LA BETE Reviews

[LimelightMike]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 1:39am

Today is Thursday, October 14, marking the official opening night performance of Tony and Oliver Award-winning director Matthew Warchus' staging of David Hirson's "La Bête", at the Music Box Theatre. Stage favorites Mark Rylance, David Hyde Pierce and Joanna Lumley star. The play began Broadway previews September 23, and ends this strictly limited engagement on February 13, 2011.

La Bête's history dates back almost 2 decades, when it played a brief Broadway run (of a mere 25 performances) in 1991. This current incarnation debuted across the pond at the Comedy Theatre this past June.

"La Bête is a comic tour de force about Elomire (Pierce), a high-minded classical dramatist who loves only the theater, and Valere (Rylance), a low-brow street clown who loves only himself," begin production notes. "When the fickle princess (Lumley) decides she’s grown weary of Elomire’s royal theatre troupe, he and Valere are left fighting for survival as art squares off with ego in a literary showdown for the ages."

Happy Opening!

[wonderwaiter]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 1:43am

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 6:08pm

Bump! Bump! Bump!

[boardwalker2]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 10:06pm

Brantley's Review:

http://theater.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/theater/reviews/15bete.html

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 11:12pm

He mentioned the show curtain but didn't put a spoiler alert.

[IdinaBellFoster]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 1:18am

why has there been a surprisingly low amount of interest in reviews lately?

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 1:24am

Idina, I was wondering the same thing. Rreview threads used to go on for pages and I loved reading them.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 5:51pm

I find it APPALLING that such short shrift has been made of this show so far. I know, it's not a perfect play, but the acting/production values/audience enthusiasm merit more discussion than this work has received so far. And more kudos to Mark Rylance for giving a performance to remember for a lifetime -- it's not often that we get this caliber of performance which should serve as a manual for all aspiring actors -- no, ALL actors, period! And I speak as one who has seen Olivier, Guilgud, the Lunts, Hayes, Richardson, and many more when they were in their prime.

Updated On: 10/15/10 at 05:51 PM

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 6:06pm

NY1 is positive: http://www.ny1.com/content/ny1_living/theater_reviews/127164/ny1-theater-review---la-bete-/

NY Post is positive (three stars out of four): http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/theater/beastly_fun_from_mad_to_verse_Yr5CrO6xsY58hWWD1dkNHK

TheaterMania is positive: http://www.theatermania.com/content/news.cfm?int_news_id=31202&city_dir=broadway

NY Daily News is positive (three and a half stars out of five): http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/arts/2010/10/15/2010-10-15_la_bete_review_david_hyde_pierce_mark_rylance_and_joanna_lumley_offer_beauty_in_.html

USA Today is positive (three stars out of four): http://www.usatoday.com/life/theater/reviews/2010-10-15-bloody15_ST_N.htm

Newsday is positive: http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/theater/bete-a-tour-de-force-for-a-gross-mark-rylance-1.2357504

Hollywood Reporter is mixed: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/la-bete-theater-review-1004121282.story

Wall Street Journal is very negative: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704361504575551990855593242.html

Talkin Broadway is negative: http://www.talkinbroadway.com/world/LaBete.html

New York Magazine is mixed: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/10/theater_review_your_comp-lit_t.html

Entertainment Weekly is positive (A-): http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20364394_20434518,00.html?ew%5FpackageID=20364394



---

Looks like Mark Rylance is a lock for a nomination and the first real Tony "contender" so far this season.
Updated On: 10/15/10 at 06:06 PM

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 11:40pm

Thank you, Wicked Rocks, for putting this on the table. It's time someone did!

[algy]

Posted: 10/16/10 at 11:06am

I haven't finished reading all of them so far - but it seems that the problems are mostly with the play itself?

[LIMOM3]

Posted: 10/19/10 at 11:02am

Sleeper....Saw the play Friday night what a boring play!!! It took 1hr and 45 mins to convey a message that could've taken 5 minutes. The main actor just babbled on, and on, and on....that's it. Jokes were predictable and dull!! Literally, the whole play entailed three actors who stood there and one who talked the entire time for an eternity. oh, and 15 minutes at the end a few more actors came on stage. That was the whole play in a nutshell!! Had to keep myself awake. Begged husband to leave but he said it has to get better....NOT. Thank goodness we didn't pay for these tickets!! Save your money folks.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/20/10 at 8:14am

OH MY GOD THIS PLAY WAS SO BORING!!!!!!!!!!

Watching it last night, I KNEW people were going to adore it, confusing Rylance's very admirable performance for the play itself actually being good, which it is not. I can see very clearly why it failed on it's first attempt.

