I remember having liked the original off-Broadway production, but I must confess to being disappointed with this one. There are a smattering of laughs, but the play is innocuous in the extreme, and not all that interesting. Its points about the theatre seem obvious and rather tired, and the relationship between the two men doesn't seem to me sufficiently fleshed out. The actors do a good job, but visually, I thought the production was drab and unattractive.
I liked it more than you did BUT I've never seen a production before so it was all new to me. I thought Patrick Stewart was perfectly cast. It 's part of my subscription so it wasn't too expensive. All in all , I'd say fun but slight. I will say the set works against the show. You have this 2 person comedy on this dark,cavernous set. They are many quick scenes and set changes but many times you're just sitting there waiting for the damn set to finally glide into place. The set kills the pace of the show.
I was there last night for the first preview, and I found it to be a snoozefest. Great performances from both men, but the play is just boring. The longest 90 minutes of my life. The first scene (by far the most Mamet AND the most well written) was great. I was excited after that scene. Unfortunately, it was all downhill from there. The really short scenes that were shorter than the awkward scene changes bookending them had no arc and weren't that funny. All in all, it wasn't able to live up to the performances by Stewart and Knight.
out of the 90 minute show, seemed like half of that time took up the changing of the sets, went too slow and after a while it was rather annoying. Hopefully it improves as time goes on.
I was there for the first preview as well. I agree that the performances are superb, and the absolute highlight. The play itself really didn't even feel like a play to me. Just a collection of sketches, not all of them amusing.
I do really hope that the transitions tighten up before it opens. The section I was sitting in started laughing during the first transition, waiting for the set pieces to move into place. It kills any momentum that could have gathered.
Saw it today -- and while the set transitions (scene changes) take a while, I can understand what the design team is trying to achieve.
I completely disagree with anyone who believes the play scans as "sketches". Robert most certainly has a clear, lovely arc and Patrick Stewart is giving an all-out and fantastic performance.
No spoilers, but Stewart takes you on an incredible journey. He's laugh-out-loud funny and had the audience in stitches this afternoon. But his personal tragedies are so haunting, so beautiful and he takes this simple little play and makes it something close to THE DRESSER.
Really lovely. And I look forward to seeing it again.
"I know now that theatre saved my life." - Susan Stroman
I loved this production. The play is a series of vignettes that show the changing relationship of a young and an older actor and their changing relationship to the crazy career they've both chosen. I thought it was a very funny, and surprisingly moving tribute to the theater and to actors.
Patrick Stewart is brilliant. His blowhard actor is outrageously funny, and ultimately heartbreaking and completely real. So many of us have known some version of this guy. T. R. Knight handles the less showy role very well. His performance is understated, as the play requires and the two performances balance each other beautifully.
Every kind of theatrical catastrophe, the missed cue, the missing prop, the wardrobe malfunction, makes a hilarious appearance, and the two characters, as actors will, do anything to get the scene back on track. All this illustrates the crazy tightrope walk that actors perform nightly without a net and only their wits to save their own, and sometimes each other's dignity in front of a live audience who've put their money down and expect to be entertained.
I enjoyed the time taken for the set pieces to be moved into place in full view of the audience, who only sees the sets' unadorned backs. Some of the transitions themselves got a good laugh— a piece of scenery is flown in too soon, pauses a moment, and flies back out so the set below it can be moved into place—then it finally descends (almost abashedly) into place. It's directorial brilliance: the slow dance of the moving flats, and chairs being deliberately placed on tape marks, and props being gathered and distributed gives the backstage world of the theater a life of its own that the actors react to like a third character. The actors, Robert and John, are infuriated when it does them wrong, yet can't resist the love and satisfaction it occasionally provides. Director Neil Pepe has made it clear that the theater itself is the third player in a bittersweet love triangle.
I saw the show last Thursday and have to agree with TimesSquared on the transitions. They were very deliberate and I didn't think they broke the momentum at all. I truly thought it added a layer of brilliance to the evening.
Of the three plays that I saw in previews last week (this, Lombardi, and La Bete), this one clearly shined above the rest for me.
I saw it again this past Friday, and enjoyed it much more. I realize now that my first post made it seem like I didn't enjoy the show as much as I did the first time - I did. It was the first preview, and I knew things would only get better. The transitions are now tighter and it is clear now that they are deliberate, this was not clear on the first performance.
It really is amazing to watch Patrick Stewart. Everything flows nicely now, scenes in and out of each other.
My favorite line is definitely "OH THE AUTUMN" (stage hand throws leaves). That just doesn't get old.
I saw this production on Saturday. I wanted to love it because I was looking forward to seeing Patrick Stewart back on Broadway. However I found it boring and slight. Stewart was gifted as usual but it was not his most brilliant turn. His performances in Macbeth and The Tempest were far better. It was the weakest of Mamet's work over the past few seasons. I can see where it might have been an interesting piece off-Broadway where it premiered back in the 70's but this production did not seem to have much to recommend it other than the solid and likable (but not stellar) performances. Perhaps if the seen changes speed up it at least keep from loosing your attention.
Although it wasn't until the end of the play, I did finally realized tthe significance of the scene transitions. Patrick and T.R, I believe, did exceptional jobs. Of course the scene withh the window and the stagehand throwing leaves had me in stiches. The show also had some very enjoayble and poignant moments, especially toward the end. All in all, it was a very enjoyable afternoon (I student-rushed the Matinee on Sunday after losing BBAJ).
Check out my eBay page for sales on Playbills!!
www.ebay.com/usr/missvirginiahamm
I think the answer to your drawing power question is this.... Patrick Stewart and for that matter David Hyde Pierce in LA BETE are both draws but they are not as powerful as they once were because they have been frequent visitors to Broadway. Seeing a show with them does not carry the same novelty it may once have. Both still draw a respectable crowd to be sure, but neither is a name that will sell out before reviews hit. They do help bring attention to their respective show. I know the reason I saw A LIFE IN THE THEATRE and LA BETE this pas week was because of each of them.
Noel&Cole - I feel that it is the vehicle and not the star that accounts for the modest excitement for both Stewart and Hyde Pierce. Mamet is not to everyone's taste, and this is really rather timid Mamet (as Mamet goes). And La Bete is an unknown quantity and the rhyming aspect may be putting people off a little. Stewart drew well in MacB. and would do well in something better known/loved. Stewart can't really let out all the stops since he is playing a fading actor in a third-rate rep. company, and a true star turn doesn't fit the play.
Wonkit, I respectfully disagree! I don't think a 'star turn' is necessarily limited to a role involving murder and operatic emotions. I think great acting is in no way hampered by the emotional limitations of the character. Anthony Hopkins' performance in "The Remains of the Day" comes to mind when I think of repressed characters. The remarkable subtlety of that performance made it a true "star turn" in my view. I believe that it requires great skill to portray a character who is trying desperately to hide his emotions, and even more skill to convincingly and entertainingly portray an actor of limited talent and waning power. I found Stewart's performance to be beautifully layered: deeply moving, and at the same time devastatingly funny. He knows these two seeming extremes are not mutually exclusive. In my opinion, it's a must-see performance for lovers of great acting and the acting profession.
.gif?width=300)
