Posted: 5/1/23 at 10:53pm
Also, a question about the end when he was on the table -
Were the girls peeling off his skin and pulling parts off? I couldn't tell exactly what was going on there.
Posted: 5/1/23 at 11:00pm
They cut and peeled the skin back to get the "thread"
Jordan Catalano said: "Also, a question about the end when he was on the table -
"
Posted: 5/1/23 at 11:18pm
Jordan Catalano said: "
In general I tend to agree with this type of criticism when it comes to the horror genre. I'm right there with you on the sentiment, but I actually didn't feel like it applied here too much. Also, are you talking about...
...the VERY end when she decides to stay permanently? Because that seemed fully justified to me, and very much what the entire play was building toward. Or do you mean during the climax before that, when Henry is being killed? In that case, I can see your criticism applying a bit more, but then again, doesn't she spend that time trying to get Henry to "snap out of it"? Makes sense that she wouldn't want to abandon her partner to be sacrificed. Maybe she could've physically intervened a bit more, but she was pretty outnumbered.
Posted: 5/1/23 at 11:28pm
Saw it this evening. Loved it.
Won't say a lot about it as to not give things away.
Metcalf was excellent and I agree, her character had that total aunt Jackie vibe and it works with the bizarreness.
There are a few scares and gasps as mentioned. You really need to pay full attention to get the payoff.
Is it a "scary" okay? No, not really but after seeing it I think the ads for this are on point. And I don't think they really ever promised to "scare you". It is quite creepy and I would even attach the word "horror" to it
I thought the sound design was really good. It is a single set and keep your eyes on it. Also loved the lighting and it is used to great effect.
The play sucks you in and is a kind of a slow burner. But you just can't stop looking and trying to figure out what the heck is going on. By the end you will know. It sparked immediate conversation in the section I was sitting in. Like groups of people that were not there together just started talking to each other about it.
No notes on our seats or string bracelets. I am really interested to see what others hear think about it. I suspect this thread will be full of spoiler toggles.
And in response to Jordan's spoiler regarding the end. I was thinking the exact same thing but then realized why that didn't happen. But I would love to see how it would have ended if it did happen. And it would have sparked even more conversation.
Posted: 5/1/23 at 11:30pm
No, I mean the VERY end where she’s standing there with her bags at the open door. What had we seen in the previous two hours that would make her want to give up her life to stay there for an undetermined amount of time (until she’s “next”?) with these girls she’s known for a short time and has been creeped out by? Because they like to eat and someone has to cook their eggs? Maybe I’ll pick up on things I didn’t when I go back but even he makes a joke in the beginning about people doing stupid things in horror movies and I felt this was just that
Posted: 5/1/23 at 11:32pm
And yes the sound design was Tony-Worthy INCREDIBLE.
Posted: 5/1/23 at 11:57pm
Jordan Catalano said: "
"
HUGE HUGE spoiler...
Yes, that is the moment I was referring to. I was screaming in my head "LEAVE! LEAVE". But when she stayed a few things went through my mind. One is that she wanted to stay to protect them after realizing why the men were being "brought" there and I also thought that she might not have been able to get far without being forced back. But also, I think that was the point of "the game". She admitted to hurting and in the end may have felt guilt and understood what these girls went through.
I rolled around what would happen if she left and after about an hour of thinking about it, I think it might have been interesting if she left and Henry's Ghost came up from the basement. The Boy "leaves" and a little boy walks through the front door instead of a little girl. That would have totally flipped the script and turned it to the abuse of men.
Updated On: 5/2/23 at 11:57 PM
Posted: 5/2/23 at 12:08am
No, no, no.
I've seen a lot of theater this spring, and this is the first true clunker.
I really wanted to like it, I'd read the Chicago reviews and love Metcalf's acting. I have never, ever left a show at intermission, but had there been a break in this play, I really might have.
It wasn't scary to me, and the actors were very good...but the material just was not.
Posted: 5/2/23 at 12:14am
April Saul said: "No, no, no.
I've seen a lot of theater this spring, and this is the first true clunker.
I really wanted to like it, I'd read the Chicago reviews and love Metcalf's acting. I have never, ever left a show at intermission, but had there been a break in this play, I really might have.
It wasn't scary to me, and the actors were very good...but the material just was not."
But as I mentioned in my post. They never really promised to scare us.One ad does use the word terrified. I think that the ads they have been running are spot on after seeing the show. This play is way more than a "Scary" play. Way more.
Posted: 5/2/23 at 12:44am
Jordan Catalano said: "
"
I don't know how to post spoiler tags on here, but I think you've missed an incredibly major plot point unfortunately. This 100% was not that at all - the character's action is 100% logical and ties together the entire plot very well.
