Posted: 10/3/26 at 5:17pm
To anyone who has seen the show - how’s Joe Keery? I think he’s a great young actor, and I appreciate that he’s made the leap to the stage. I know it’s not the showiest part, but I’m curious as to early impressions.
Posted: 10/3/26 at 5:17pm
What purpose did your factual observation serve?
I think my judgement on it seemed pretty sound.
Posted: 10/3/26 at 5:32pm
Between School Girls, Paranormal Activity, and now Other Desert Cities, I feel like I’ve been very lucky with the plays so far this season!
This one fires on all cylinders. The five-member all-star cast knocks it out of the park, with Lily Rabe and Joe Keery being the standouts for me. Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Ed Harris, and Allison Janney all more than hold their own as well.
The play itself is very well written and structured, striking a great balance between humor and intensity. The characters are fascinating and have some really compelling arcs, and I was genuinely on the edge of my seat during the final 15 minutes.
For anyone curious about sight lines, I was in a partial-view balcony seat and still felt like I saw about 95% of the action. I couldn’t see some of the stage-left portion of the set, but the action and blocking are fairly centered, so I didn’t feel like I was missing much.
I can only imagine the cast will continue to strengthen as the run goes on, but for an early preview, this is already in extremely solid shape. Definitely another winner for me this season!
Posted: 10/3/26 at 8:07pm
This last post by broadwayfreak underscores my earlier point: that the play belongs to the two adult children, who arrive at this Christmas to confront a layered legacy. If the three older characters carry the traumatic history, Brooke carries the linear action, and her brother is certainly in limbo about the family's ability to forge a broader reconciliation. It's a tribute to the focus of this production, and direction in particular, that the two younger stars are emerging as central to the success. From a storytelling standpoint, that's as it should be.
I have the script, and have often thought that the single sibling scene at the top of act two is one of the highlights of the play, among Baitz's best work, and deftly illustrtes an entire history.
Updated On: 10/3/26 at 08:07 PM
Posted: 10/5/26 at 4:32pm
BrodyFosse123 said: "When it comes to these current ticket prices, this definitely has reduced my visits to NYC to see shows. Even though I fortunately can afford to purchase tickets to events at any price range (Broadway, sports, concerts, etc) as I’m able to write them off on my taxes, my brain is still locked into pre-2005 ticket prices so unless I’m able to purchase tickets at cost (via friends in Broadway shows - yes, actors have to pay for the tickets to their shows), I have to truly want to see something to dump my money on good seats.
This is how muchBroadway ticket prices for a 9th row Orchestra Center seat were like for a completely sold out show with then-hot Tony Award winner Hugh Jackman and a daily cancellation line down the block. Standing Room tickets were gone within seconds of the box office opening each morning and an impossible lottery was done at 5:30pm for evening shows and 11:30am for matinee shows. Premium seating was only offered for Friday and Saturday nights at a whopping $201.00 (yes, sarcasm here, folks).
"
Did the prices for Boy from Oz stay consistent for its run? Or did they go up and up and up?
Dynamic pricing is a pox.
Posted: 10/5/26 at 4:55pm
I just looked at my night, out of morbid curiosity. Worse seats than mine for $1000 bucks each. Oh whoopee, you get to skip the lines and a complimentary non-alcoholic drink. Thank eff I just happened to have enough to drop for one ticket a couple of months ago, if I had to save it'd be like chasing the end of a rainbow.
Posted: 10/5/26 at 7:31pm
Did the prices for Boy from Oz stay consistent for its run? Or did they go up and up and up?
Dynamic pricing is a pox.
Yup. Prices never changed once they were established.
Posted: 10/5/26 at 8:05pm
BrodyFosse123 said: "Did the prices for Boy from Oz stay consistent for its run? Or did they go up and up and up?
Dynamic pricing is a pox.
Yup. Prices never changed once they were established."
Maybe it's urban legend at this point - but wasn't The Producers the first show to employ dynamic pricing? It must be around the same time period as this?
Posted: 10/6/26 at 6:18am
Sammy232 said: "BrodyFosse123 said: "Did the prices for Boy from Oz stay consistent for its run? Or did they go up and up and up?
Dynamic pricing is a pox.
Yup. Prices never changed once they were established."
