Intimacy - New Group - wow- Page 2

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 1/16/14 at 2:14pm

How'd you get a ticket for $25? I'd pay to see this for that much.

[oasisjeff]

Posted: 1/16/14 at 2:23pm

First two rows are $25 for all shows. It is also participating in the $20 for $20 promotion from January 21 to February 9.

[jhammond2]

Posted: 1/21/14 at 4:22pm

Hey I have a few questions for anyone who's seen this.

I've seen some of Bradshaw's work, including Burning. In general I think he's OK but it seems like he likes to shock for the sake of it and I'm not sure he really has anything interesting to say.

I'm not a prude by any means. I like nudity on stage when it services the plot and - hey this is a play with a porn star, so I get it. But I wonder if Thomas Bradshaw is just a creep looking to get his rocks off with his actors? And is he abusing his power?

To me a line that shouldn't be crossed is any non-simulated sexual contact between the actors. It's one thing to simulate sex under a sheet. You mention that an actor gets whacked off by another with her feet. Is that shown in explicit detail or just implied? You also mentioned that a cast member may have had his penis sucked and there is lots of simulated sex. Can you confirm if there is actually any visible contact between the actors? If you can see an actor touch anothers genitals, to me that crosses a line. I wouldn't be able to think about the story - just about the actors in that moment. And I would hope a director would not ask his actors to do that.

Also, there is a rumor going around that the porn scenes used on the TV screens in the play were actually filmed by the actors. Did you see anything to suggest this was the case?

I guess if we're talking prosthetics and simulation it wouldn't be so bad. But if I want to watch porno, that's what the Internet is for.

I'm thinking about going to see this, but don't want to go if it crosses the line. I would appreciate any thoughts from people who have seen this.

Thanks!

[Claudehb2001]

Posted: 1/22/14 at 3:22pm

I saw it on Saturday, and I think they used a prosthetic for the fellatio scene. I couldn't see the actual act from my seat, but the penis was coming out of a pair of underwear (and he ejaculated twice earlier from some kind of a device) so I think it was probably a device used by the actor, but again, I couldn't see what was actually happening. The foot job scene happened under the covers and then was shown in a video clip (no idea if it was the actual actors who filmed that, I assumed it wasn't).

[dshnookie]

Posted: 1/22/14 at 3:53pm

Here's an article I read just yesterday that references the ejaculation moments - supposedly it's almond milk. I saw the show Friday night and I was more entertained by Parker Posey and Natasha Lyonne howling with laughter in the front row. Wallace Shawn was also in the audience.

The surprise really came—wrong word, perhaps—with the almond milk. At the first preview performance of the play Intimacy last Tuesday, it shot forth from actor Austen Cauldwell’s tumescent penis, or what looked like his tumescent penis, landing on some unfortunate audience member, or diligent theatrical prompt, right at the front. A tube of lubricant also flew into the stalls as a duvet was swiftly scooped up.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/18/new-york-s-naughtiest-show-maybe-avoid-the-front-row.html

[FishermanBob]

Posted: 1/22/14 at 4:01pm

This all just sounds like some really bad porn. And I like my porn well done, thank you.

[newintown]

Posted: 1/22/14 at 4:20pm

If it's anything at all like Burning, you might learn to enjoy really bad porn, Fisherman.

I know I'll never forget poor Hunter Foster, bare naked on his hands and knees with his butt about 2 feet from the nearest audience member's face, pretending to get sodomized while everyone could clearly see his orifice was free from any foreign object. Several other actors would also pretend to penetrate their cast mates with obviously flaccid members.

Oh, it kept the after-theatre dinner conversation lively, it did.

I believe the point of the show was something unusually profound, like "racism is bad," but I wouldn't swear that there was really any point at all, except for the puerile satisfaction of an odd director and an even odder "writer," both of whom like to see naked actors pretending to engage in sexual activity.

