#2
Posted: 1/17/18 at 9:09pm
Not going until February if the word is good. I found Mothers and Sons to be a bore. When a play in NYC advertises graphic nudity and sexual content, it reeks of desperation to sell tickets. Sad that a playwright of his caliber is doing that. The proof will be in the pudding.
"The sexual energy between the mother and son really concerns me!"-random woman behind me at Next to Normal
"I want to meet him after and bang him!"-random woman who exposed her breasts at Rock of Ages, referring to James Carpinello
#3
Posted: 1/17/18 at 9:20pm
I got a ticket from one of the comping sites, not for this coming Saturday, but for the following Saturday. I've never been too impressed with what I've seen of McNally's work. I'm not hugely optimistic, but for only a $5 fee, and with that cast, it was still a no-brainer for me!
Will report back.
#4
Posted: 1/17/18 at 10:38pm
Bettyboy72 said: “When aplay in NYC advertises graphic nudity and sexual content, it reeks of desperation to sell tickets. Sad that a playwright of his caliber is doing that.”
Or maybe they’re just giving their audiences fair warning that the show is for mature audiences only and to leave the kids at home? Where do you see this being “advertised” other than in fine print on any page where they’re selling tickets?
#5
Posted: 1/17/18 at 11:01pm
I was there tonight and very mixed- I like Terrence McNally, ballet, and hot shirtless guys but this was mostly a slog. It actually reminded me a lot of Judas Kiss by David Hare. I will say the nudity is very brief, one character is in a dance belt for two seconds and then he comes back naked but wrapped in a curtain so you don't see much (this isn't Afterglow nudity if you are expecting that).
My biggest issue is that there was no sense of conflict, there is very little plot and it's mostly just Diaghelev pontificating about how the world isn't ready for his radical new art. That's fine for an 80 minute piece I guess but this was 2:10 with an intermission. As far as set, there are two massive mirrors (one on the back wall, one hanging from the ceiling) and a few chairs that's honestly it. Marin Mazzie was flawless but her character didn't add much. It's an interesting ensemble piece which I guess one might love if he/she REALLY loved ballet but this just left me bored. Also, it's a show about a ballet without any dance at all. Literally, there is no dancing. In a few scenes the characters look into the distance and you are supposed to imagine that dancing is happening.
#7
Posted: 1/18/18 at 11:26am
GreasedLightning said: "Bettyboy72 said: “When aplay in NYC advertises graphic nudity and sexual content, it reeks of desperation to sell tickets. Sad that a playwright of his caliber is doing that.”
Or maybe they’re just giving their audiences fair warning that the show is for mature audiences only and to leave the kids at home? Where do you see this being “advertised” other than in fine printon any page where they’re selling tickets?"
Since when do educated theatre goers need nudity trigger warnings, especially in NYC? This is an old gay theatre ploy on the purple circuit to fill the houses on a risky show. The only shows I recall advertising nudity are High, Afterglow, and Fire and Air. Do you sense a trend. It's vulgar and disrespectful to actors to advertise them appearing nude. Most shows don't do that. It's a ticket selling ploy.
"The sexual energy between the mother and son really concerns me!"-random woman behind me at Next to Normal
"I want to meet him after and bang him!"-random woman who exposed her breasts at Rock of Ages, referring to James Carpinello
#8
Posted: 1/18/18 at 8:37pm
Bettyboy72 said: "GreasedLightning said: "Bettyboy72 said: “When aplay in NYC advertises graphic nudity and sexual content, it reeks of desperation to sell tickets. Sad that a playwright of his caliber is doing that.”
Or maybe they’re just giving their audiences fair warning that the show is for mature audiences only and to leave the kids at home? Where do you see this being “advertised” other than in fine printon any page where they’re selling tickets?"
