DISTRACTED review

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 11:24pm

I thought I'd post my thoughts on the show, since it hasn't been discussed at all on the boards.

I saw the Sunday evening show. I paid $15 and sat in the last row of the mezz, which being of-Broadway was a great view.

The show is a mess. I'm not sure what it wants to be, or what direction it wants to go. It has elements of Wilder: the actors frequently comment to the audience about how they're in a play, and the stage hands come out and visibly hand the characters their props. It's an interesting idea, and it works well, but the text of the show is so jumbled with medical lingo that it all seems a bit overwhelming at times.

The story centers on "Mamma" played by Cynthia Nixon. Basically, her son might have ADD/ADHD. Throughout the course of the show Mamma and her husband, "Dad," confront many different doctors and neighbors about the different types of ADD and their many side effects and various treatments.

At times the show felt like a textbook. So many different types of medications being thrown at you, and so many different symptoms, etc. The play has a few funny gems, and the character of Vera is hilarious - if a bit unneeded.

The son isn't seen until the very end of the play. He shouts from offstage and runs across the stage, but isn't seen until the last few minutes of the play. He shouts the different Scenes: like "Scene 1" or a few times the other actors introduced the scenes.

Where the play fails is in its dramatic purpose. There really isn't much "drama" here. Essentially Nixon is confused about what to do with her son. The play is summed up in a pretty lame "Just love your child and do what's best" kind of attitude. The play does crackle when Nixon and her husband have disputes and where they can drop the random theatrical quirks (like announcing the scenes) and just confront each other. It's hinted at in Act 1 that "Dad" might be having an affair, or something, but that's never touched on again. I believe he says he needs to leave for an appointment, and the doctor says something like "you know he doesn't really have one." But that topic is never hinted at or discussed later on like I was expecting.

The set is awful. It just looks ugly. It's an ugly dated color and the different screens and projects just look messy. The director has some of the actors enter on the top "bridge" facing profile. Their faces are then projected on screens upstage. I don't understand what the point of that waS? A lot of the direction was confusing. I understand the play is called "Distracted" (and trust me, the playwright uses that word many a time), and so maybe some of his choices were meant to be distracting, but that just seems too obvious. For instance, in one of the scenes with Dad and Mom, the waitress is just in the scene pouring their glasses and stealing focus. I have no clue what was spoken of in the scene because the waitress was far more entertaining. I'm not sure if that was the point, but if it was, then what was the point of the scene? I didn't hear the dialogue, so... ?

The actors for the most part were fine. I didn't feel like the script had any moments for Nixon to show any sort of acting range. She was pretty subdued throughout. The only stand out I'd say would be Vera. She was hilarious and quirky, but in a natural way. My only complaint, acting wise, would be that the actress playing Natalie might need to tone it down a little. She was too big in Act 1 - especially playing opposite the ultra natural Nixon - but she had a really great moment in Act 2 when she was talking to Nixon via "instant message."

Overall the show has some great moments, and I was entertained the entire time, but leaving the theater it just seemed a little too "Lifetime" for me. The first act was only an hour, but it felt like an hour and a half, same for the second.

Anyone else see it?
Updated On: 2/9/09 at 11:24 PM

[April Saul]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 11:32pm

Interesting...people on the other board are absolutely raving about it and I ran into some folks tonight who loved it as well; I think you may be in the minority on this one, but it's probably too soon to say.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 11:35pm

Wow. I couldn't disagree with you more. I saw the show Saturday night and LOVED every second of it. Cynthia Nixon was on stage the entire show and completely blew me away. She was outstanding, as was the rest of the cast. Everyone around me seemed to love it too. Go see this!

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 11:38pm

How come people keep making new threads that f**k up the board? It's really annoying.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 11:59pm

How did it "f*ck up" the board? Sorry.

And I guess so. I mean, I didn't think Nixon was awful or anything of the sort, but she just didn't "wow" me, but like I said, I think that had to do with the script.