Maybe it's urban legend at this point - but wasn't The Producers the first show to employ dynamic pricing? It must be around the same time period as this?"
The Producers was the first show to use premium pricing, not dynamic.
Posted: 10/6/26 at 8:10am
BrodyFosse123 said: "Did the prices for Boy from Oz stay consistent for its run? Or did they go up and up and up?
Dynamic pricing is a pox.
Yup. Prices never changed once they were established."
And they are never going to, other than to get more expensive.
Posted: 10/6/26 at 3:51pm
Posted: 10/6/26 at 3:53pm
OuttaTowner said: "To anyone who has seen the show - how’s Joe Keery? I think he’s a great young actor, and I appreciate that he’s made the leap to the stage. I know it’s not the showiest part, but I’m curious as to early impressions."
Joe Keery was the standout for me! Especially in the scene after intermission when he and Lily Rabe have their one-on-one.
Posted: 10/6/26 at 5:47pm
I saw this last week and have been working out my thoughts.
I waited to buy in hopes of getting a front orchestra seat, but when those were finally released, they were insanely expensive. But on the day before, the prices of the remaining tickets apparently go down (dynamic pricing taketh away, and sometimes dynamic pricing giveth) so I was able to get a single close front orchestra ticket that started at $799+ for about $400. I let myself buy one expensive ticket per year, so that was it.
If your primary purpose is to see famous performers you’ve presumably enjoyed elsewhere and get a few hours’ worth of entertainment, then I think it lives up to that. Getting to sit that close and watch Louis-Dreyfus, Harris, and Janney work and really see what they were doing and their choices was worth it for me. I feel like I got my money’s worth.
Is this a great production of the play? It could improve during previews and beyond, but right now, I would say no. It’s currently entertaining, maybe solid enough, but not great.
This is a play set primarily in 2004 with older characters whose heyday was in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. I never believed these actors were those characters. Everyone feels far too contemporary, both in costuming/styling and in performance, and young to be those people. If you don’t know the play and didn’t see the note in the Playbill, it would be easy to believe when the curtain initially goes up that this is happening today, so the period references (“They flew planes into buildings!” ) feel even clunkier than they likely already were.
Janney’s costuming doesn’t look much different from anything she would have worn as Bonnie from “Mom,” and most of the time she feels closer to that character than a woman who was writing a series of movies in the 60s or 70s now living in 2004. The character ultimately doesn’t have much of an impact (certainly not enough to make you think this was a Tony-winning role), and her big moment at the revelation in Act II passed by like it was nothing.
Harris has enough genuine movie star charisma (no surprise, since he is one) to be believable as a former movie star, even if not necessarily one from that era. He has a lot of strong moments. But a staunch Reagan-era conservative? I didn’t really buy it.
I enjoyed Louis-Dreyfus, though I’m not sure how much was just affection for her in general. She’s doing some nice things, but she also feels jokier and more lightweight than the character should. The character really should have some…heft? Something that could make her feel capable of being genuinely vicious or committing harm, and I didn’t really get that from her. When she’s making un-PC comments in the first act, she comes across as a jokey older woman saying naughty things because she doesn’t know any better, not anyone with real bite. There’s a moment before she exits in the first act where she tells her daughter that if she (does the thing the story revolves around), there’s no coming back from it. It would be unforgivable, and she would never be trusted by the family again. Which should be utterly cold and devastating, if not threatening, having a real impact…and it wasn’t. (Or even playing it softer and with despair would have a (completely different) impact.) This was more like, Okay, yeah it makes sense she would say that in the moment but didn’t feel like anything they couldn’t probably get past. No impact.
Right after that (I think) Harris’s character tells a story about how Louis-Dreyfus’s character cornered Nancy Reagan and two other women at an event and drove them to tears. I simply didn’t believe this woman could ever drive Nancy Reagan (or anyone) to tears (or that she knew Nancy Reagan. They have her in a gray wig to make her look older, but I didn’t buy that she was of that generation). I don’t remember much of Stockard Channing’s performance, despite seeing her twice, but I have no trouble picturing her pulling off this character, and her hardness, in a way Louis-Dreyfus really isn’t right now.
