For Peter Pan on her 70TH Birthday

Kathleen Chalfont and cast work hard on a disappointing play. Playwrights Horizon keeps presenting new work that just doesn't hit the mark. Don't go expecting Peter Pan, it involves a child many years ago, who once played the part in a school play. I subscribe to the theatre and am always hoping for their success.

I have to provide a contrary voice and say I was very moved by it and genuinely enjoyed it, and I despise Peter Pan.

I'll echo most of what Alfie said, though I didn't think the first part was THAT boring (I didn't love it, but I was engaged enough). The 2nd part (of 3) was the most boring for me - just lots of reminiscing in great detail about things we don't really care about. Like we GET IT, you're a family and you've had a lot of meaningful memories together. Though I did enjoy the bits where...

I agree that the last of the 3 segments is the most entertaining, and ultimately the most moving. Though of course the 3rd part wouldn't have meant anything to us without the context from the first 2 parts, so in that way it all sort of came together in the end.

Not a brilliant piece of theatre, but worth a visit if you like Ruhl's work. For my part, I think her earlier work was much better than her recent stuff, but I still find her intriguing enough to keep seeing her new plays.

Aside from Bella, I do think this is stronger than most of PH's recent efforts, which is disappointing. (Because it's the story of an Irish Catholic family this is their least diverse play in recent memory. In general, I'd rather see them try and fail at being more inclusive than tell these same family dramas.)

I'd say there were three main sections basically dictated by the set changes. The hospital was the dullest to me. It felt the most unnatural as a way of establishing the characters and all of those pauses didn't accomplish anything. I didn't know if they were trying to convey the awkward/ordinary nature of the experience of waiting for a loved one to pass. Or if there was supposed to be humor there. Whatever it was didn't land and it could have been way shorter.

The dinner table section was an improvement though it was also frustrating trying to latch onto what Ruhl was trying to say about religion, family, and politics. I don't think she knew. And it was irritating that her way of resolving things was to have each of the female characters get emotional in turn so the brothers could comfort her.

The Peter Pan section is in some ways the most obvious but it was also the most entertaining (I thought that actor was just fine as one of the brothers but he was fantastic as a camp Hook) and it did get to me emotionally at the end.

@JBroadway It's interesting you bring up context. I thought it was clumsy the way Ruhl would drop a piece of information that would be relevant later. I can't explain it without having the script in hand but something just felt structurally off about it. In general, I thought this was a simple story that was made unnecessarily complicated.

Also, I completely adored the dog. She was so well-trained. The bits with the dad were great but I was really just waiting for the dog to come back.

RippedMan said: "Is the design interesting?"

No. The set is minimal and the Neverland stuff is obvious.

I agree with the consensus. not painful but pretty darn pointless.

scene 1: watching snow melt/watching water boil (you get the idea). for 30 minutes.

scene 2: a not-as-good version of The Apple Plays.

scene 3: kinda fun. way too much money spent.