GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK Previews — Page 2

I thought this was an hour and forty minutes?

102-year-old Shirley Wershba (portrayed in the play by Ilana Glazer) to attend opening night

I saw last night's performance from a $99 seat (first row of the mezz, which still seemed pretty distant in the too-large Winter Garden). I think the show is worth seeing, although it's a mixed bag.

On the plus side:

- I didn't realize until I got to the theater that Paul Gross from Slings & Arrows was in this - if I had, he would have been the biggest of several big draws for me. He gives a good performance as the head of CBS and has, I think, the play's key lines, telling Clooney's Edward R. Murrow that even Murrow injects his opinion into supposed straight news and asking (rhetorically) what it will be like when less responsible people start doing that.

- Because the above is such a significant aspect of the story, I liked the near-closing montage of TV images leading up to the present, showing the ever-increasing propaganda spewed out as "news." It felt, to me, like an effective illustration rather than the usual fatuous attempt to indicate that the past might actually still be relevant. (And, even if for other reasons, it got an extremely positive audience response.)

- Clooney gives a good, restrained performance that makes sense in the dramatic context: Murrow is the star and focal point of a show that involves many other significant players, and so is Clooney. He also has a particularly funny, character-revealing moment when wordlessly responding to a compliment.

- The multimedia presentation is effective: you can choose what to focus on. And while some have seen it as a weakness, the contrast between a huge, imposing TV close-up and the life-size guy who's just reading words off a page struck me as intentional and successful.

As for the negatives:

- The multiple songs are far too prominent and occasionally intrusive. The evening begins with a complete number that, to my taste, added nothing other than a few minutes of running time. And much worse, a song destroys what might otherwise have been an excellent sequence where the spread of sad news brings a loud, bustling room to silence.

- The subplot involving two young lovers is relevant but still feels like an uninspired attempt to inject some light romantic comedy. (The serious part of the subplot, McCarthyism hitting close to home, is already there with regard to Clooney's character.)

- As someone else mentioned, the very large stage sometimes gets in the way of tightness and sharpness of pacing, and also just swallows things up. The production tries to get around this, with mixed results, by having, in effect, mini-stages in which to confine action (e.g., a small corner of an office; a small, overcrowded conference table).

Last, I'd just mention that the audience seemed pretty tuned-in overall. And there were a few big responses - one joke stopped the show for several seconds, and the actor had to make an effort to get back on track.

I really wanted to like this, but agree with the mixed word. Its kind of lifeless, despite a great cast. The theatre is also gigantic. I was an aisle seat on row G and even there i felt really far from the stage. I can't imagine the rest behind me not feeling the same and that's like 75% of the room. Im glad I snagged a $299 ticket, if I had spent more id be more annoyed.

It is mind-numbingly boring. It felt like every sentence had ten seconds of silence before the next one arrived.

MarilynMonroeSmash said: "How terrible would the view from the side boxes would be?"



Horrendous. I couldn't see half the stage and almost nothing upstage. I didn't really care though. It was more interesting watching people check the time and fall asleep.

ElephantLoveMedley said: "This production commits the one true sin in theatre: it is beyond boring.

Most of my thoughts on Good Night, and Good Luckhave already been written on this thread, but man, what a misfire. Clooney is entirely unremarkable and the "play" (if you want to call it that) feels completely unnecessary. It is not even close to dramatically compelling or theatrically interesting.

I also reallyhate when a show that takes place in the past has to end with blatantly showing the audience how its themes apply to the modern day. It suggests to me that the creative teameither feels the audience is too stupid to make those parallels themselves, or that they don't trust their work enough to believe that those parallels would come through. The montage at the end was the cherry on top of an awful experience at the theatre.

Save your money and skip this."


Have to say I agree with this completely. It is just…. Meh. And boring. Clooney should have chosen something more exciting than this.

verywellthensigh said: "Us waiting around for a "Movie Star Vehicle For Broadway!" that isn't half baked and ill conceived.

"

I haven't seen the show, but this gave me a great laugh. Thank you!

Relying on video screens to do much of the work seems to be a trend this season. Is this a creative blending of mediums or a cynical way to reduce production costs? I haven't seen any of the shows that use them so I don't really have my own opinion. From what I've read here, it sounds like in "Sunset Boulevard" and "Dorian Gray," they're at least an artistic choice that blends in well with the concept. For "Goodnight," it just sounds lazy.

Jordan Catalano said: "Hell, after four years of Sh*tler, in November people either voted for him again or sat home because they forgot how awful things were for four years. So maybe that’ll be the knock on some people’s brains that they need."

Except people who really require that knock on their brain, unfortunately, don't go to the theater at all...