I just thought it was too many ideas and too messy. There just wasn't an engaging story to me.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 2/9/09 at 12:04am

Maybe it's just me? The topic is in the envelope column so everything else is pushed over.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 2/9/09 at 12:13am

Not for me. I changed the title so maybe that helps?

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 2/9/09 at 1:24am

I have to agree with WAT on this one. I saw the show this afternoon and had a wonderful time. The play flew by, and I was utterly wowed by Cynthia Nixon's performance. The whole audience was loving every minute of it.

I loved the way the characters broke the fourth wall and interacted with the audience, especially Peter Benson's tirade in the second act. He received a healthy amount of applause afterwards.

I hope to make it back to the Laura Pels before this limited run is over. Highly suggested.

[Cape Twirl of Doom]

Posted: 2/9/09 at 9:37am

I completely disagree with the OP. I saw the show Saturday night and I loved it! I thought the way the audience was included in the show worked really well and provided a lot of laughs. I had no trouble understanding any of the dialogue.

It's hinted at in Act 1 that "Dad" might be having an affair, or something, but that's never touched on again. I believe he says he needs to leave for an appointment, and the doctor says something like "you know he doesn't really have one." But that topic is never hinted at or discussed later on like I was expecting.

I did not think that at all and I don't think that's where they were going. He was just uncomfortable with what the doctor was saying and wanted to get out of there as fast as possible.

[butterflyblob]

Posted: 2/9/09 at 12:53pm

I saw it Saturday night, front mezz, $15, and really enjoyed it. It's not a perfect show and could use another week or so of rehearsals--it is in previews, after all. I agree with the OP that it doesn't have a lot of drama, but I still found it entertaining. I really enjoyed Cynthia Nixon, and Peter Benson was hilarious.

My one strong criticism of the show is that the way they do scene changes was very jarring--like the OP said, the kid yells "Scene X!" and that's it. A lot of the time there isn't a natural break point. I assume this was done intentionally, in keeping with the ADD theme, but it didn't work for me.

[Insider2]

Posted: 2/9/09 at 1:00pm

$15.00 tickets? How does that work? Is it just for students or something? Thanks in advance.

[Cape Twirl of Doom]

Posted: 2/9/09 at 1:39pm

$15.00 tickets? How does that work? Is it just for students or something? Thanks in advance.

HIPTIX was running a deal for the 4 performances this past weekend of $15 for all tickets.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 2/9/09 at 10:40pm

HipTix, so I jumped at it. I'm glad I saw the show, but I don't know. Something about it just left me unfulfilled. I think it's because I don't entirely agree with the Brechtian structure of the show. It goes back to the whole point of theater, and the whole basis of theater, which is conflict. But where was the conflict in the play? They both wanted to help their child, and they both decided something needed to be done? Sure the Dad few threw tirades here and there, but nothing that didn't end within the scene.

Also, the whole idea of Brechtian (I'm not sure about the spelling) is to disengage the audience from the show. Now, I can understand the purpose of it, but to have to sit through it is a different matter. I mean, why would I want to watch a show and not be engaged by it? Why would I not want to be moved by it. Sure, the show had some great laughs, but at the end of the night did it ask any questions that haven't already been asked? A lot of Loomer's ( the playwright ) points of view were just so freakin' obvious. I don't really remember them in detail, but she'd bring up things and basically just say like "doing drugs is bad." It just wasn't my cup of tea. I prefer my comedies with a deeper meaning.

[winston89]

Posted: 2/9/09 at 11:07pm

I am VERY interested in seeing this play because this is a topic that hits very close to home for me. I have MINOR learning issues, and I went to a middle school/high school where there were kids who were diagnosed with ADD or AD/HD etc. My dad is a doctor in the field and he always comes home from work with stories of parents convinced that they have ADD or AD/HD (despite not believing in those kinds of labels) and ask him for help. It's because of those reasons that I am very much looking forward to seeing the play. I haven't seen or heard of a show in recent memory that has subject matter that I am very well aware of. I am sure that because of this, some of the medical text that it is in the play is something that shouldn't really be a problem for me.