Posted: 4/3/15 at 9:07am
xoffender45: Speaking as a writer, you write perfectly well, so don't hesitate to share your thoughts. I often feel quite entertained and moved by shows that other people are bashing and trashing. Your review has put "Airline Highway" back on my try-to-see list. :)
Posted: 4/3/15 at 9:37am
Regarding time in general, it’s about quality, not quantity, for me. A show can be excellent, fully-fleshed out, and well-deserving of a full ticket price and be 60 minutes or 180 minutes.
Regarding the length of “Airline Highway,” specifically, I am surprised to find out time has been added. I saw it in Chicago and thought, if anything, there needed to be lots of cuts - not because it was “too long,” but because I felt like, from the content of the show, there was plenty that they could get rid of that didn’t help the show.
I’m intrigued to hear how much has changed. Anyone who saw this in Chicago seeing it in New York?
Updated On: 4/3/15 at 09:37 AM
Posted: 4/3/15 at 12:50pm
I don't think that a play's quality is related to its length. But there are valid underlying questions in this thread about play length that are perhaps being trivialized.
The ideal running time for a play depends on the play. Some plays are way too long at 30 minutes and some may feel too short after an engrossing 3 1/2 hours.
How short is too short to demand a full length ticket price?
I think the great majority of us would agree that it would be preposterous to offer a ten minute free standing one act, no matter how good a play or how well done, at full feature length ticket prices.
Where does one draw the line?
And while some 70 minute plays might be well matched in a presentation with another play, that would all depend on what that other play might be and how well matched the two plays actually are.
And some 70 minute plays might be best viewed on their own. Given how many much longer plays I haven't enjoyed, I personally would probably not feel ripped off because a play was only 70 min. long. If I found it to be a satisfying 70 minute play, that's worth as much to me as a satisfying much longer play. If I didn't like the play I'd feel grateful for it being over sooner rather than later.
But there has to be some parameters re:how short a freestanding play can be and still charge ordinary ticket prices. 70 min. may be close to the threshhold imo.
p.s.: sorry to highjack, would like to hear more about Airline Highway.
Updated On: 4/3/15 at 12:50 PM
Posted: 4/3/15 at 6:01pm
The show did not run 2:10 in Chicago. At the start of previews, it ran a little over 2:30, and 10-15 minutes were shaved off by the end of the run. So I wouldn't think that they added any time.
I'm also curious to know the extent of the revisions. I loved the play and found it to be incredibly well directed and acted. There are many characters who don't necessarily advance the central plot, but fill out the atmosphere and draw you deeper into the world. Think kind of like Balm in Gilead.
Posted: 4/3/15 at 11:09pm
I was there this evening and I think I respected it more than I liked it; the acting is uneven, ranging from very strong (Julie White and an excellent K Todd Freeman) to much less engaging (trying to give them a little break due to previews), and the play is near plotless, aiming more for a mosaic of character studies in this New Orleans subculture.
I was not a fan of Detroit, but this was an improvement over D'Amour's earlier effort even if it feels like she put Vieux Carré and The Iceman Cometh in a blender and updated the story to present day. (Instead of the characters gathering for the birthday party of Iceman they are meeting in a motel parking lot for the "funeral" of a dying friend.)
The characters slowly reveal their backstories over the course of the evening, relating the hardships that landed them at this island of misfit toys. Julie White has a monologue describing how life is just a series of bad decisions pretending to be good decisions, bad friends masquerading as good friends, bad luck fooling you that it's good luck until you wind up here at The Hummingbird Motel.
There's lots of atmosphere, but the dialogue doesn't have near the poetry of O'Neill or Williams, leaving the burden with the actors to make it spring to life. Luckily Joe Mantello is one of the best actor's directors working today, so hopefully he can guide some of those who don't have their performances as together as White and Freeman up to their co-stars' level.
I had no issue with the length. I didn't personally see any "subplots;" there was no main plot for anything to begin with! Just characters parading their stories for the audience to soak in and take away from them what they see fit.
Posted: 4/4/15 at 10:19am
I, too, was there last night and echo some of the sentiments of Whizzer but with less enthusiasm for the play as a whole. I found it to be very meandering and pointless. While it does seem to be more of a character study about the denizens of this motel you don't have any type of emotional connection with any of them to care.
