My thoughts on IN THE NEXT ROOM or the vibrator play (with spoilers)

First off: the number one thing I didn't expect to see tonight: Michael Cerveris' penis.

IN THE NEXT ROOM is a lovely, sweet long play. The problems will be ironed out by the opening; it's in fine shape, just needs 15 or 20 minutes shaved from Act II.

Cerveris and Laura Benanti play Dr. and Mrs. Givings. He induces paroxysms in women and men to cure their hysteria. She just gave birth but cannot produce milk, so they must hire a wet nurse (Quincy Bernstine). Maria Dizzia, one of Ruhl's wonderful interpreters, plays Mrs. Daldry, who is being given the treatment for hysteria. Chandler Williams plays a painter with whom Mrs. Givings falls in love. There's a maid - the actress' name escapes me, with whom Mrs. Daldry falls for.

It's about found love and lost love, essentially. The same thing all Ruhl's plays are about.

Of the very fine cast, only Benanti sticks out negatively. She just skews too modern. Dizzia is dazzling, Cerveris is quite strong, and Williams is also very fine.

The final scene - set in a snow fall - the most Ruhlian moment in the play - features Cerveris and Benanti making love. He's entirely naked. Take that into account, children.

It's 2.5 hours even; will probably slink down to 2:15 by the time previews are over.

It was lovely.

Updated On: 10/22/09 at 11:35 PM

Wow. I actually thought Laura was the best of the bunch...went into this play thinking I was going to hate it, but I did not end up hating it. I didn't really like it either...the subject matter is very out there for Broadway (more suited to Off Bway in my opinion).

It is definitely worth seeing for Laura's performance though...she is a true star.

Speaking of shaving, did you view Cerveris' back?

For anyone who ordered through TDF, where were your seats?

The ending, I thought, was lovely. I figure it'll be shortened entirely.

I have very mixed feelings on Benanti in this play. I've adored everything she's ever been in but in parts she did seem out of her element in this. As for her being "too modern", in this play she is modern. She's breaking out of the world that society has created for her so I don't see that as a negative. However, her performance just didn't "click". I have no doubt at all that through the preview period and with changes made (yes, PLEASE shave at least 20 minutes off of Act 2), she'll become perfection, though.

Oh and count me in as one of the people who looked around when he took his clothes off thinking "Really? This is actually happening? Does.....it have to?"

Yankee, the final scene was so beautiful and moving and I understand the nudity in it, and the reason why he is the only one naked but even still, I hope it's cut.

That is SO funny you said that! That's exactly what I said as we were leaving the theater last night! LOL

Who the HELL would get any kind of thrill looking at the penis of Michael Cerveris? And I speak from experience as a long-term, jaded voyeur.

---

At least you didn't day "Teeny..." anyway...

I read this play about a year ago and asked myself, as a director, about the nudity at the end (Despite my voyeuristic proclivities, I always ask this - surprise!). At that time, there was no thought of who would play it or where, and it seemed like a justified choice to me. The stage directions at that time were, "He undresses her, partially" and after the last dialogue, "She undresses him", which seemed very appropriate to our journey. I don't think it was intended for Mrs. Givings to be nude, tattoos or not.

Just my two cents...

'Cause then the scene wouldn't mean anything.

Also, assuming that I am going to break down and go soon, what's their rush situation? I know it's on TDF, but I'd rather do whatever's going to yield better seats, since the Lyceum balcony scares me.

---

I agree, but I broke down and got TDF because Lincoln Center usually waits forever to start their rush. I remember "Joe Turner" taking a little while. But it was like 32 or something for that?