33 VARIATIONS Reviews- Page 3

[TulitaPepsi]

Posted: 3/10/09 at 12:51pm

If Fonda (or another well-liked Hollywood star) had not been cast, the play would have recieved a far less forgiving and more clear-eyed assessment of its generic cut-and-paste structure - if it made it to Broadway at all.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 3/10/09 at 12:55pm

It's not a terrible show. The highly negative reviews are really unwarranted IMO. It's nothing groundbreaking or that you MUST SEE but it's pretty good. Worth it to see Fonda live...especially if you rush or buy the TDF tickets. $30 or so to see Jane Fonda?! And she's fantastic.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 3/10/09 at 12:56pm

I think plays are all about the casting. I saw some local productions of Rabbit Hole and without Nixon and Daly, I was rarely moved and at times bored. I think Fonda brings alot to the part that others wouldnt so I see your point Tulita.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 3/10/09 at 3:28pm

I was rarely moved and bored ALL the time, when I saw The Rabbit Hole and both Nixon and Daly were in it. I just don't think it's an engaging play or anything that I could relate to, since I don't have children. It felt like a bad Lifetime movie.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 3/10/09 at 9:56pm

I wish Jayne Atkinson (sp?) had transfered with the production from Arena Stage, but I guess they wanted a bigger name - not like she's out of a job anyways starring on Broadway in a big revival.

I just wish there was more to the script. Collin Hanks' character never has anywhere to go. He's just this goofy kid the whole time. He never matures or becomes more than what he was before. Even in the final scene in the hotel room, he's just sleeping and snoring.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 9:46am

Relevant sidebar: Amen, amen about RABBIT HOLE. The Broadway production was the most lavish, indeed overproduced (a revolving set was needed? To see a suburban house?) play in recent years. Nixon gave unstintintly, but the script is a cheat, requiring an actor to deliver the character's cathartic moment between the lines, whatever lines she chooses, wherever she lands. If you see the play without Nixon's nuanced handling of the scene with the boy, it can be curiously unmoving. I saw a production last fall, where the actress just turned upstage, and it was literally just bad daytime. Her pain was all indicated, not experienced -- and again, it's not in the play. People say "but that makes it subtle." No, that makes it a nightly required improvisation, because the play doesn't deliver the story's turn, the actor does. End of sidebar rant.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 4:56pm

I honestly thought the whole thing was done quite nicely. Anything groundbreaking? No. But a entertaining night of theatre full of beautiful design and direction? Yes.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 5:02pm

I think too much time was spent on the design of the show rather than the script/performances. Fonda was robotic, and the story just wasn't as moving. Sure, it had some beautiful stage pictures - like the moment at the end of Act 1 - but ultimately, the story didn't affect me in the least bit.