Love and Information previews

[jbm2]

Posted: 2/5/14 at 1:31pm

Anyone catch this?

[jbm2]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 12:57am

Has anyone seen this yet?

[RJ COMMUNICATIONS]

Posted: 2/11/14 at 9:56pm

Now normally, as a fledgling writer myself, it would never occur to me to post a negative review of a play--I figure to each his own and that's what makes theater so amazing. But this was SO UNSTAGEWORTHY --A TOTAL, EPIC FAIL.

Imagine, if you will, a full-length "play" with no scene longer than a minute, and no characters recurring from so-called "scene" to scene!! You've got blackouts after each minute-long mini-sketch and this goes on for two hours with no intermission!! The
reason they can't have an intermission, is that they would have a stampede leaving the
theater!!

If there was a point or underlying theme to pull these mini-scenes together, I couldn't find it. It was UNWATCHABLE. And this playwright has been around a long time and is very well regarded, so what do I know...

The actors were all terrific in this horrendous, unsalvageable
mess. It was a sad sorry wasted evening, for me, and my two
friends thought so, too. would be interested to hear other opinions!!:)

[hringsmith]

Posted: 2/12/14 at 11:19am

Caught this last Friday and I really enjoyed it. It's not life changing but it's basically a series of vignettes that meditates on the themes of, you guessed it love and information. Lots of riffs and ruminations on memory and how we process information and how we interact with technology. I think it's probably one of Churchill's most accessible plays to date, tons of interesting theatrical moments and the actors and director have done a stellar job with setting up each vignette so you know the relationships amongst the characters in each mini scene very quickly. People do tend to freak out whenever a playwright departs from a traditional structure, as evidenced by some of the patrons walking out saying they had absolutely no idea what was going on and how baffled they were by the entire evening. One of my favorite comments I heard was, "Guess we'll have to wait for the reviews to tell us what the play was supposed to be about." Compared to The Skriker and Far Away, this is pretty light fare for Churchill. I had a good time, pace drags a little in the middle but definitely picked up.

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 2/17/14 at 9:46am

I think my opinion on this show lands somewhere in between the two previous posters. While I didn't think it was the worst thing ever seen on stage it certainly wasn't very good either. It was kind of a nothing show because all the "scenes" are so short that you don't really give a crap about anything going on. I honestly sat there mind boggled that something like this gets put on stage. It seemed like someone just wrote down random sentences and said "this is a play."

Most of the actors were pretty bad making it seem more like a community theatre production. I've never actually seen any of them on stage before (to my knowledge) which seems like quite a feat these days. Two of the women I thought were better than the rest but it still didn't raise the caliber of the cast to me.

Some of the staging was inventive but most of it was just actors with props strewn about on stage. I can't imagine how many costumes and props there are to keep track of because there are about 1 million different scenes in this interminable "play." Also I found the sound between scenes to be WAY too loud and I'm guessing that is to cover up the noise while the props/actors change.

I guess I would recommend this to someone with severe ADD that can't concentrate on something more than 3 mins long.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 2/20/14 at 8:03am

Gosh, I really hope this extends. If anyone knows anything about that happening, be a dear and mention it.

[macnyc]

Posted: 3/2/14 at 6:20pm

I saw this today and really liked it! I knew going in that the play is made up of 57 separate skits, and it helped that I wasn't expecting a single dramatic story. Some of the skits seemed to have a beginning, middle and end, and others were more impressionistic. I agree 100% with the person who said that the direction was good, and that's why we could size up in a few seconds exactly what is going on in each skit. Only one or two of the 57 skits had me scratching my head. And then it was on to the next one! The main themes, as stated earlier, seem to be love, information, memory, truth, finding out information or not finding out, genetics, etc. All set in the context of various relationships, a real cross-section of human experience.

I didn't understand what the numbers 1,2, 3….and the plus sign meant though.

And I agree that the sound effects played during the scene changes were too loud, to the point of being annoying.

The acting was excellent. It must be like a boot camp, having to perform all those different roles, however fleeting. I loved how the blackout was done too. It was completely black, with a string of LCD lights around the periphery of the stage opening. While I was watching the play, I couldn't figure out how it was done, so I went up to the stage after the show to have a look. So, if anyone is curious, it's some sort of scrim that stays in place throughout the performance (I assume), that can either be completely black or completely transparent. I hope I got that right. It definitely doesn't move out of the way for each skit. If anyone knows more about how this is done, I would appreciate finding out!

