GREY HOUSE Previews- Page 3

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/1/23 at 10:43pm

Just getting home from the show tonight and going through this thread (I'd avoided it because I wanted to go in totally blind) and I find myself agreeing with most of what's been said. For a show that's advertising itself as a horror play, there was one moment very early on where I went "heh, that's a decent jump scare" and that was it. 
 

I know they were going for more of a "horror aesthetic" with this and adding a few kind of creepy moments and scenes peppered throughout (the "game" is about halfway there but needs to be creepier and have more at stake for the outcome) but it doesn't come close to living up to the promise of the advertising. I've said for years that horror is the absolute hardest thing to do on stage and this play proves that. I appreciate that they tried for something but ultimately, to me, it just didn't succeed at being what it was promised. 


That said, the cast really is ALL great. Metcalf does have a less showey part and it is a supporting role which, to my surprise, was very very funny in parts. Some of her lines and deliveries were 100% Aunt Jackie. Sophia Anne Caruso was really excellent, I thought. She got the play and her character I'd say more than anyone else and when I go back the end of the month, I'm looking forward to watching her more closely knowing the play, now. I was so excited to see Millicent Simmonds on stage and though she does have a small role, I'm always excited for more Deaf representation on Broadway. It's few and far between but it's great, especially when we get a young woman with such huge films to her name to bring in audiences. I kept wondering if there would be interpreted performances and how that would be done since the show is SO DARK at times. Does this theater offer the CC glasses? I'm sure she's going to bring in quite a lot of Deaf/HoH audience members, providing they can have access.

Paul Sparks and Titiana Maslany were quite great in their roles, Tatiana being the lead and having the more to actually do and react to. I'm very happy she's back on Broadway and hope she decides to keep coming back, she's a great actress.

 

Overall, I'd give this a 4/10. Hopefully in the preview process they'll decide to change it a bit and at least try to add some horror to it. 

 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

I swear I wanted to SCREAM at Tatiana at the very end "LEAVE, BI#@H!" I HATE when characters in these types of scripts make stupid decisions. It's the equivalent of running upstairs when the killer is chasing you. Just made me stand there shaking my head during the curtain call. 

 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/1/23 at 10:53pm

Also, a question about the end when he was on the table - 

 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Were the girls peeling off his skin and pulling parts off? I couldn't tell exactly what was going on there. 

 

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/1/23 at 11:00pm

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

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 -
 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Were the girls peeling off his skin and pulling parts off? I couldn't tell exactly what was going on there.

"

 

[JoeW4]

Posted: 5/1/23 at 11:18pm

Jordan Catalano said: "

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

I swear I wanted to SCREAM at Tatiana at the very end "LEAVE, BI#@H!" I HATE when characters in these types of scripts make stupid decisions. It's the equivalent of running upstairs when the killer is chasing you. Just made me stand there shaking my head during the curtain call.

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...

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

...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.

 

[uncageg]

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.

 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/1/23 at 11:30pm

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

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  

 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/1/23 at 11:32pm

And yes the sound design was Tony-Worthy INCREDIBLE. 

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/1/23 at 11:57pm

Jordan Catalano said: "

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

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

"

HUGE HUGE spoiler...

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

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

[April Saul]

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. 

[uncageg]

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.

 

[EAPEAPMO]

Posted: 5/2/23 at 12:44am

Jordan Catalano said: "

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

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

"

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]

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

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

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/2/23 at 12:48am

EAPEAPMO said: "Jordan Catalano said: "

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

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

"

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.

 

[Jordan Catalano]

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. :)

[EAPEAPMO]

Posted: 5/2/23 at 12:54am

uncageg said: "EAPEAPMO said: "Jordan Catalano said: "

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

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

 

 

"

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. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/2/23 at 12:56am

EAPEAPMO said: "Jordan Catalano said: "

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

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

"

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]

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

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!

"

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. 

[EAPEAPMO]

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. 

[EAPEAPMO]

Posted: 5/2/23 at 12:58am

Jordan Catalano said: "EAPEAPMO said: "Jordan Catalano said: "

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

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

"

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]

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

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!

"

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:

 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

the abuse of women at the hands of men. 

 

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/2/23 at 1:03am

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

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: "

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

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

 

 

 


"

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."

 

 

 

 

[Rypm25]

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. 

[perfectliar]

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.

[April Saul]

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....

[EAPEAPMO]

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. 

[ardiem]

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.

[uncageg]

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.

 

[Wick3]

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"?