BETRAYAL Begins Previews Tonight — Page 4

So anyway, how's the play? I love Pinter and Betrayal in particular. It's not for everyone though, so I'm curious to hear more reactions.

BTW, I saw the last Broadway revival with Juliette Binoche, who I think did about three different accents throughout her performance.

Yes, that's what I'm looking for....some more reactions to the play. Anyone else seen it?

Yes! Keep blocking everyone who calls you out when you're being a pompous ass, until the only person you haven't blocked is yourself! Wonderful!

Curtain Call, you go right ahead prompting for new reviews. Maybe it'll remind people what this thread's actual intent. You know, instead of the usual mind-numbing back and forth which inevitably ends in personal barbs which might cause people not to even bother posting in fear it might be lost in the rubbish.

---

Going to join one of the few people in this crazy thread who has actually SEEN this play. the bottom line is SAVE your money folks.

The play just doesn't seem to have much there. Maybe I am not a Pinter person, but I did enjoy the No Man's Land Revival I saw in London 5 years ago but this seemed so one note and simplistic. They had an affair, everyone knows they had an affair, and the play ends.

What's more, this play would run barely an hour if they cut all the unnecessarily long scene changes. I couldn't help but feel cheated given the ticket prices.

Rafe Spall certainly comes out the best of the bunch and Rachel Weiz certainly does a decent job with her part (and looks AMAZING in some of her dresses) but nothing here is Tony worthy or even worth mentioning. Craig as others have said has very little to do.

I kept thinking the entire time, where is the spark I saw onstage with the Virgina Woolf revival last year?

There is no fire here. There was/is an affair, and no one cares, not the least of the two people actually having the affair, and neither do the audience. By the end of the first scene the audience was so put to sleep they even failed to realize that Daniel Craig had made his entrance. A dud on all accounts.

I saw the matinee on Saturday and backwards, forwards and sideways, I felt more betrayed than any of the characters in this slight and incredibly dull show. Not since Orphans have I seen anything this disappointing. From my front row seat, the painfully slow and repetitive set changes were the most interesting aspect of the afternoon and the waiter, with his four or five lines, was the warmest and most sympathetic character. The others were a trio of narcissists void of any shame, regret, or concern for what they were doing to those they professed to love. We were not provided any motivation for any of their actions, nor any reason for their complete lack of conscience. They weren’t bothered by the fact they were cheating on their spouses and being cheated on, and they seemed amused by the fact their friends all knew and didn’t care. So why should we, as the audience, care about any of them and their cheating either?

I went into this not knowing anything other than the synopsis but was expecting an emotional rollercoaster about friendships and marriages in chaos. By twenty minutes in, I swore it was supposed to be a comedy given the audience’s frequent outbursts of laughter—primarily at Spall’s bombastic delivery of his lines. Yes, he had the showiest part and was on stage far longer than Craig or Weisz, but I found his character to be the most pathetic of the three. With Jerry’s repeated nose picking (in the restaurant scene nevertheless) and his Most Disgusting Use of A Table Linen (quickly jamming a linen napkin down his pants to clean himself off following Weisz’s dismount in the fully clothed sex scene), I almost wondered what someone like Emma saw in an immature jerk like him—until I realized I didn’t really care. Didn’t care about any of them or what was going to happen to them (or more accurately, what had happened to them). And, in the end, nothing happened anyway.

When the ninth and final scene abruptly ended (by the third scene I had begun counting them down), I wondered what the point of all of it was. Seemed like an easy way for a couple of names to sell out a house for 14 weeks and make a ton of money (prior to any reviews being posted) while only having to work an hour or so a day (two on two show days). Good for them. Winger and LuPone should have been so lucky. The cast received a mostly standing ovation—which made me think about a previous poster’s comment concerning what he would pay to watch Rachel Weisz do onstage.

On a positive note, I saw A Time To Kill that evening and felt it superior--maybe because of what was fresh in my mind to compare it to.

"The others were a trio of narcissists void of any shame, regret, or concern for what they were doing to those they professed to love. We were not provided any motivation for any of their actions, nor any reason for their complete lack of conscience. They weren’t bothered by the fact they were cheating on their spouses and being cheated on, and they seemed amused by the fact their friends all knew and didn’t care. So why should we, as the audience, care about any of them and their cheating either?"

I saw 'Betrayal' last night, and ^^^ this was almost verbatim the verdict of my companion. I am mystified by the premise that characters must behave in a particular--morally upstanding, ethical, conscientious, etc.--manner in order for us to find their actions or their stories to be worthy of our attention.

Isn't it precisely their flawed humanity that makes them compelling? Not to mention the fact that you bought tickets to a show called "Betrayal". Did you not expect that there would be--you know--BETRAYAL involved??? For me, a great deal of the dramatic and narrative interest comes from seeing the many ways that these characters betray each other,their off-stage families and colleagues and--ultimately-- themselves and their own best interests.

As to the reverse chronology of the narrative: I agree that it can be a gimmick. Done well, however, (as I think it is here) I find it adds a powerful poignancy and emotional impact as the show proceeds. It doesn't rip your heart out like it does in 'Merrily We Roll Along', but it does force the audience to see the early, "innocent" scenes in a very different light--our foreknowledge colors the way we interpret the character's early actions, and puts us in the position of knowing more about the characters and situations than they do themselves.

HAVING SAID ALL THAT--I can't say that I found this production as satisfying as others I have seen. I confess that I even found the film more compelling. I wonder if--as was suggested earlier--the physical distance of being in the rear mezzanine contributed to an emotional distance. Or maybe the emotional connection just wasn't there, regardless of proximity.

For the record: I don't think I've ever seen a Daniel Craig film.

---

Updated On: 10/19/13 at 01:41 PM

I love the movie of Betrayal and also saw a wonderful production of the play at the Donmar Warehouse with Samuel West and Toby Stephens a few years ago. So I don't think Betrayal has to be boring or dull at all. With these competent actors maybe Mike Nichols is to blame here? He did manage to make The Country Girl one of the most soporific shows I've seen on Broadway.