[edit figured it out]
She would never be next - women are not killed in the house. Laurie's character is the caretaker of the ghosts of children who were harmed by men. She was related to a man who harmed a girl who previously resided in the house. That paralells Max, who is in relations with a man who harmed a girl who is represented by generations of trauma in the house - squirell - who is the 1840s girl who was harmed by Max's relative and also captured in spirit in the house. That's why there's a comment on one of the drinks of it being familiar and that's also why there's the scene with Squirell and the Ancient dressed up as the schoolgrirl that the husband harmed when he was a kid - the ancient is the physical manifestation of what he is seeing, versus the child-like ghosts that the audience sees. So when Max is about to walk out that door and sees this girl standing there, she realizes that she is responsible for these ghosts wellbeing in providing care to girls who were harmed to an irreperable state. She's never in danger the entire time, nor will she be in danger upon staying.
I also think it's possible that the harm she did to someone compells her to stay, given the revelation in the game that she did in fact harm somebody at some point. But that part isn't clear to me. Just so much to unpack!
Updated On: 5/2/23 at 12:44 AM
Posted: 5/2/23 at 12:48am
EAPEAPMO said: "Jordan Catalano said: "
"
I don't know how to post spoiler tags on here, but I think you've missed an incredibly major plot point unfortunately. This 100% was not that at all - the character's action is 100% logical and ties together the entire plot very well."
Read my spoiler two posts up. I posted my thoughts on it.
Posted: 5/2/23 at 12:52am
Didn’t see that, thanks. I hear what you guys are saying and when I go back I’ll look for that. :)
Posted: 5/2/23 at 12:54am
uncageg said: "EAPEAPMO said: "Jordan Catalano said: "
"
I don't know how to post spoiler tags on here, but I think you've missed an incredibly major plot point unfortunately. This 100% was not that at all - the character's action is 100% logical and ties together the entire plot very well."
Read my spoiler two posts up. I posted my thoughts on it."
Ah yes, same vein as mine. I figured out how to do spoilers and posted thoughts above as well.
Posted: 5/2/23 at 12:56am
EAPEAPMO said: "Jordan Catalano said: "
"
I don't know how to post spoiler tags on here, but I think you've missed an incredibly major plot point unfortunately. This 100% was not that at all - the character's action is 100% logical and ties together the entire plot very well.
[edit figured it out]
"
Yeah that’s a lot to unpack. Lol. Just going off how I saw it tonight, I didn’t pick up on some of that (could balcony seats have been the issue here?) but again - we’ll see how I feel in a few weeks when I go back.
Posted: 5/2/23 at 12:57am
April Saul said: "No, no, no.
I've seen a lot of theater this spring, and this is the first true clunker.
I really wanted to like it, I'd read the Chicago reviews and love Metcalf's acting. I have never, ever left a show at intermission, but had there been a break in this play, I really might have.
It wasn't scary to me, and the actors were very good...but the material just was not."
What about the material wasn't good to you? I found the first 45 minutes to be insanely gripping, I did get a little bit confused in the next 30 minutes but then the ending did provide a lot of clarity to me and as I unpack it/talk to people about it, I've started to really appreciate just what a deep world was created on stage, which I don't think is the case with many shows at all.
Posted: 5/2/23 at 12:58am
Jordan Catalano said: "EAPEAPMO said: "Jordan Catalano said: "
"
I don't know how to post spoiler tags on here, but I think you've missed an incredibly major plot point unfortunately. This 100% was not that at all - the character's action is 100% logical and ties together the entire plot very well.
[edit figured it out]
"
Yeah that’s a lot to unpack. Lol. Just going off how I saw it tonight, I didn’t pick up on some of that (could balcony seats have been the issue here?) but again - we’ll see how I feel in a few weeks when I go back."
Yeah it's crazy deep (or maybe I'm just crazy and ascribing my own take on it!)... but I think that's partly the point of the ambiguity in some of the show is to generate the discussions around the core subject matter:
the abuse of women at the hands of men.
Posted: 5/2/23 at 1:03am
You actually made clearer a few things for me in your spoiler. And yes, there is A LOT to unpack with this play. As I am still sitting here thinking about it over a whisky, the show "Dead Like Me" came to mind where they had to take souls to get out of limbo. The people I talked with after the show and I figured that the liquid they withdrew was his soul.
EAPEAPMO said: "uncageg said: "EAPEAPMO said: "Jordan Catalano said: "
"
I don't know how to post spoiler tags on here, but I think you've missed an incredibly major plot point unfortunately. This 100% was not that at all - the character's action is 100% logical and ties together the entire plot very well."
Read my spoiler two posts up. I posted my thoughts on it."
Ah yes, same vein as mine. I figured out how to do spoilers and posted thoughts above as well."
Posted: 5/2/23 at 5:30am
Clearly this is a production that is going to divide people on their thoughts when it’s over. And that’s great! Whether you really enjoyed it or felt it was a big miss, it gets you talking.