[stevenycguy]

Posted: 1/22/14 at 6:45pm

This is a really fun play; the audience was screaming with laughter at the performance I attended. Politically incorrect jokes, nudity, porn film, etc etc. If you like Married with Children like I did, you're going to LOVE this show (just like I loved Burning). And it is most definitely a prosthetic for the fellatio scene; I was sitting practically in front of the actors and I am 100% sure of that. There is no sexual contact going on; instead you see porn videos playing of what's supposed to be the sexual contact happening (which I am sure was downloaded from the Internet). Excellent cast and it's a fun night out. The porn film in the 2nd act is simply hilarious!

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 1/22/14 at 7:59pm

Sorry, the humor is nothing like Married with Children. That implies there are actual jokes and punch lines. Bradshaw isn't writing in that vein at all. He's just trying to push buttons.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/22/14 at 8:21pm

I was not a big fan of Married With Children (though I appreciated most of the actors,) but I was gonna say, everything I've read about this does not make me think any Married fans would be sure to love this play (or Burning...)

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 1/22/14 at 8:26pm

And I thought The Wolf of Wall Street was messed up! :P

[oasisjeff]

Posted: 1/22/14 at 11:15pm

I find it very inclusive that they are using vegan ejaculate, so any audience member can get some in their mouth and not get upset.

[mamaleh]

Posted: 1/23/14 at 10:44am

I detested BURNING, even as a freebie; kept scratching my head as to how Hunter Foster came to be involved with that mess. This one seems even more disgusting. Thanks for the warnings, all.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 1/23/14 at 3:56pm

A friend of mine going to NYC in April hopes to see this.

"I hope it extends", she said.

"Oh it does." I assured her.

[broadfan327]

Posted: 1/23/14 at 9:48pm

When I saw Burning, as I watched Hunter Foster, the look on his face was telling me the only reason he was in the show was for the paycheck.

[chrisampm2]

Posted: 1/24/14 at 12:12am

BroadFan, How much do you think actors make Off-Bwy? I thought Foster gave one of his better performances in Burning, which I thought was provocatively funny. It's easy to feel superior to work like this: it flaunts so many conventions it's easy to take it as inept. And I can understand not liking it. But that show worked for me and many in the house (along with many leading critics).

[oasisjeff]

Posted: 1/24/14 at 1:16am

According to the casting notice for this show that was posted in October, the weekly pay is $501.
Intimacy open casting call

[TimesSquareRegular]

Posted: 1/26/14 at 11:16am

..... and you have to wonder what the auditions were like!

"Ok sir, now, there's this scene where you turn around from your computer screen and the audience sees ....."

[histrionical]

Posted: 1/30/14 at 10:26am

I laughed harder at all these messages than i do to lists of auto-corrects. INTIMACY is as clumsy and blunt as early Dadaism and cubism must have seemed. Nothing happens in the play that isnt happening in the homes and minds of the entire population. I think the revulsion in most of the messages here gives the play its raison d'etre. We wont move on as a culture until we 'get over' ourselves.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 1/30/14 at 11:04am

The NYT review was basically: "It's totally facile! I loved it! It's just like GHOSTS!"

[followspot]

Posted: 1/30/14 at 11:17am

I laughed harder at all these messages than i do to lists of auto-corrects. INTIMACY is as clumsy and blunt as early Dadaism and cubism must have seemed. Nothing happens in the play that isnt happening in the homes and minds of the entire population. I think the revulsion in most of the messages here gives the play its raison d'etre. We wont move on as a culture until we 'get over' ourselves.

How clumsy and blunt for you to join the boards today just to post that! (with pure Dadaist intent, we can assume) And you are associated with the production how?

Updated On: 1/30/14 at 11:17 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 1/30/14 at 11:28am

Brantley has committed himself to touting Bradshaw as a genius, but it's reminiscent of those old pranks where art critics are invited to a show of works done by chimps or 5-year-olds (or 5-year-old chimps) under the guise of showcasing a new enfant terrible, and the critics go wild.

What I wish I could see is the phalanx of upper-middle-class Upper West & East Side cognoscenti, dutifully obeying the Times, toddling down to see Intimacy, and pretending to find it just as brilliant as Brantley does.

My favorite tactic of Ben's in this review is saying that those who feel that Bradshaw's writing is juvenile and amateurish (at best) are responding in "outrage."

[jbm2]

Posted: 2/14/14 at 7:19pm

Did anyone LIKE this show?