Posted: 4/2/15 at 8:20am
You're aware, phillypinto, that in an argument, saying "you're wrong," and "I know more than you," aren't actual arguments, right?
Posted: 4/2/15 at 8:40am
Pinto resides in that same weird reality vacuum as AE where he knows everything despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 9:17am
Can we get back to the play, please?
I am a huge Renee fan and wondering if anyone stage doored last night... I'll be there this evening.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 9:46am
Just a clarify...when you guys say the show is lightweight...is it still something one can enjoy or not?! Thanks for any feedback!
Updated On: 4/2/15 at 09:46 AM
Posted: 4/2/15 at 9:53am
I mean...I guess it was enjoyable. In a perfect world, this would be one act and 90 minutes since there's truly not wnough story to justify two acts and 120 minutes of stage time. As it stands now, there's far too much time between funny bits and it just brings the whole thing down for long chunks at a time. It's another one of those shows that doesn't know if it wants to be a total farce or not, so it straddles the line between that and a "regular" comedy. And the problem with that is that when its not being a farce, it's glaring that the shows humor all but stops.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 10:15am
It's nothing you haven't seen before. If you are looking for a pleasant evening with a few chuckles, then sure, go see it. I don't think it's worth paying top dollar for though.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 10:28am
After fees it's more like $30 and I think that's too much for it.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 10:38am
Really appreciate the feedback! I suppose I am one for a light evening at the theater so this can work. I got tix for May (and discounted from work!) :) Thanks again!!!
Posted: 4/2/15 at 10:54am
I caught this last night and thought it was incredible. Funny. Fast. Beautiful. I only paid $19.57 but I would say it was worth top dollar. Stunning set. Beautiful costumes. It feels rich and worth the money.
Everyone there laughed pretty consistendly (as did I) and Renee Fleming seemed to be having a total ball riffing on the foibles of the music business. As a matter of fact all the actors seemed to be having he time of their lives up and there and it was something one felt in the audience. This is a delicous dessert, not a nutritious meal. It's meant to enterain and enjoy, not teach or inform. Renee Fleming proves she's indeed a capable actress and comedian. Douglas Sills and Renee Fleming could both likely find themselves with Tony nominations. Pacing could be tightened up but it is a comedy at first preview so I'm sure that will come.
It is something that harkens back to another era.. the personality show. Built around the talents of a specific individual and enjoying the ride with them. That's what this is but it succeeds at it! I'm not sure I'd want to see it without Renee Fleming or this cast in support of her. It seems pretty specifically tailored.
I agree with the posters here that the sounds could be tweaked but I was thoroughly entertained and smiled the whole time.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 11:39am
What merchandise did they have?
Posted: 4/2/15 at 11:41am
"This is a delicious dessert, not a nutritious meal. It's meant to entertain and enjoy, not teach or inform."
What a fabulous analogy!! Thats a great way to put it! I think people should enjoy each show for what it is, and not degrade it just because it doesnt have much to say. I love that kind of silly, entertaining theatre :) Im sure they will tighten up the show, and keep making it better and better through previews.
Im glad you had a good time!! Cannot WAIT to see this!
Posted: 4/2/15 at 12:03pm
Yes agree love the analogy to a delicious dessert! I am so looking forward to see this show!!
Updated On: 4/2/15 at 12:03 PM
Posted: 4/2/15 at 12:55pm
I can't help chuckling about someone trying to compare selling Living on Love with selling an opera at the Met without mentioning that the Met has a capacity of 3975 compared to The Longacre's 1100, or that the prices at the Met make Living on Love prices look like chump change. But people can try to make comparisons say anything they want them to do.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 1:21pm
If anyone is interested, there are still $19.57 tickets available. I just bought a pair for Friday night. Most of the cheap seats left at this point are in the mezzanine, or the far sides of the orchestra.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 1:21pm
I was at the first preview last night and am in the group who thought it was just "okay" at best. Definitely need to boost the volume of the actors' voices!
Overall there was no major flaws, but there was definititely something that was missing or not falling into place. I agree it would be much better as a 90-105 minute one-act. They NEED to pick up the pacing. Act 1 especially felt very flat. Act 2 was somewhat better once the exposition was given and everyone settled into the "competing writers and books" theme.
The acting was good-ish. Anna Chlumsky seemed to be acting in a different style than the rest of the cast and it didn't mesh well though. I didn't dislike her performance, but it was a bit more calculated, over the top, musical theatre style acting, whereas the rest of the cast takes a more natural approach with some moments of exaggeration. Renee Flemming did pretty well, struck a nice balance between making the most of the comedic moments and not making it a charicature. And her singing moments were beautiful, but she (nor the production) should rely on them. Sills and O'Connell did nice work, but still something was falling flat overall.
I think the script itself may be servicable, but not a hit. May be a good choice for high school/college theatres in the future though. The butlers' transition scenes were very cute and cleaver, and there were a few good jokes.