Because of that, the balance of the play was off. Louis-Dreyfus/Janney/even Harris and Keery feel like they’re performing in a lighter version of the play than Rabe is. Rabe is performing in the heavier version of the play, which makes her feel over-the-top at times because she’s pushing against people who the character considers capable of monstrous things when the actors we see in front of us don’t. She’s frequently grating, seeming more awful than the people she’s claiming are. She’s going hard, throwing punches at lightweights. Elizabeth Marvel’s howl of pain in the end is the primary thing I remember from the original production. I also remember Rachel Griffith’s softer, more fragile take on the character and how she played the end. Here, Rabe did it…and I felt nothing. It was just another thing that happened.
I don’t think it’s helped by how flat the set feels, two levels facing the audience head-on, so some of the staging just feels like they’re walking back and forth in horizonal lines in front of us. When Rabe was listening to Louis-Dreyfus and Harris’s monologues at the end, she was sitting on the coffee table (or ottoman?) facing them, with her profile to the audience, while they (standing) were turned out slightly to us, which made it hard to see her reactions to this pivotal moment.
Louis-Dreyfus is doing some delicate work in that final monologue that felt like it got lost a bit in how it was staged.
I know this sounds like I didn’t enjoy it very much, but I like I said, I got what I came for. I went to see the cast, not for the play, which I wouldn’t have felt the need to revisit without these actors in it. The cast is giving solid to better performances in and of themselves. I’m just not sure if those performances best serve the material (which some would likely say means they’re not good performances, but again, there for the actors, not the material). I would be interested to see it later in the run to see if adjustments are made and they grow into the roles, but would need to win the lottery (of any kind) to afford it.
Updated On: 10/6/26 at 05:47 PM
Posted: 10/6/26 at 6:27pm
You opinion is on the mark,so well written I couldn't agree more. I saw this play at Lincoln Center and then Broadway followed by a terrific London version. The past productions were thrilling unfortunately this one can't compare. I guess the reviews will be mixed but the box office will not suffer any.
Updated On: 10/6/26 at 06:27 PM
Posted: 10/6/26 at 6:48pm
MemorableUserName, a three-dimensional perspective is rare in this day and age, and perhaps in every day and age. Thank you for sharing yours with us.
Updated On: 10/6/26 at 06:48 PM
Posted: 10/6/26 at 7:30pm
Posted: 10/6/26 at 7:48pm
It is also early days. One or two weeks of performances might punch up some of what is apparently lacking.
Posted: 10/6/26 at 8:10pm
MemorableUserName said: "I saw this last week and have been working out my thoughts.
I waited to buy in hopes of getting a front orchestra seat, but when those were finally released, they were insanely expensive. But on the day before, the prices of the remaining tickets apparently go down (dynamic pricing taketh away, and sometimes dynamic pricing giveth) so I was able to get a single close front orchestra ticket that started at $799+ for about $400. I let myself buy one expensive ticket per year, so that was it.
If your primary purpose is to see famous performers you’ve presumably enjoyed elsewhere and get a few hours’ worth of entertainment, then I think it lives up to that. Getting to sit that close and watch Louis-Dreyfus, Harris, and Janney work and really see what they were doing and their choices was worth it for me. I feel like I got my money’s worth.
Is this a great production of the play? It could improve during previews and beyond, but right now, I would say no. It’s currently entertaining, maybe solid enough, but not great.
This is a play set primarily in 2004 with older characters whose heyday was in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. I never believed these actors were those characters. Everyone feels far too contemporary, both in costuming/styling and in performance, and young to be those people. If you don’t know the play and didn’t see the note in the Playbill, it would be easy to believe when the curtain initially goes up that this is happening today, so the period references (“They flew planes into buildings!” ) feel even clunkier than they likely already were.
Janney’s costuming doesn’t look much different from anything she would have worn as Bonnie from “Mom,” and most of the time she feels closer to that character than a woman who was writing a series of movies in the 60s or 70s now living in 2004. The character ultimately doesn’t have much of an impact (certainly not enough to make you think this was a Tony-winning role), and her big moment at the revelation in Act II passed by like it was nothing.
Harris has enough genuine movie star charisma (no surprise, since he is one) to be believable as a former movie star, even if not necessarily one from that era. He has a lot of strong moments. But a staunch Reagan-era conservative? I didn’t really buy it.
