Brief thoughts on MARY STUART

Great acting, featuring the most unsung heroes I've ever seen.

The play itself is a snorer, but we knew that.

The ladies, Janet and Harriet, are superb. It's just unfortunate that their titanic performances overshadowed the ones of Maria Tucci, John Hickey, Chandler Williams, Robert Stanton, etc. Another very memorable ensemble to add to the 2008-2009 season of very memorable ensembles.

Phyllida Lloyd's production is rather stunning; the same word can be applied to the Tony winning costume concept by Anthony Ward and Hugh Vanstone's shadowy lighting. The brick wall was the same the Donmar used in PIAF (different designer) and is using in HAMLET (different designer).

Overall, worth seeing for the acting. And the rain.

But if you're expecting something other than a talky, this ain't the one for you, no matter how good the acting is.

This was one of my least favorite plays I saw this season. As you said, I found it overlong and boring. It's not the length of the piece per se (I loved Joe Turner). But everything just felt so. drawn.....out....

I'm in the minority on this one, but I thought Janet McTeer went way over the top here. I was impressed with everyone else.

I thought Harriet Walter was far better than McTeer.

I liked it, and I didn't the play was bad at all. It was an interesting idea, and there were many beautiful passages and the way it was all worded was quite beautiful. I loved it. It look a little getting use to, but I really enjoyed it, which I was surprised to find.

But if you're expecting something other than a talky, this ain't the one for you

Who would go to see German romanticism and expect there NOT to be talk?

I say to those who say it's too talky: Let them eat musicals!

I'm seeing it for a second time tonight, because I'm in the mood for REAL fireworks.

---

One of the most thrilling dramatic evenings in the theater I've ever experienced.

---

I saw this on July 3. The acting was stellar as was the overall production value. I do have a certain affinity towards history so the subject matter appealed. That said, the pacing was appallingly slow. I did enjoy it more than some of the other nominated plays this year. I haven't seen God of Carnage though; I am seeing it later this month.

---

PalJoey- Nice try, but no I have a quite good attention span and I was not the only one that remarked about this. Perhaps you should not be so quick to judge when someone criticizes a show. It was a direction issue for me. I just didn't care for the transitions between the scenes. That is it.

---

Updated On: 7/5/09 at 01:19 PM

Um, I just feel like I should throw out my support and love for Mary Stuart. It was my favorite/the best play I've ever seen on Broadway. Of course, I am usually partial to the British-style of theatre and I love Shakespeare...
I keep going back and forth when I try and decide if I liked Harriet or Janet better...which may have been a Tony-voter dilemna also. But yes, the supporting cast was phenominal. Especially liked the Chandler Williams guy (he was the one who played the psycho-fanatic right?).
Great great great theatre in some of its purest form. Wish it was appreciated here in America more. Grosses for it make me sad...

Whatever...you seem to have a problem with criticism of this show. I liked it; it just wasn't perfect.

---

Totally agree with PJ, MrLong and Jordan. Aloing with RUINED and BLITHE SPIRIT, it was one of the best evenings of theater I have spent this season. Found it absoltely gripping and not slow at all.

I was unxpected for how much of it laced was with a droll, acid humor...notably Elisabeth's monologue on marriage with the French ambassador.

I'd love to see an identically staged and costumed MARIA STUARDA.

---

Updated On: 7/5/09 at 04:24 PM