In the Wings

Has anyone seen this or know anything about it? I won free tickets for it tonight. I checked the website but it doesn't give too much info. Does have Peter Scolari in it which is kind of cool.

Well thanks for the info. I guess I'll at least check it out and can always leave at intermission. At least I won't be going in with high expecations...lol. I was curious since I got free tickets. I figured it had to be doing badly and there had to be a reason.

Here's a thread about the show from All That Chat (where one person actually says if someone offers you free tickets to this show, you should stab them):


http://www.talkinbroadway.com/allthatchat/d.php?id=175665

---

Updated On: 9/27/05 at 11:58 AM

Whoops, wrong link. It's fixed now.

---

Wow, well now my friend and I are kind of curious. We want to see how bad it actually can be. We figure we'll check it out and if we have to leave at intermission. I read a bunch of reviews on that link and no one had anything good to say about it. I've never seen such bad reviews. Usually someone likes a play. We may have a few drinks beforehand. Maybe it will help.

I also recieved a free ticket to it last week and went. It was craptacular. It really is a cliched trainwreck that's not funny in the least, and it tries to be smart but it fails greatly. I'd rather catch a touring production of Nathan Lane as Golda Meir then sit through In the Wings for a second time. Skip this one.

P.S. The only time I really cared is when I heard a Margo Channing reference in the play and my thoughts went to broadwayworld.com

Updated On: 9/27/05 at 02:53 PM

I'm trying to remember the last show where it seemed like everyone who saw it walked out at intermission. THE CIVIL WAR, probably. I don't know anyone who stayed for the second act of that one.

---

Well I went last night. It was pretty bad. We were debating about whether or not to leave. Well we decided to leave at intermission but wanted to finish our drink. So we sat in the lobby and then Peter Scolari walks right by, so that was a little embarrassing. Then we went and looked at the pictures on the wall and Marilyn Sokol comes over to us and is like why are you guys out here? I said we ran late getting drinks and using the restrooms and were afraid to go back in. She started asking how she was doing, saying she was getting more responses than previously but other stuff wasn't working. Said it was a good crwod. Then she said oh you have to come in for the second act. I felt so bad. We did wind up leaving. I thought it was pretty funny that we got busted twice though...lol. She was the only thing good in it. Then we decided to catch the end of the Yankee game and somehow wound up in the only Boston fans bar in NYC...lol. I didn't notice too many people leaving after the first act though.

Just for fun, I'll post a few. Critics often do their best writing with bad shows.

Talkin Broadway:

"New Yorkers lead notoriously busy lives, and dedicated theatergoers even busier ones. If you're finding time too scarce to take care of tasks too minor or mundane for your lunch hour, or that require less noise and movement than a typical subway ride, the opportunity you've been looking for has at long last arrived: In The Wings.

Yes, Stewart F. Lane's new play at the Promenade is that rare, exquisite chance to grab two hours of serenity in an almost perfectly silent, well-mannered environment. The play's running time has been perfectly apportioned to allow you to finish paying your monthly bills, complete that crossword puzzle you haven't had time for, or just steal a nap before a busy evening.

Lane, director Jeremy Dobrish, and four of the production's five actors all do their share to contribute to a laid-back atmosphere more reminiscent of a library in 1950 than a New York apartment in 1977, the show's specified setting. (The scenic design, appropriately kitschy, is by William Barclay.) Sadly, someone forgot to tell Marilyn Sokol that eliciting laughter is discouraged, and that nothing exciting - or even moderately interesting - should ever happen onstage; her appearances, albeit infrequent, suggest that she's on hand to entertain people. In other words, she's in the wrong theater."

Broadway.com:

"Theater buffs who are still kicking themselves because they missed the infamous Moose Murders now have a chance to see another unbelievably unfunny comedy: Stewart F. Lane's In the Wings. Lane is a Tony-winning producer (Thoroughly Modern Millie, La Cage aux Folles) and part-time playwright. Based on the evidence here, Lane should stick to producing.
He has attempted to write a romantic comedy/farce/backstage play. It fails as all three.

The script sinks to lower lows with its dirty jokes. When Melinda doesn't have time for dinner, Steve says, "I'll save the candles; my wick will have to wait."

Even the intentionally rotten musical numbers from I Married a Communist aren't funny. Perhaps that's because the clueless comedy surrounding them is just as amateurish. Scolari does wring a few chuckles out of a rap number, but the play is set in 1977--well before rap was mainstream.

The period does allow for cute vintage costumes by Mattie Ullrich and a nice disco-era set by William Barclay. Still, it's a bad sign for a comedy when the set and costumes get most of the laughs.

As for the five actors, the only one who emerges somewhat unscathed from this fiasco is Sokol. Wearing a big fur coat, gaudy dresses and oversize earrings, she injects a little life into the sorry proceedings. As for Scolari, he is, well, loud. The three younger actors should leave this off their resumes and pray that it's quickly forgotten.

http://www.talkinbroadway.com/ob/09_28_05.html

http://www.broadway.com/gen/Buzz_Story.aspx?ci=518669

---

And IMHO the terrific Marilyn Sokol does not as reported, walk away unscathed. Hard as she works, the lady unfortunately has egg on her face.

---

Updated On: 9/29/05 at 01:02 AM

Jeremy has always been humor-challenged so I'll never understand why he gets hired to direct comedies all the time -- usually badly. Over the years (and I remember him from the early years of Adobe) he's proven himself to be a master of "losing the laugh" -- no show he's ever directed has been nearly as funny as it COULD have been in other hands. To him funny means broad and over-the-top and that you have to "punch" every single joke -- which KILLS most comedy (especially anything satirical or absurd). Funny he's never figured that out. Even this Catskills reject of a play could benefit from a subtler approach at times (as well as a director who understands how to set up and deliver jokes -- physical and verbal).

He and this play are a perfect marriage -- unfunny director meets unfunny script. At least there weren't that many laughs for him to lose in the first place.

---