Unfortunately don't see it getting any nominations come award season except for MAYBE Renee Flemming since it's a thinner lead actress year.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 2:41pm
Lurker and opera fan checking in. :)
As a huge Fleming fan, I'm rooting hard for this, but sales seem very, very slow. There seems to be so much potential, but the marketing choices were odd.
This is the thing that I don't understand about this play. Why would the producers and anyone think that Fleming's popularity as an opera singer/vocalist would automatically translate to a comedic farce?
It's true that she sells out around the country, at Carnegie, etc (not always but more often than not), for singing. But this is very different and I'm perplexed as to why producers would think that she alone could carry a brand new old-school comedy that's had nothing but a short try-out in Williamstown. All of the media has focused on Fleming. For me, it's been great, but we unfortuntely live in a country where most people don't even know what opera is, or if they do, it's a parody of it.
This is being sold as a play about *opera*, starring a legendary opera singer who's never appeared in a major play and who, for the most part, won't be singing.
Hoping it gels.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 11:12pm
I was there tonight and I agree with Noel&Cole that what they were going for was dessert instead of a full course meal, but unfortunately what they served up was the equivalent of a Snackwell's fat free, sugar free so what's the point of eating it anyway treat.
The play feels like it wants to be an Awful Truth/Palm Beach Story screwball comedy, but it's not fast and zany enough to be classified that way. There's a joke here and there that causes a chuckle, but the story doesn't warrant the runtime it's given.
Sills is in good form; over the top in what could be a giddy triumph if he were given better lines to say. Fleming is fine, but you're relying on the meta joke that she really is an opera star. She could really pile on the melodrama to match Sills' hamminess.
Poor Chlumsky is saddled with the ugliest wig. Oof.
I thought we would get a lot more opera humor and insidery jokes. Not that The Golden Age was a particularly good play, but at least McNally imbued it with loads of references and somewhat obscure trivia. If you're going to base a good deal of your comedy on the meta nature of cast Fleming, you might as well cater to the opera lovers/aficionados in the audience.
Fleming plays an aging diva who is fearful of being replaced by the new crop of stars, yet there's not even a single mention of that up and comer Joan Sutherland and just a passing crack about Tebaldi and Callas. She should be worried about the former and telling trashy tales about the other two.
This is no Boeing-Boeing, or even Don't Dress For Dinner.
On another note, I'd be willing to make a bet that not since a matinee of Prymate has the Longacre balcony been such a ghost town.
Posted: 4/2/15 at 11:17pm
It plays very much like an inconsequential Noel Coward piece. The first act feels much long than an hour, and the piece as a whole could Stand to be trimmed to a one-act 90 minute show. Fleming does some great riffing on diva behavior, but the show mostly belongs to Douglas Sills and his antics, with the butlers providing comic relief in transition. O'Connell and Chlumsky (the latter in an entirely different show - too loony) almost function as set pieces used by Sills and Fleming.
No merchandise, and everyone except Chlumsky came out the stage door within 30 minutes, signed and took photos.
Posted: 4/3/15 at 12:00am
While the actors were top notch, the play needs major fine-tuning and cuts. Act I showed one-dimensional characters who were "overacting" , perhaps since they wanted it to be a farce? There were some cute moments along the way ("rehearsals" of opera scenes between 2 characters and then a different 2 characters, rolling around on the floor, piano playing, etc). But there was way too much talking and frankly boring exposition throughout. I found my mind wandering many many times throughout the show. It would work far better as an 80 minute farce.
Posted: 4/3/15 at 12:41am
Saw the show tonight. What can I say? It plays like an extended Carol Burnett sketch, with everyone working overtime and at maximum volume to achieve...well, very little. Are there some funny lines and situations? Absolutely. Is it a hoot watching Fleming play a heightened version of herself? Absolutely. Does it wear out its welcome pretty quickly? Absolutely. By Act 2 you're over the silliness and lack of anything even remotely real happening on stage. Yes, the script is broad and over the top, but it's almost as if Kathleen Marshall had directed her cast to actively avoid human emotions and reactions. Anna Chlumsky, who was lovely in "You Can't Take It With You," is the worst offender, her Act 1 appearance being one of the muggiest, most shockingly amateurish performances I've ever seen on a Broadway stage. Act 2 finds her in better, calmer form, when she's working off the charming Jerry O'Connell. The audience seemed to have a good time, although I did hear grumbles about how thin it all was. Bottom line, I don't see this lasting.
Updated On: 4/3/15 at 12:41 AM
Posted: 4/3/15 at 12:53am
On another note, I'd be willing to make a bet that not since a matinee of Prymate has the Longacre balcony been such a ghost town.
But this cannot be as America 's Diva is a draw!!!
Posted: 4/3/15 at 1:02am
she is a draw? Do you suppose sales would be better with you playing her role?