I enjoyed Louis-Dreyfus, though I’m not sure how much was just affection for her in general. She’s doing some nice things, but she also feels jokier and more lightweight than the character should. The character really should have some…heft?Something that could make her feel capable of being genuinely vicious or committing harm, and I didn’t really get that from her. When she’s making un-PC comments in the first act, she comes across as a jokey older woman saying naughty things because she doesn’t know any better, not anyone with real bite. There’s a moment before she exits in the first act where she tells her daughter that if she (does the thing the story revolves around), there’s no coming back from it. It would be unforgivable, and she would never be trusted by the family again. Which should be utterly cold and devastating, if not threatening, having a real impact…and it wasn’t. (Or even playing it softer and with despair would have a (completely different) impact.) This was more like, Okay, yeah it makes sense she would say that in the moment but didn’t feel like anything they couldn’t probably get past. No impact.
Right after that (I think) Harris’s character tells a story about how Louis-Dreyfus’s character cornered Nancy Reagan and two other women at an eventand drove them to tears. I simply didn’t believe this woman could ever drive Nancy Reagan (or anyone) to tears (or that she knew Nancy Reagan. They have her in a gray wig to make her look older, but I didn’t buy that shewas of that generation). I don’t remember much of Stockard Channing’s performance, despite seeing her twice, but I have no trouble picturing her pulling off this character, and her hardness, in a way Louis-Dreyfus really isn’t right now.
Because of that, the balance of the play was off. Louis-Dreyfus/Janney/even Harris and Keery feel like they’re performing in a lighter version of the play than Rabe is. Rabe is performing in the heavier version of the play, which makes her feel over-the-top at times because she’s pushing against people who the character considers capable of monstrous things when the actors we see in front of us don’t. She’s frequently grating, seeming more awful than the people she’s claiming are. She’s going hard, throwingpunches at lightweights. Elizabeth Marvel’s howl of pain in the end is the primary thing I remember from the original production. I also remember Rachel Griffith’s softer, more fragile take on the character and how she played the end. Here, Rabe did it…and I felt nothing. It was just another thing that happened.
I don’t think it’s helped by how flat the set feels, two levels facing the audience head-on, so some of the staging just feels like they’re walking back and forth in horizonal lines in front of us. When Rabe was listening to Louis-Dreyfus and Harris’s monologues at the end, she was sitting on the coffee table facing them, with her profile to the audience, while they (standing) were turned out slightly to us, which made it hard to see her reactions to this pivotal moment.
Louis-Dreyfus is doing some delicate work in that final monologue that felt like it got lost a bit in how it was staged.
I know this sounds like I didn’t enjoy it very much, but I like I said, I got what I came for. I went to see the cast, not for the play, which I wouldn’t have felt the need to revisit without these actors in it. The cast is giving solid to better performances in and of themselves.I’m just not sure if those performancesbest serve the material (which some would likely say means they’re not good performances, but again, there for the actors, not the material). I would be interested to see it later in the run to see if adjustments are made and they grow into the roles, but would need to win the lottery (of any kind) to afford it."
Echoing the praise for such a thoughtful review. I don’t know whether I would agree with your review if I saw the production but you covered a lot of ground and did it well. That’s the best of this board.
Updated On: 10/6/26 at 08:10 PM
Posted: 10/6/26 at 11:08pm
I much appreciated every observation, yet I'm not sure I understand one reaction: that these actors don't suggest 2004 (and the three decades before). 2004 America may be 22 years ago, but it's not a foreign country. And Baitz has shaped these people, the two sisters in particular, with a spry contemporaneity that is more tethered to class and second tier celebrity than specificity of era. When the play arrived a decade after its time frame, we were closer to that post 911 climate and more willing to see ourselves - well, our stratified society - in the presentation.
But I don't fully understand this missing connection to the Reagan dynasty's subculture. Those types of people endured - I know some eerily similar wealthy Republicans in Phoenix, which isn't far - and behave very closely to these folks. Perhaps the two actors have such known television identities that our ability to suspend disbelief is compromised. And maybe Janney and Louis-Dreyfus need longer with this material, to tell this story for more than 5-6 times to get it into their marrow. An open question. But don't get me wrong, I find this analysis thoughtful and a terrific place to open more conversations. If only more people could see the pricey show to weigh in. I go 10/21.
