#126
Posted: 3/31/15 at 10:08am
My then 15 year old daughter loved the show last year and didn't find it inappropriate--although she's been reading X-rated fan fiction for years though.
Hand to God Previews — Page 6
#127
Posted: 3/31/15 at 10:56am
I guess I'll be the odd one out... because I saw it last night and really didn't like it. The good things: the acting was fantastic... I thought Steven Boyer deserves all of the praise he's been getting and then some, and the other four actors were also captivating. I was also really captivated by the set design, which isn't something I necessarily expected to say going into it, haha.
But as far as the play... I don't know. I must've missed the point. Everyone around me was roaring with laughter and I think I chuckled a couple of times, but otherwise found it all to be a little boring. It wasn't the offensiveness of the material - I LOVED both Avenue Q and Mormon - if anything, it felt a little trite to me. I just kept waiting for more. Maybe you needed to have grown up going to church? To be fair, I was a little tired, it was freezing in there (bring a sweater!!), and I was in the mezzanine which probably made me miss some nuances of the acting. Just wasn't for me. Oh well.
But as far as the play... I don't know. I must've missed the point. Everyone around me was roaring with laughter and I think I chuckled a couple of times, but otherwise found it all to be a little boring. It wasn't the offensiveness of the material - I LOVED both Avenue Q and Mormon - if anything, it felt a little trite to me. I just kept waiting for more. Maybe you needed to have grown up going to church? To be fair, I was a little tired, it was freezing in there (bring a sweater!!), and I was in the mezzanine which probably made me miss some nuances of the acting. Just wasn't for me. Oh well.
#128
Posted: 3/31/15 at 10:59am
Well I'm an athiest who grew up jewish, so you don't have to have grown up in the church to "get it".
#129
Posted: 3/31/15 at 11:20am
Just wasn't for me.
That's your answer. It just didn't hit you the way it hit other people, and that's okay. Who knows why, but it's almost certainly not because you have the wrong background, or that anything about your taste is wrong or incorrect.
(I grew up Catholic, which is very different than growing up in most Protestant religions prevalent in the South, so my relationship with religion didn't give me a boost in my enjoyment of the play. I just liked it.)
That's your answer. It just didn't hit you the way it hit other people, and that's okay. Who knows why, but it's almost certainly not because you have the wrong background, or that anything about your taste is wrong or incorrect.
(I grew up Catholic, which is very different than growing up in most Protestant religions prevalent in the South, so my relationship with religion didn't give me a boost in my enjoyment of the play. I just liked it.)
When I see the phrase "the ____ estate", I imagine a vast mansion in the country full of monocled men and high-collared women receiving letters about productions across the country and doing spit-takes at whatever they contain.
-Kad
Updated On: 3/31/15 at 11:20 AM
#130
Posted: 3/31/15 at 11:48am
Yeah, I think I'm just bummed because I *wanted* to love it so much. On paper, it's exactly the kind of show that would be a new favorite. My friends had all been raving about it, so maybe I just went in with too-high expectations? But no big deal, to each his own. I still hope it does well, for theatre's sake. I'll always support a show that takes chances.
#131
Posted: 3/31/15 at 12:08pm
"I guess I'll be the odd one out."
Not that odd. If you read through the entire thread, you'll find others who were anything but impressed.
I know, because I'm one of them.
The problem we see here is that of the relentless juvenilization of our theatre. It's been reduced to the maturity level of an asinine foul-mouthed thirteen-year-old.
What this tells us about the state of our so-called "culture" is grim. What it portends for the future is even grimmer.
Not that odd. If you read through the entire thread, you'll find others who were anything but impressed.
I know, because I'm one of them.
The problem we see here is that of the relentless juvenilization of our theatre. It's been reduced to the maturity level of an asinine foul-mouthed thirteen-year-old.
What this tells us about the state of our so-called "culture" is grim. What it portends for the future is even grimmer.
#132
Posted: 3/31/15 at 12:58pm
"The problem we see here is that of the relentless juvenilization of our theatre. It's been reduced to the maturity level of an asinine foul-mouthed thirteen-year-old."
Ok, Nana. Go back to your soap operas and leave intellectual theater to those still capable of understanding social commentary.
Ok, Nana. Go back to your soap operas and leave intellectual theater to those still capable of understanding social commentary.
#133
Posted: 3/31/15 at 3:50pm
Can I ask genuinely what was so deep and intellectual about it? That's exactly what it was missing, to me.
(Spoilers, probably:)
It just felt like a play about the inner conflict between good and bad, and how that can manifest itself following a tragedy. I kept waiting for it to be... I don't know, more profound than that? We've seen "religion can be repressive and hypocritical" so many times before - I wanted it to go farther. And I definitely don't think that 13-year-old potty humor and brilliance are mutually exclusive - South Park is genius, to me. Frankly I almost wanted it to be a lot more offensive than it was; based on hearsay I was expecting my jaw to drop, and it definitely didn't. Maybe I'm jaded by too much Cards Against Humanity. :)
Was there a deeper meaning that I was missing? No snark, please. I'm trying to figure out why I seem to be scratching my head over what so many people are calling brilliant. My tastes are usually pretty in line with the critics.
