Dada Woof Papa Hot previews- Page 2

[UptownScribe]

Posted: 10/25/15 at 11:23pm

It's well done if you like the subject. I was bored because regardless of whether or not it's a heterosexual or homosexual couple it brings little that's new to marriage as fetish. These are themes for subscribers, and I'm one of them, but I usually steer clear of this theme because it's overdone. I expected something more from this take on the same story. However, the companion Lincoln Center magazine in the kiosks for a dollar have wonderful and enlightening essays and interviews in it. Yes, it is bourgie - beautiful sun-dappled apartments, a house in the Pines, exclusive restaurants each inhabited by types that telegraph - a successful freelance writer, a psychologist, a private equity manager, a TV actress ... And, the two women are written and directed to be shrill. Seen it. 

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/26/15 at 10:29am

I loved this show so much.

 

John Benjamin Hickey, always wonderful, is the anchor that holds this fantastic cast together.  This is one of his best performances, which is pretty much the highest praise I can give him.  He's exceptional.  And the rest of the cast is up to par with him, particularly Patrick Breen and Tammy Blanchard.  I was really moved and fascinated by the play.  It poses a lot of interesting questions about fidelity, gay culture, monogamy, etc., but it never feels preachy and it never feels like it's taking the easy route.  It's challenging, funny, moving, and wonderfully-written.  

 

Special shout-out to the sets, which function beautifully in the space.  I hope this isn't the last we see of this production.  

[Brick]

Posted: 10/26/15 at 12:14pm

UptownScribe said: "Yes, it is bourgie - beautiful sun-dappled apartments, a house in the Pines, exclusive restaurants each inhabited by types that telegraph - a successful freelance writer, a psychologist, a private equity manager, a TV actress ... And, the two women are written and directed to be shrill. Seen it."

This is exactly what I feared. I'm so tired of LGBT theatre being #whitepeopleproblems. Pass.

 

 

 

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 10/26/15 at 12:22pm

Brick said: "This is exactly what I feared. I'm so tired of LGBT theatre being #whitepeopleproblems. Pass."

 

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 10/26/15 at 12:31pm

I don't think the play was just white people problems. Now that marriage is legalized and adoption is more commonplace than ever, how are gays dealing with these new hetero-normative roles and are we losing our identity/"gayness." 

 

Aside from the truly wonderful performances the play brings up good, relevant issues for the current gay community. I found it refreshing and thought-provoking. 

[sing_dance_love]

Posted: 10/27/15 at 11:02pm

Saw this tonight and it was one of those serendipitous moments, where I couldn't believe how much it mirrors my personal hopes, thoughts, dreams, and anxieties for my future and place in gay (and otherwise) society today. 

Agree with the others, the acting was largely strong across the board, and the set was just right for the space. Hickey is just wonderful, in such a natural, unforced way. 

 

The text really mines for nuggets of truth without ever preaching or trying to be more than the playful volley of ideas that it is. It's also rather brilliant in that it's both an "issue" play and rather traditional relationship drama and the way that mirrors the characters struggles with identity. 

 

Glad I got to see this one. Great staging by Ellis.

Updated On: 10/27/15 at 11:02 PM

[DAME]

Posted: 11/12/15 at 5:49pm

Looking forward to seeing this. Still.. not a lot being said about it.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/12/15 at 5:53pm

"He's exceptional.  And the rest of the cast is up to par with him..."

But if everybody's exceptional, who's exceptional?

[uncageg]

Posted: 11/12/15 at 6:19pm

UptownScribe put into words why I have been on the fence about seeing this.

[SmoothLover]

Posted: 11/17/15 at 4:15pm

The production was very well directed and the set and lighting design was very smart. The acting for the most part was sublime. The script was solid although the protagonist was a bit tiring given that he was so miserable and ungrateful.. The actor handled it well but I was happy when the focus shifted later on and other things were revealed. The script required the actors to be very present and with the exception of one scene everyone hit their mark. I got a little chocked up at the end and would highly recommend the show. It was interesting seeing it with an audience of senior subscribers but they did not bat an eye and the themes were universal. I would not be surprised if the show got nominated for some off Broadway ensemble award. The actor from the Matt LeBlanc show on Showtime was exceptional. Unfortunately I was on the wrong side to see William Hurts son do his nude scene but his backside was divine.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 11/17/15 at 4:17pm

I hated it. Thought it was the 1 percent's, white people's problem. Only difference? These ones are gay. 

Tedious and boring. The performances are lovely, but beyond that.... 