Since when do educated theatre goers need nudity trigger warnings, especially in NYC? This is an old gay theatre ploy on the purple circuit to fill the houses on a risky show. The only shows I recall advertising nudity are High, Afterglow, and Fire and Air. Do you sense a trend. It's vulgar and disrespectful to actors to advertise them appearing nude. Most shows don't do that. It's a ticket selling ploy.
"
Um, almost any theater anywhere will have some sort of warning about nudity, adult themes, etc somewhere where you buy the tickets. Yes, educated theater goers will know that most productions of Hair ends the first act with the cast nude, but people who don't know theater will not and may not want to see it because of that or other aspects of the show. I only bring Hair up cause it was the last show I could think of that had a disclaimer on it's website. Maybe you should calm down a little bit?
#9
Posted: 1/18/18 at 10:26pm
This thread is unfortunate. Tonight it was well acted and paced. The writing is good. It's Douglas Hodge what more can you want? Expecting this to be ballet is as bad as not knowing there's a second act
#10
Posted: 1/18/18 at 10:40pm
Is the nudity in the first act or is it in the second act? For those who thought it was boring, would you say that if you're bored out of your mind in the first act, it's going to be more of the same in the second act (or does it pick up & become much more interesting if you stay after intermission)?
#11
Posted: 1/18/18 at 10:49pm
BakerWilliams said: "what a dud year CSC is having"
There have been only 2 people in this thread who have reported on the actual show. Hardly a consensus of opinion so far.
#12
Posted: 1/18/18 at 10:56pm
^
The second act had a bit more life to it, but it was still overly tepid fare. The old theatrical adage, "show don't tell," was unwisely disregarded here, indeed, as it is so often in so many plays nowadays. I guess it's easier to recount than dramatize, but that doesn't make it any easier on an audience.
I thought the actors did well with the material.
Updated On: 1/19/18 at 10:56 PM
#13
Posted: 1/18/18 at 11:01pm
rg7759 said: "This thread is unfortunate. Tonight it was well acted and paced. The writing is good. It's Douglas Hodge what more can you want? Expecting this to be ballet is as bad as not knowing there's a second act"
I don't think anyone expects this to be an actual ballet.
#14
Posted: 1/26/18 at 3:59pm
I saw this last night and too found it to be pointless and slow. Why did we need the intermission? Just cut it and a few lines and make it 95 minutes. I also assume it must have read better than it plays since it attracted larger names to the cast.My friend pointed out it was configured like almost every recent Doyle-directed show at CSC.
Did it bother anyone else James Custai-Moyer was referred to constantly as a brilliant and talented dancer and Jay Armstrong Johnson was criticized for not being as good despite during the bar work scene Jay was much better?
#15
Posted: 1/27/18 at 10:42pm
God, there must be a way everyone’s talents on stage and off stage could be used better than this play. The highlight of Marin Mazzie’s performance is bobbing on a chair for several minutes while they were on a ‘train’. Hodge plays his character in a rather shrill and unsympathetic way - though it’s what the material seems to call for (I wonder if a charismatic actor like Nathan Lane could save this piece - to me it actually seems like a star vehicle for this role while the others don’t have much to do). I guess it explored some interesting relationships between Hodge’s character and the young boys (this seemed to be the central focus of the play to me). And there is the occasional interesting line or idea or moment. But overall, can’t recommend unless you have nothing better to do. I can’t imagine this having much of a life after this run despite the pedigree of the creative team and cast, so if you’re curious perhaps check it out.
The least they could have done is give us some genuine nudity - but there is no dick and balls to be seen here. There is probably more nudity at a Catholic Sunday mass.
The least they could have done is give us some genuine nudity - but there is no dick and balls to be seen here. There is probably more nudity at a Catholic Sunday mass.
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
#16
Posted: 1/28/18 at 7:58am
I was bored from the second the play began to the second the lights went down. This was a tedious slog throughout. Douglas Hodge screams, and spits, and flails his arms but there is no truth beneath his overblown hysterics. Just self-indulgent nonsense. The supporting actors were strong, but their roles did not allow them to elevate the material as they could have.
