#26
Posted: 4/1/12 at 9:29am
Actually, in the ORIGINAL Boeing Boing and Don't Dress for Dinner, Bernard and Robert are both French... as in "Bare-nard" and "Roe-bear".
Don't Dress For Dinner - 1st Preview — Page 2
#27
Posted: 4/2/12 at 2:42am
I'm honestly shocked to read all these positive reactions. Saw this with Kad today on a whim and was seriously disappointed. I'm a big fan of both Jennifer Tilly and Spencer Kayden and neither of them let me down. They were truly the best of the bunch and very, very funny. But the production: a mess. It all begins with the show itself, implausible and ludicrous even by farce standards. The big tie-up at the end? So lazy and convoluted. Then there's the direction and the performances. It moves more like a Noel Coward play than a French sex farce, which does not suit the already sloppy playwriting nicely.
I can see a nod for Featured Actress for Kayden, but otherwise, this really let me down big time. And on a crappy weather day after a disappointing lack of a PETER AND THE STARCATCHER performance, it was really a bummer. Too bad. Big fan of BOEING BOEING.
I can see a nod for Featured Actress for Kayden, but otherwise, this really let me down big time. And on a crappy weather day after a disappointing lack of a PETER AND THE STARCATCHER performance, it was really a bummer. Too bad. Big fan of BOEING BOEING.
Updated On: 4/2/12 at 02:42 AM
#29
Posted: 4/2/12 at 6:46am
"It all begins with the show itself, implausible and ludicrous even by farce standards."
By French farce standards? How many French farces do you know?
" It moves more like a Noel Coward play than a French sex farce,"
Same question as above.
Unless you're comparing it to Coward's own Feydeau farce, Look After Lulu.
By French farce standards? How many French farces do you know?
" It moves more like a Noel Coward play than a French sex farce,"
Same question as above.
Unless you're comparing it to Coward's own Feydeau farce, Look After Lulu.
#30
Posted: 4/2/12 at 7:00am
Picked up tickets for this next month as a lark -- so glad I did based on the comments!
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#31
Posted: 4/2/12 at 11:48am
Beensince1987, I never realized it, but, yes, Jim Parsons does somewhat resemble Ben Daniels, especially when the latter purses his lips comically in the play.
#32
Posted: 4/2/12 at 12:44pm
Yeah, I was disappointed.
This is essentially Spencer Kayden's show, and she is fantastic. I hope she gets a Tony nomination. It's a shame that such a brilliant performance and wonderful performer is wasted on such a mediocre production and play.
Jennifer Tilly manages to wring the most laughs she can out of her character, usually just with her unique voice and the hilarious lack of class she gives her character.
However, those are essentially the only two reasons to see this show, in my opinion. Adam James seems to operate under the philosophy, "When in doubt, flail around. When not in doubt... flail around." Ben Daniels didn't really even register for me.
Unlike Matthew Warchus's sleek production of Boeing-Boeing (to which this will obviously be compared, despite the fact this "sequel" has nothing in common with that play aside from the names of its.. protagonists), this production is clunky and moves too slowly in between comic set pieces (of which there aren't many good ones). The text itself is likewise inferior to Boeing-Boeing, not that the bar was set too high to begin with. If anything, this production illuminates what a miracle the Boeing-Boeing revival really was; it was a holy union of savvy directing, wonderful performances, and clever design. This production has only one wonderful performance, truly, and a good performance from Tilly. The design, aside from William Ivey Long's reliably good costumes (Kayden's onstage costume change was a surprising highlight, and Tilly's hat manages to be a better joke than most in the script), is ugly and not even well-utilized.
This production also doesn't mask the piece's datedness or inherent unsavoriness of plot. This is not to say Boeing-Boeing was a shining example of progressive thought... but that production managed to conceal the sexist "too many stewardesses!" tone. This... not so much. The two adulterers that serve as the protagonists get off scot-free, united with their "rightful" partners in a half-hearted resolution. It's fine to do plays such as these, but for god's sake you better do them with such energy and verve that I don't have time to stop and think how unlikeable the protagonists are or how sexist the plot is. I shouldn't have time to stop and think much at all.
This is essentially Spencer Kayden's show, and she is fantastic. I hope she gets a Tony nomination. It's a shame that such a brilliant performance and wonderful performer is wasted on such a mediocre production and play.
Jennifer Tilly manages to wring the most laughs she can out of her character, usually just with her unique voice and the hilarious lack of class she gives her character.
