GREY HOUSE Previews- Page 5

[JoeW4]

Posted: 5/4/23 at 1:52pm

Regarding the ceiling:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Throughout the play, there are multiple references to the idea that the men getting killed becomes "part of the house." The house is, in a sense, the men's hell/purgatory. 

The ceiling seems to be made up of some hanging, bulbous sorts of things, which (as you mention) glow up in the end. I took it that they were the trapped souls of the past men. 

 

[Auggie27]

Posted: 5/4/23 at 11:11pm

Just came from the 5/4 evening performance. The production is by any current yardstick state of the art, Pask and Katz at the top of their game. The play does have a Robert Marasco vibe - think Child’s Play and the novel Burnt Offerings - with a sprinkling of Tom Tryon. In other words, it’s old school neo-gothic melodrama with a whiff of topicality. Many will debate its feminist underpinnings, though I’m not convinced the mythic tale of karmic fate lands with enough specificity, particularly since it’s set in 1977. The staging is so elegant and the collaborative design elements so successful at world building you can’t help but believe in the play’s earnestness. This gifted team surely does. Yet on reflection the evening still feels dramatically undernourished. Metcalf, arguably an ensemble player here still manages to walk away with the acting honors. She’s masterful at aiding and abetting a thinly executed character, and does yeoman’s work making us care about a shadowy figurehead who keeps the story’s secrets. 

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/5/23 at 1:00am

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

I think it could take place in almost any year. This takes place during the Women's Lib movement. 

 

Updated On: 5/5/23 at 01:00 AM

[Emma White]

Posted: 5/5/23 at 10:43am

Okay, I just saw this last night and I adored it (as I expected to based on what I'd heard - this is my exact favorite genre). I almost never post here but I had to go somewhere to talk through my theories on this story, LOL.

I also didn't find it as confusing as other people made it sound. I have a few lingering questions about some elements, which I like (because I like to theorize), but overall the story is pretty clear to me. 

My personal theory:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

I think the old woman (who the Playbill calls "The Ancient" ) is the founder of the house, an ever present force there (as someone else here said). I think she's the one who was chased through the forest in the 1800s. Squirrel was the one who Hank hurt/killed after being his lab partner in the 1950s. This is why Hank/Henry was brought to the house - once they killed him, Squirrel would be freed. Like others have said, I think once they get vengeance on the actual man who hurt any particular girl, that girl is freed (which potentially is why some girls are stuck there longer or forever?)

As for Henry describing all the other girls he hurt in different eras, I like the theory that the moonshine is having him embody all these other men, but I personally saw it as just more symbolic. As a boy who hurt (killed?) a girl once, he is also all the other men who have killed women throughout history. I think the house sees all these violent men as the same, so to the house, they are the same.

My biggest question is where the little boy came from. I had assumed he might be Raleigh's actual son, but then he stayed after she left? So where on earth did he come from? LOL.

Will continue to read this thread because I love reading all these theories, and I'll definitely be going back to this play soon to see if I can catch more details.

Updated On: 5/5/23 at 10:43 AM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 5/5/23 at 11:16am

I believe Emma White's theories above are solid explications of the plotting. I only wish I felt more emotionally connected to the ways it unfolded. Only when the ultimate revelations and decisive action arrived -- and I won't spoil any of it -- did I lean forward with a final investment. Aside from the storytelling machinery -- which is baroque and complex -- the script itself feels underwritten in places. Scenes begin to pick up momentum and take on the texture of real conversation and then abruptly, maddeningly terminate. As in a movie. At times, I felt it was structurally too dependent on a screenwriter's bag of trick's instead of the playwright's. The forays into language-driven revelation were among the best. We yearn for those creepy specifics. Yet it has a start-stop quality -- those blackouts -- that does't always sustain the emotional suspense.  

Updated On: 5/5/23 at 11:16 AM

[EAPEAPMO]

Posted: 5/5/23 at 3:07pm

Emma White said: "Okay, I just saw this last night and I adored it (as I expected to based on what I'd heard - this is my exact favorite genre). I almost never post here but I had to go somewhere to talk through my theories on this story, LOL.

