Everything that's wrong with REASONS TO BE PRETTY

[Watching]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 9:52pm

I saw REASONS TO BE PRETTY off-Broadway, and when I later heard it would be transferring to Broadway, my first thought was "Who on earth liked this play enough to move it to Broadway?" I am truly perplexed by all the love for this show on this message board and by critics. I think the play provides good scenes for acting students, but the whole is definitely less than the sum of its parts. And while the actors are competent, even good, I don't think anyone's performance is extraordinary or award/nomination-worthy.
These are the problems I have with the play:

(1) I don't for a second buy these characters as "working class." When I saw the show on Broadway, at intermission my companion was wondering how old the characters are supposed to be and she said, "You figure they met in college..." And I think I watched the play the first time thinking the same thing, even though the dialogue contradicted it. But nothing in how the characters look, behave and sound suggest anything other than middle class--they seem just like the people on Friends or the gajillion other TV shows & movies about young people post-college. Granted, this is a problem for many playwrights and screenwriters...who are usually solidly middle class or higher and educated at elite universities. They can't convincingly write blue collar/working class characters. It's just patronizing (not to mention hackneyed and unlikely) to depict someone of a lower socioeconomic trying to "better" himself by reading the classics. And at the risk of sounding really classist, please, go visit the break room of your local Costco and let us know how many people there are reading Hawthorne.

(2) Perhaps even more implausible is the friendship between the men: A nice, considerate, sensitive man is best buds with a boorish cad. Why would these guys ever be friends? Don't you think the nice guy would have long ago become disgusted enough to be fed up with the obnoxious guy's comments and behavior? (or maybe vice versa) The explanation in REASONS--I became friends with you so you wouldn't beat me up--is so dumb. Since when are playground bullies looking to befriend the kids they pick on?

(3) This play is not about the undue importance of looks in our society. Someone in another thread accused the show of "bait and switch" with its advertising and I agree. Getting pissed at your boyfriend because you found out he insulted your looks has nothing to do with "society" or "body image." You're pissed because your boyfriend insulted you to other people!!! That's understandable. I think anyone, male or female, would be annoyed to learn that their significant other bad-mouthed them behind their back--even if it's a criticism they're aware of or the boy/girlfriend would say to their face! And it wouldn't have to be an insult about looks either. Also, there's nothing else in the other REASONS storylines--the other couple, the men's friendship--that deals with society's beauty standards. I don't know why they insisted on positioning that as the theme of the play. It doesn't say anything about it, at least I didn't discern anything after 2 viewings.

(4) The two couples' relationships and stories have no connection. What difference does it make that they're all supposed to be longtime friends. There's no real overlap in what happens to both couples, and the Marin Ireland character doesn't even interact onstage with the other woman and guy.

(5) Character development is pretty one-dimensional. Like, you could describe each character in a word or two...anything deeper about their lives or personalities is never revealed.

(6) Okay, this is a personal pet peeve, but I hate putting names in all lowercase for no good reason. (When is there a good reason anyway?)

So, basically, I don't think this is a very good play. I will say they made a good change for the Broadway run cutting out the monologues. But I'm not very sympathetic to its box office woes because I think its potential appeal was grossly overestimated.
Updated On: 5/17/09 at 09:52 PM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 9:59pm

Guess you haven't heard of "suspension of disbelief"