However, those are essentially the only two reasons to see this show, in my opinion. Adam James seems to operate under the philosophy, "When in doubt, flail around. When not in doubt... flail around." Ben Daniels didn't really even register for me.
Unlike Matthew Warchus's sleek production of Boeing-Boeing (to which this will obviously be compared, despite the fact this "sequel" has nothing in common with that play aside from the names of its.. protagonists), this production is clunky and moves too slowly in between comic set pieces (of which there aren't many good ones). The text itself is likewise inferior to Boeing-Boeing, not that the bar was set too high to begin with. If anything, this production illuminates what a miracle the Boeing-Boeing revival really was; it was a holy union of savvy directing, wonderful performances, and clever design. This production has only one wonderful performance, truly, and a good performance from Tilly. The design, aside from William Ivey Long's reliably good costumes (Kayden's onstage costume change was a surprising highlight, and Tilly's hat manages to be a better joke than most in the script), is ugly and not even well-utilized.
This production also doesn't mask the piece's datedness or inherent unsavoriness of plot. This is not to say Boeing-Boeing was a shining example of progressive thought... but that production managed to conceal the sexist "too many stewardesses!" tone. This... not so much. The two adulterers that serve as the protagonists get off scot-free, united with their "rightful" partners in a half-hearted resolution. It's fine to do plays such as these, but for god's sake you better do them with such energy and verve that I don't have time to stop and think how unlikeable the protagonists are or how sexist the plot is. I shouldn't have time to stop and think much at all.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#34
Posted: 4/2/12 at 2:02pm
I didn't really care for it either. Actually fell asleep. TWICE. I thought it creaked along at a very slow pace, and spent the entire time wondering what was the point without Mark Rylance? That performance is going to be burned in everyone's minds for a long time and so there is going to be an unavoidable comparison. And Mr. Rylance was just plain FUNNY. Mr. Daniels is... fine. But nowhere near Rylance.
Thought it was a bore. No idea why they brought it in. Though Kayden is deliriously funny.
Thought it was a bore. No idea why they brought it in. Though Kayden is deliriously funny.
"I know now that theatre saved my life." - Susan Stroman
Updated On: 4/2/12 at 02:02 PM
#35
Posted: 4/2/12 at 2:15pm
Rylance was excellent. The actors I saw perform the part in Paris in both plays were better.
I loved Daniels. I think he is better than Rylance would be now, Rylance having turned into a very fussy, self-conscious performer.
I loved Daniels. I think he is better than Rylance would be now, Rylance having turned into a very fussy, self-conscious performer.
#36
"^
Yuck. What a sour apple."
Legit LOL
With posts like this, it's fun to imagine you're actually an elaborate satirist.
Please never stop.
Posted: 4/2/12 at 2:24pm
"^
Yuck. What a sour apple."
Legit LOL
With posts like this, it's fun to imagine you're actually an elaborate satirist.
Please never stop.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#37
Posted: 4/2/12 at 3:00pm
After Eight is a hell of a lot more amusing than a lot that's out there, lemme tell you.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#38
I could not and would not argue that point.
Posted: 4/2/12 at 3:15pm
I could not and would not argue that point.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#39
Posted: 4/2/12 at 3:24pm
After Eight hates it when people actually take the time to explain their opinion. Yet he seems to still slough through long post after long post. Probably so he can continue to complain about long posts.
"You travel alone because other people are only there to remind you how much that hook hurts that we all bit down on. Wait for that one day we can bite free and get back out there in space where we belong, sail back over water, over skies, into space, the hook finally out of our mouths and we wander back out there in space spawning to other planets never to return hurrah to earth and we'll look back and can't even see these lives here anymore. Only the taste of blood to remind us we ever existed. The earth is small. We're gone. We're dead. We're safe."
-John Guare, Landscape of the Body
#40
Posted: 4/2/12 at 3:30pm
Not long posts.
Prolix posts.
Only a plebian would say "long post".
Prolix posts.
Only a plebian would say "long post".
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#41
tp;dr
Posted: 4/2/12 at 3:34pm
tp;dr
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#42
Posted: 4/2/12 at 3:47pm
AC,
I do not plod through every long post. In fact, I try to avoid them.
In the case of Kad, I was curious to find out why he would go to a play he would so obviously hate. I still haven't found out. Maybe his friend dragged him there.
I do not plod through every long post. In fact, I try to avoid them.
In the case of Kad, I was curious to find out why he would go to a play he would so obviously hate. I still haven't found out. Maybe his friend dragged him there.
#43
"...I was curious to find out why he would go to a play he would so obviously hate."