As usual, Doyle’s direction has no sense of specificity, pacing, coherence, or intention. It’s just “stuff happening in a place.”
Glad I only paid $5 for this one. I’m not the sort of person who leaves at intermission, but this was really tempting. If I had had anything better to do, I would have been out of there. And true to my suspicion, the second act provided no redemption.
As usual, Doyle’s direction has no sense of specificity, pacing, coherence, or intention. It’s just “stuff happening in a place.”
Glad I only paid $5 for this one. I’m not the sort of person who leaves at intermission, but this was really tempting. If I had had anything better to do, I would have been out of there. And true to my suspicion, the second act provided no redemption.
#17
Posted: 1/28/18 at 10:39am
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
The one moment I genuinely felt something while watching the show - so Hodge's character is a bit of a creep. He is a fat, moody, sickly man who loves young boys (above the legal age). And there is a bit of a creepy undertone that these young boys (ESPECIALLY the one in the second act) are only engaging with him because they want to advance their career. Anyway, while this is happening John Glover's character appears to have genuine love for Hodge's character (and were once former lovers). Hodge has absolutely no interest in Glover's character now, likely because he isn't under the age of 20. When Hodge's character dies, Glover's character arrives too late/after the fact and asks if "he asked for me" or "spoke about him" or something when he died (i.e., wanting to know whether he was important to him still and there was still some kind of love). Marin Mazzie's character lies through her teeth and says "Yes, of course he did" and they then walk off the stage. Sad/depressing!
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
#18
Posted: 1/31/18 at 9:32am
Oh, man, this was terrible. It's ten minutes too long (could've cut the intermission and ran 85 minutes or so) and has no conflict or stakes. It is a slog. Alfie6 is right: it's just Diaghelev pontificating about how he loves ballet and these dancers but we never get any idea as to how he gets involved or why. It is very much a take on "Death in Venice" (which is referenced in the script.) Douglas Hodge is hammy and almost embarrassing, and the rest of the cast has very little to do with how their characters are written so they barely register.
A little swash, a bit of buckle - you'll love it more than bread.
#19
Posted: 2/1/18 at 11:25am
I am going Saturday 2/3 3pm and have 1 extra ticket. $20 which is below my cost. PM me if interested.
#20
Posted: 2/1/18 at 11:55am
I don't think it was as bad as the others here, but it's not really something I can recommend. It's typical late McNally- a mediocre, fussy, fitfully witty gay play pitched squarely at the Upper West Side. And it's typical Doyle- a sparse, cold production with no connection to setting or time or, more importantly, any sense of emotion. His tenure at CSC has only exposed how shallow he is as a director- he has a bag of trick.
Hodge is delivering bargain bin Nathan Lane and is done no favors by McNally or Doyle. Everyone else tries their best and largely succeeds, but their parts are so thin that it doesn't matter. Jay Armstrong Johnson especially has a nothing of a role. Yes, he and James Cusati-Moyer are beautiful and mostly shirtless for their time onstage. But their beauty feels exploited and their considerable talents wasted.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Updated On: 2/1/18 at 11:55 AM
#21
Posted: 2/21/19 at 6:29pm
So I was wondering if anyone has heard any rumblings about this. Pearl Studios is holding auditions and I know someone that auditioned. Apparently, McNally was in the room. Does this production have a future or perhaps it is simply a regional theater or some company mounting a production?
Updated On: 2/21/19 at 06:29 PM
#22
Posted: 2/21/19 at 6:59pm
I hope not, for the sake of the audience! But who knows, maybe a different director can breathe more life into this piece than Dull Doyle could.
#23
Posted: 2/22/19 at 3:13pm
I remember seeing this as part of a regional season, maybe in California.
#25
Posted: 2/22/19 at 5:23pm
The only notable thing about this play is that it was the last production Marin Mazzie would appear in.
I'm sure it'll be produced regionally, like many other duds by prominent playwrights that had a New York debut.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95