IN MY LIFE REVIEWS- FIRST PREVIEW — Page 3
#52
Posted: 10/1/05 at 12:38am
I agree with some of what you say Liotte. However, I do not agree at all with the idea that we must temper our opinions with fake praise in order not to offend. These people are hardworking, yes. But in any job there are standards that people will be held to. If I do a horrible job, even when I am working with a team I deserve to be called on it.
The serious parts of this show did not work for a great deal of the audience. They need to fix them or scrap them.
I also must say there is a reason for shows to be there and if they are unworkably bad, and I know this is an unpopular opinion, they need to close. Precisely so the talent cast and creative team can begin the process of finding better work.
The serious parts of this show did not work for a great deal of the audience. They need to fix them or scrap them.
I also must say there is a reason for shows to be there and if they are unworkably bad, and I know this is an unpopular opinion, they need to close. Precisely so the talent cast and creative team can begin the process of finding better work.
I stand corrected, you are as vapid as they say.
#53
Posted: 10/1/05 at 12:40am
In all fairness though, these actors chose to work in this project for whatever reason. They weren't sentenced to do it (or where they?) so they do have to shoulder some of the responsibility for the subject matter as well.
To be an actor at the Broadway level they have to be pretty thick skinned and able to swallow criticism easily. I agree that laughing in the theatre and making a scene is completely uncalled for and is just ridiculous.
However, an internet message board is a completely different medium. If people feel compelled to completely trash a show and are actually backing it up with details and explanation as to why they felt that way as opposed to simply trashing something to be a jerk, then I think they should.
/end threadjack.
To be an actor at the Broadway level they have to be pretty thick skinned and able to swallow criticism easily. I agree that laughing in the theatre and making a scene is completely uncalled for and is just ridiculous.
However, an internet message board is a completely different medium. If people feel compelled to completely trash a show and are actually backing it up with details and explanation as to why they felt that way as opposed to simply trashing something to be a jerk, then I think they should.
/end threadjack.
#54
Posted: 10/1/05 at 12:40am
Okay, I'm so curious about this show, I registered!
My big question is about J.T. How was he portrayed, both in the basic writing of his character and in the way he was acted? Some have said Christopher Hanke lets you feel for the character, and others found him offensive. Could I get some more details? For both sides, how much was in the writing, and how much was in the acting/directing?
It probably sounds like I'm fixating, but I've but involved in a few different productions concerning people with disabilities, and whenever I hear about a new play/movie/whatever featuring a character with a disability, I'm curious to see if he/she is being portrayed fairly, honestly, etc.
My big question is about J.T. How was he portrayed, both in the basic writing of his character and in the way he was acted? Some have said Christopher Hanke lets you feel for the character, and others found him offensive. Could I get some more details? For both sides, how much was in the writing, and how much was in the acting/directing?
It probably sounds like I'm fixating, but I've but involved in a few different productions concerning people with disabilities, and whenever I hear about a new play/movie/whatever featuring a character with a disability, I'm curious to see if he/she is being portrayed fairly, honestly, etc.
#55
Posted: 10/1/05 at 12:47am
Thanks, P. That is also what I believe about the situation.
Some things are unaccaptable to me, I agree the laughing was a bit much, and leaving the theatre before curtain like the people beside me would also be uncalled for. I clapped for the actors, and stayed until the end.
DiamondGirl, I'll try to work up a way to explain what I found offensive about the portrayal of JT with detail, I will say it was primarily in the writing.
Some things are unaccaptable to me, I agree the laughing was a bit much, and leaving the theatre before curtain like the people beside me would also be uncalled for. I clapped for the actors, and stayed until the end.
DiamondGirl, I'll try to work up a way to explain what I found offensive about the portrayal of JT with detail, I will say it was primarily in the writing.
I stand corrected, you are as vapid as they say.
#56
Posted: 10/1/05 at 12:49am
compared to In My Life, The Blonde in the Thunderbird was a masterpiece! seriously...
#57
Posted: 10/1/05 at 12:52am
Okay...People are desperately wanting this to be the next CARRIE or MOOSE MURDERS, so take that with a grain of salt...
Is the show bad? Of course. Are there moments of pure unbridled camp? You bet. Are the lyrics sophomoric? sure.
