rOcKS @ 'THREE DAYS OF RAIN'

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 5/13/06 at 11:18pm

So, I ventured into the Bernard Jacobs theater this afternoon to see this much-talked-about revival. As I'm sure you all know, Oscar-winning mega star Julia Roberts is making her Broadway debut in it as Nan/Lina. Not to be overshadowed or upstaged though, two other film and TV stars fill out the cast of three. Paul Rudd (The 40 Year-Old Virgin, TV's 'Friends') plays Walker/Ned and Bradley Cooper (Wedding Crashers, TV's 'Kitchen Confidential') is Pip/Theo. The show is about two siblings who have gathered with their childhood friend to hear the reading of their father's will. After a shocking discovery through the will, the brother and sister (more the brother than the sister) are curious as to why this decision in the will was made. They discover their fathers diary and try to decipher his odd, extremely concise entries and the second act transports the audience back to 1960 wherein the same three actors play their parents. The play is very thought-provoking and deep and also witty and funny when required. It is very wordy at times and requires ones full attention which is one of my inital bones I have to pick about the show in general. It's a wonderfully written play and Richard Greenberg is an incredible playwright but I simply dont understand the need to bring the show to the big, glaring lights of Broadway. It is a show that I'm certain would work one hundred times better in a more intimate space. Anyway, it's on Broadway and there's nothing I can do about that. The production is a lot better than the reviews gave it credit for and the acting is fine enough. Uneven but fine...

The show (written by Richard Greenberg) is very insightful and leaves a lot of questions unanswered at its 2 hour conclusion. I enjoyed that aspect of the show though. When plays leave questions unanswered, lingering in the air as the audience files out is (I think) phenomenally overpowering when done in the correct way. For instance, the end of Doubt left the audience with such doubts of their own as they found themselves questioning what they believed really happened to the characters etc. At the end of Three Days of Rain, the audience is left to draw their own conclusions but it seemed to me that half of the audience left buzzing about these unanswered questions while the other half didn't care. I can see both sides of the spectrum. On one hand, the script to this show is sensational, giving really phenomenal character depth and insight so I could understand those who left with the unanswered questions eating away at them. On the other hand, the cast didn't do that good of a job to make some of the audience members care about them and therefore, they didn't even realize that the play ended with an unanswered question or two. With more powerful and skilled stage performers, the show would have been all the more powerful. To have questions unanswered in a script is one thing but when the people performing on stage don't stress these questions and make their characters into the realest of real people they can, the audience will most likely leave detached. And that's how a few people in the audience (I heard while leaving) felt. I was somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. I was being eaten away at the unanswered questions but unlike at the end of Doubt in which there were unanswered questions AND an incredible ensemble to present them, I forgot about these questions about 10 minutes after the curtain went down. When the people on stage seem detached and robotic at times, how can they expect the audience to feel anything?

The play is excellently written. This is a very finely tuned play with a lot of eccentricities to it that work very well to its advantage. Greenberg does wonders with character development as he only has an hour or so to develop characters and then move on to a totally different story and develop THOSE characters. His play is chock-full of excellent symbolism which is subtle but still there. The sexual, emotional, and even physical tension is always boiling right beneath the surface of nearly every scene and when just the right time comes, it breaks free. Or at other times, it doesn't, creating an even more profound moment on stage. While, as mentioned, the play would work so much better in a more intimate space, it is still a masterwork. Greenberg manages to make every moment count and every second on stage seem purposeful. The play itself is a masterpiece.

The cast, as mentioned, is fine.

Paul Rudd:
**as Walker: He's very good as Walker. He plays him well and with conviction. While talking to the audience, he seemed a little flat but once the show got started and the dialogue began to fly, he took Walker to another level, delivering a very good performance. While he probably could have been a lot more meticulous as Walker and he could have done a lot more with his homosexual undertones and while he really didn't take the chances he had to put a little extra effort in to make us understand Walker all the more, he was fine. It all seem to relates back to how the show would work better in a more intimate space. I promise that's the last time I'll say it (:)). He's a good Walker nonetheless.
**as Ned: A lot better than his depiction of Walker was. He does a great job as Ned bringing that meticulous edge out in him that was missing during his performance as Walker. He is able to make the audience understand him by a simple gesture or movement. He's refined and quiet in the part but his face and movements say more than his lines do. He is an excellent Ned.

Bradley Cooper:
**as Pip: Nearly brilliant. I mean he's really, really, REALLY good. I hope he will return to the stage good because his performance caught me by surprise in the oddest of ways. He is wonderful as Pip, making the audience connect with him and he brings out totally refreshing dimensions to the character that the audience would probably never see otherwise. He makes the character simultaneously hateful, pitiful, moving, angering, relatable, understanding, and real. The emotions and characteristics he brings out in Pip during his 35-40 minutes on stage during the first act are shockingly incredible.
**as Theo: Fine. Simply fine. After blowing me away as Pip, he just did an alright job as Theo in the second act. It's the least present character for Act Two but he should create a character so vivid and strong when he IS onstage so that when he's not, the audience is thinking of him. I think that the audience (SPOILER) forgot that the was married to Lina when she was sleeping with Ned (END SPOILER) so it made the moment all the more confusing. When Theo (SPOILER) walked in on them, (END SPOILER) it took the audience a few seconds to remember that Theo was married to Nan. Cooper needed to make a strong impression when he was onstage so that when he wasn't, his character was always in the back of your mind. He didn't do this at all. He was fine when on stage but not powerful enough. It's saddening too, considering how great he was as Pip. Not awful, just alright.

