GREY HOUSE Previews- Page 6

[Lot666]

Posted: 5/7/23 at 3:56pm

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

Get used to it; most people on these boards present their opinions as objective facts.

 

[EAPEAPMO]

Posted: 5/7/23 at 4:27pm

PipingHotPiccolo said: "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."


I'd personally argue the immaturity is when there's an active discussion on a board discussing the meaning in the show that gets interrupted by someone who has no interest at all in understanding what they just saw and instead just has interest in getting on their soapbox to interrupt said discussion. It's one thing to acknowledge what is already said in the thread and explain an opinion, it's another to just throw out platitudes with no rationale and no thoughts on what's been discussed prior in a thread. I'm not expecting someone to write "in my opinion," I'm expecting them to spend an ounce of effort to be involved in a conversation or back up their viewpoint instead of positing a lazy diatribe with 0 content and a slew of insults.

[EAPEAPMO]

Posted: 5/7/23 at 4:30pm

ColorTheHours048 said: "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."

I've been curious about seeing it in the balcony, first time I saw was in AA and second time was in J both in orchestra, so I've been wondering if there's stuff you can see from up there:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

like is there anything down the stairs?

that you can't see in the orchestra. Or also:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

I had to look away at the leg filet scene from AA, but I wonder if it looks better/worse from afar?

 

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 5/7/23 at 5:32pm

EAPEAPMO said: "PipingHotPiccolo said: "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."


I'd personally argue the immaturity is when there's an active discussion on a board discussing the meaning in the show that gets interrupted by someone who has no interest at all in understanding what they just saw and instead just has interest in getting on their soapbox to interrupt said discussion. It's one thing to acknowledge what is already said in the thread and explain an opinion, it's another to just throw out platitudes with no rationale and no thoughts on what's been discussed prior in a thread. I'm not expecting someone to write "in my opinion," I'm expecting them to spend an ounce of effort to be involved in a conversation or back up their viewpoint instead of positing a lazy diatribe with 0 content and a slew of insults."

Give me a freaking break and get off your high horse. A lot of people on here didn’t like this piece of trash show and didn’t understand it. Just because you think you have all the explanations doesn’t mean that you do.

[JasonC3]

Posted: 5/7/23 at 6:43pm

EAPEAPMO said: "I'd personally argue the immaturity is when there's an active discussion on a board discussing the meaning in the show that gets interrupted by someone who has no interest at all in understanding what they just saw and instead just has interest in getting on their soapbox to interrupt said discussion."

Almost every thread on this board since the beginning of time contains posts that "interrupt" any discussions that might have been occurring, most frequently:

• what's the run time?
• do they stage door?
• any merch reports?
• is so and so doing every performance?
• which is the better seat?
• anyone have a discount code?

And that is very unlikely to change.

 

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/7/23 at 8:39pm

JasonC3 said: "EAPEAPMO said: "I'd personally argue the immaturity is when there's an active discussion on a board discussing the meaning in the show that gets interrupted by someone who has no interest at all in understanding what they just saw and instead just has interest in getting on their soapbox to interrupt said discussion."

Almost every thread on this board since the beginning of time contains posts that "interrupt" any discussions that might have been occurring, most frequently:

• what's the run time?
• do they stage door?
• any merch reports?
• is so and so doing every performance?
• which is the better seat?
• anyone have a discount code?

 

 

And that is very unlikely to change."

 

Well, I was the one who asked about Merch in this thread. 

I find it fine to ask those questions in the Preview threads. At least they are on topic and better than starting separate threads to clog up the main page. You can find the answers in one place.

 

 

 

Updated On: 5/7/23 at 08:39 PM

[JasonC3]

Posted: 5/7/23 at 8:46pm

I didn't say it wasn't OK to ask questions nor did I in any way criticize people interjecting any of the common topics or questions I listed. 

I was clearly noting that lots of different aspects of a show come up in a thread so it probably isn't productive to view that reality as an "interruption" in response to the quoted comment I referenced at the opening of my post. 

Perhaps I should have just said "Threads get interrupted and/or derailed all the time.  Deal with it."

Updated On: 5/7/23 at 08:46 PM

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 5/7/23 at 10:54pm

EAPEAPMO said: "PipingHotPiccolo said: "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."


I'd personally argue the immaturity is when there's an active discussion on a board discussing the meaning in the show that gets interrupted by someone who has no interest at all in understanding what they just saw and instead just has interest in getting on their soapbox to interrupt said discussion. It's one thing to acknowledge what is already said in the thread and explain an opinion, it's another to just throw out platitudes with no rationale and no thoughts on what's been discussed prior in a thread. I'm not expecting someone to write "in my opinion," I'm expecting them to spend an ounce of effort to be involved in a conversation or back up their viewpoint instead of positing a lazy diatribe with 0 content and a slew of insults."

