"It's Only a Play" Preview Thread — Page 3

For serious Namo? Or are you saying he's a shill?

I have two slots still open for my October trip, & I'm starting to think this won't be one of them.

---

I just got home from this and found it so dreary and so, so long. Channing and Mullally terribly miscast. Only Lane and newcomer Stock made positive impressions. There are some real laughs in there, but it goes nowhere and tries too hard. Meh. Not worth the money.

Sauja...Just curious...if you think Stockard Channing and Megan Mullally were "terribly miscast" , who do you think would have been better in those roles ? Do agree that the first act could and perhaps should have been shorter.

Jotebry, that's a good question. I actually think that if Channing and Mullally simply switched roles, they could have had a much better chance of success.

But the problem remains the play. It ran about 2 hours, 40 minutes, and there were about 45 funny minutes and 15 hysterical minutes. But the humor isn't consistent enough, and when it falls away, you're left with material that just doesn't go anywhere.

There's a snarky line in there about audiences only wanting 90 minute plays with no intermissions these days. And I just thought, "Well...THIS would have been much better in that format."

Saw it last night, with no real background knowledge beyond of course familiarity with Terrence McNally's oeuvre and the star-studded cast.

It was certainly an enjoyable evening- there's no way you can watch Nathan Lane pontificate on the state of the American Theater (specifically Broadway) without cracking many a smile. That said, the play itself didn't carry much weight. At it's best moments it was a critique of the nature of Broadway business today and the careful balancing act between creating Good Solid Theater and selling seats, and at worst it was over-packed with many (often meta) jokes that only people QUITE privy to the theater scene world would get. Some of those in-jokes were solid gold, especially when delivered by the very capable actors, but not necessarily enough to distract from the fact that the book didn't seem to have anything consequential to say.

The performances were a lot of fun. Nathan Lane was Nathan Lane, and I'd have it no other way. F Murray Abraham was a gas, clearly having a ton of fun with the character from the second he entered the stage. I don't necessarily think that Megan Mullally and Stockard Channing were miscast, though they were IMHO the weaker players in the ensemble. Ms. Channing particularly seemed a little off to me, a little out of it-- I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt and say it may be chalked up to the direction she's getting in how to portray a washed up diva with ALL of the substance abuse problems, and that the kinks may get ironed out by opening night. The real pleasant surprises of the evening? To me, they were the young'ns in the cast: Rupert Grint and Micah Stock as the unhinged wunderkind director and the fresh faced NYC hopeful, respectively. Grint in particular really impressed with comedic chops I wasn't expecting in creating this very dark, very funny, VERY diva-ish character. And he DEFINITELY had the best costume of the cast.

So, do I think this is a masterpiece of theater? Hardly; it doesn't work hard enough to produce any insights into the Broadway world that are particularly salient or new, and many of the laughs are too reliant on the zeitgeist of today to stand the test of time in, say, twenty years (seriously- there was a Kardashian Sister joke). But if you're looking for a love-hate letter to the 'biz' by some great players with some truly hysterical moments, you could do much worse. Up to you. It's only a play

Wow, "After Eight", doesn't sound like you were in the mood for a high octane comedy that borders on farce. Did you not read or hear any of the pre-show publicity about what this updated comedy was about ? Never read such an idiotic, one-sided review that totally missed the boat as yours did. The six actors other than Nathan Lane all "sank like stones in the morass ?" Whew, hope you're feeling better soon.

And, that's why I called it a high octane comedy that borders on farce. I don't think it's a farce either, but I do think there are moments when it almost crosses the border. lol How ever one classifies it, I think it is Very funny.

"Wow, "After Eight", doesn't sound like you were in the mood for a high octane comedy that borders on farce. "

On the contrary, I'm always in the mood for a high octane comedy that borders on farce.

Unfortunately, this thing had an empty gas tank and moved accordingly.

Aside from the woefully unfunny "jokes," the play's monumental stupidity is what truly appalled.. What an insult to the audience's intelligence.

dramamama611...I didn't say anyone's opinion was wrong. After seeing It's Only a Play, I merely gave my opinion of their opinion, pointing out that in my opinion their opinion unfairly trashed and totally dismissed a lot of talented people's excellent work. I'm a firm believer that everyone is entitled to their own ridiculous opinion. Me included. lol.

Seems a shame to write off an updated revival because someone remembers the original's humor being "largely based on inside jokes and name dropping." Having seen the revival's third preview, I assure you that inside jokes and name dropping are only a small part of the revival's humor. What has gone unmentioned in the thread so far is the wonderful heart and soul of the play, which in my opinion Mr. McNally has strengthened quite a bit from the original. Won't spoil anything by getting into specifics.

Disappointed to hear that the puppet schtick is still in there. I felt that would have been the first thing to get cut. I was also hoping the monologues by Broderick's character would also be shortened. It affects the pacing of the show. A writer of the caliber of McNally should be able to recognize that if the audience can.

I don't feel these moments are embarrassing (well, maybe the puppet thing is) but I don't feel they help the overall play. The main character of Peter can provide the underlying message without a long winded speech especially when every character around him is being given one liner jokes. just doesn't flow but I did enjoy the play overall.

---

I was extremely apprehensive about seeing this show because I was disappointed in the original (1980's) script and hate Matthew Broderick with a passion, but I went because I already had tickets, and I can honestly say that I ate my words because this show...was even worse than I imagined it would be. Seeing Nathan Lane is always a treat and he is decent in this play, but I long for the days when he used to appear in good shows. The rest of the cast is entirely flat and miscast, with surprisingly unattractive production values. However, what really made this show so bad was the script. Unimpressive in its original writing, it was badly rewritten to be more "timely", but just ends up being irritating.Terrence McNally has never been a believable playwright, and has gotten worse with time, but I've always considered him at least semi-skilled in writing dialogue. Not in this show; not sure if it was the direction or the script, but every single joke falls flat on its face. I don't think I laughed once during the whole show (knowing the context of the inside jokes did not make them any more funny), and I had to keep reminding myself that this cast is normally very talented, though by the end of the show, I wasn't so sure they were!

---

Updated On: 9/6/14 at 12:27 AM