If There Is I Haven't Found It Yet

You want to know what the most shocking thing is? The title isn't even the worst part about this mess! It's hard to believe, but very true.

This was one of the more excruciating things I've seen in a while. I'm not talking about the acting, or the set or direction (more on those later), but the actual text itself. Pointless drivel that rambled on and on and on and on and on and on. They talked about anything and everything EXCEPT a topic that might advance some sort of plot along. Most of the conversations revolved around food, and there was a particular dreadful scene in an Indian restaurant that should never have made it out of rehearsal.

Why did Jake Gyllenhaal choose this as his American stage debut?! It's not even his character's story and although the other three actors never leave the stage he departs about 2/3 way through the piece. Jake did have the line, "Fat Girls are the fvcking salt of the earth. Skinny girls are cvnts," which could end up being the line of the season, so there's at least that.

I'll paraphrase, but a typical scene went something like this:
Jake: What the fvck are you fvcking doing up here?
Annie Funke: Just reading.
Jake: What the fvck are you doing that for?
Annie: Did you really set that car on fire?
Jake: Oh fvck. That's fvcking nice. So the fvcking rumor mill's been turning I see. Bet it was that fvcking cvnt who told you.

And you get the point. Not that I'm offended by swearing at all, but this was just trying too hard.

The director had an interesting idea with the set, but I don't think it really worked. Every piece of the set (chairs, tables, a bed, etc) has been placed in the center of the stage, otherwise dressed as a black box. As the scenes progress the actors grab the pieces needed for that scene and set it up.

SPOILER
When the scene is over the chairs and tables are thrown into a pool of water at the front the stage for no reason I could figure out!
END SPOILER

I couldn't have disliked this play more. I know some of you may think it's wrong to voice such a negative reaction after a first preview, but it wasn't the acting or any of that stuff that I thought was the problem. It was the play. I had a violent reaction against it and all I can do is say that.

---

If only that was the case! Jake played a Chav type character, which I normally find pretty hot, but even that couldn't distract me enough.

---

MysteriousGrowl will confirm this. He held my hand throughout the evening as I witnessed His presence and cried tears of joy.

How dare you. I wish that was you in that tub.

The author's heart seems to be in the right place; it's his pen that's not.

Too bad, for there's the basis of a good play here.

Muddled and unfocused, the play offers multiple short scenes with a lot of small talk and little dramatic momentum. Characters are not explored in depth, and actions seem improperly and/or insufficiently motivated.

It's hard to see why Jake Gyllenhaal would choose this property for his NY stage debut. His character lacks depth; nor is it the central role. He's off stage quite a bit.

The most interesting character was a diehard ecology devotee, but his speeches on the subject seemed to belong to another play.

But then, nothing seems to cohere in this play.

I respect Whizzer's opinions so much that I wouldn't go near this apparent stinker. And I like Jake.

---

I had to leave right after, but did anyone stage door? I have 7 other tickets for this show in the next couple weeks (Did y'all know I'm a Gyllenhaal fan????) so was very curious how he was there...

Look, I enjoyed the play. Probably more than most people who don't write "Mrs. Jake Gyllenhaal" on their notebook all day long, but I think it's far from the absolute trainwreck it's been made out to be.

Jordan- I did not stagedoor, but I heard from someone who did and said Jake took almost 2 hrs to come out and he only signed for 5 people before leaving.

I wasn't trying to be a dick to you earlier either. If you really liked the play then I'm honestly glad you did! I, like matty, just couldn't wait for it to be over.

The thing is there were glimmers of the stage charisma Jake could have in a better show. The audience clearly wanted to like him, and pretty much he was the only actor they responded to. I hope he returns to the stage in something more suited to showcase his talents.

---

How was Brian F.O'Byrne?

---

Thanks. I don't think I'll be losing any sleep over missing this.

---

As we left, I told Growl that the play seemed EXTREMELY British to me, and I didn't know how well that would translate here.

The writing is on par with last season's (similarly mouthfully) WILD ANIMALS YOU SHOULD KNOW, which was one of the worst things I've seen on an Off-Broadway stage. ITIIHFIY has the benefits of a more talented cast and slightly better direction. The accents are thick, and since there were a few stretches where I had trouble hearing the actors volume-wise -- especially when they'd mind-bogglingly face upstage, and especially Michelle Gomez -- at times I was struggling just to make sure I wasn't missing key plot points.

As it turned out, I didn't miss anything... because nothing happens.

The payoffs for the audience's attention hinge on a small handful of emotionally wrought scenes, none of which feel dramatically justified -- and none of them occurring until well into the 2-hour, intermissionless evening. (The play may tighten up a tiny bit, but nothing about the performances or scene changes seemed gappy; I think we got what they rehearsed.) We understand the stakes for the family and characters are high, but only because we recognize their dysfunction objectively, not because the playwright dramatizes it.

Jake G. is the obvious draw here, and he's good. He's SO American. He's JAKE. But I bought his heavy chav dialect. After a few perfs it should get a little less technical-sounding, but he's clearly done his homework. Unfortunately, aside from being a good-natured roughneck, he has little more to do or build on. Mr. O'Byrne grew on me as the show progressed, and right now he's doing the best, most subtle work onstage, despite being burdened with a couple of thematically mystifying monologues and an insufferably selfish character. Funke and Gomez are there, as well, saying their lines in ways that make sense mostly.

But they're all fighting that script, which is scene after scene of dialogue leading nowhere, building towards an appalling sappy ending. (One credit -- the final monologue is nice, but what it has to do with the play, I cannot surmise.) The set and the way the actors utilize its pieces is on par with a college sophomore's idea of inventive, clever design. It's pretentious to the max and, again, an overwrought and somewhat mystifying metaphor.

This genre of distantly observed dramedy is a tricky, difficult beast to make work. This play is a thoroughly un-compelling example, and this production is thoroughly un-compelling argument for it.

---