[indytallguy]

Posted: 11/18/15 at 4:38pm

Solid acting. Simply staged. Moments of a good play here, but still feels like it needs more work. I'll always go see John Benjamin Hickey on stage though.

[SmoothLover]

Posted: 11/20/15 at 9:19am

The one sequence that was off the mark was the Fire island scene. I could not figure out if it was the writing or the actor who in the scene was letting his true feelings known to everyone in the room. I could see what the director doing with him but I could see the actor working at getting from A to C.

[Patash]

Posted: 11/20/15 at 12:44pm

White people problems?  Were all the actors white?  Maybe so, I didn't really notice or care.  But having quite a number of gay friends who are now married and having or adopting children,  some of them Asian, Indian, and black, as well as white -- I saw the play as being as related to all married gay couples who become parents.  How or why did race make a difference?  I'm confused.  Or was that a suggestion that since these guys were all professionals with money, then it couldn't apply to people who aren't white?  If that was the thought -- shame on you. 

 

[VernonGersch]

Posted: 11/21/15 at 1:35am

Thought this play was excellent and one of the best new plays I've seen in awhile.   

Phenonmal ensemble work anchored by the humanity of the writing - an excellent production and couldn't recommend this enough.  

Also, tickets were actually affordable too....and there really isn't a bad seat in this theater

i highly recommend 

[Brick]

Posted: 11/21/15 at 1:49pm

Patash said: "White people problems?  Were all the actors white?  Maybe so, I didn't really notice or care.  But having quite a number of gay friends who are now married and having or adopting children,  some of them Asian, Indian, and black, as well as white -- I saw the play as being as related to all married gay couples who become parents.  How or why did race make a difference?  I'm confused.  Or was that a suggestion that since these guys were all professionals with money, then it couldn't apply to people who aren't white?  If that was the thought -- shame on you. 

No, that is mostly true. #richpeopleproblems is usually reserved for white people. And a play about wealthy white New Yorkers is nothing new, but it certainly is old. I actually wondered if my care for such things was perhaps overly sensitive (in addition to simply bored), but was truly surprised to read Isherwood's main reservation about the play was its myopic, yuppy worldview. It was a strong review on every element, but he seemed to keep returning to how tone-deaf it was to class in this day and age. And that's the NY Times saying that!

And really, the main complaint I have is LGBT plays seems to almost always seems to be tone-deaf on class, unless there's some kind of rough trade involved (another tired trope).

 

 

"

 

[little_sally]

Posted: 11/29/15 at 10:43am

I saw this last night and enjoyed it quite a bit. John Benjamin Hickey really is the anchor of the piece, and he's great but I did enjoy the whole cast (not to mention Hickey is just so good looking.) I'm not married and I don't have children so I felt like I couldn't quite relate to many points in the text but it's strong enough that I could overlook that and just enjoy the evening. 

[macnyc]

Posted: 11/29/15 at 11:26am

I saw the matinee yesterday and really loved it. I was surprised how moving it was. I am a parent but I'm not gay, so I was wondering how much of the play would speak to me. I shouldn't have worried. And I don't think you need to be a parent either. Dada Woof Papa Hot expresses many universal truths quite beautifully. I particularly liked Patrick Breen's speech about missing his mother, and finding both distress and consolation as he sees echoes of her in his young daughter's face. And the ending, 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

about the "scariest thing," the opening line in Peter and the Wolf, when Peter opens the gate and walks into the big green meadow that was beyond it, made me cry because it doesn't sound particularly scary, but isn't it terrifying when

vistas open up before us for the first time and we have to leave the confines of a safe haven to live our lives to the fullest? And when we see our children do it? That's a metaphor for the whole play. And of course great performances too, as detailed by previous posters. And a hot guy strips naked! How good is that? Highly recommended.

 

 

Updated On: 11/29/15 at 11:26 AM

[greatwhiteway72]

Posted: 11/29/15 at 1:20pm

Can anyone explain the context of Alex Hurt's nudity? Is it gratuitous? 

[little_sally]

Posted: 11/29/15 at 1:28pm

The context of the nudity is under here 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

the two gay couples are hanging out on Fire Island and Alex Hurt's character comes out of the ocean and pulls off his bathing suit, wrapping a towel around himself. I felt like it was gratuitous and completely unexpected, as it didn't contribute anything to the scene  other than to maybe show how free the character was with sex? He was supposed to be a sex addict after all.

