HIGH or Bengal?

[jbm2]

Posted: 4/14/11 at 1:13pm

seeing a ton of shows next week.. have one more slot, which should I see?

[bjh2114]

Posted: 4/14/11 at 1:27pm

Without even having seen Bengal Tiger, I would recommend it over High. High is an awful, trite piece of trashy young adult literature. Don't bother.

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 4/14/11 at 1:45pm

Bengal is supposed to be pretty good. What else are you seeing?

[willep]

Posted: 4/14/11 at 3:09pm

Bengal is fantastic. I highly recommend it. I haven't seen High though.

[once a month]

Posted: 4/14/11 at 3:29pm

See Bengal, just don't go High!

[Owen22]

Posted: 4/14/11 at 3:31pm

I didn't "get" Bengal Tiger...

[jbm2]

Posted: 4/14/11 at 3:42pm

How long is Bengal?

[willep]

Posted: 4/14/11 at 6:22pm

It is around 2 hours.

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 4/14/11 at 7:00pm

I've seen both and I recommend Bengal Tiger. Very easy choice.

[jbm2]

Posted: 4/14/11 at 7:13pm

is Bengal hard to "get"?

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 4/14/11 at 8:21pm

No. It's been on TKTS, and the lottery is also an option; I don't think it's been all that crowded (I saw it because my friend won the lottery, and the front row seats are great).

[jbm2]

Posted: 4/14/11 at 8:24pm

by "get"...i mean understand...
a few comments up Owen22 said it was hard to get

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 4/14/11 at 8:44pm

Oh, gotcha. Maybe Owen can clarify, then. I didn't have a problem understanding it.

[pennydreadful]

Posted: 4/15/11 at 1:11pm

Saw High last night, saw Bengal a while back. A million times, Bengal over High! I thought High was very bad. But I'd recommend Born Yesterday over both of these.

[jds2001]

Posted: 4/16/11 at 9:41am

I'm interested in why folks thought that HIGH was very bad. Is it the religious content? Is it the nudity? Is it something else entirely? I saw it last night and thought that it was an INCREDIBLE show. Maybe that has something to do with a genuine desire to help people, and the circumstances that I grew up in (nothing near as ****ty as this kid, but still...)

But I've never seen Bengal, but want to.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 4/16/11 at 11:02am

"I'm interested in why folks thought that HIGH was very bad."

For me it was the writing, for the most part. I found it lurid, sensational, cliched and exploitative of the subject matter, as well as wildly uneven. I didn't object to the nudity, though I thought it gratuitous. I've already been accused by another poster of wanting HIGH to fail, which is absolutely untrue, so I'll leave it at that, other than to say I wish it had been better. It is a waste of three very good actors, who perhaps are also a bit misdirected. (imo).

Below is a link to an earlier thread, and that link includes a link to an even earlier one, going back to the first preview. A lively discussion with pros and cons, as well as spoilers, which should answer all your questions regarding why some folks thought that HIGH was very bad.

I haven't seen BENGAL, so I can't comment on which is better.

Links to earlier threads on HIGH Updated On: 4/16/11 at 11:02 AM

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 4/16/11 at 5:40pm

I hated Bengal with a fervor. Didn't love HIGH but was engaged the entire time. Turner's performance is outstanding. HIGH wins this argument IMO.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 4/16/11 at 5:46pm

My vote goes to HIGH. Neither are exceptional plays, but I enjoyed HIGH more. I saw it last night and while I thought the second act delved into the dramatics a little too much, I definitely was emotionally invested by the end of it. I liked the first act quite a lot. It's definitely a step in the right direction for Matthew Lombardo, after his messy, scattershot script for LOOPED last season.

Either way, you'll get to see a legend (Kathleen Turner or Robin Williams) live. And that's worth it, especially because both are delivering such good performances.
Updated On: 4/16/11 at 05:46 PM

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 4/16/11 at 5:53pm

I vote HIGH. While the script is problematic and uneven, I'd watch Turner read the phone book and you'll get a chance to see Evan before he becomes a major star. That kid is going places.

[pennydreadful]

Posted: 4/16/11 at 6:24pm

"I'm interested in why folks thought that HIGH was very bad."

I thought the script was fake, forced, and all the horror was gratuitous - SPOLIERS - I felt like the author was going down a checklist: Body in a dumpster? Check. Child sexual abuse? Check. Rape/murder? Check. I have no objection to any of these elements if it's a good play, but I felt like the playwright was exploiting his characters in a nasty way, without any depth or payoff. Putting a bunch of horrible stuff in a play doesn't automatically make it a good play, or deep, or whatever it was the author was going for.

At any rate, the actors were doing a fine job. I hope the kid gets a Tony nomination.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 4/17/11 at 1:13am

What Bettyboy said. If nothing else, HIGH got Evan Jonigkeit to Broadway, and that will hopefully get him the attention he deserves. I just hope tv/movies don't take him away from the stage too much.

To pennydreadful: totally agree with you, but...

*****SPOILERS******

Body in a dumpster????? That's new to me. Do tell!

[kyle4]

Posted: 4/17/11 at 1:53am

HIGH !

[pennydreadful]

Posted: 4/17/11 at 2:37am

Reply to Ghostlight *SPOILERS*

Yep, when the priest is talking to Kathleen he talks about his sister's body being found in a dumpster. I was surprised the playwright didn't throw "maggot-ridden" in there.
Updated On: 4/17/11 at 02:37 AM

[ljay889]

Posted: 4/17/11 at 2:46am

I saw both today.
I would choose HIGH.
Updated On: 4/17/11 at 02:46 AM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 4/17/11 at 2:56am

LOL! Thanks for the spoiler and the laugh, Pennydread.