The person who is "in charge" of piecing them together through her school project (Carolyn Braver) was also the worst actor of the bunch for me so there was even less of a reason for me to be invested. Coming in close second is Joe Tippett. I thought the caliber of talent coming from Steppenwolf was higher than what was on display here. I will say that Julie White (duh) and K. Todd Freeman were very good. And I think Judith Roberts was good although I might have been just envisioning her character from OITNB.
While I didn't have any real issue with the length of the play I did find very little of it to be new or insightful. We've all seen plays where people deal with shocking revelations about molestation or drug abuse. Another issue I had was that there would be two or more conversations going on at the same time so I didn't know where my focus should have been. During Act Two there was a half naked man with an amazing body and he had the majority of my focus since the play was boring me.
I will heap praise on the set because it did convey the feeling of a sh!tty motel in New Orleans. The lighting was also really amazing and I noticed it's the same person who did lighting for THE VISIT (another show were the lighting was the only positive).
Hopefully Joe Mantello can coax something from the piece of display but I won't be returning to find out if it improves.
Updated On: 4/6/15 at 10:19 AM
Posted: 4/6/15 at 1:27pm
I saw the show last night and found it incredibly moving. It felt very much like just a slice-of-life portrait of these characters with not much of a plot to speak of. Nothing is resolved, storylines are introduced and not explored, and characters come and go without saying a word - but isn't that exactly how life goes? That's what I found most compelling about it: that it refused to tie up loose ends and chose, instead, to spill its guts and not clean up the mess.
As others have said, Julie White and K. Todd Freeman run away with the show. They're essentially the leads and have the most to work with, so expect some award nominations for those two. Judith Roberts comes out at the end and delivers one of the loveliest monologues I've heard onstage in a while and, with the combination of some seriously effective lighting, I was moved to tears. The rest of the cast is very good, but have to do some heavy lifting to make up for less dynamically written characters.
I don't expect this to be a hit with most people. If you're into character dramas, you'll probably be into this. Personally, I think Lisa D'Amour has written an absolutely beautiful piece about a group of people you wouldn't even give a second glance to on the street, except maybe to cast some kind of silent judgment. They are flawed, damaged, and a complete mess, but if you just let yourself go and accept them for all their frayed edges, you may find yourself having a wonderful evening.
Posted: 4/8/15 at 7:41am
"For one, it was too long 2:25 is just not acceptable. Too much is left unresolved. To many undefined people on stage. No Tony for this."
I agree with Pammylicious that it was too long in the sense that there was too much stage time squandered to no effective dramatic purpose. I agree as well that the characters are not sufficiently defined, including the main ones. There remains a fuzziness about them that is unsatisfying.
On the plus side, the play does a fine job of evoking a milieu, and there is some good writing and affecting moments. I liked the cast, the direction, and the design, and thought the monologue by Judith Roberts was excellent.
Updated On: 4/8/15 at 07:41 AM
Posted: 4/8/15 at 1:19pm
Isn't this the same cast from Chicago? So if he can't coax a good performance out of them after an earlier run, what makes you think he'll pull it together for this run?
Posted: 4/8/15 at 1:49pm
It's not entirely the Steppenwolf cast.
"Returning from the Steppenwolf run are Scott Jaeck, Caroline Neff, Carolyn Braver, K. Todd Freeman, Judith Roberts and Tim Edward Rhoze."
Broadway cast of 'Airline Highway' announced
Posted: 4/10/15 at 11:01am
I spent last night in New Orleans with this ragtag troupe teleporting into the Friedman and really had myself a tremendous time. It is so hard to write and direct one of these plays, a slice of life where the viewing experience is clearly informed by the knowledge that the setting and occupants of the stage live beyond the play's timeframe. To structure a play that seems structureless, to flesh out characters whose life we are not privileged to follow for longer than the play's duration, and to juggle the audience's interest across a mosaic of characters and stories. We were voyeurs for Miss Ruby's living funeral, and Lisa D'Amour and Joe Mantello are crafting something from it that contains multitudes of truth and beauty.