But more then anything else, the show is just Bizarre. I will go out on a limb, and say that I thought the actual story between Boevers and Hanke is compelling. Their scenes work, perhaps because of the charm of the actors playing them, and I think if the play focused on their story, the show would on some levels work too.
Where the play becomes absurd, as others have pointed out is in the alterior story regarding "God's Opera" in Heaven. All the numbers about pirates and skeletons are true, and are jaw dropping, but are to a degree meant to be absurdist camp, so we don't really get the pure joy of CARRIE and THOU SHALT NOT where the bizarreness was completely unintentional.
As usual, the cast is never to blame. Boevers and Hanke make the absolute most of their characters. Navarra is creepily adult. David Turner chews every bit of scenery as Winston and manages to elicit a few genuine laughs.
I actually liked the production values. I thought the sets and lighting were effective -- good even. And didn't look cheap.
This show can be discribed as many things, but contrary to what I was led to believe it was not once = ever - BORING.
To me, the worst flops are boring. This was at least entertaining.
Word from cast is that actually a couple of new songs have been written and will be inserted into coming preview performances.
Jessica Boevers will also be out of tomorrow's shows. So it will be interesting to hear reports of the understudy.
Also, Joe Brooks is determined to run the show at least for the 120 performances or whatever it is to get regional rights, so don't expect a one week run.
That said, do run and don't walk to the Music Box Theatre. The experience is indescribable.
Is the show bad? Of course. Are there moments of pure unbridled camp? You bet. Are the lyrics sophomoric? sure.
But more then anything else, the show is just Bizarre. I will go out on a limb, and say that I thought the actual story between Boevers and Hanke is compelling. Their scenes work, perhaps because of the charm of the actors playing them, and I think if the play focused on their story, the show would on some levels work too.
Where the play becomes absurd, as others have pointed out is in the alterior story regarding "God's Opera" in Heaven. All the numbers about pirates and skeletons are true, and are jaw dropping, but are to a degree meant to be absurdist camp, so we don't really get the pure joy of CARRIE and THOU SHALT NOT where the bizarreness was completely unintentional.
As usual, the cast is never to blame. Boevers and Hanke make the absolute most of their characters. Navarra is creepily adult. David Turner chews every bit of scenery as Winston and manages to elicit a few genuine laughs.
I actually liked the production values. I thought the sets and lighting were effective -- good even. And didn't look cheap.
This show can be discribed as many things, but contrary to what I was led to believe it was not once = ever - BORING.
To me, the worst flops are boring. This was at least entertaining.
Word from cast is that actually a couple of new songs have been written and will be inserted into coming preview performances.
Jessica Boevers will also be out of tomorrow's shows. So it will be interesting to hear reports of the understudy.
Also, Joe Brooks is determined to run the show at least for the 120 performances or whatever it is to get regional rights, so don't expect a one week run.
That said, do run and don't walk to the Music Box Theatre. The experience is indescribable.
Updated On: 10/1/05 at 12:52 AM
#58
Posted: 10/1/05 at 12:57am
Nice Review MB. I agree it was not boring. Yet, I honestly found the love story to be, for me, the worst part. The other numbers were random and stoped any posibility for emotional investment, but I felt the "apartment scenes" by far were the worst.
I stand corrected, you are as vapid as they say.
Updated On: 10/1/05 at 12:57 AM
#59
Posted: 10/1/05 at 12:59am
the scenes with Winston were by far the worst...but I was laughing all the way through them...so I was definitely entertained.
#60
Posted: 10/1/05 at 1:01am
Now see, I thought the apartment scenes were just naive enough to almost be good sitcom writing. It's absurd to be "offended" by any representation of Touretts or OCD, becuase the scenario they were presented in were so obviously, intentionally cartoon.
No no -- the worst scenes were those in the last 20 minutes which got unintentional laughs from the audience. The silliest thing in the show was Hanke rising out of the hospital bed on wires -- but that has already been cut. (See why you need to go to first preview folks?)
No no -- the worst scenes were those in the last 20 minutes which got unintentional laughs from the audience. The silliest thing in the show was Hanke rising out of the hospital bed on wires -- but that has already been cut. (See why you need to go to first preview folks?)
Updated On: 10/1/05 at 01:01 AM
#61
Posted: 10/1/05 at 1:02am
i need a drink. i bet that's where Margo is right now...