I also didn't find it as confusing as other people made it sound. I have a few lingering questions about some elements, which I like (because I like to theorize), but overall the story is pretty clear to me.

My personal theory:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

I think the old woman (who the Playbill calls "The Ancient" ) is the founder of the house, an ever present force there (as someone else here said). I think she's the one who was chased through the forest in the 1800s. Squirrel was the one who Hank hurt/killed after being his lab partner in the 1950s. This is why Hank/Henry was brought to the house - once they killed him, Squirrel would be freed. Like others have said, I think once they get vengeance on the actual man who hurt any particular girl, that girl is freed (which potentially is why some girls are stuck there longer or forever?)

As for Henry describing all the other girls he hurt in different eras, I like the theory that the moonshine is having him embody all these other men, but I personally saw it as just more symbolic. As a boy who hurt (killed?) a girl once, he is also all the other men who have killed women throughout history. I think the house sees all these violent men as the same, so to the house, theyarethe same.

My biggest question is where the little boy came from. I had assumed he might be Raleigh's actual son, but then he stayed after she left? So where on earth did he come from? LOL.

Will continue to read this thread because I love reading all these theories, and I'll definitely be going back to this play soon to see if I can catch more details."

I saw it for the second time last night, this time in Orchestra Row J instead of Orchestra Row AA. Being so close in AA felt like I was in the house with them, but J had a better view of the floor and the table. They changed the ending and I thought it was fantatstic!! It made the character motivations much clearer and I had a massive "OH!!!" moment (massive plot-detail spoiler but holy crap I'm so excited!):
 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

THE GIRLS ARE THE DEERS!!! When Laurie opens the door to leave she sees a deer in the distance. When Max opens the door to leave, she sees a girl in the house. That's how they bring the men to the house, the deer (i.e. the girls) cause the car crashes. That's why they can go outside without boots, that's why SAC's character goes for a swim outside in the winter, she is actually a deer outside and can do that!! That's why they have a deer on the table at the end and nobody but Henry eats it, and that's why Henry pulls off its leg and thats why they butcher his leg, becuase that's the thing the man that harmed Squirell did to her before killing her! AHHHHH this show is amazing!!!

And beyond that, there's something at the start that you only can pick up by watching twice, or if you're incredibly clever with a stellar memory:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

The tapestry that the girls are sewing at the beginning IS THE ARTERY TAPESTRY. i.e., the start of the show is the end of another man being put through the ritual! And that explains Laurie's characters actions through and through as well, every step she takes and her reactions are in response to the fact the girls just sacrificed another man!

And Laurie Metcalf had new dialogue and lines to tie the plot togther more clearly, making the ending so much more emotional. I do think the show is clearer than the first time I saw it, although it's tough for me to really differentiate having seen it a first time vs the changes they made, but I thought the show flew by a second time as I understood basically everything that was going on. 100% see the show a second time, it's so incredibly smart, intelligent, emotional, everything, and that appreciation only builds the second time around. 

As for your spoiler question:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Mr. Man is the manifestation of the men who pass through the house as their younger selves and, I believe, the spirit of the house itself. He takes on the form of the men and that's why Henry is visibly disgusted by him and the story of the Grey Mouse. It reflects what he did that was so awful when he was that age - it sounds like not only did he hurt the girl, but he killed his mother - and that's why Mr. Man goes and hugs Max at the end and not Laurie's character, Max is the new caretaker of the home and he is the spirit of the house.

Also, SAC's character actively chose to stay, I don't think any of the girls have to be stuck there forever. She is the eldest of the ghosts (as implied by her conversation with Laurie's character about "what's it like to grow old," and Laurie's character responds something like, "don't you know?" or something like that. I think that may be connected to why she is scared of the dark and why she never goes to the basement, she is too scared to move on and the damage from the man who harmed her (her father, the rapist) and her mother who killed her (also done in the dark of night), is still being carried within her character. 