Updated On: 3/2/14 at 06:20 PM

[April Saul]

Posted: 3/2/14 at 9:40pm

Hey, Mac! I was there today, too. I'd read some negative comments on the boards about it...but also saw some glowing reviews and when offered a ticket, I grabbed it. I really enjoyed it, not at all my impression of Churchill's work from seeing Top Girls a few years back. I can only imagine the playwright had a ball doing something as different as this; and perhaps because I knew that it was a series of dozens of scenes, I didn't resent not seeing a "normal" play with a single storyline.

Just a lot of fun...and made me really appreciate Churchill's powers of observation and ear for dialogue. If you're open to something completely different, I'd give it a try

[ARTc3]

Posted: 3/3/14 at 12:21am

I liked, Love and Information, and found it quite provocative. I do think it was too long and there were several scenes that could easily be cut. Otherwise, it was quite an impressive piece of theater.

On the technology. The screen does in fact move. It is split and a part of it flies away and another part falls into the stage deck. This is done extremely quickly and is almost undetectable. The logistics of all the stage props is amazing. I would love to attend a talk after a performance which discussed the technical nature of this production.

[xyz789]

Posted: 3/3/14 at 1:36am

Love and Information is not traditional narrative theater. It is a series of short scenes that build up to...what?

I think the power of this play is it makes you question your ideas about theatre. I go to the theatre a few times a week and this play is a challenge. It made me think about what I expect, about what I define the theatre as, and how I interact with theatre.

The play made me frustrated and angry at times. The sound design is loud. I don't know what the numbers and the plus sign mean, but I felt so much during the play. So often I go to a play, and it's "fine" or "nice". This play made me angry (i understand the negative reviews), but I think you need to examine what makes you angry. I felt angry because the play betrayed my ideas of "Is this even theatre?.

I realized watching this that artists get to redefine "what theatre is supposed to be". In fact, maybe that's what makes someone an artist. After I came to that conclusion, it really made me think back on all the so called great writers (Amy Herzog, Thomas Bradshaw, Annie Baker) I'd seen this year. Did they really make me this upset? Did they challenge me?

This play made me see theatre in a different way. It made me rethink what being an audience member is. What do we expect? What do we demand?

I really think everyone who values theatre needs to see this. It will make you mad. It will make you want to walk out, but I think it raises so many questions about theatre, artist and audiences today.

[April Saul]

Posted: 3/3/14 at 1:46am

It does challenge assumptions, but honestly, I had fun. In terms of theater frustrating me, that'd be racing frantically through Sleep No More and still missing the coolest scene, or wishing Annie Baker had cut 20 minutes from The Flick!

Would love for more folks to see it to add to the discussion, though

[xyz789]

Posted: 3/3/14 at 1:53am

@ April Saul Lots of scenes were fun. The wedding dress in the back of the limo will be an image I remember for the end of time.

Let's talk about The Flick somewhere else. It was perfect. Haha. It used boredom as a tool like Beckett.

[April Saul]

Posted: 3/3/14 at 1:58am

I hear you on the wedding tableau...maybe I'm just a person that likes to be surprised! It was just fun not having any idea of what the next scene was going to be.

My pet peeve is playwrights who go on too long...but we won't dwell on that one

[macnyc]

Posted: 3/3/14 at 10:29am

April, I agree, the show could have been trimmed a bit, 10 minutes or so. Although which skits to cut?

To follow up on Art3c's comment about the blackout curtain, I found this explanation in Lighting and Sound America's website (I enjoy David Barbour's theater reviews). It's still a bit of a mystery to me, but here's what they said:

'...Aiding in this endeavor is James Macdonald's lightning-quick production, which itself is facilitated by an ingenious production design. Miriam Buether's set, a white box decorated with graph-paper lining, is placed behind a proscenium lined in color-changing LEDs. When each scene ends, a black drop slides in to obscure the stage, and the LEDs function as audience blinders; within seconds, the lights come up on a new scene, often featuring large-scale scenic pieces such as a camping tent, stationary bicycles, or (most ingeniously) a bird's eye view of a bed. Peter Mumford's lighting plays no small part in effecting these transitions, and Christopher Shutt supplies an array of sound effects that include crackling flames, machinery, seagulls, a ticking clock, and others."

I didn't notice that the LCDs changed color. They varied in intensity, though.

Here's the link in case you'd like to read the whole review:

http://www.lightingandsoundamerica.com/news/story.asp?ID=-8ERDKT







Updated On: 3/3/14 at 10:29 AM

[ARTc3]

Posted: 3/3/14 at 10:56am

If anyone here is more knowledgeable about the logistics of this production, I'd love to read their post.

I sat in the second row and from my vantage point, this is what I believe is going on. (Emphasis on believe.)

