Its Only A Play (2.0)- Page 2

[flotus77]

Posted: 2/13/15 at 1:40am

I'm pretty sure that Broderick's part is supposed to lack energy. Like someone said before, he's acting. And Lane being the 'star'? The part that he played was pretty...manly (no offense to Nathan), and I have seen video...didn't really buy it. Short brings the laughs in, Micah stock is hilarious, and Stockard Channing...was her regular stage-stealing self. Seriously, she's the star.

Finneran is literally recycling her role as 'Poppy' from Frasier.

The "Stocks" put the awesomeness in this show. And, I thought it was hilarious! Already have tickets to go again. Met Stockard briefly afterward when I went and she signed my playbill and my aunt got a really good picture of her. Looking good Channing!

But then I could listen to Stockard Channing read the phone book for two and a half hours. Or more.

[Kad]

Posted: 2/13/15 at 9:43am

"I'm pretty sure that Broderick's part is supposed to lack energy. Like someone said before, he's acting."

Not once in the script is that indicated. And if it's a conscious acting choice to perform as if one did a few sedatives, it's a deadly choice in a bantery comedy- particulay since he's saddled with McNally's lengthy, smug, author tract monologues that have no trajectory.

Lane carried the show on his shoulders when he was in it. The second he was involved in the proceedings, the energy onstage and in the audience noticably returned.

[Jane2]

Posted: 2/13/15 at 9:46am

"I'm pretty sure that Broderick's part is supposed to lack energy. Like someone said before, he's acting."

Then what would be the excuse for all his other performances?

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 2/13/15 at 9:52am

Broderick in this reminded me of the Tin Man in The Wizard of Oz. Minus the crying.

[Jane2]

Posted: 2/13/15 at 10:19am

^ HAHA

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/13/15 at 10:22am

The Tin Man also had more mobility.Broderick looked like he escaped from The Walking Dead.

[flotus77]

Posted: 2/14/15 at 1:26am

Lol. That's mean! I'm not a big Broderick fan, and he did seem...sedated, but why else would he be be acting that way if it's not scripted? Is he really that bad? I mean, I've seen him in precious little, and never on Broadway, but I thought his character was supposed to be all lifeless, dull, quiet, and nervous. I just assumed he was doing what he was supposed to do.

Guess not.

So, is he the reason that ticket prices are down, and they are practically giving tickets away? Three hundred dollars for front row, Center seats? Never heard of that in my life! But, $300.00 for 2 1/2 hours of Channing? Yes, please!

[The Other One]

Posted: 2/14/15 at 7:26am

"But then I could listen to Stockard Channing read the phone book for two and a half hours. Or more."

You might have been better off if she had.

[Jspy86]

Posted: 2/14/15 at 1:32pm

I saw the show last night. It wasn't great, but I had some good laughs. Martin certainly put on a good show though. After the show, most of the cast bolted into cars, but Matthew and Micah both came out to sign. There were very few of us waiting. Afterwards, they just walked down the street like a couple of regular dudes. Overall, I enjoyed my evening.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 2/14/15 at 2:12pm

"I'm pretty sure that Broderick's part is supposed to lack energy."

I have found that one of the keys to directing a comedy is to establish a good pace and keep it rolling--even building to a crescendo. This is especially true of farce and IT'S ONLY A PLAY pretty much falls into that genre. Boderick's lack of energy in the role causes a serious drop in the show's pacing when he's on stage. He does, however, come to life a bit in his second act scenes with Short.

[mc1227]

Posted: 2/14/15 at 3:22pm

dolly pop.. Do you really feel that it's Broderick's energy level or the actual pontifical writing assigned to Broderick's character that causes the lack of pacing in the first act? When I saw this play in early previews I had posted that I felt that scene where his dialogue goes on about the state of the theater was too stark a contrast to the constant one liners by Lane/Short's character. I thought an experienced director would have found a way to change that but it never happened. I don't think the pacing of the show is Broderick's fault because the few scenes he had funny dialogue in worked very well for the two times I have seen it.

[Joviedamian]

Posted: 2/14/15 at 4:20pm

Every time I see MB act I either think he is still trying to remember his lines or he is just about to break character, because he forget his lines. :)

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 5/15/15 at 11:49am

I had the displeasure of seeing this show last night and agree with the majority of posters. The play itself is painfully dull. The "jokes" that were rewritten for the current production have no edge, aren't funny and seem aimed at only the casual theatre-goer. 

One of the biggest issues I had was with the cast especially since that seems to be the main draw. I couldn't for the life of me understand the appeal and praise of Micah Stock. After reading other posts in this thread calling him a poor man's Jim Parsons I can totally see it now. As everyone else has said Matthew Broderick brings the whole show to a screeching halt the moment he steps on stage. I think someone should call a doctor because he might have had a stroke. On the other end of the spectrum we have TR Knight so is overacting like whoa. If anyone had to suffer through his Mercutio in CSC's ROMEO & JULIET then you are in for round 2 because it's the same performance. Why he keeps attempting a British accent is beyond me.

Stockard Channing was out last night and sadly I had to sit through a performance by Isabel Keating. Katie Finneran (who I generally like) seems completely miscast and it only makes me wish I'd seen Megan Mullally. I even thought F Murray Abraham was bad.

Nathan Lane was the only bright spot of the evening but he still couldn't save this meandering garbage.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/15/15 at 12:13pm

I found this to be a truly tedious night in the theatre. There really is no play, just a flimsy situation that theoretically allows for a lot of wacky comic performances.

Unfortunately, there aren't really any good wacky comic performances. Lane is adept at what he does, but he can do it in his sleep now. I kept imaging the lines being said by James Coco (for whom this play was originally written decades ago), which kept me engaged. Broderick has become the laziest actor in show business, as has already been noted. F Murray Abraham is overacting to the nth degree, presumable to try to make up for Lane and Broderick's underplaying.