 

 

Updated On: 5/5/23 at 03:07 PM

[Wick3]

Posted: 5/5/23 at 3:33pm

I saw the first preview and was so confused. With what you wrote in regards to the changed ending, I think I would have left the theater with more a revelation on what I just saw. I'm glad they're actively making changes during this preview period and hope to see it again after it opens!

[Auggie27]

Posted: 5/5/23 at 3:35pm

I find it interesting that 1) these revelations are grasped only after a second viewing; and 2) the play is getting major story determinative revisions during previews. These may just be expository clarifications but don’t sound like minor adjustments. But maybe it’s coming together and will continue to coalesce in days ahead. One barometer: there was no usual collective standing O, rare these days. The front mezz last night remained seat bound. It’s not landing for everyone, exquisite production duly appreciated. Still, a conversation generator is always good for art and commerce.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/5/23 at 3:41pm

I’m very excited to go back in a few weeks and see the changes. Whether or not they ultimately work, I will always have respect for a show taking the time and money to change things they can see (or even see online) aren’t working instead of ignoring years of people describing in detail why your show isn’t working and ways to fix it and in turn, transferring it almost exactly as is and digging their heels into it being great and not needing changes. 

[EAPEAPMO]

Posted: 5/5/23 at 3:44pm

Auggie27 said: "I find it interesting that 1) these revelations are grasped only after a second viewing; and 2) the play is getting major story determinative revisions during previews. These may just be expository clarifications but don’t sound like minor adjustments. But maybe it’s coming together and will continue to coalesce in days ahead. One barometer: there was no usual collective standing O, rare these days. The front mezz last night remained seat bound. It’s not landing for everyone, exquisite production duly appreciated. Still, a conversation generator is always good for art and commerce."

To be clear, the basic structure is all the same - it's action and one-line or two-line changes that make some of the motivation come together cleaner, in my view. They didn't sub out one ending for another and I hope I didn't misprotray it like that, they simply cleaned it up in a way that I thought was a lot better at directing attention to the character motivations whereas previously some clearly had found it opaque/unexplained. 

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 5/5/23 at 4:18pm

Reading the reactions to this make me wonder how we would react to Churchill's Far Away if it were a new play.

[JSquared2]

Posted: 5/5/23 at 4:27pm

Auggie27 said: "One barometer: there was no usual collective standing O, rare these days. The front mezz last night remained seat bound. It’s not landing for everyone, exquisite production duly appreciated. 

 

Preview audiences, in general, seem to be much less prone to automatic standing O's (especially for plays).  

[Emma White]

Posted: 5/5/23 at 4:52pm

EAPEAPMO said:

I saw it for the second time last night, this time in Orchestra Row J instead of Orchestra Row AA. Being so close in AA felt like I was in the house with them, but J had a better view of the floor and the table. They changed the ending and I thought it was fantatstic!! It made the character motivations much clearer and I had a massive "OH!!!" moment (massive plot-detail spoiler but holy crap I'm so excited!):

 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

THE GIRLS ARE THE DEERS!!! When Laurie opens the door to leave she sees a deer in the distance. When Max opens the door to leave, she sees a girl in the house. That's how they bring the men to the house, the deer (i.e. the girls) cause the car crashes. That's why they can go outside without boots, that's why SAC's character goes for a swim outside in the winter, she is actually a deer outside and can do that!! That's why they have a deer on the table at the end and nobody but Henry eats it, and that's why Henry pulls off its leg and thats why they butcher his leg, becuase that's the thing the man that harmed Squirell did to her before killing her! AHHHHH this show is amazing!!!

And beyond that, there's something at the start that you only can pick up by watching twice, or if you're incredibly clever with a stellar memory:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

The tapestry that the girls are sewing at the beginning IS THE ARTERY TAPESTRY. i.e., the start of the show is the end of another man being put through the ritual! And that explains Laurie's characters actions through and through as well, every step she takes and her reactions are in response to the fact the girls just sacrificed another man!