So your gripe is that you.... disagree with his take, and wish people would only post comments that meet your liking and approval? When we post here, we must make sure to put in enough effort and backup for our opinion to meet your standards (you, who if i recall correctly, spent days insisting on the high quality of the writing in New York New York The Musical)?

No thanks. And also not at all what you said earlier re confusion of opinion/fact. But just as ridiculous.

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 5/7/23 at 10:57pm

Lot666 said: "EAPEAPMO said: "you speak as if what you're saying is objective fact."

Get used to it; most people on these boards present their opinions as objective facts.

"

Every single post here is obviously the opinion of the author. I'm unaware of anyone insisting that their opinion is a fact, just people commenting in normal discourse without saying "in my opinion" and "my personal take is" and "i think that" before every sentence. No one talks like that for good reason. What you're really saying is that too many people post here saying things *you disagree with* and yeah, thats how it works.

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 5/7/23 at 11:36pm

EAPEAPMO said: "I've been curious about seeing it in the balcony, first time I saw was in AA and second time was in J both in orchestra, so I've been wondering if there's stuff you can see from up there:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

like is there anything down the stairs?

that you can't see in the orchestra. Or also:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

I had to look away at the leg filet scene from AA, but I wonder if it looks better/worse from afar?

"

No, nothing can be seen from the balcony down the stairs. It’s just light shining up.

And the gore barely reads as gore from that high up.

Updated On: 5/7/23 at 11:36 PM

[ThaDudeAbides]

Posted: 5/8/23 at 12:21am

As an erstwhile director, it really works me when sightlines are so bad that a show must be viewed from the first row of the mezzanine. And there's a jump scare that happens early on that happens up center, but an actor is probably blocking the view from the whole right half of the house (at least in the orchestra).

I expect more detail from Mantello. 

That's my main criticism of the show. 

[SFCowboy]

Posted: 5/8/23 at 12:45am

Hey, folks. I am seeing this in a couple of weeks on a quick trip to New York. I am concerned by all the poor sight line reports. I am in row D center orchestra, which is the 5th row. I like being close, but not if it means I’m going to miss a lot. Will I be OK in row D, or should I try to change my seat for, say, row G, or front of the mezzanine?

[Lot666]

Posted: 5/8/23 at 8:39am

PipingHotPiccolo said: "Lot666 said: "EAPEAPMO said: "you speak as if what you're saying is objective fact."

Get used to it; most people on these boards present their opinions as objective facts."

Every single post here is obviously the opinion of the author. I'm unaware of anyone insisting that their opinion is a fact, just people commenting in normal discourse without saying "in my opinion" and "my personal take is" and "i think that" before every sentence. No one talks like that for good reason. What you're really saying is that too many people post here saying things *you disagree with* and yeah, thats how it works."

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. And I never said that anyone "insisted that their opinion is a fact", I said "most people present their opinions as objective facts". Just like you, above, presented your opinion of what I said as a fact, when your opinion was, in fact, inaccurate.

[EAPEAPMO]

Posted: 5/8/23 at 11:25am

ColorTheHours048 said: "EAPEAPMO said: "I've been curious about seeing it in the balcony, first time I saw was in AA and second time was in J both in orchestra, so I've been wondering if there's stuff you can see from up there:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

like is there anything down the stairs?

that you can't see in the orchestra. Or also:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

I had to look away at the leg filet scene from AA, but I wonder if it looks better/worse from afar?

"

No, nothing can be seen from the balcony down the stairs. It’s just light shining up.

And the gore barely reads as gore from that high up."


Got it, thank you!

[dexter3]

Posted: 5/8/23 at 12:03pm

Add me to the list of people who were completely baffled by this. The person I was with and I both thought it was perplexing. There are some interesting things about this world, but I'm just wondering how this was apparently good enough for broadway? I'm reading through all the theories on this board, and they're definitely interesting, but I think the bigger thing for me (besides wanting a lot more clarity in exactly what happened) is the fact that I'm not sure what we're supposed to take away from this play, even if it made sense.

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

 

So, like, what is the takeaway? I just don't know what kind of message this play is trying to make.

 

Additionally, I think the acting was amazing and yet the characters weren't particularly well written. Biggest problem for me is that I don't think I cared about any of them. All problem with the writing in my opinion. Performances were often charming or captivating.