(Spoilers, probably:)
It just felt like a play about the inner conflict between good and bad, and how that can manifest itself following a tragedy. I kept waiting for it to be... I don't know, more profound than that? We've seen "religion can be repressive and hypocritical" so many times before - I wanted it to go farther. And I definitely don't think that 13-year-old potty humor and brilliance are mutually exclusive - South Park is genius, to me. Frankly I almost wanted it to be a lot more offensive than it was; based on hearsay I was expecting my jaw to drop, and it definitely didn't. Maybe I'm jaded by too much Cards Against Humanity. :)
Was there a deeper meaning that I was missing? No snark, please. I'm trying to figure out why I seem to be scratching my head over what so many people are calling brilliant. My tastes are usually pretty in line with the critics.
#134
Posted: 3/31/15 at 8:46pm
I didn't really take the message as talking about how religion can be repressive/hypocritical so much as humans are hypocritical to blame their "devilish" impulses on the Devil rather than owning everyone's innate possibility to do evil things. I suppose religion is what has given us the Devil as a scapegoat, but I found it to be more about our own capacity to do terrible things and how sometimes it might even be necessary to act on those impulses, or to at least let those impulses out in some kind of constructive way, which neither Jason nor his mother are very good at, hence the reason they act as they do.
And I was brought up Catholic and have since left the Church, so the piece did speak to me on that level, but I don't think you need to have a Christian background for this show to make an impact.
And I was brought up Catholic and have since left the Church, so the piece did speak to me on that level, but I don't think you need to have a Christian background for this show to make an impact.
I am a firm believer in serendipity- all the random pieces coming together in one wonderful moment, when suddenly you see what their purpose was all along.
#135
Posted: 4/1/15 at 12:24pm
"Well, I think we found our host for the Tonys this year! "
Perhaps Tyrone and Triumph The Insult Dog could co-host.
Perhaps Tyrone and Triumph The Insult Dog could co-host.
#136
Posted: 4/1/15 at 12:55pm
I want Tyrone, Anne Boleyn and Claire Zachannassian to co-host together. That would make for a fun evening! Only the bravest of nominees would dare attend, but the viewing audience would be sure to get a few good laughs!
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!
#137
Posted: 4/2/15 at 1:45am
Went to the dreaded Wednesday mat. with what looked like a very unsophisticated audience, they ate it up. Really enjoyed the show. Well written, not just a bunch of cheap fowl mouthed puppet jokes. My Unitarian minisister husband found the theology compelling and sound.
#139
Posted: 4/3/15 at 4:26pm
So, I am planning on seeing this next week and looking at tickets.
Earlier in the thread someone said not to go the rush route as the view is very poor, but I only found the one comment...has anyone else tried rush?
Otherwise I am thinking of just paying the broadwaybox discount price, in which case I can get 7 or 8 rows back in the orchestra, but off to the side (2-3 seats off the aisle) or front row center mezz for equal price...anybody have any suggestions which would be better?
#140
Posted: 4/3/15 at 7:13pm
While I did TodayTix, I can't imagine that your view would be obstructed wherever you'd end up at. The one place I could see it being bad is the last rows of the center mezzanine because of the lighting fixtures but I can't guarantee that.
I did see the show last night and very impressed. There were times where I felt like the show was vulgar for the sake of being vulgar, but as it progressed it just got better and better.
I was very impressed with the whole cast but the show belongs to Steven Boyer, who should contend for the Tony. In addition to him, Marc Kudisch played the Pastor wonderfully and I left the theatre a huge fan of Geneva Carr....she absolutely blew me away and she better get nominated as well.
#141
Posted: 4/4/15 at 4:11pm
Not sure if this show has a different policy, but usually, House Seats at the Booth are the front row of the mezzanine. So I would go for center Mezz for sure
#142
Posted: 4/4/15 at 4:15pm
@willep, I did rush and was seated in the second row on the house right side (seats 6-8, I think?). I missed literally nothing and was incredibly close - I felt like I had a perfect view of the show. Occasionally someone would have their back to me but it was not at all obstructed! Great seat for a great price - not sure what rush experiences others have had.
Formerly SirNotAppearing - Joined 3/08
#143
Posted: 4/4/15 at 9:49pm
I've seen a few shows at the booth and know it's a small theater, but how is last row mezz? I have student tickets for this in a few weeks...
#144
Posted: 4/4/15 at 10:46pm
Just got back from tonight's performance. Man the first act is wickedly funny. Not quite as enamored with how things play out in the second act, but did enjoy the dramatic twists.
#145
Posted: 4/6/15 at 7:01pm
Tonights final preview is sold out, just picked up my ticket from the box office
Well I didn't want to get into it, but he's a Satanist.
Every full moon he sacrifices 4 puppies to the Dark Lord and smears their blood on his paino.
This should help you understand the score for Wicked a little bit more.
Tazber's: Reply to
Is Stephen Schwartz a Practicing Christian
#146
Posted: 4/7/15 at 12:16am
Boyer better make room on his mantle for that TONY.
Updated On: 4/7/15 at 12:16 AM
#147
Posted: 4/7/15 at 2:13am
Saw the show tonight and absolutely loved it. Boyer is giving a fantastic performance. I wish this show the best!
Spotted Bradley Whitford in the audience tonight as well.
#149
Posted: 5/10/15 at 6:12pm
No nudity, but lots of sexual content. Strong language, and some violence.
Would likely merit an R rating if it were a movie.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95