Is the Great Comet really that confusing — Page 5

BWAYLeaks said: "I sat there for 2.5 hours not feeling anything, and not learning anything. [...] But, there's no show there for me to follow, and no dramatic reason for me to follow it. No amount of egg shakers and free peirogies is gonna help me with being emotionally invested in these characters. At no point did I feel invested, and I even found myself dozing off at times."

I would say for the most part, I think you're supposed to be engaged by the entertainment. If you didn't enjoy it, that's fine but I think plenty of the performers are wildly entertaining like Amber Gray and Grace McLean, even if you up in the mezz and not interacting with them. As for the story, Denee Benton as Natasha was the character I really latched onto. Yes, Sonya Alone is wonderful but it's more discrete, like a number would be during a concert. You don't care too much about that character up to that point. But Natasha really carries you through the story. I mean, it's not The Color Purple or Waitress but I found her as winning as any other ingenue. You feed off of her excitement and energy. I will admit, I do think it's a little dramatically uninteresting to know that the Lucas Steele character is nefarious so early on. You're just waiting for Natasha to catch up. And you kind of lose sympathy for her as the show goes on. But luckily there's so much happening with the ensemble, and Pierre's story also picks up around that time.

I still really don't think it's hard to follow though. If you don't like the book or find weaknesses in it, I understand that. But not following the plot? You can't deride female-centric entertainment for being simplistic and then complain that you can't understand the plot of Great Comet. Again, it's basic Austen, gothic, and romance novel stuff.

One of my great frustrations with fellow theatre people is their blind adoration for things with zero openness to potential flaws.

Clearly I am on one side of the fence, but to say things like "you're not listening" or "I would be less surprised if Rent confused you" is silly. I can appreciate ART without fawning over its blatant attempt at BEING artsy. Outside of Brittain Ashford (whom I disliked) and Josh Groban and Lucas Steele (whom I adored) - I can't really give a solid review of performers....the whole piece just seemed set up to be a force fed artistic experience.

That being said - I plan on going again, and if possible, sitting on stage. I wonder how the dynamics there would change.

leighmiserables said: "And take my word for it; he usually doesn't understand anything. I did The Crucible freshman year of high school and he watched it three nights in a row. After the last night, he asked me "why the mean girl [Abigail] didn't like the tall boy's [Proctor's] wife." (Aka, he tends to just go along with the spectacle without investing any thought)


Ha, no offense to you... I'm sure it was a fine show. But I think that's a risk with high school productions.

A coworker booked a trip to New York, from Los Angeles, three months ago in order to see Great Comet. To prepare, she read Tolstoy's "War and Peace" for the first time and rather enjoyed it. She sees the show tonight and I am looking forward to her reaction.

UPDATE: So my friend texted me this morning. She really enjoyed it...said she was glad she read the book even though the show covers only about 80 pages of the story. What I really liked, though, was that she told me that after the show, she asked the older woman behind her if she liked it. The woman said, "I have no idea what was going on, but I loved it!!"

Updated On: 4/29/17 at 04:59 PM

Ok, I saw the show again, and now that I could actually see the actors from where I was sitting, had no trouble following the story. What a difference!

Two things I didn't quite get, that I'm hoping someone can explain: Other than setting up the initial distrust between Natasha and Mary, what was the point of the whole "yes father, yes father" scene? Did I miss something about why the father is relevant to the story?

Also, I didn't quite get why Dolokhov and Pierre decided to duel. What were they arguing about?

Thanks!

Thanks, PaulWom! That's really helpful. Somehow I totally missed that Dolokhov and Helene were fooling around.

Lot666 said: "When a show includes a synopsis of the plot and main characters in the Playbill and begins the proceedings by advising the audience to refer to those Cliff Notes to minimize confusion, it seems pretty clear that the people who created the show don't have much confidence in their storytelling prowess.



"

Or, it was a deliberately cheeky reference to the Opera style of the show. But you do you.

also, the synopsis is no longer in the playbill, and most people follow along fine.

Or they're defusing War and Peace's reputation as a dense, confusing Russian novel and setting the expectations for the audience for what kind of show they are about to see.

Malloy and Chavkin are both accomplished theatre artists. They didn't have doubts about how good they are as storytellers... particularly on a show that has had productions over the course of five years.

I didn't know what was going on, it's a mess. Can't believe it has 12 Tony noms

I'm so effing over all this "confusing" stuff. It's so NOT, period.

Having not seen the pre Broadway productions, I can understand how, (and Kad could correct me) the actual "plot device" of explaining the introduction and cast of characters, or inserts...may have also been done as part of the birth and transition of the show. its' immersive style, etc. Now, this has also evolved and been, tightened and edited. Either way, I've seen other shows or plays that have been way more confusing, well into the first act...

On a lighter note, here is a pic of Lucas Steele getting his Tony nominee "Pin" at CBS/Tony press briefing.

https://twitter.com/TheLucasSteele/status/860567388869316609/photo/1

and I'm so excited for tomorrow; pics of Dave and cast last night look like everyone is "riding that Comet".