[willep]

Posted: 10/20/10 at 8:33am

Just because some of us enjoyed the play doesn't mean that we are confusing the play with Rylance's performance...it just means we have different taste. I very, very often find that I enjoy things that others find boring and am completely bored by things that other people adore.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/20/10 at 8:37am

Well I'm glad.

As for me and my 5 theater going friends that went last night, we all would have rather been anywhere else.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 10/20/10 at 10:04am

I was very excited when I heard of this revival, and was very excited to have good seats for this revival, and was very excited to see Rylance, Hyde Pierce, and Joanna Lumley live in a play I've heard about for years, and was pretty well thrilled to get to see this!

I've seldom been so disappointed in my theatergoing life. Mark Rylance's bag of tricks runs out more quickly than I'd have thought possible, and he soon became unbearable, and not in a good way. Hyde Pierce is more successful, getting great laughs out of thin air by just standing still. I liked Ms. Lumley a good deal, too: she came through it with flying colors.

But that damn play. It just isn't really very good, is it? Very very clever, no doubt, but it isn't remotely satisfying.

SPOILERS -- beware!!!

Folks have complained that it is impossible to judge the characters very fairly, as we never get an example of Elomire's more polished and accomplished works as opposed to Valere's idiotic stuff. I wasn't as bothered by that, I must admit, but I can see it as a valid point. I was more bothered by Elomire's temper tantrum at the Princess. Ultimately, it isn't a matter of Elomire's HIGH PRINCIPLES that cost him his job, but his inability to keep his mouth shut when it was really necessary.

And frankly, I can't believe he's in too bad a spot at the end of the play. Surely it will only take a single performance of Valere's DEATH BY CHEESE to make the Princess see what a dreadful mistake she's made and get Elomire back.

Now I freely admit that this may all be very much the point, but it doesn't feel like the point.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/20/10 at 10:39am

I agree with all that, Roscoe. I felt as though it was verging on being Theatre of the Absurd, in which case I wish the playwright would have gone full out and made it that. By the time the play became "about something", it was far too late in my opinion because it had lost me an hour ago.

Lumley, as you said, does come through with flying colors. She is the main reason I was so excited for this play and she did not disappoint (I cant imagine her ever disappointing) but I just wish she would have had a better play to work with.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 10/20/10 at 10:47am

I also agree Roscoe. I think Rylance is being overpraised for repeatedly acting like an idiot for 2 hours. Honestly, the novelty begins to fade after the first 5 minutes. Lumley was the best for me, actually forming a character that was funny when she needed to be funny and smart when it was appropriate. Rylance, as compared to Will Ferrell and other goofs in Brantley's review, is just that. Relying on nothing other than shock value and ridiculousness, his character is surprisingly devoid of underlying substance. If he wins a Tony for this, I will actually be angry.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 10/20/10 at 10:59am

I'm sorry to rain on the parade, but I adored this production (notice I did not say the play). I think the performances lift this mediocre play into the stratosphere. I think Rylance is giving the performance of the season to be honest. It's a master class. It's not a one-note performance in my opinion, it has nuance and range and how he sustains it phyiscally is truly a wonder to behold.

Yes, I think Hyde Pierce's character is underdeveloped. However, Lumley is spot-on and transcendant in a smaller, but pivotal part.

The ensemble is wonderful too.

I think the message is timeless and the staging is stunning. It was like a Peter Greenaway film on stage.

I was not bored for one second. I thought it was stunning. Absolutely riveting and funny.

I just felt someone needed to speak to the other side of impresions on the show.

I know a few actors who hate the play, "La Bete", but have seen this production and loved it.

[mallardo]

Posted: 10/20/10 at 11:07am

Personally, I loved the play - not just the actors, the play. It was laugh out loud funny and yet, in the end, the confrontation between Elomire and the Princess genuinely moved me. It was treated with much more respect in London - where I saw it - by critics and audiences alike and I wonder why that is.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 10/20/10 at 11:13am

Clearly because critics and audiences in London are just so much smarter and more theatrically intelligent than audiences in New York. That's why such timeless masterworks as ENRON and CORAM BOY were such hits in London and such colossal flops in NY.

[mallardo]

Posted: 10/20/10 at 11:18am

Why so defensive, Roscoe? No one implied London audiences and critics are smarter. Clearly there are different tastes, which is interesting, at least to me.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 10/20/10 at 11:21am

Why so defensive, mallardo? It looked like you were pretty well implying exactly that.

[mallardo]

Posted: 10/20/10 at 11:32am

Eye of the beholder and all that.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 10/20/10 at 11:33am

Yup.