Anyone seen The Hallway Trilogy?

[Sauja]

Posted: 2/11/11 at 11:59am

I've only seen one Adam Rapp play (Ghosts in the Cottonwoods), and I less than loved it. Something about the Hallway trilogy is really tempting, though. Before I commit to three nights in the theater, though, I thought I'd check if anyone here had seen it or heard any reports from the first handful of performances this week. Any word?

[April Saul]

Posted: 2/11/11 at 9:20pm

Hey Sauja--I was wondering the same thing, but I already went out on a limb and am doing the marathon via tdf this Sunday. Will post afterward and let you know

[AC126748]

Posted: 2/12/11 at 12:36pm

I'm interested. The cast is great.

[After Eight]

Posted: 2/13/11 at 8:26am

Adam Rapp is a prolific playwright, and, I believe, a talented one. He can write sharp dialogue, etch unique characters, and devise strong narratives. He can also write boring plays as well. He can write in both an absurdist vein and a realistic one. And he writes raw, both in subject matter and style.

"Paraffin," the second play in his "Hallway Trilogy," and the one I attended, is one of these. It's raw. But it also holds one's attention with finely drawn characters with interersting tales to tell. There are also defects in this play. So for me, I would call it a mixed bag.

Adam Rapp knows how to push the envelope and is not afraid to do so, consequences be damned. In "Finer, Noble Gases," an earlier play which I throughly despised, a character urinated in a large drum in full sight of the audience. It went on for a long time, and I thought it was the nadir of my theatregoing experience. Well, Rapp has pushed the envelope again here, except, now, with another bodily excretion... this time simulated, thank heavens, but visible in make-believe form. Not pleasant... just to let people know what awaits.

Basically, the play deals with the encounters of various residents and visitors in the hallway of a run-down apartment building. You get to meet a variety of disparate types, very well drawn, with stories that hold your attention.

My problem with the play is with credibility. The set-up doesn't always work, because some of these conversations would not be taking place in a hallway, but in the apartments inside.

Another problem is with language. The author has a gift for it. He can be sharp and glib. But in this play, he has some characters go on these long verbal tours de force riffs, and they are just not credible for the characters. One, in particular, stops the play dead in its tracks.

Another problem is that the more secondary characters are the more interesting ones. I would like to have seen more of them.

The acting is uniformly excellent, the staging too. The set perfectly replicates the milieu.

So, despite its shortcomings, I found it worthwhile. It's not for the queasy, though, that's for sure.

[April Saul]

Posted: 2/14/11 at 12:36am

Okay, now I have seen all three parts of this and will try to convey my thoughts with minimal spoilers:

First off, the plays can certainly be seen out of order and it's not that necessary to see all three. They all take place in the same rundown NYC building, the first in 1953, the second in 2003, the last in 2053.

They're not exhausting: the first two parts are 90 minutes each, the third clocked in at more like 105 minutes today.

TDF tix are fine, because the seating is general admission. And they've reconfigured the theater so that there's only three long rows and a little over 50 seats in all, extremely intimate.

The good news is that the actors are ALL wonderful and a week in to performances, you'd never know that they'd only just gotten started...very polished.

Bad news is that Rapp's work is pretty uneven. He alludes to it all being a "glorious mess" in the playbill and yeah, he is right about the "mess" part...You get the feeling that he writes a LOT and doesn't edit himself too much, really enjoys taking chances, and doesn't agonize too much when he misses the mark.
AfterEight is correct that squeamish theatergoers might cringe a bit, but honestly, there wasn't any of it that I found troubling, although over the course of the three parts there were gunshots, bare butts, full frontal male nudity, some vomiting, plenty of blood, and some excretory stuff. But that's me

The first part, "Rose," worked pretty well, and the second part, "Paraffin," was my favorite; Rapp seems to be at his best when he's writing contemporary characters. The third part, "Nursing," takes a giant leap into futuristic sci-fi, Brave-New- World terrain with a story about a man who volunteers to be injected with horrendous diseases for the edification of museum goers and Logan Marshall-Green acts the hell out of that role...but by the end, Rapp has thrown in everything but the kitchen sink and I just hated the final moments of this trilogy.

I'd have to say that I didn't regret going...only wished that the third play had hit its mark. I worried going in that the premise would be a tough sell, but I think there were things he could have done differently with the last piece that might have helped it...and I'd much rather have ended my day of theater with Rapp on a higher note. But always interesting!

[After Eight]

Posted: 2/14/11 at 7:46am

To April Saul:

Thank you for your review.

Having seen the first play, "Rose," I would say it's ok, but milder and less interesting than the second play. The author seems on less firm footing with this earlier period, and to me, at least, doesn't seem to convey it as well. There are the same problems here with the improbable verbal riffs. Also, the same actor has the misfortune of playing the two most obnoxious characters in both plays, in this one particularly so.
He's a good actor, and he does it with flair, but how I wish those characters would have less stage time!

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 2/14/11 at 6:00pm

Do you remember which part(s) had gunshots?

[After Eight]

Posted: 2/14/11 at 8:05pm

"Do you remember which part(s) had gunshots?"

I only saw the first two plays, but both of them had gunshots.

[sundaymorning6am]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 9:49am

Possible spoilers, please don't read if you haven't seen it yet!

Having only seen the first two parts so far (third is tonight!), I have to say that I fully disagree, April. I don't think you'll enjoy them nearly as much if you see them out of order. You won't pick up on the subtleties of part 2 without having seen part one (aka who is this ghost and why the hell do we care? you won't unless you've seen the first part). And if you see part 3 first, well I can't speak with any absolute certainty, but since there was a lot you won't pick up on in part 2 without having seen part 1, I don't think you'll appreciate it as much. There will still be stories, of course, but I think that Rapp wrote them in an order for a reason and he wrote them to be seen in order and so that people would see ALL of them.

That being said: I'm loving every single thing about The Hallway Trilogy. It is brilliance. My favorite Rapp play since Red Light Winter, and I've seen them all since Red Light Winter in '06 (exception being Essential Self Defense at Playwrights Horizons, unfortunately). The cast is incredible all around too.

PS: To those thinking the first part, Rose, is about Eugene O'Neil, you will probably be disappointed, lol. Updated On: 2/17/11 at 09:49 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 5:56pm

Does anyone know if they have rush or any kind of discount, or is full-price the only option on this one? I only have time to see one of them.

[April Saul]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 8:44pm

They've been on TDF pretty consistently for $21 each, plus a $4 service charge. Otherwise, they seem to be $55 each, or three for $99.

[April Saul]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 8:44pm

They've been on TDF pretty consistently for $21 each, plus a $4 service charge. Otherwise, they seem to be $55 each, or three for $99.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/18/11 at 7:39pm

Thanks. Tomorrow's matinee was, but I didn't get to it quick enough. I'm only in New York for short spurts of time these days, so hopefully it'll be on again when I'm back later in the run.