#62
Posted: 10/1/05 at 1:03am
I completely agree with Michael Bennett and Liotte(great meeting you, btw) I think that the story between JT and Jenny was really sweet, and a cute romance, in a wierd way. However, once they were up in heaven, nothing made sense. The songs, that took place in heaven, were either strange or had little point. I thought that Christopher J. Hanke was brilliant and was not at all offensive in his portrayal. He managed to play JT without downplaying the syndrome or making it too over-dramatic. He was brilliant, and I loved his portrayal of JT. I thought that Jessica Boevers also shone as Jenny. She was funny yet heartwarming. The rest of the cast was great, with what they were given.
"Don't thank your parents, if you were raised in a nurturing environment you wouldnt be in show business"--Conan O'Brien at the 2006 Emmy Awards
#63
Posted: 10/1/05 at 1:04am
I don't agree, I think JT is written so that you are supposed to get "cheap laughs" off of his disease, which to me is offensive. I'm not talking write the senator offensive, just cringe worthy.
There was no depiction of her OCD, it never came accross in any tangible way.
I thought the dialogue ridiculous, and far to expositional. They never did anything, they just talked about it.
There was no depiction of her OCD, it never came accross in any tangible way.
I thought the dialogue ridiculous, and far to expositional. They never did anything, they just talked about it.
I stand corrected, you are as vapid as they say.
#64
Posted: 10/1/05 at 1:05am
So the female lead (Jenny, is it?) does have OCD? I'd been wondering about that, since various synopses of the show had multiple descriptions of her.
From the sounds of it, it seems like this show is just... too much. Too unfocused? So much going that it's hard to follow, and too much camp to make the genuine parts seem serious? I wonder how it'll change in the weeks to come.
From the sounds of it, it seems like this show is just... too much. Too unfocused? So much going that it's hard to follow, and too much camp to make the genuine parts seem serious? I wonder how it'll change in the weeks to come.
#65
Posted: 10/1/05 at 1:07am
Jenny does not but I think that JT is supposed ot have OCD, ADHD, and Tourettes.
"Don't thank your parents, if you were raised in a nurturing environment you wouldnt be in show business"--Conan O'Brien at the 2006 Emmy Awards
#66
Posted: 10/1/05 at 1:07am
No she doesn't have OCD. Believe me -- the memorable things about the show have nothing to do with the story line of the two kids, even though that is what sounds most bizarre in the ads.
#67
Posted: 10/1/05 at 1:08am
i*heart*fame, thank you for the good thoughts!
Right after the show finished tonight, I was like, WTF and had no desire to see it again. But in retrospect, I think I'd like to go back when it opens to see what changes were made in the show, as it can only get better from here.
Right after the show finished tonight, I was like, WTF and had no desire to see it again. But in retrospect, I think I'd like to go back when it opens to see what changes were made in the show, as it can only get better from here.
#68
Posted: 10/1/05 at 1:09am
In the first scene in the apartment, JT says to Jenny that she acts like she has OCD and she talks about her obsessions.
I stand corrected, you are as vapid as they say.
#69
Posted: 10/1/05 at 1:09am
I will definitely see it again.
And for the record, I have no idea where they came from, but there were a lot more people in the house then I would EVER have expected and I dont think they were papered in.
And for the record, I have no idea where they came from, but there were a lot more people in the house then I would EVER have expected and I dont think they were papered in.
#70
Posted: 10/1/05 at 1:11am
i don't think they were papered either, michael. the only ones who were papered were the family members of the cast (and those were the ones who started the standing ovation at curtain call). I did not.
Updated On: 10/1/05 at 01:11 AM
#71
Posted: 10/1/05 at 1:13am
I cannot wait to see this. I think I am going in two Saturdays.
Let's give it grand reviews to keep it open until then.
Thanks.
Let's give it grand reviews to keep it open until then.
Thanks.
#72
Posted: 10/1/05 at 1:14am
And as terrible as it is, I have to say that the ruthless passing out of free cds I think might be doing some good. There was a couple in front of me that nudged each other during the singing of the title song. It was very obvious they recognized it from the cd.
#73
Posted: 10/1/05 at 1:16am
is there a show this Monday?
and how cheap could I possibly get tickets?
and how cheap could I possibly get tickets?
But I won't live alone in a house of regret.
#75
Posted: 10/1/05 at 1:18am
Mine was $26.25 same day rush, front row
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95