MCNEAL Previews — Page 2

If he gives good performances and isn’t hurting anyone with his process, what can you possibly care? So he uses an ear piece, what does it matter?

I feel like Sher's direction kind of peaked?

Sutton Ross said: "willep said: "I have absolutely no doubt that he is wearing an ear piece. He uses them for his films as well."

Lazy. This seems like a cash money grab to make up for the bombs LCT has had since it reopened in 2021.


Yeah sure. Whatever you say doll. LOLZ

The lack of discussion about this production on this site is really staggering to me. Were the tickets too pricey for anyone to bite?

Someone told me that Ayad used a ChatGPT type program to generate parts of the play...really curious how accurate that might be

I was surprised by this one. In the early scenes, I worried that we were going to be heading into some very familiar territory, but the play (to its benefit) ended up being something more slippery and engaged than the anti-AI diatribe I thought it would become.


I’ll agree that it’s a show that hits the head a lot more than the heart. That does seem intentional, at least to me. Very glad I caught it.

I found the play to be a little confusing and I was somewhat disconnected emotionally. It felt like a play in previews where the actors and director were still finding their way. Downey is onstage for most of the scene work. Other characters are quite minor in comparison. Downey has an interesting way of speaking (which has been a trademark of his over the years) making phrasing choices that sometimes feel like throw aways. He could use his diaphragm to support himself more through the ends of his sentences. He has an agreeable presence. It would be fun to see him in a farce where he could physically immerse himself for he has a playful side to him.

I liked the set design and how the play tangled with artificial intelligence and humanity. It dances with the notion that there are very few original ideas and how artists continuously borrow from one another.

Updated On: 9/16/24 at 04:02 PM

KevinKlawitter said: "

I liked the set design and how the play tangled with artificial intelligence and humanity. It dances with the notion that there are very few original ideas and how artists continuously borrow from one another.


Obviously I'm waiting for more reactions/reviews, but Ireeeaaaallllyyydon't want this show's conclusion about AI to be "well, artists tend to borrow ideas anyway!"

"
I really wasn’t putting those two thoughts together but I can see why you would think that. I don’t think the writer was trying to justify AI in that way. They were just separate thoughts that went through my head while I was watching the play that might have been loosely connected. In the play, AI was presented as a temptation that was easy to succumb to; contributing to a downward spiral for the lead character who was damaged emotionally and dependent on alcohol.

This is sort of where my “problems” with the show come from. I felt like the play wanted to thread the line between what’s real and what’s not, with the dying McNeal not knowing what’s real and the AI stuff. It’s a fascinating juxtaposition that I felt just needs another draft or two to fully flesh it out.

Jordan Catalano said: "This is sort of where my “problems” with the show come from. I felt like the play wanted to thread the line between what’s real and what’s not, with the dying McNeal not knowing what’s real and the AI stuff. It’s a fascinating juxtaposition that I felt just needs another draft or two to fully flesh it out."



I agree with you Jordon! It is like the juxtaposition is not fully realized. And it is confusing to the audience. I was with it until the downstage bench scene with all of the characters drifting in and out upstage. It felt like Our Town and everyone was dead. Or was it some sort of a hallucination. Or was Downey talking to a ghost? Or his dead wife? I was just confused. Maybe it was just me but I felt like at times some of the actors spoke with a computerized inflection. Where AI was bleeding into what the lead character was experiencing.

The scene with the father and son felt like “Camelot” staging where both actors were walking in circles. And crossing from inside I guess to an outside moonlit area seemed awkward.

Updated On: 9/17/24 at 01:59 AM

I think we need to hurry up and drop the whole "Bart Sher is successful at fostering new work!" thing.

Again, the guy uses an earpiece on everything he does. There is zero reason to think that would affect his performance.

Saw this last night, and with a group of people who all work in tech, we generally liked it. I think it did a better job of bringing up different ideas and threads than it did resolving them, but we were pleasantly surprised at how it wasn't the typical "AI is bad for art" message, and had more discussion on all the different ways AI could be useful or where AI could fail. And while the play doesn't come to a strong conclusion on AI itself, I think the ending still felt fairly satisfying.

I do see what people mean about this play feeling distancing, and it seemed more like a vehicle to toss around a bunch of ideas rather than telling a compelling drama or pushing a strong message across (it would've been interesting to see McNeal really wrestle with his feelings about AI more, for example). But RDJ is quite charismatic and has a great stage presence that it's engaging enough just to watch him.

At 1 hour 45 minutes, it felt a bit long, and it really started to drag in the park scene, what was probably the weakest scene in the show. I agree with the others who said that Bart Sher really wasn't the right choice for this. Some parts of the text seem to lean more thriller-esque with different revelations happening in each scene, but the conversations just felt stagnant, even if their contents were interesting. And there's a part when McNeal is at a podium giving a speech and decides to take the mic off the podium to walk a circle around it as he's speaking to the audience, but later he does the same circle without the mic--are we to assume he's now shouting to the audience unamplified? Why would he use the mic in one instance and not the other when nothing else seems to support that decision? (The sound design changed so I assume it was a conscious decision, but I found it baffling.)

By far the best scene is when McNeal does an interview with a young woman from the NYT, and both scene partners are really at the top of their game. He says things that could be considered problematic, but has a certain magnetism that still makes him intriguing and we see that reflected in both the interviewer and our own perceptions. And having seen some of his other truths laid to bare, we can see where McNeal is twisting some facts to suit his own purposes but the interview itself also reveals other moments that he may not have been completely forthright about.

In a way the show reminds me of Annie Dorsen's Prometheus Firebringer (which was also messy but fascinating in its construction) along with Lifespan of a Fact. I think the idea that it doesn't come to a specific conclusion about AI is probably part of the intention. It presents a few different facets and wants you figure out what it means (along with what really happens at the end). And I think it could've gone deeper or provided a more compelling story with the characters (Ruthie Ann Miles really is underutilized in this), but I thought it was worth the visit (though I got a LincTix ticket for $35 so not much to complain about in terms of cost).

Also what was the big hubbub about the whole digital representation of RDJ? I had forgotten about that until after the show and just assumed that it was prerecorded video. I suppose it's impressive in theory but would not have been anything people picked up on while watching it