And now, Julia Roberts:
**as Nan: Okay. For a woman who has an Oscar under her belt, you’d think theater wouldn't be that big of a stretch. Well, apparently it is. I love Ms. Roberts and think she's one of the greatest screen actresses of our time. But as of now, stage is not her strong point. I'd love to see her come back to Broadway and keep on tackling new roles because the potential is undeniably there. She is simply okay as Nan. Nothing amazing, nothing awful. Just...okay. She seemed emotionally detached at times and when she spoke to the audience, it felt like she was rushing through her monologue as if to be congratulated for simply memorizing it. She spit it out and didn't even emote any type of feeling toward the audience. Her performance as Nan seemed...empty. It was there, it was alright but there was no meaty center to the character. No great one moment on the stage.
**as Lina: Much, much, much better than Nan IMO. The southern accent is a BIIIGGGG no. It doesn't fit her and she goes in and out of it during the entire second act. But she is nonetheless excellent as Lina. This was the kind of performance I hoped she'd give. She was great. I wished that she had just played Lina the entire show because she (IMO) could have a shot at the Tony if she would have. She created a bitchy but beautiful, relatable but confusing character that was contradictory and complicated yet so simply and raw. She was EXCELLENT as Lina and definitely ended the show on a high note. Again, I hope she comes back to Broadway and tries to challenge herself even more. She has the potential to deliver a solid, perfect stage performance. I love that she was trying to challenge herself in taking on two roles in one show but I can't help but think she should have started in a show where she only had to deal with portraying one character.

Joe Mantello's direction is good enough. There are moments where the staging is a bit awkward but he does a great job with a lot of the intimate scenes. When he knows where to take a scene, he takes it there completely and brilliantly. But when he doesn’t, the scene comes out messy and awkward. So, its an uneven directorial performance but its fine enough.
Santo Loquasto's sets and costumes are excellent the whole way through. Really enjoyable and dark. Paul Gallo's lighting is also appropriately dark and very well done. I don't have my Playbill next to me but whoever is credited for the rain deserves a big round of applause as the rain effects were brilliant.

Overall, the production is fine. It's not amazing, its not awful. There are some aspects which are outstanding, some which are mediocre, and very few which aren't very good. If the cast was a bit more solid in their performances, the show would be all the more better. They are fine as it is and they all get their chance to deliver a great performance in one of their two roles. It's too bad that they don’t all give their best of the two performances within the same Act.

The show will undoubtedly get a Tony nod for Play Revival as will Roberts, Rudd, and Cooper IMO. They won't win, I predict, any Tonys but they'll just have to take being in the hottest ticket on Broadway as collateral.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 5/13/06 at 11:39pm

Okay. For a woman who has an Oscar under her belt, you’d think theater wouldn't be that big of a stretch.

You're kidding, right? You do realize that theatre acting is extremely harder than film acting is.

Just because she has an Oscar for her film work doesn't mean that theatre should be a breeze. What if she never had stage training? A lot of film actresses, who want to be successful in Hollywood, only train themselves for film/television acting.

I, for one, applaud Roberts for attempting something that is very daunting, especially for those who've never had stage experience. Her performance is very well done and I hope it inspired her to return to Broadway and give it another try. This time, she'll know what to expect and have some experience going into the project.

She seemed emotionally detached at times and when she spoke to the audience, it felt like she was rushing through her monologue as if to be congratulated for simply memorizing it. She spit it out and didn't even emote any type of feeling toward the audience.

This has been said so many times by other posters. Doesn't anyone think that, perhaps, this is her interpretation of the character? Nan is a very emotionally detached woman. She wants to be rid of her brother and the will and just return to her life. She doesn't care for Walker very much plus she's dealing with very uncomfortable circumstances especially when Pip walks back into her life whom she obviously has an awkward past with.

Updated On: 5/13/06 at 11:39 PM

[OddExoticCreature]

Posted: 5/13/06 at 11:59pm

"It is very wordy at times and requires ones full attention which is one of my inital bones I have to pick about the show in general."

Wow that's funny. 'Cause having to focus one's full attention on something of intellectual content for several hours is a real bitch.

(I think this is directly related to our current culture's obsession with multi-tasking....what was I talking about?)

[ItSucks2BAveQ]

Posted: 5/14/06 at 10:56pm

ROARASAURUS Updated On: 10/6/08 at 10:56 PM

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 5/14/06 at 10:59pm

Okay, did you really need to both be so critical about my opinions? If you want me to accept YOUR opinions then why dont you try either being a little more accepting of mine or dealing with the situation of you not agreeing a little better instead of starting your critique by saying "you're kidding right?". Sorry but I have an opinion too...