NOISES OFF - general consensus?

Probably just the direction. I found it funny both to just read, and to sit through.

---

I finished a run of this show in November - one of the best productions to ever be involved with (as long as it's a GOOD production). The writing is spectacular if fully recognized - you cannot simply breeze through this show - each LINE needs to be disected and realized - every action must have a purpose.
Also, you don't have to play each character the same way. For instance, I played "Frederick" and did a totally different interpretation than, say, Broadway or the film.
In addition, if you have a good crew, the set can be spectacular. We had a great set - and it was so much fun to work on!
To anyone who finds an act tedious or unnecessary - it may just be the fault of the actors/director - if this show is done right, it can become one of the greatest theatrical experiences you could have.

I agree with Elvis. Played Clackett and each act can be a gem if done right. I would do this show again in a heartbeat.

The original Michael Blakemore production (with Dorothy Loudon, Victor Garber, Brian Murray et al) was one of the most consistently funny comedies that I've ever seen, with the comedy building act to act to act. However, the Jeremy Sams revival from a few years ago (with LuPone, Peter Gallagher, Faith Prince, TR Knight, Katie Finneran, Richard Easton et al) definitely had pacing problems and a certain unevenness in the ensemble.

Farce is all about detail and timing and requires clockwork precision from the direction and performances (and, by the way, half of the laughs are NOT on the page). Without that, the humor will inevitably fall flat for long stretches at a time. The performers also have to know when to underplay, when to overplay, when to move and when to stay absolutely still (so as not to step on a joke in another part of the scene), when to emphasize and when to throw something away. It's a very subtle alchemy and going slightly too far in any one direction can kill laughs left and right.

It really all goes back to the direction. Blakemore was an absolute master and created one the funniest comedies Broadway has seen in decades. However, productions I've seen from Sams and others were entirely hit or miss and I would bet that that was the main problem with the production you saw tonight.

---

Noises Off is a great play however it is typically and underperfomrer at the box office because a lot of the humor is "inside theatre humor" the some of Joe Public does not get.

I did ASM a professional production of this several years ago and I somone would have pay me BIG MONEY to ever SM that show

---

Updated On: 1/26/07 at 11:27 PM

The first time I heard of this show was when i saw it at my high school in NJ. Then I saw it at Papermil Playhouse, then the movie, then the revival. Out of all of those, my high school production was the best.

---

I've heard people say the last act is the best and the second act wasn't necessary. IMO The second act is the best and the third act isn't needed but it's still funny. The first act is the most important, but if the acting isn't all that great it drags on forever.
A lot of how great the production of the show is rides on the actor's shoulders.

Updated On: 1/27/07 at 11:33 AM

Oh man that's not at all right, i dont think. If Act III is done right it can be amazing. Just the sheer exhaustion and anger of the cast by act 3... and all the burglars.

No way.

Entire show = hilarious.

---

Having seen the film, a local production and the recent London's West End revival of this play I can say that the play is simply brilliant when it's done properly! The movie was ok, didn't like the casting too much, only Marilu Henner, Christopher Reeve and the girl playing Brooke were good, all the others (esp. John Ritter) were overacting their a**es off the whole time and ruining the film.

The local production was a nightmare.

The London revival was FANTASTIC!! There was nothing forced or overdone in the production, the whole production team and cast seemed to understand that they didn't need to highlight the comedy, just play it. Of course the Act II (the backstage act) needed some 'extra' comedy because all the lines are what you hear from "the play", so... But I don't think I've ever laughed that much watching a play!

Updated On: 1/27/07 at 12:31 PM

Timing is everything with this piece. IMHO, the first and third acts are directed, and the second act is choreographed. I'm sure it must be quite a task taking it on. But, I agree, it's one of the funniest plays ever if done correctly. You need an incredidbly nimble cast, with crack timing.

---

I cant imagine Triad pulling this off, TTTT. Their thrust stage isnt condusive to the play to begin with, and they're not exactly known for their bang up productions (Their MOON FOR THE MISBEGOTTEN was so appalingly bad that, halfway through the second act, I wanted to shout at the characters in the play, "Okay, guys, get over it and move on, huh?"

I love NOISES. And I've found that the smaller the stage, the more intense the comedy becomes. Sierra Rep, whose stage is 20-0 wide and 12-0 high, had one of the best I've ever seen.

---