#1
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?
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