OMG Priceless!
Posted: 4/2/12 at 3:52pm
"...I was curious to find out why he would go to a play he would so obviously hate."
OMG Priceless!
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#44
Posted: 4/2/12 at 4:10pm
I'm sorry, I didn't even think that was a serious question! Again, my apologies.
I went because I typically enjoy going to the theatre. I enjoyed Boeing-Boeing a great deal, I enjoy the work of Jennifer Tilly and Spencer Kayden, the tickets were $22, and I enjoy comedy. I was actually looking forward to it.
I have to say I'm far more enjoying the irony in this exchange than the comedy in the play.
I went because I typically enjoy going to the theatre. I enjoyed Boeing-Boeing a great deal, I enjoy the work of Jennifer Tilly and Spencer Kayden, the tickets were $22, and I enjoy comedy. I was actually looking forward to it.
I have to say I'm far more enjoying the irony in this exchange than the comedy in the play.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#45
Posted: 4/2/12 at 4:36pm
Kad,
To show you what a good sport I am, I'll apologize to you too, for picking on you. In the end, you're not a bad bloke. (Don't ask me about the beginning.) You're intelligent, to be sure, and your love of theatre seems heartfelt.
But you're a Once and Book of Mormon person. A Sons of the Prophet person. You were not going to like Don't Dress for Dinner.
Well, enjoy Starcatcher, and do let us know what you think. But in few words, please.
To show you what a good sport I am, I'll apologize to you too, for picking on you. In the end, you're not a bad bloke. (Don't ask me about the beginning.) You're intelligent, to be sure, and your love of theatre seems heartfelt.
But you're a Once and Book of Mormon person. A Sons of the Prophet person. You were not going to like Don't Dress for Dinner.
Well, enjoy Starcatcher, and do let us know what you think. But in few words, please.
#46
Posted: 4/2/12 at 4:40pm
I like MORMON, ONCE & PROPHET and liked this as well.
As usual you make no sense.
As usual you make no sense.
#47
You must be mistaken, Jordan. That is impossible.
There are two types of theater, and you can only enjoy one or the other.
I'm sorry. You'll have to think about this a little more.
Posted: 4/2/12 at 4:41pm
You must be mistaken, Jordan. That is impossible.
There are two types of theater, and you can only enjoy one or the other.
I'm sorry. You'll have to think about this a little more.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#48
Posted: 4/2/12 at 5:03pm
That's ridiculous. You can't categorize people like that. That's like saying that because I enjoy vegetables and fish, I won't enjoy red meat. It's false logic.
I loved Boeing-Boeing, and that's the exact same sort of play as this. You seem to ignore that point. I quite enjoy farce. I did not enjoy THIS farce, for the reasons above.
I loved Boeing-Boeing, and that's the exact same sort of play as this. You seem to ignore that point. I quite enjoy farce. I did not enjoy THIS farce, for the reasons above.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#49
Posted: 4/2/12 at 5:07pm
And, if there's one thing we can agree on, it's that Clybourne Park isn't good. I never thought I'd agree with you on that.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#50
Posted: 4/3/12 at 8:28am
By French farce standards? How many French farces do you know?
French farces? Not many. But I know more than enough about farce to make an assessment on the effectiveness of this particular farce. I enjoyed BOEING BOEING quite a bit. This did not work as well because the script is too contrived and it wasn't directed as effectively.
And as for the comment about my not knowing Noel Coward, I haven't read or seen LOOK AFTER LULU, but I know my fair share of Coward and I was referring to the pace of this production. It should have zipped by and it just kind of fell flat.
I don't see the need to attack Kad and I for our differing opinions. It's an opinion for a reason. Like Kad, I enjoy comedy, especially farce. By all accounts, I really should have enjoyed this. But I didn't. With the exception of Kayden and Tilly, of course, who were fabulous.
French farces? Not many. But I know more than enough about farce to make an assessment on the effectiveness of this particular farce. I enjoyed BOEING BOEING quite a bit. This did not work as well because the script is too contrived and it wasn't directed as effectively.
And as for the comment about my not knowing Noel Coward, I haven't read or seen LOOK AFTER LULU, but I know my fair share of Coward and I was referring to the pace of this production. It should have zipped by and it just kind of fell flat.
I don't see the need to attack Kad and I for our differing opinions. It's an opinion for a reason. Like Kad, I enjoy comedy, especially farce. By all accounts, I really should have enjoyed this. But I didn't. With the exception of Kayden and Tilly, of course, who were fabulous.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95