Posted: 6/27/25 at 11:12am
Also just to put some perspective … this is an off broadway show that outside of this board hasn’t really hit the cultural zeitgeist … I get the argument but yeah..
Posted: 6/27/25 at 12:52pm
Phantom4ever, your commentary is in response to having seen the show, correct? You have actually been present and attended a performance?
It’s a very difficult show to explain, so I’m just confirming your opinion is coming from more than a brief description and a questionable title.
Posted: 7/17/25 at 3:57am
What’s the word on this? Is it making the transfer?
Posted: 7/17/25 at 5:08am
Boy I really did not care for this, outside some of the cast. Not so much offensive in its writing as it is unbelievably lazy. My first time with this playwright, but I guess you can trust Jeremy O. Harris to involve himself with an empty provocation in search of a play.
Posted: 7/17/25 at 7:44am
I really loved this when I saw it last week and haven’t been able to stop thinking about it. It has a LOT of devices all together in one play — direct to audience address, actors openly telling personal stories and admitting they are ‘playing parts’, sex, kink, shock, awe — in a way that usually ends up messy and eyeroll-y… but honestly, it all added up to really thought provoking theater. I think the direction is stronger than the writing here because in the wrong hands it could be a train wreck. But I dunno. It works. Loved it.
To those with reservations about the title or the concept, just go. It’s a moving piece, especially for queer people, and the provocation of the play is quite literally explained to you.
Posted: 7/17/25 at 3:49pm
I agree that the play is quite literally explained to the audience. To me, this is very, very, very much not a good thing in this form. Glad the show worked for you, though.
The actors' "personal stories" are mostly (and, in my opinion, VERY self-consciously and stiltedly) the playwright's fictional notions of other perspectives except for two of them as listed in the playbill. It was interesting playing "guess which" with my party, it seemed pretty obvious which were which once people knew some were fictional and some were inspired by something a performer might have actually said.
Pretty split on who liked it and who didn't, though. This didn't work for me the way a lot of the experimental shows at Playwrights have in the past but I'm glad they're hanging in there and putting out some weird stuff.
Edit: also in the interest of positivity i really liked the physical production. Budgets are obviously not what they were at our Off-Broadway institutions but this pretty simple set was really striking and effectively used.
Updated On: 7/17/25 at 03:49 PM
Posted: 7/19/25 at 1:21am
Scarywarhol said: "Boy I really did not care for this, outside some of the cast. Not so much offensive in its writing as it isunbelievably lazy. Myfirst time with this playwright, but I guess you can trust Jeremy O. Harris to involve himself with an empty provocation in search of a play."
I second this. Upon reflection I hate that this even exists. We’ve adapted a play from a 4 year old’s picture into a gay fantasy about their queerness before they’ve even grown up to decide their sexuality for themself? With sex scenes and drugs. It’s kinda disgusting in theory.
I liked the monologues around queerness, but Prince George should not be the center of this story. He’s a child and this play has decided a narrative he’s yet to live.
Posted: 7/19/25 at 4:20am
I enjoyed the play. Though the mix of pornography and TED talk took adjusting to. The speech where the Prince justified his sex life to the King was one of the script’s best moments.
I liked the series Young Royals and the film Red White and Royal Blue. But felt both stories existed in a bubble. I was interested in the public reaction to a gay Royal. The show’s suggestion that class crossing and interracial relationships are more controversial today than same-sex ones was surprising. I don’t know whether I agree.
The show’s ultimate conclusion that
Leaders who come out will do nothing to aid marginalized people was depressing. But believable. Power corrupts and all that. The fictional Prince here was too focused on his own trauma to become an activist like his ex.
Posted: 8/3/25 at 8:05pm
The show is transferring to Studio Seaview, beginning September 11th.
Posted: 8/3/25 at 8:16pm
Posted: 8/3/25 at 8:59pm
Crusty Bagel said: "How long is it running for"
Can you not read…?
Website very clearly says the run ends 10/26.
Updated On: 8/3/25 at 08:59 PM
Posted: 8/3/25 at 10:04pm
When booking, it says nothing about yondr pouches, which is interesting.
Posted: 8/3/25 at 10:17pm
Jordan Catalano said: "When booking, it says nothing about yondr pouches, which is interesting."
From the website:
“Phone-Free Performances with Yondr”
Posted: 8/3/25 at 10:32pm
Ha! Well then nevermind. But that did remind me to call my optometrist tomorrow. :)
Posted: 8/3/25 at 10:38pm
In terms of cast, Mihir Kumar is definitely returning. To my knowledge, I believe that Rachel Crowl and N’yomi Stewart are also returning (since they posted about the return on their socials.
The other three are up in the air - K. Todd Freeman was supposed to leave early to do a play in Chicago but stayed the extra week so I don’t know if he is returning or Jason Veasey will come back. It was also rumored that they were looking for a replacement for either David Greenspan or John McCrea when whispers of the transfer started.
Either way, can’t wait to go back again.
Posted: 8/3/25 at 10:59pm
Is no one clicking on the link to the website? 😂
The cast is listed.
Posted: 8/3/25 at 11:21pm
Didn’t realize John McCrae was in this. Loved him in Everybody’s Talking About Jamie. Been on the fence about this one, but got a ticket. Weird that they’re already on sale when Seaview’s instagram post said on sale tomorrow.
Posted: 8/3/25 at 11:30pm
TotallyEffed said: "Isno oneclicking on the link to the website? 😂
The cast is listed."
Huh. It wasn’t there earlier when I checked. Thanks for the heads up.
Posted: 8/4/25 at 6:14am
why did they decide not to go to Broadway
Posted: 8/4/25 at 8:10am
Crusty Bagel said: "why did they decide not to go to Broadway"
Because not every show needs to be on Broadway.
Updated On: 8/4/25 at 08:10 AM
Posted: 8/4/25 at 9:08am
Just to flag for people that K. Todd Freeman will be out for the first two weeks (9/11-9/25) while he directs a play in Chicago
I would strongly suggest people buy tickets for when he is back in the show....
Posted: 8/5/25 at 11:43am
ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Crusty Bagel said: "why did they decide not to go to Broadway"
Because not every show needs to be on Broadway.
And this way, Seaview can establish the venue as a site for daring new work. I"m sure there are plans to extend, if not to something long or open-ended. And a Bway transfer isn't impossible, either.
Posted: 8/5/25 at 12:46pm
BoringBoredBoard40 said: "Just to flag for people that K. Todd Freeman will be out for the first two weeks (9/11-9/25) while he directs a play in Chicago
I would strongly suggest people buy tickets for when he is back in the show...."
Already got my ticket for the time he’s out. Oh well…hope the understudy is good.
Posted: 8/5/25 at 2:00pm
I saw this show a few nights into its previews and LOVED it. I’m so grateful that it’s having a good run and is transferring to a new space to continue onward.
In my opinion, nothing about this show feels Broadway to me. It would honestly seem somehow out of place. I’m curious if anyone else who has seen it feels similarly? I can’t quite put my finger on the why. It’s just an edgier, grittier, and authentic show that I think would somehow feel muddied on a Broadway stage.
But maybe people said the same about Rent…
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