 

To sum it up...I wanted more clarity, I wanted the play to actually be about something, I wanted better dialogue, and I wanted to care/feel for literally anyone on stage. 

 

Other than that, it's well produced and visually stunning and well acted. 

 

I'd skip this one.

Updated On: 5/9/23 at 12:03 PM

[EAPEAPMO]

Posted: 5/8/23 at 12:51pm

dexter3 said: "And if so, is that supposed to make us feel better about the assaults / crimes against women? Or is this some purgatory place where women get their revenge? If so...like....yay? I don't think victims of crime / sexual assault necessarily all want to inflict pain in their attackers."

I think this point is addressed by the show -

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

The character played by SAC actively chooses to stay in the house, as she discussed with both Raliegh and Max in two different scenes. She is afraid of the dark as revealed in the game they play and doesn't want to face the darkness of what was done to her. 

 

While that probably doesn't solve your overarching concerns, I think by that lens the show basically is a world-building show + puzzle to be solved. I saw PPGW yesterday and found it completlely lacking in basically anything other than physical comedy, but I also think that's the point of that show, is to generate laughs through physical comedy, which can be enjoyable onto itself. This show the point I think is to create a world, present puzzles about that world, and to let people figure them out over time through disucssion and thought, which lends to a discussion around 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

abuse of women, the women who defend the abusers like Raleigh and Max, and the other core components of the show. 

This style seems to be highly appealing to some people and highly unappealing for others. In the same way that X or Bodies Bodies Bodies or a ton of other recent A24 horror films use horror-adjacent concepts as a conduit to explore some basic topics and generate discussions thereafter, I'd categorize this show in the exact same vein. It creates a world and a space for which serious matters can be discussed.  
 

 

Updated On: 5/8/23 at 12:51 PM

[TankEwe]

Posted: 5/8/23 at 12:54pm

Just chiming in to say the deer thing is totally right.

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Plus some cultures believe that deer are connected to the spirits of the dead, and may help bring them to the next world.

 

Updated On: 5/8/23 at 12:54 PM

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 5/8/23 at 5:37pm

EAPEAPMO said: "dexter3 said: "And if so, is that supposed to make us feel better about the assaults / crimes against women? Or is this some purgatory place where women get their revenge? If so...like....yay? I don't think victims of crime / sexual assault necessarily all want to inflict pain in their attackers."

I think this point is addressed by the show -

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

The character played by SAC actively chooses to stay in the house, as she discussed with both Raliegh and Max in two different scenes. She is afraid of the dark as revealed in the game they play and doesn't want to face the darkness of what was done to her.

 


While that probably doesn't solve your overarching concerns, I think by that lens the show basically is a world-building show + puzzle to be solved. I saw PPGW yesterday and found it completlely lacking in basically anything other than physical comedy, but I also think that's the point of that show, is to generate laughs through physical comedy, which can be enjoyable onto itself. This show the point I think is to create a world, present puzzles about that world, and to let people figure them out over time through disucssion and thought, which lends to a discussion around

 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

abuse of women, the women who defend the abusers like Raleigh and Max, and the other core components of the show.

 

 

 

This style seems to be highly appealing to some people and highly unappealing for others. In the same way that X or Bodies Bodies Bodies or a ton of other recent A24 horror films use horror-adjacent concepts as a conduit to explore some basic topics and generate discussions thereafter, I'd categorize this show in the exact same vein. It creates a world and a space for which serious matters can be discussed."

 

 

 

Sorry but this thing should not be compared to arguably modern horror masterpieces like X and Pearl. If you had to compare it to something……maybe Midsommar, which was pretty perplexing, but at least that wrapped itself up in a way that the movie could be understood clearly without having to theorize- unlike Grey House, which is just an incomprehensible mess of a plot from start to finish. In my opinion. 

[KRaser1]

Posted: 5/8/23 at 6:21pm

Hi...you mentioned seeing it from row AA. I was offered seats there...what was your experience. too close? These are AA dead center. 

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 5/8/23 at 6:38pm

KRaser1 said: "Hi...you mentioned seeing it from row AA. I was offered seats there...what was your experience. too close? These are AA dead center."

I was in that row. It is obstructed view. As I have already said, there is a small tv dead center on the edge of the stage that is used for one (1) scene in the beginning but continues to obstruct views for the entire show. Beyond that is a sofa that blocks all sorts of stuff. Do NOT sit in this row if you are expecting a good view. These seats should not be sold at full price. 

[EAPEAPMO]

Posted: 5/8/23 at 7:57pm

KRaser1 said: "Hi...you mentioned seeing it from row AA. I was offered seats there...what was your experience. too close? These are AA dead center."