This is the first time I've seen Katie Finneran disappear into the background, but she clearly has no love for the role, nor should she - there's nothing there. TR Knight's bizarre and disconnected tiresome overacting makes Abraham's performance look like a sleepwalk.

Stockard Channing is a figure to be pitied - always a terrific actress, handsome but not a raving beauty, she has for some unknown reason totally disfigured her face to the point of total immobility. An extra hard piece of curved plastic appears to serve as an upper lip. NOTHING moves on her face. She should be the poster child for society's victimization of aging actresses. She carries a cane, for some unknown, unacknowledged reason.

I think I missed something in Micah Stock's Tony-nominated performance. My impression was that he was doing a stylized, extra-stupid imitation of Jim Parsons (also referred to earlier in this thread). But clearly, others think he's doing something funny.

Worst of all is that there is no actual story to this show; it's just a vaudeville of one bad act after another.

[mamaleh]

Posted: 5/15/15 at 12:46pm

For me, Parsons is getting to be a tiresome one-trick pony, in most vehicles looking and acting the same. (Notable exception: THE NORMAL HEART.)   I thought Micah Stock was truly hilarious and deserving of his Tony nomination.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/15/15 at 12:48pm

And that can't be stressed enough: comedy is an utterly subjective thing. What one person finds hilarious, another will find tiresome.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/15/15 at 12:55pm

"She carries a cane, for some unknown, unacknowledged reason."

Didn't she injure her leg at some point during the first part of the run of this?

[newintown]

Posted: 5/15/15 at 1:07pm

I hear rumors to that effect, Kad, but nothing detailed. She doesn't appear to really need the cane, and sets it down most of the time. But she does hobble around like her legs don't work well.

[LarryD2]

Posted: 5/15/15 at 1:13pm

Stockard has knee problems. She underwent emergency surgery during the Broadway run of OTHER DESERT CITIES and used a wheelchair to get around back stage for a good portion of the run. I believe her initial injury during previews for this show was knee-related, as well.

Updated On: 5/15/15 at 01:13 PM

[hanabana]

Posted: 5/15/15 at 1:42pm

In my opinion, Micah Stock and Nathan Lane were the two stars in this play.  It was the first time that I saw Nathan Lane perform live, and he did not disappoint.  I also loved Micah Stock's performance (he was hilarious) and was really glad to see that he is nominated.  I did not find the show to be amazing or great, but it had its charm at parts, and overall I thought it was entertaining.

[beensince1987]

Posted: 5/28/15 at 5:34pm

I saw this show last night and thought it was ok. I was wondering if

"SPOILERS"

Hand to God bit was in from the beginning of the run

"END SPOILERS"

Now it runs 2:40 and thought it was too long.

Thanks

[darquegk]

Posted: 5/28/15 at 5:39pm

I suspect the play, despite Lane's star wattage, worked better with Martin Short than it did with Lane. Lane can give the "Nathan Lane special," but it's just that- it's Nathan Lane. Short is more adept at giving a focused, if sometimes intentionally unpleasant, performance of unique characters.

[mc1227]

Posted: 5/28/15 at 6:54pm

^^. Agreed, I enjoyed Short much more than Lane in this part.  As I've posted before, Micah Stock was good in this role, but Tony worthy?  Not in my opinion.  If anyone in this cast should have been nominated, it should have been Stockard.  Wonderful comedic performance.

the Hand to God bit is new from when I saw it with Short in late March.  

Updated On: 5/28/15 at 06:54 PM

[Emma MK]

Posted: 5/29/15 at 4:39am

I truly wish id seen this back in November when everyone was raving about it, but sadly i couldnt get a ticket unless i paid ridiculous prices. I came back again a few weeks ago and decided to see it, having been sad that id missed it before. 

I wish i hadnt wasted my money on it! I got a fairly cheap seat, $59 or something like that, which surprised me, as i was expecting to pay more. However i dont feel like it was worth even that as i was bored out of my skull for the entire show. I chuckled a few times i suppose, but it was not as hilarious as id heard it was, though maybe thats just my British sense of humour? Almost the entire cast seemed like they were just going through the motions and a lot of the lines that were supposed to be funny were delivered so flat that i must have missed the humour in them.

I usually buy a window card for every show i see on Broadway, regardless of whether i loved it or not, as a memory, but for the first time i didnt want to waste my money on something that would remind me of how much i didnt enjoy the show.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 6/6/15 at 12:35am

I was surprised how terrible this was. I went into it expecting it to be a light, amusingly bitchy play, but it's one of the most boring evenings I've ever spent in a theatre. As a piece of writing, it's dreadful- the premise is paper-thin and the actual dialogue is either a reference, obvious exposition, or one of 27 speeches about the glories of the theatre, most of which are delivered by Matthew Broderick, who easily is giving the worst and most lifeless performance I've ever seen. 

The rest of the performers don't fare much better. F. Murray Abraham is irritating in a pointless role, and T.R. Knight is giving a bizarre and overdone performance- there were several moments in the play where I wondered what the hell he was doing. Micah Stock basically is working with one schtick, but he's cute and it works well for the character. Stockard Channing, Katie Finneran, and Nathan Lane are all fine, but each of them has given far better performances in other plays. After watching Lane deliver a brilliant performance in The Iceman Cometh earlier this year, it's a shame to see him working with such subpar material.

I suppose I'm in the minority on this, because much of the audience seemed to be loving it, but I was mainly bored. And hopefully once the run of this play is over the Shubert Organization does some needed renovation to the Jacobs. The fabric on the armrests of many of the seats were coming undone, and the seat itself was the most uncomfortable I've ever had in a theatre.