I did want to reference the idea that the advertising doesn’t really promise horror or scares when it does. There’s one particular ad that begins with heavy breathing over the words that go something like “you’ve been to the overlook hotel (the shining), amity island (jaws), camp crystal lake (Friday the 13th), and the bates motel (psycho) and now come to Grey House.
They’re clearly referencing these horror films and comparing themselves to those films in order to get fans of the genre to come and buy a ticket. Worked for me. But it doesn’t deliver on that level, but it never intended to.
it is interesting to read so many different points of view and it will be really interesting to see what the critics say.
Posted: 5/2/23 at 7:52am
Has anyone won the lottery for this? If so, how were the seats? I know this theatre has some really, REALLY bad sightlines, so just wondering if they're pawning off some of the seats where you can't see 90% of the stage for that or if those are reserved for rush.
Posted: 5/2/23 at 10:25am
To be clear, it's not that I was disappointed that it wasn't scary. It's that I thought the source material was undeserving. It really left me cold, and the theatergoers around me were also less than enthused. And I'm rarely negative about a show.
Just my opinion....
Posted: 5/2/23 at 1:09pm
April Saul said: "To be clear, it's not that I was disappointed that it wasn't scary. It's that I thought the source material was undeserving. It really left me cold, and the theatergoers around me were also less than enthused. And I'm rarely negative about a show.
Just my opinion...."
I'm just really confused about why though, like what about the material? I get that it can be confusing and it's probably something that needs discussion/thought/a second watch, but the amount of discussions I've had with the people I went with far exceeds that of any other show by far, and as I've talked to more people online it's really given me a massive appreciation of how deep and beautiful the material is.
Posted: 5/2/23 at 2:11pm
One man's depth and beauty is another man's plot holes and dramaturgical doldrums. For me, some of the individual moments were captivating and skillfully executed, but didn't leave me so enamored with the piece than I'd want to play mad libs to attempt to piece together everything the play failed to do so on its own. Of course, I don't ask to be spoonfed. I love intelligent ambiguity that really makes you question what's going on in a character's head when many sensible options exist or a cliffhanger whose answer isn't necessary to enjoy the crux of the work. I didn't get that here, but can appreciate that others would.
Posted: 5/2/23 at 3:06pm
Rypm25 said: "Clearly this is a production that is going to divide people on their thoughts when it’s over. And that’s great! Whether you really enjoyed it or felt it was a big miss, it gets you talking.
I did want to reference the idea that the advertising doesn’t really promise horror or scares when it does. There’s one particular ad that begins with heavy breathing over the words that go something like “you’ve been to the overlook hotel (the shining), amity island (jaws), camp crystal lake (Friday the 13th), and the bates motel (psycho) and now come to Grey House.
They’re clearly referencing these horror films and comparing themselves to those films in order to get fans of the genre to come and buy a ticket. Worked for me. But it doesn’t deliver on that level, but it never intended to.
it is interesting to read so many different points of view and it will be really interesting to see what the critics say."
I totally forgot about that ad. My bad.
Posted: 5/2/23 at 3:09pm
During the play, was there a second meaning to "grey house"? Why do you think the playwright made the title "Grey House"?
Posted: 5/2/23 at 4:00pm
ardiem said: "One man's depth and beauty is another man's plot holes and dramaturgical doldrums. For me, some of the individual moments were captivating and skillfully executed, but didn't leave me so enamored with the piece than I'd want to play mad libs to attempt to piece together everything the play failed to do so on its own. Of course, I don't ask to be spoonfed. I love intelligent ambiguity that really makes you question what's going on in a character's head when many sensible options exist or a cliffhanger whose answer isn't necessary to enjoy the crux of the work. I didn't get that here, but can appreciate that others would."
Well said, I can respect that. I do agree there are some areas that could have been pieced together more clearly w/o sacrificing the artistry or ability for the audience to piece together the depth themselves.
Wick3 said: "During the play, was there a second meaning to "grey house"? Why do you think the playwright made the title "Grey House"?"
Think need to reply in spoilers, but I think it's also a great part of the lore as I've thought more about it.
1) Grey House is a 'grey' area between life and death where the girls are waiting for retribution against the men who harmed and abused them. The story isn't about any of the characters per se, but the world that is being created by the current inhabitants and this instance of one of the men brought in for his comeuppance. The main character and subject is the grey house where we witness one of thousands of instances of abuse and retribution.
2. Grey House is also where women who justify the abuse of men find themselves enlightened to the consequences of such excuses. Only when she opens the door in the final scene to see that the cycle of abuse has continued on another little girl does Max realize where she's been the whole time, both physically and with her own attitude toward her husbands words and actions. She's always existed in a "grey area," of excuses - she's now been enlightened to her role in everything, and feels that responsibility to stay to make things right.
3. The set itself is a dready old cabin and the advertising is grey? Doesn't have to be the crazy stuff I've come up with lol