Posted: 10/7/26 at 5:33pm
Posted: 10/9/26 at 12:15am
“IS THIS AN ACT? IS THIS ACTING? I CAN’T TELL.”
TL;DR - Miscast, misguided, and milquetoast - like the climate the Wyeth family lives in, this revival is dry and (emotionally) barren, with all the tension and energy of a first table read
Oh dear. This review gives me no pleasure to write.
Similar to ART last season, this is a superstar revival that will print money, but the star power here is misaligned and almost everyone seems to be in entirely different plays. The only people who seem to be in sync with their characters are Lily Rabe and, in a distant second, Ed Harris. Rabe is very much in the vein of Rachel Griffiths, who was caught up in her neuroses and trying so hard to convince herself that she is doing better for having written the book, despite the fact that it’s ripping her family apart. Harris is less commanding than Stacy Keach was, but showed more of a warm and tender side. This had its drawbacks though as it never felt like he was slowly building in frustration - it just came out of nowhere at times.
Julia Louis Dreyfus is woefully miscast. For someone who picked up six Emmys delivering withering put-downs dipped in acid, her Polly was very much toothless, overly contemporary, and almost chirpy at times. While I tried to avoid comparison, after about 20 minutes, I was sorely missing Stockard Channing and her terse passive-aggression with every line. She was always sharpening her knives and seemed eager to pick a fight with anyone over anything. It built on a pressure cooker tension that made the stakes toward the end of Act I much higher. My favorite scene in the whole play is the “Pucci” conversation between Polly and Silda, because it’s such a clear example of Polly trying to transfer her suspicious irritation toward Silda, but it doesn’t go well. Here, instead of the mental gymnastics that Channing spelled out with increasing mania, Dreyfus delivers it very matter of fact, which deflates Janney’s comeback of “I’m gonna have to learn how to deal with you now that I’m sober”. It’s played with a sitcom energy that feels like they are waiting for the laugh track. Same in her scenes with Joe Keery - although he looks FAR too young for this role and comes off like a cocky kid fresh out of college and not someone who has seen enough to address everything with a patina of jaded sarcasm. By the time of her big Act II revelation, my brain had checked out since she had, to me, not done enough to convey that she had been pushed to the edge to confess anything.
Bringing me to Janney - she isn’t terrible in the role, but it seems her direction here is to default to Bonnie Plunkett. Her Silda is also missing that bite and bitterness that Judith Light made a meal of in the original. I remember her entering looking hungover and cranky, like death warmed over - and Janney, bizarrely, seemed to make a cheerful entrance despite being fresh off withdrawal. Her and Lily’s scene at the end of Act I was effective, despite not having much to build on. If Janney couldn’t make me laugh, then something went sideways along the way. I do wonder if her and Julia switched roles that it might be more effective.
Also, even being in the rear orchestra, I could tell the set was too big. At the Booth, it was more intimate. You felt every line like you were at the worst family Christmas Eve ever. However, when the direction and performance fail to fill the room, an already oversized set can make any space feel cavernous.
Posted: 10/9/26 at 12:24am
The direction is almost non existent. It leaves the actors on their own making for a very uneven night of varying styles and energy. They should bring in a director NOW to help this cast find its play - even if miscast. Right now they are left out to dry. And the poor staging is hurting the scenes and play itself. This needs help. now. Producers, get on it while you can.
Updated On: 10/9/26 at 12:24 AM
Posted: 10/9/26 at 6:52am
Honestly, after some thought, I’m sticking with Janney and JLD should have switched roles. Janney is a creature of the theatre and would’ve known how to land that snobby, contemptuous affluence, while JLD could’ve played into the comedy she knows best.
Posted: 10/9/26 at 7:38am
Any stage door reports? I've only seen video of Janney and Harris coming out the front door of the Hudson after first preview. Maybe a moot point if it's as bad as quizking says, but just curious
Posted: 10/9/26 at 7:54am
Fordham2015 said: "Any stage door reports? I've only seen video of Janney and Harris coming out the front door of the Hudson after first preview. Maybe a moot point if it's as bad as quizking says, but just curious"
I forgot to include that 😆
I didn’t even try. The usual back stage door is not in use and so everyone goes out through the front, but it’s already a mob by the end of the show. I had a flight to catch this morning and wasn’t going to wait an hour just for a quick wave.
.gif?width=300)