I found my attention being expertly divided and united. There are moments in this play that descend into chaos, so accurately like life, and moments when the unity of focus snaps back into sharp relief. That is among the most difficult truthful experiences to simulate and this play had some of the most successful simulation of that dizzying, disorienting, frustrating and invigorating experience we call life.
I frankly love that MTC is producing this work, since so much of the play really lives in the boundary between these characters and the (presumably not in-their-shoes) audience. This play is a dose of perspective, a reminder shouting across an increasing class divide we increasingly don't talk about. Have there been other plays that do this? Of course. Does that mean we don't need another, one that speaks so vibrantly to a specific time and place and crafted with such art and skill? Of course not.
Thank you MTC and Steppenwolf!
Posted: 4/14/15 at 10:51am
I saw it over the weekend and it was 2:10 (started 2:05, ended 4:15). It felt longer, unfortunately--a great idea for a play, in theory, but simply boring overall.
Posted: 4/14/15 at 10:46pm
I saw it tonight and really enjoyed it. It reminded me of a Lanford Wilson play... like.. Hot l Baltimore.
It's not going to be for everyone, and it's not a perfect play (but then what is). It was very interesting, solid theatre. Touching, moving. Funny.
I have to say the poster is just awful. It makes it look silly and frivolous. It's a terrible poster that doesn't do the show any justice at all.
I would write more but I don't have the time. It did NOT seem overly long.. that discussion seems just absurd. It doesn't succeed on every level, but it is well worth the night in the theatre. Or you can go see 39 Steps again, which the NY Times Loved again, and again. (that is sarcasm).
Posted: 4/15/15 at 1:00am
I loved loved loved loved this play!! The length was just fine. I'm starting to feel that way too many of my friends have been spoiled by intermissionless shows. Everyone thinks all the shows this season are too long, from AIRLINE HIGHWAY and HAND TO GOD to AN AMERICAN IN PARIS and FINDING NEVERLAND. Stop whining about the length when you talk about a show, and instead talk about why it FELT too long.
Posted: 4/16/15 at 10:53pm
I saw the show tonight (it ran about 2:25 if anyone is still interested). I didn't have an issue with the running time, my issue was that I don't think it earned it's 2:25. I didn't think this was a bad play, but it certainly wasn't anything new or anything we haven't seen a thousand times before with these same characters in different incarnations in different settings. This play is expertly directed and staged though, allowing for the cast of 16 to move around all at once and still have the focus be on where it's supposed to be, which really was impressive and is no easy thing to do.
But really, the play is just kind of "there". I don't know why this is a story that someone wanted to tell and I kept waiting for the real plot to kick in. Around the end of Act 1, I just figured that what I was watching was going to be the entire plot and it was obvious that Act Two **SPOILER** would be the "party", and like all other shows where "someone" from the past returns and stirs the pot, revelations will be made, lives would be ruined and etc etc.
And that's exactly what happened. Unlike others, I was a bit bored with Act One. Act Two I fared better with, never being bored but I think that's because it was "busier" and louder than the previous act was. I mean, I didn't hate it, but I didn't really like it. If it were a movie, I'd give it two stars and figure it's something I'd catch at 2 in the afternoon on Lifetime or something like that. I'm glad people are loving it, I'm just not one of them.
Posted: 4/18/15 at 8:26pm
My own thoughts are similar to Jordan's. The show wasn't bad but it wasn't good enough that I could get past the feeling that I'd seen it all many times before.
For instance, the Lanford Wilson comparisons in other posts are apt, I think, and The Mound Builders came to my mind more than once -- with the high school sociologist playing a role similar to the archaeologists in the Wilson play, and with all the talk of hierarchies, rituals, tribes, and new versions of "then" being endlessly redrawn as "now," etc.
So, there could be some thematic and symbolic depth and coherence that I wasn't able to fully appreciate on a first viewing. There's definitely a lot of flight imagery that might or might not add up to something -- the title, the big Humming Bird sign, and many other birds, not only in the dialogue but in the party decorations, for example. In fact, I wished I'd been seated close enough to see people's tattoos -- if they've been drawn on the actors just for the play, I'm guessing that potentially interesting images can be found in them, too.