And Laurie Metcalf had new dialogue and lines to tie the plot togther more clearly, making the ending so much more emotional. I do think the show is clearer than the first time I saw it, although it's tough for me to really differentiate having seen it a first time vs the changes they made, but I thought the show flew by a second time as I understood basically everything that was going on. 100% see the show a second time, it's so incredibly smart, intelligent, emotional, everything, and that appreciation only builds the second time around."
 

Okay, the ending being new makes a LOT of sense, I was wondering if they'd added some clarifying towards the end of the play. Based on what I'd read in this thread before going and what some of my friends had said, I was expecting the play to leave a lot unexplained, and then found everything wrapped up pretty neatly at the end. Still enough unexplained to cause conversation after (which is good in my opinion) but clear enough (although one friend of mine who saw it last night still said he didn't quite understand it). 

But omg, 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

I did NOT get that the girls are the deers, that is so fun. I definitely got the impression that they do some kind of ritual to cause the car crashes - their singing in the beginning is what causes the car crash, I believe, but them being the deers is such a great catch and good detail. I caught the tapestry being made of... veins or muscle or whatever the hell that stuff is on first viewing last night, so I wonder if maybe they've tried to make that clearer too, because it definitely came across to me.

I feel like I need a whole book club to unpack this play with, LOL.

re: the emotional involvement concern that Auggie27 raised, I think that's a fair point, and I think maybe this play is best targeted at people like me who love thrillers. I did feel some emotional connection to the girls right away, personally, but even that aside I just loved the play because I love the experience of trying to piece together the pieces and figure out what the hell is going on in this weird house. It's a true thriller/mystery in that sense, but you're right, it's perhaps more in line with some of the techniques used in film, or even novels, which is what I tend to encounter this genre in most.

ETA: I've also heard that the gore element is not as bad from up close, since the closer you are to the stage the more you can tell it's just fake/stagecraft. Personally, I was sitting in the mezzanine, and I had to close my eyes for most of that scene.

Updated On: 5/5/23 at 04:52 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 5/5/23 at 9:37pm

“Preview audiences, in general, seem to be much less prone to automatic standing O's (especially for plays).”

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

[ThaDudeAbides]

Posted: 5/5/23 at 11:48pm

Saw the show tonight (5/5), and it is definitely the strangest thing I've ever seen on a stage. It requires reflection afterwards, and absolutely benefits from discussion. 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Something I haven't seen mentioned yet is Raleigh's different reactions to Henry and Max. She welcomes Henry in, almost as if he's been expected, but when Max appears at the door, her whole demeanor changes. She realizes her shift is finally up. She makes sure Max can cook. Lets her know the girls are big eaters. And so on. 

 

Updated On: 5/6/23 at 11:48 PM

[EAPEAPMO]

Posted: 5/6/23 at 12:01pm

ThaDudeAbides said: "Saw the show tonight (5/5), and it is definitely the strangest thing I've ever seen on a stage. It requires reflection afterwards, and absolutely benefits from discussion.

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Something I haven't seen mentioned yet is Raleigh's different reactions to Henry and Max. She welcomes Henry in, almost as if he's been expected, but when Max appears at the door, her whole demeanor changes. She realizes her shift is finally up. She makes sure Max can cook. Let's get know the fields are big eaters. And so on.

"

That is such a good point! I remember thinking that in the second viewing now, but hadn't remembered until you brought it up. Such good acting by Laurie and such a subtle detail that would be easy to miss if not paying attention. 

[Auggie27]

Posted: 5/6/23 at 8:42pm

My own reservations in no way block my appreciation of the wise analytical appraisals here. This is a terrific discussion of the world building in this play - an intricately developed almost mythic origin story. I must doff my chapeau at any piece of theatrical storytelling that inspires such thoughtful contemplation. On some level, this piece is clearly working. 

[ThaDudeAbides]

Posted: 5/6/23 at 11:04pm

EAPEAPMO said: "ThaDudeAbides said: "Saw the show tonight (5/5), and it is definitely the strangest thing I've ever seen on a stage. It requires reflection afterwards, and absolutely benefits from discussion.

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Something I haven't seen mentioned yet is Raleigh's different reactions to Henry and Max. She welcomes Henry in, almost as if he's been expected, but when Max appears at the door, her whole demeanor changes. She realizes her shift is finally up. She makes sure Max can cook. Let's get know the fields are big eaters. And so on.

