Dada Woof Papa Hot previews — Page 2

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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....

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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