IMPRESSIONISM first preview reviews?

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 2/28/09 at 11:27pm

Did anyone go to the first preview tonight? How was it?

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 2/28/09 at 11:30pm

Painful...more to come.

[youknowinsweden]

Posted: 2/28/09 at 11:37pm

I'll write a full review soon - but it was a mess. Andre De Shields was the highlight for me... everyone else was less than stellar.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 2/28/09 at 11:42pm

De Shields was the highlight for me too...but the rest of it...my god. Awful.

[RWilliamsCenterStg]

Posted: 2/28/09 at 11:42pm

Wow....What a mess....

How do these plays make it to Broadway? I was baffled by this one. Act I was painful. Act II not much better. Who cares about any of these people?

-Reba

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 2/28/09 at 11:45pm

Ouch...so I'm assuming I should pass on this one? Doesn't sound like it's worth it at all.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 2/28/09 at 11:47pm

Yes, WickedRocks, do not waste your money or (more importantly) your time. IMPRESSIONISM is the epitome of true pain on stage.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 2/28/09 at 11:49pm

An absolutely DREADFUL night. Please avoid this at all costs. I was in sheer pain for the entire evening, that is when I wasn't nodding off. The play is so poorly written, especially the first two episodes.

80% of the blame needs to fall on the author. Jeremy Irons was almost sleepwalking through the role (not that he was given much to work with). I thought Joan fared a little better, and definitely looks amazing, but she couldn't save this sinking ship.

Andre De Shields stole the small scene he was in during Act 2, but otherwise the supporting cast is non-existent. Aaron Lazar and Marsha Mason are in it for a combined 15 minutes max.

I'm debating whether this is the worst play so far this year. American Buffalo had much worse acting, but this is so poorly written it may take the prize.

My thoughts are with any board member who has a ticket in the upcoming weeks. Report back immediately so we know you're still alive.

Updated On: 2/28/09 at 11:49 PM

[youknowinsweden]

Posted: 2/28/09 at 11:49pm

It is also very depressing to see someone like Aaron Lazar fade into the background so easily. Granted, he has not been given the best material as of late, but it was still quite sad to witness. I guess that is the sad truth after A Tale of Two Cities - you go from that to serving coffee, hi-fiving Jeremy Irons, and swapping spit with Margarita Levieva.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 2/28/09 at 11:51pm

Too bad. I love Allen and Mason...

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 2/28/09 at 11:53pm

I actually think AMERICAN BUFFALO was better...

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 2/28/09 at 11:56pm

At least you could follow American Buffalo. To quote Passing Strange, at intermission I was singing "What the **** is going on?! What the **** is going on?!"

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 12:03am

Wow. I'm baffled by the response so far. I thought it was an absolutely beautiful piece acted superbly by two of the best working actors we have today. I sat in the theater enthralled for two hours by what was on the stage...

Edit - And I could follow the play fine. What was confusing to you about it?


Updated On: 3/1/09 at 12:03 AM

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 12:08am

Was the play anything like THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER AND HIS WIFE - an episodic play, with the actors playing different characters in each episode? Because that's the first thing I thought of when I heard the plot.

Updated On: 3/1/09 at 12:08 AM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 12:12am

Well it wasn't so much that we weren't understanding the plot, but rather the point.

In Act 1 the first two pictures that they 'became' were slightly confusing because we didn't know if they were acting out the pictures in another time or if the pictures were simply reminding them of a time in their lives. (Did that make sense?)
We realized it was the latter after the photo taken in Africa.

Act 2 was in a different tone than Act 1 and was quite cheesy. How many times did we have to hear Joan tell Jeremy that he had better choose his words/picture carefully because they would form an "impression" of him. Get it!!! Impression, the title is Impressionism, so....oh well

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 12:15am

How many times did we have to hear Joan tell Jeremy that he had better choose his words/picture carefully because they would form an "impression" of him.

UUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 12:15am

Bustopher: No. They did not play different characters in each scene as if in a new painting. That sounds like it would have been far more interesting. They remained the same characters, with flashback sequences inspired by the various pictures in the art gallery.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 12:22am

That didn't bother me at all in act two. For me, the entire point of the piece is how we form IMPRESSIONS on things/paintings/people, and that we will never completely understand them or where they came from entirely. To me, that was the "point" of the play and I thought it was beautiful.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 12:36am

*****SPOILERS*****

Another thing that I was laughing at in Act 2 was the manner in which Joan and Jeremy emptied out the store.

Mason bought a $42,000 painting (don't know exactly how much she paid for it because she gave Joan a blank check and told her to fill in the amount...haha like that would ever happen!) Mason simply grabs the painting, and without wrapping it up or even putting it in a bag she walks out into the streets of Manhattan with her new purchase.

Then the muffin man (Andre De Shields) is given a framed photograph for free. And then Aaron Lazar and his bride-to-be are given a $25,000 painting for $25 a month as long as they stay married. Of course they don't sign a written agreement and walk out of the store with the painting unwrapped too.

****END SPOILERS*****

Jordan Catalano: It's an ok, if not cliched, point that the author was trying to make, but did he really have to beat us over the head with it at every turn. It's too bad he didn't use any subtlety. By the third time Joan made some comment about making an impression I wanted to shout "We got it already!"

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 2:48am

I might just have to see this. How were the technical aspects? Set, costumes, lighting, show curtain?

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 9:43am

The technical aspects were the best part of the show. Catherine Zuber did the costumes, and Joan looks AWESOME in her dresses.

The set is the art gallery in Manhattan where Joan works (although they travel in their memories to other times of their lives). There are four paintings that hang in the back of the gallery, and as each one descends from above, another larger copy descends downstage above the action.

Whenever anyone goes into a flashback sequence the skrim comes down and obscures most of the stage. The four downstage paintings begin to show different impressionistic works via projection.

The show curtain was the blank white skrim. There were a few cool tricks with the lighting and what not, but really nothing enough to distract you from the boredom of the material.

[bwayfascination]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 10:28am

I think some folks here didn't quite get what happened. In the first act, there are different "cutaway" scenes, and (with one exception) the actors are, in fact, playing different characters. One of my issues is that I don't think there has been enough distinction drawn in the actors' characterizations to convey that as clearly as it should be (which is why one could think the scenes were the same characters). Also, I wouldn't necessarily agree that the main theme is "impressions" of people. I think the main theme is how we can get caught up in the details of what is right in front of us and that sometimes stepping back can offer a different perspective.

I do think it still has work to be done, especially in the cutaway scenes. But I had a really nice time and though the piece and the performances were lovely. A lot of folks around me were a little teary at the end. I also think it may be a piece that would speak to you a lot more directly if you have a few years (and a few relationships) under your belt.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 10:53am

Well I thought that they were playing different characters in the first two "picture" scenes, but then when they went to the photograph scene he was playing out a memory so I figured they must have all been flashbacks. (Otherwise why the inconsistency?)

If they are playing different characters then they REALLY need to draw a distinction in their performances. The confusion arose because there was no change in acting.

Plus, why for the first two pictures would they be playing different characters, the third have it be a flashback, and the fourth (the park bench) allow the action to be happening in real time. It should all be one way.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 10:57am

Looks like Mrs R will owe me big time for this one. She had to see it so naturally we had to get tickets

She always got me for my wanting to see American Buffalo. Now I will have a comeback. Maybe this will get her out of the habit of seeing a show because of who is in it. At least wait until there is initial feedback

At least the day will not be a total loss. Afterwards, we will go to Juniors .

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 3/1/09 at 10:59am

Looks like Mrs R will owe me big time for this one. She had to see it so naturally we had to get tickets

She always got me for my wanting to see American Buffalo. Now I will have a comeback. Maybe this will get her out of the habit of seeing a show because of who is in it. At least wait until there is initial feedback

At least the day will not be a total loss. Afterwards, we will go to Juniors .

It's the Mr Roxy trifecta!

1) Bashing a show before he sees it
2) Bitching about ticket prices
3) Buying tickets for Mrs R anyway.

I'll put my life savings on you liking it and saying "the critics had it in for this one before they saw it".