GREY HOUSE Previews — Page 5

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.

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:

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

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:

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!):

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:

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:

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

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.

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.

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).

“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 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.

"

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.

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.

"

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 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

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

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