I saw the show in AA center and J center, I preferred J to AA and would even think front Mezz gives a better view, but I was perfectly fine with AA. Just try to avoid the wingy parts of AA where you'll be way better served with comparable ticket prices elsewhere in theater (my impression is those are lottery tickets anyways). The one thing you really miss in AA center is on the floor, but it's easily inferred from audience reaction and acting. Otherwise, it's fun to be super close to the actors like that especially for certain scenes where lighting plays a factor in when people in different parts of the theater see what's going on. Just a matter of what you're going for, more intimate feel w/o any other heads in your way, but a slight miss on a detail, or a view of everything. 

Updated On: 5/8/23 at 07:57 PM

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 5/8/23 at 8:16pm

EAPEAPMO said: "KRaser1 said: "Hi...you mentioned seeing it from row AA. I was offered seats there...what was your experience. too close? These are AA dead center."

I saw the show in AA center and J center, I preferred J to AA and would even think front Mezz gives a better view, but I was perfectly fine with AA. Just try to avoid the wingy parts of AA where you'll be way better served with comparable ticket prices elsewhere in theater (my impression is those are lottery tickets anyways). The one thing you really miss in AA center is on the floor, but it's easily inferred from audience reaction and acting. Otherwise, it's fun to be super close to the actors like that especially for certain scenes where lighting plays a factor in when people in different parts of the theater see what's going on. Just a matter of what you're going for, more intimate feel w/o any other heads in your way, but a slight miss on a detail, or a view of everything."

Your front row view was not impacted by the tv and the couch? 

[EAPEAPMO]

Posted: 5/8/23 at 8:29pm

Matt Rogers said: "EAPEAPMO said: "KRaser1 said: "Hi...you mentioned seeing it from row AA. I was offered seats there...what was your experience. too close? These are AA dead center."

I saw the show in AA center and J center, I preferred J to AA and would even think front Mezz gives a better view, but I was perfectly fine with AA. Just try to avoid the wingy parts of AA where you'll be way better served with comparable ticket prices elsewhere in theater (my impression is those are lottery tickets anyways). The one thing you really miss in AA center is on the floor, but it's easily inferred from audience reaction and acting. Otherwise, it's fun to be super close to the actors like that especially for certain scenes where lighting plays a factor in when people in different parts of the theater see what's going on. Just a matter of what you're going for, more intimate feel w/o any other heads in your way, but a slight miss on a detail, or a view of everything."

Your front row view was not impacted by the tv and the couch?"
 

No, I was in AA106 and my girlfriend was in AA105. 
 

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/8/23 at 10:58pm

dexter3 said: "Add me to the list of people who were completely baffled by this. The person I was with and I both thought it was perplexing. There are some interesting things about this world, but I'm just wondering how this was apparently good enough for broadway? I'm reading through all the theories on this board, and they're definitely interesting, but I think the bigger thing for me (besides wanting a lot more clarity in exactly what happened) is the fact that I'm not sure what we're supposed to take away from this play, even if it made sense.

Additionally, I think the acting was amazing and yet the characters weren't particularly well written. Biggest problem for me is that I don't think I cared about any of them. All problem with the writing in my opinion. Performances were often charming or captivating.

To sum it up...I wanted more clarity, I wanted the play to actually be about something, I wanted better dialogue, and I wanted to care/feel for literally anyone on stage.

Other than that, it's well produced and visually stunning and well acted.

I'd skip this one."



For those who haven't seen the show it might have been nice if you put your comments in a spoiler toggle like a lot of us did. You are giving the story away in your comments.

 

Updated On: 5/13/23 at 10:58 PM

[Emma White]

Posted: 5/9/23 at 12:05pm

This thread is nuts, LOL.

AA is normally sold as rush, right? I've been dying to see this from closer and everyone I know who has rushed has gotten front row, so hoping to get that by rushing.

As for the "overall takeaway," well, I don't know if there's supposed to be some clear strong message from this. I think it's just a story about

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

women who've been hurt and dealing with trauma in some bat****, horror-ish ways.

But I don't think there's meant to be some kind of clear message from it. I think this story probably appeals most to people like me who love thrillers precisely because of that element of trying to piece a story together with strange, haphazard bits of information. The mystery of what is going on is the point. Personally, the story for me became clear the second Hank started talking in the dinner scene - there was the satisfying moment of OH I THINK I KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, and then Raleigh confirmed my understanding of the story in the scene after it.

Re: gore, I personally found the gore too much from my seat in the mezzanine, but I am not a fan of gore. It's easy to look away, though.