"

That is such a good point! I remember thinking that in the second viewing now, but hadn't remembered until you brought it up. Such good acting by Laurie and such a subtle detail that would be easy to miss if not paying attention."

I fixed the typos in my spoiler. Didn't mean to create more mystery! 

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 5/7/23 at 8:40am

Sorry, but this show is absolute trash.

 

First of all, the main discount code would not work for any date or any seat, so I used the ridiculous “save $10” code that doesn’t even cover the ticket fees. We bought front row aisle seats, and that turned out to be a huge mistake.

 

These seats should NOT be sold at full price. They should either be rush tickets or partial view, each for steep discounts. There is a tv set center stage that is used for less than five minutes in the beginning of the play that obstructs views for the entire play for those close up. There is also a couch just beyond the tv that also obstructs views.

 

But in the end, who the hell cares. The crap on that stage is so ridiculous that it makes you wonder how it possibly got to Broadway in the first place.

 

Make no mistake- the acting and production design are fantastic. However, the play itself is a bunch of gobblygook nonsense that makes absolutely no sense of any kind. It is semi-intriguing for about the first 20 minutes until you realize that it is never going to make any sense at all, and then it just gets infuriating.
 

Why did these fine actors agree to star in this? Why did these producers give it the light of day? These are the questions I ponder instead of trying to figure out what the hell the plot of this stupid thing was. 

 

Honest to God, this is a terrible play that does not make any sense at all no matter how you try to unpack it. Save your money. I wish I did. 

Updated On: 5/7/23 at 08:40 AM

[EAPEAPMO]

Posted: 5/7/23 at 9:50am

Matt Rogers said: "Sorry, but this show is absolute trash.



First of all, the main discount code would not work for any date or any seat, so I used the ridiculous “save $10” code that doesn’t even cover the ticket fees. We bought front row aisle seats, and that turned out to be a huge mistake.



These seats should NOT be sold at full price. They should either be rush tickets or partial view, each for steep discounts. There is a tv set center stage that is used for less than five minutes in the beginning of the play that obstructs views for the entire play for those close up. There is also a couch just beyond the tv that also obstructs views.



But in the end, who the hell cares. The crap on that stage is so ridiculous that it makes you wonder how it possibly got to Broadway in the first place.



Make no mistake- the acting and production design are fantastic. However, the play itself is a bunch of gobblygook nonsense that makes absolutely no sense of any kind. It is semi-intriguing for about the first 20 minutes until you realize that it is never going to make any sense at all, and then it just gets infuriating.


Why did these fine actors agree to star in this? Why did these producers give it the light of day? These are the questions I ponder instead of trying to figure out what the hell the plot of this stupid thing was.



Honest to God, this is a terrible play that does not make any sense at all no matter how you try to unpack it. Save your money. I wish I did."

 

I'm confused... you speak as if what you're saying is objective fact. How are there others on here unpacking a ton of sense and meaning if it's the case it has none, no matter what? What didn't make sense to you?

I would think you've answered your own questions in why the actors and others agreed to be a part of it, is that the show does make sense and has meaning to them? 

Updated On: 5/7/23 at 09:50 AM

[Emma White]

Posted: 5/7/23 at 10:33am

Matt Rogers said: "Make no mistake- the acting and production design are fantastic. However, the play itself is a bunch of gobblygook nonsense that makes absolutely no sense of any kind. It is semi-intriguing for about the first 20 minutes until you realize that it is never going to make any sense at all, and then it just gets infuriating.

Why did these fine actors agree to star in this? Why did these producers give it the light of day? These are the questions I ponder instead of trying to figure out what the hell the plot of this stupid thing was.

Honest to God, this is a terrible play that does not make any sense at all no matter how you try to unpack it. Save your money. I wish I did."

Genuinely confused how you managed to emerge from this thinking it was nonsense that made no sense. It's pretty clearly explained in the end. You say that you decided after 20 minutes that it was never going to make sense... Maybe that was your problem. The answers come towards the end of the play, you know, like they usually do in any thriller/horror mystery. 