As noted above, the black drop that masks the stage during transitions is really two pieces. One piece is a traditional drop and another retracts below the stage deck. Both pieces move extremely fast. They are aided by the border lights that frame the proscenium. The intensity and direction make it difficult in the short time between scenes for our eyes to adjust. Basically, we're blinded by the lighting change aiding in the masking of the stage.

As the stage is completely enclosed, I believe that the two side walls are jack knifed (or drops) and quickly open to allow the actors entrance and exit. I believe that each set of actors (scene by scene) is responsible for placing the props that define their scene. This is perhaps supplemented by a stagehand (or actor acting as a stagehand) when a set piece is large and can cover them. (An example of this would be the large bed on its end, or the piece of lawn with the two boys lying and hanging from it. I believe these are probably placed by someone hiding behind these larger units.)

I believe that the direction of the change is probably consistent. Perhaps, all new scenes and associated props enter stage right and all played scenes exit stage left, or vice versa depending on which area of the wings has more storage space.

As I wrote earlier, this is just speculation on my part. Either way, the transitions were extremely impressive, and that there are 57 of them borders on miraculous.

As for cuts. I don't know which skits I'd cut as they were all interesting to various degrees. I just feel that the overall length should be about 15 - 20 minutes shorter. Having typed that, I did truly enjoy, Love and Information. I found it provocative and ultimately satisfying. As to its meaning, I think the "+" or the final scene summed it all up. Our ability to focus on tons of useless information while often struggling with what is truly important - the ability to openly expressively love those closest to us.

Updated On: 3/3/14 at 10:56 AM

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/3/14 at 1:15pm

They extended! Yayyy!

[macnyc]

Posted: 3/3/14 at 1:37pm

ARTc3, thanks for that description! I bet you're very close to the truth. I was sitting in the rear orchestra, on the side, and from back there, I wasn't able to detect any movement of the curtain at all. It's really amazing! And it's very clever that the lights serve to "blind" and distract the audience. The lights were bright, but not uncomfortably so.

Updated On: 3/3/14 at 01:37 PM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 3/7/14 at 11:27pm

I saw it tonight, and I loved it. I grew up with absurdist & expressionistic theatre, so this was totally up my alley. I found it fun to try to figure out how each piece fit into the overall theme. Some of them were just one line and some of them went on and on (Like the one of them in the office recounting the memory). My favorite was probably the two girls not knowing their favorite singer's smell or the two clowns. I thought the direction was excellent. The text isn't specific about time or place, so it's just brilliant that he made the actors clowns talking about sleeping with each other, etc.

I thought the acting was both great and horrible. Most of the time I kept thinking "why did they cast him?!" I thought the girls were all pretty great though.

I think it's worth seeing, but just know that it's 57 different sketches and you'll be alright.

I didn't get the #s either.

Updated On: 3/8/14 at 11:27 PM

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 8:55am

Nevermind

Updated On: 3/8/14 at 08:55 AM

[macnyc]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 12:27pm

Good behind-the-scenes article in the New York Times today about how the set changes are accomplished. There isn't anything about the actual blackout, though! But still very interesting. It's amazing how much work went into this production.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/theater/making-mini-plays-in-caryl-churchills-love-and-information.html?_r=0

[ARTc3]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 1:37pm

Actually, the article really doesn't go into how the set changes are accomplished. Its more a listing of a few of the many scenes and the elements that were used. It also gives a context that the director and actors worked with to bring the scenes to life.

Either way, its a good article and I appreciate your bringing it to our attention. Thank you.

[aaronb]

Posted: 3/10/14 at 2:41am

I agree with others that it was too long--and I sometimes have problems with Churchill--but I thought it was a decent show. Definitely could have cut, say, the rock throwing skit.

"Often, these scenes are virtuosic performances of minimalism; in fewer than two minutes, Ms. Churchill has us invested in characters that another writer could use to build an entire play. At its best, it examines extreme people in ordinary moments—like a woman, her face spotted with zit cream, berating her husband in their bathroom for ratting his friend out to the police and thus endangering their lives—or, conversely, ordinary people in extreme moments, like the man at a picnic listening to his date describe how she beheads birds for a living. Relying largely on inference, there is something almost musical about Ms. Churchill’s play, a theatrical Goldberg Variations."
My review of LOVE AND INFORMATION

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/10/14 at 8:47pm

I've never been in the Minetta Lane. It looks pretty small, but I'm torn between mid-orchestra seats and third-row mezz seats. (The price of the mezz seats is $20 cheaper.) Is there anything weird about the mezz there -- bad rake, especially cramped seating, etc? Any help would be appreciated.

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 3/10/14 at 9:06pm

Go with the mezz.

[April Saul]

Posted: 3/11/14 at 12:26am

mysteriousgrowl, I just PM'd you...check your inbox!