 

Updated On: 11/29/15 at 01:28 PM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 12/16/15 at 12:50am

I gotta say: I didn't love it. I was bored most of the time. It's a lot of blabbing and no real plot or motive. The fact that he says "I don't feel gay anymore" because he's not partying and sleeping around is mildly offensive. I didn't even really get what he was complaining about? He's saying he didn't want to be "hetero normative" and that his boyfriend was constantly sleeping around on him, but now he's with a husband who doesn't those things, and he's still not sure what he wants? And his explanation for "cheating" was total bull****. And I thought Blanchard was pretty bad in her cameo. She used the same damn arm gesture 99% of the time. 

I thought the writing was very "Modern contemporary writing." Lots of "I'm - I think, I'll go - the bathroom." Like, okay, we get that. That's nothing new or interesting. The characters didn't seem too dimensional or interesting to me, and a lot of the jokes felt dated - The Wire? 

The set was beautiful. I loved the design and direction. Thought that was the best use of the space I've seen in awhile, so hats off to them. 

The audience seemed responsive - and the nudity seemed very out of place and only put in for shock value and to wake the audience up. 

 

 

 

 

[VernonGersch]

Posted: 12/16/15 at 1:43am

I'll say it again, I throughly enjoyed this play.  Instant classic.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 12/16/15 at 1:46am

I can see what people have been saying about privilege but aside from a decent bit of "play" dialogue and monologuing, I enjoyed myself. There was some good humor throughout and I thought the moments that worked really worked. In particular, the end got to me after all we'd seen Alan go through and I thought the chemistry between the actors playing Alan and Rob was great throughout and really believable. I do wish there had been... less dialogue at times, especially early on, as it seemed superfluous and didn't really give the actors time to act the words they had to spit out as quickly as possible. I do think that the characters are a bit underwritten but it didn't detract too much from the play for me because it had something to say and ideas it wanted to wrestle with... it wasn't just another meandering plotless play that also didn't have real characters. I do wish it had a bit more bite and specificity. For instance, there's the borderline offensive way they talk about their nannies. It felt like a way of subtly acknowledging that all the characters were white and I wish there had been more of that instead of grand, universal vagaries on marriage and relationships (which were usually delivered in monologues). But again, overall, I did enjoy seeing the play and I would recommend it. I was also impressed with how much they did with such a small space.

 

Not white. Not gay. Not married. Not a parent. None of that was a problem for me. I still connected to this play.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 12/16/15 at 2:15am

I totally disagree. Not an instant classic in any shape or form. Nothing interesting was said or done. The two older gays fawning over the younger trainer? Cliche. The older gay "ogling" over the younger, fit gay? Cliche. Making fun of nannies as if they were a commodity? The fact that they both went through "affairs" and both went back to their spouses without so much as a bat of the eye (He cried, but more about his mother than the actual instance). It all just felt very convoluted and stifled, and not very well structured. 

[newintown]

Posted: 12/17/15 at 8:01am

I was a huge fan of Peter Parnell's work back in the 80s; I thought Romance Language and Hyde in Hollywood were big passionate plays, showing an adept weaving of big ideas and multiple characters.

 

But once TV claimed him, Parnell seemed to write soaps for the stage, like Dada Woof Papa Hot. As has been stated, it's seven wealthy white people sitting or standing around talking about how difficult their lives and feelings are. They all are obsessed with their children, but not as people; they discuss children the way fashionistas discuss clothes, or interior designers discuss furniture. To these people, children are mere accessories that add color and sparkle to to their status-driven lives. And if Parnell were satirizing that emptiness, it would be interesting; but it seems clear that now that he's married with a child of his own, writing soppy kiddie books with his husband, this is what he thinks the world's deepest issues are.

 

As for the production, it's the NYC standard; a blandly attractive set that glides silently around the stage between scenes, synchronized to an attractive lite-jazz score. I thought Pankow and Overbey came closest to creating characters (as opposed to characteristics), but no one is written deep here. Why Blanchard chooses to play her character with a Mob Wife accent is slightly distracting, but I suppose she wanted to do something to be noticed in a relatively thankless role. The 2 seconds of nudity is totally gratuitous; one gets the feeling that Scott Ellis had great lust in his heart for Alex Hurt and made him strip briefly, for purely personal enjoyment.

 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

I really don't understand the greatest plot point; maybe its just me but I can't imagine an intelligent, committed-for-13-years couple almost splitting up merely because one of them KISSED another man. It's manipulated playwrighting at its worst.

 

I hope Parnell finds his way back to writing about less banal lives.