I can understand not liking it, but insisting it's meaningless and makes no sense when many other people have emerged with a very clear understanding of the plot leads me to believe you just didn't understand it. It's really pretty clear, even if it leaves some of the smaller questions unanswered.

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/7/23 at 11:07am

I am hoping they are planning a talk back or two. I plan to see it again and would attend a talk back performance.

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 5/7/23 at 12:53pm

Emma White said: "Matt Rogers said: "Make no mistake- the acting and production design are fantastic. However, the play itself is a bunch of gobblygook nonsense that makes absolutely no sense of any kind. It is semi-intriguing for about the first 20 minutes until you realize that it is never going to make any sense at all, and then it just gets infuriating.

Why did these fine actors agree to star in this? Why did these producers give it the light of day? These are the questions I ponder instead of trying to figure out what the hell the plot of this stupid thing was.

Honest to God, this is a terrible play that does not make any sense at all no matter how you try to unpack it. Save your money. I wish I did."

Genuinely confused how you managed to emerge from this thinking it was nonsense that made no sense. It's pretty clearly explained in the end. You say that you decided after 20 minutes that it was never going to make sense... Maybe that was your problem. The answers come towards the end of the play, you know, like they usually do in any thriller/horror mystery.

I can understand not liking it, but insisting it's meaningless and makes no sense when many other people have emerged with a very clear understanding of the plot leads me to believe you just didn't understand it. It's really pretty clear, even if it leaves some of the smaller questions unanswered."

In MY opinion it is nothing but a stupid piece of garbage. I see all sorts of horror films and am well aware of how the genre works, and this ridiculous nonsense does not qualify as anything except a seriously bad piece of writing, and the producers should be arrested for highway robbery for charging $175 for a front row seat that should have been $40 tops and labeled obstructed view. 

Updated On: 5/7/23 at 12:53 PM

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 5/7/23 at 1:07pm

My husband and I saw this last night and I thought it was fascinating. A lot more dense (in a good way) than I expected, with many of the questions I had about What is Going On™️ answered pretty neatly by the end. And when what I couldn’t understand wasn’t explicitly stated, I could pretty easily make my own logic in my mind (what the roof was, Mr. Man, the basement, The Ancient, etc.).

Definitely a show I’ll be seeing again, closer up. The balcony for the show is fine to get the story, but I’ll absolutely want to see some of the design, makeup, and effects in more detail.

It’s not going to be a hit with everybody. It’s HEAVY heavy, almost literary at times, and deeply strange. Who knows if it’ll catch on with audiences, but there’s plenty of opportunity for stunt casting. Aside from the girls, the 3 main adults have almost nothing to do that would require specialized acting skill.

Laurie Metcalf is excellent, but I would agree, it’s one of her less heavy-hitting roles. Which, honestly, may have been a conscious choice, and she performs it in the very Metcalf style we’ve come to love. Tatiana Maslany and Paul Sparks are… fine? But they’re mostly of the “things just kind of happen to them” variety, as far as horror characters go. They start at one level and pretty much stay there: Maslany at a frantic, weepy 11 and Sparks at a groggy, inebriated 5.

Now… the girls. Wow. That’s some tight ensemble work; some of the best I’ve ever seen. Imagine a play about the Weird Sisters from Macbeth, but in their home life. Absolutely hypnotic to watch, especially in the beginning, but throughout in their musical moments and in their overlapping/mirrored dialogue.

Very enjoyable, and worth a repeat viewing.

Updated On: 5/7/23 at 01:07 PM

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 5/7/23 at 1:35pm

EAPEAPMO said: "
I'm confused... you speak as if what you're saying is objective fact."

It is quite obvious that he is stating his opinion, and not suggesting that its an objective fact that the play makes no sense. Disagree with him all you want but why pretend he needs to write "in my opinion" before every single sentence when hes clearly giving his review of a show. Do you require the same of Jesse Green?

The immaturity on these boards amps up and up every day.