Be careful before seeing Great Comet. What you should know — Page 2

Thank you n2nbaby and others with thoughtful replies. I wanted to respond to some points and elaborate.

I agree with you n2nbaby. That was the point I wanted to make. A huge chunk of the shows I've seen on Broadway have been under rush or lottery tickets, so I've seen my fair share of "obstructed" views. I know what it means, or what it should mean. But never have they ever been THIS obstructed. The Imperial may as well place a chair facing the wall in a corner in the back of the room and sell it as an obstructed seat, given Table C exists. This to me is just wrong. And this "pack 'em in" mentality adds to the "cheap," touristy feel I got from the show.

Also if, as many say, we can agree that The Great Comet has varying seating that could make or break your experience, that in of itself is reason to be wary of this show, and is why I dislike it! The alternative seating is one of the main selling points of this "innovative" production. To produce a show in which some seating are "gotcha!" seats and others are supposedly amazing is just bad production, in my opinion! I would think the contrasting dynamics of my experience and the older couple directly in front of me would be avoided by a Broadway production.

Also, if we were to ignore the fact that I bought obstructed seating, there's still the issue of storytelling. The story is slapped on top of the concept, rather than the other way around. Perhaps if I had better seats, I'd be just as distracted by the spectacle as the older couple in front of me, but as I said, that makes the show feel cheesy. The story, rather the telling of it, was not compelling, neither were the characters, and I'm not sure they would have been just because I could see better. A better view would have just allowed me to distract myself more from the shallow narrative. Given the fact that the wild seating plan completely alters your experience, you would think the producers would at least create a compelling, beautiful story to appease the house.


As for the couple who cut the line. About an hour or so before 10 a.m. the woman appeared and seemed to be chatting away with a man who was originally in front of me, outside the line. A bit later she sat down and it became clear she was now in line. I pointed this out to my friend who said maybe she and the guy she knew were buying together. Then out of nowhere, a few minutes before 10, her friend appears. I thought maybe he was just there for support. But it wasn't until we were at the ticket window that it was clear that they were both buying two tickets each, and had essentially sneaked into the line with the help of the original guy in front of us. Had I caught on to the scheme sooner I would have called them out.

I hate to say it, but this is pretty much how I felt about it as well. Now, those who liked it, awesome. I'd rather it be successful and get offbeat, original shows back in the public's eye than not. I applaud it hardcore for that, but even if people are seeing it for the show rather than Josh NOW...it's still Josh that that got this show to Broadway in the first place, because let's be honest there's no way it would have without some sort of stunt casting, much to my chagrin.

But I just didn't "get" this show. I won't say it's bad because it's not, but I just didn't "get" it. Now I get the "human nature and it's sins" thing, but I still didn't get get the WHY about all of it. Like...WHY does Natasha feel the need to have this lustful fling with a another dude? Because he's hot as the lyrics say? Because she's basically a 90's Disney Princess and wants more out of life? It's not like Andrey is portrayed as a "bad guy" or even someone you'd want to get away from. So...again, what's the reason? At least we know what the reason for the tryst in Waitress is and we can 100% empathize with it, but I couldn't empathize with Natasha when I don't know the reason for her wanting to run off with someone else. Everything characters do must have a reason and I'm not saying it needs to be spelled out in black and white Ala Waitress, but this gave me nothing whatsoever. I honestly felt like I was watching a soap opera (that analogy only JUST entered my head) in which everything is a scandal for scandals sake, everyone is cheating on each other, etc.

Pierre was the character I was seeing the show for (not Josh, the actual character) but yet we hardly saw him. And considering my own bouts with existential depression, I was hoping to connect more with that but didn't if only because Pierre isn't there all that much.

I just found this show hard to follow even when I read the synopsis more than once, and I usually can follow a show's plot easily as I'm a big picture person, not so much "detailed". I'm not sure if that was because of the writing or staging. Some said it's like it's trying to be artsy and different for the sake of being artsy and different rather than having a legit reason in terms of of storytelling. I tend to agree. As for it being interactional...I'm neither here nor there about that personally, but whether or not this is a passing fad/trend/ gimmick or a lasting thing remains to be seen. Obviously theatre people will take to that more easily than the laymen theatergoers, but my general observation is that laymen audiences are still not too keen on being interacted with. They're there to SEE it, not be a part of it. There's a place for interactional pieces but the Great White Way itself isn't exactly it, but that's just my opinion.

It was pretty clear to me why Natasha wanted to run off with Anatole. She's very young, has been sheltered for much of her life and has suddenly realized that she's attractive and appealing to men. That combined with the deliberately seductive Anatole (and Hélène) combined with her young, naive brain that doesn't take into account consequences or the feelings of others = affair.

As for your latter point, I think there's room for everything on Broadway and we should never try to pigeonhole Broadway into being about one thing (in this case interaction vs. no interaction). It's always easy to find out whether a show has audience interaction or not and those that dislike it can stay away.

