful.  In fact, the homophobe would likely turn to me after the play and say "Told you so."  And while these people exist in the gay community, they should not be given more visibility than those members of the gay community who do not function this way.  Unless the reality of the gay community is that there is an uncomfortable truth that is most gay men are sex-crazed and can never get enough sex.  And if this is the truth (and I remain unconvinced that it is). then there needs to be a different discussion in the gay community, and there should not be so much effort in convincing people who believe that gay men are permiscuous and never satisfied with having enough sex that their feelings about the gay community are incorrect.

I had another thought: Did anyone feel it was unlikely that Toby, a 20-something narcissistic playwright, would have written a will?  It actually totally makes sense to me that if he had written a will, he would have left everything to Eric.  But so few 20-somethings have a will.  I'm 30-something and I don't have a will.  And Toby is far more likely to believe that he will never die than to believe that he should have a will written in case of an early death.  Is he really this selfless?  The only other time in seven hours we see him being selfless is when Leo tells us that Toby taught us what lovemaking is, and in this instance, Toby is using his body to be selfless.  Toby writing a will just seems not true to his character.

Updated On: 12/23/19 at 11:47 AM

[clever2]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 11:53am

Auggie27 said: "He's also got a spot of cruelty which I find more interesting than the posters who find it off-putting. That mean-spirited retaliatory side of Eric makes me listen to him more. I welcomed a shift away from so much voiced pain. 

I actually agree. It’s just that this moment happens so late in the play. It makes it seem all of this wrath has been building up inside of him throughout the play, but when it comes out of him, it doesn’t feel natural. It’s in opposition of everything we’ve seen and been told about this character. I would have loved it if more moments like that had occurred elsewhere in the play. Maybe not such volatility, but more revelations of the texture and layers that make up a human being. Which, to be honest, Eric totally lacks until that moment with Toby. Then, following that moment, he immediately reverts back to Wonder Bread. 

“And I join those wowed by Andrew Burnap. MILD SPOILER: His aria-like monologue at the top of Act 3 of Part 2 is effing bravura. I'd read it, but in performance I literally leaned forward. Nothing quite tops it, and he's masterful.”

Preach. That moment is so beautiful, it’s like looking into the eyes of God. 

[haterobics]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 11:57am

clever2 said: "haterobics said: "clever2 said: "I even predicted it was going to happen a moment before it happened."

This hardly would make you a useful clairvoyant. "

The man I’d never seen before walked onto the stage, introduced himself to Eric Glass, and I thought, “I know what he is and I know what’sabout to happen all over this theater.“ It’s not about being clairvoyant. It’s about the ability to predict the obvious."

Yes, but if you predicted it at the end of Act 1, that would be something wildly different from mere seconds before it happens. At that point, they are literally setting it up to occur and the actors are getting in place to do it, heh.

[clever2]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 12:08pm

NativeNYer2 said: "Clever2, are you saying that you believe his passion for literature and film is not genuine? I know those people certainly exist. But what clues do you have that Eric is fraudulent in this way? Perhaps his love of great art, film, and literature is symbolic of his ability to connect with the past, which makes him more susceptible to have the emotional connection with gay men of the past. Also, I did not find him to be a golddigger. His desire for Henry seems misguided. It does seem that he is desperate to love someone, and is taking the first offer to come alone, but I also believe that if Henry did not have the money, Eric would still be interested. And remember that Eric was interested in Toby long before Toby came into his own. Remember that the ghosts CHOOSE to communicate to him, which implies that he has a rare gift. I would argue that the fact that he is chosen to have such communications implies that he is a special human being among us, and perhaps lends legitimacy to his appreciation for great art, literature, and film. The ghosts are NOT speaking to the individuals wearing bikini briefs. They are speaking to the one character who isn't."

Eric‘s passion for music and literature simply came off as phony to me. It felt like a writer trick to segregate him from the rest of his friends, who, yes, we see sharing in his appreciation during one vignette, but that also feels disingenuous. It was played for cuteness more than anything else, all of them standing in a line there, swooning over something I highly doubt any of those people would ever swoon over. That’s simply my impression.

Eric is being evicted. Henry offers him a luxury apartment for, what was it, $500 a month? And Eric grabs at that like a hungry dog. He’s also very proud of his new wedding suit, which he didn’t buy. And he also looks quite fetching in that new coat, which he didn’t buy. No, I do not feel Eric would have had anything to do with Henry Wilcox if there was no money. I find that entire relationship quite the betrayal of that man’s dead husband and that man’s dead friend. It’s all a bit too icky for me.

The ghosts chose Eric…… Well, let’s think about that. Did that moment even happen? Is that moment relevant to the narrative of the play? No. It simply isn’t. So, Eric Glass being touched by the supernatural feels totally irrelevant because it isn’t even a plot point. It’s just a gimmick to make people cry.

 

Updated On: 12/23/19 at 12:08 PM

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 12:16pm

Eric Glass has several moral failings. *** spoilers ***
1) His lie about the house indicates he knows Toby will leave him.
2) His passive aggressive attacks on Toby's writing, and the self righteous rants about facing his abusive past. They begin long before his outburst at the wedding.
3) He has a line in their first argument. Something like "The fact that you can't see how I'm feeling hurts me even more." But Toby's in pain too. He just doesn't externalize it. And Eric seems to have no idea.
4) Eric's dismissive treatment of his friends at Henry's party suggests their connection wasn't that strong.
5) For all his talk of preserving the ghosts memories, the proactive thing he does is adopt Andrew. That's a big sacrifice that he makes late in the play. After non-stop whining about how his needs aren't being met he decides to care for someone else. Whether this is positive, or a repeat of his co-dependent patterns with Toby, is hard to say.
6) And in the end it is Andrew who preserves the ghosts memories, somewhat, by writing the play within a play. Though he says Toby is the reason he wrote it. 

I'm not sure what this all adds up to. Except that Eric had the potential to be more morally grey than he first appears.