I think the show's title reflects the ending of the show. The comet is barely in it too, but it's there at the end along with Natasha and Pierre (and no one else).

greenifyme2 said:
On other notes, I have a ticket for DEH for September that I'm pretty sure is obstructed view even though it didn't say anything when I bought it, nor is it on the ticket.

Which seat is that? Now you have me worried about my seat.

When writing in the style of a Yelp review, brevity is key.

Sorry you got stuck with those seats though, seriously. This isn't the first time I've heard they're awful. If you ever find yourself in such a situation again,talk to the house manager. Maybe they can move you or offer a refund.

For anyone who doesn't know, there is a thread where people discuss the pros and cons of different vantage points for this show.

^

I feel sorry for this person but I have to agree Trina and others. WOW! S/He is so unhappy that they joined BWW, on 6/10, (the same day), just to trash everything about the performance that same day. It also seems like s/he is experienced enough to know about Broadway/tkts/obstructed views/BWW, etc. and then when h/she didn't "get" Great Comet, it was the apocalypse. I was somewhat disappointed in "Anastasia" and a lot of other shows I've seen. We saw DEH with somewhat less than perfect seats, but it didn't ruin everything; we just decided to go again and know where to sit this time. Again, it's sad when this happens to you, but it's live theater and real life.

I get you didn't like "Great Comet" but really... as the saying goes, a person sees the glass half full or half empty, but it appears you've seen the glass half empty (with someone spitting in it). At least next time you'll have this experience behind you.

Updated On: 6/12/17 at 09:20 AM

Rainah said: "PaulWom said: "Also, about the strobe lights- the actors tell you that there are intense strobe lights in the first act, and if they are not for you, then you can close your eyes and just listen to the story until they're over"

Yeah, that's what I'd recommend too. But I just like to make a note about it when I talk about Comet, because they're so strong. I brush off warnings like "intense strobe lights used during the show" all the time because they never seem that bad, so I try and emphasize: yes, they are very strong



"

Had the same reaction. I saw the warning and brushed it off because it's usually like a 2 second flash. Holy **** the strobes totally messed with my brain. I eventually had to close my eyes it was so intense

Do I remember the novel correctly, henrik? In addition to your summary, hasn't it been months or a year since Natasha even HEARD from Andrey? He was wounded, almost mortally, at the battle of Austerlitz and has been laid up in a military hospital somewhere in Poland. For all she knows, he has married someone else.

What teenage girl would stay faithful to a boyfriend neither seen nor heard from after all that time?

As the opening number so brilliantly explains: "Anatole is hot... Natalie is young... and Andrey isn't here."

But there has perhaps never been show on Broadway in which choice of seat is as imperative a predictor of one's level of enjoyment.

Not only does one's view of the expansive and all-encompassing action differ dramatically depending on where one is sitting. But also one's view of the extraordinarily bedecked theatre and the strikingly composed and house-integrated set and set-integrated house.



Immediately, Candide, and Dude, come to mind. Although rare, Comet isn't the first time a Broadway theater was reconfigured to create a unique experience.

Bettyboy72 said: "I saw the show from front row mezzanine and still abhorred it. It seems like this show divides people-either they are swept under its spell or they are irritated. I fell into the latter with the chaotic pan-banging, focus-pulling migraine inducing antics. Hated most of it. I actually got death threats on facebook when I posted that I didn't like that woman who sings like a goat with a speech impediment. The rabid fans seem to go nuts for her in particular and will defend her talent to the death.

This show is in trouble when Josh leaves unless they find a heavy hitter. There's a reason it walked away with just one Tony for lighting. The chandelier deserved a nod over Steele and Benton. I thought both were uninspired. I thought the whole thing was a snooze. Without the staging, I bet it would be selling even less.



"

Actually, it rec'd two Tonys....the other for set design.



I loved it, I think it was my favorite of the season. (but I'm not sure anything from the season would make my top ten list)



To each his own....I just don't uderstand the bashing...of any show.

Clearly you don't need to be in the cast to enjoy it considering it has plenty of fans on this board and none of them are in the cast.

I concur with the OP's basic analysis of this show's narrative merits (or lack thereof). It's an overrated piece with a complex score that is more suited for Off or Off-Off Broadway.

Many of the show's own creative team have publicly expressed surprise that such a vanguard piece (although it does evidence Dave Malloy's genius) managed to make it beyond the tent .

The book is definitely the weakest element, and I am gobsmacked that Rachel Chavkin didn't win a Tony for BEST DIRECTION because she had to work harder than any of the other nominees to overcome a script that is lightweight, gimmicky, and leaves you cold.

But, hey, it has a ton of energy and the show's performance at the Tony's was by far the highlight of the telecast.

Since it's really all about the visuals, if you paid more than $50 to see just 30% of the show, in an obstructed view, you have a right to complain.