PATRIOTS Previews — Page 2

theaterdarling said: "..There is no way to know without watching" Well, yes always better not to pontificate on whether a play says something new or notwithoutseeing it.Respectfully, might have been a good idea to heed that advice.That being said one could have easily read reviewsof the UK productions that could have explained to you the play's unique vantage point on Putinand, some, do indeed say the play and/or the performances were brilliant."


I appreciate your efforts to keep the disagreement respectful, and I have no desire to change your opinion. I would just add this:

I was explaining my hesitation to see show based on the general idea of the territory it's covering, and the challenges of the type of story it's telling. You suggested I keep my opinions to myself because I haven't seen it yet.

Then you explained all the reasons you want to see Patriots, which is awesome. I really hope you enjoy it when you see it in three weeks. But you're literally doing the same thing as me, talking about a show neither of us has seen. The main difference is you really want to see the show and I'm leaning towards the opposite conclusion.

There's not even a different about looking at the reviews, other than you read the UK reviews and I'm going to wait until reading the reviews of the current production to make a decision.

My larger point is we all make judgements in the consideration phase of deciding if we want to see a show or not. No one is claiming that's a review, and we're all coming from different perspectives.

I'm also probably more lukewarm on Peter Morgan than you in general. I think I moderately liked Frost/Nixon, didn't have a strong opinion on The Queen, and other than those general impressions don't remember a second of those films. The Crown I could never motivate myself to sample, because I don't care about the British royalty family as an institution.

Saw the 2nd preview tonight, God the first act is so deathly dull and boring. The woman next to me kept nodding off. The humor just did not work at all. There were so many lines that seemed like they were supposed to get a laugh that maybe a couple people lightly chuckled at.

Second act was better at least though Putin’s change from wanting liberalization to becoming a power-hungry murderous dictator is so sudden without any real explanation. I guess if that’s how it really was then there’s not much they can do but narratively it was a bit of whiplash.



I really have no idea how this play was so well received. I kept finding myself so bored during all the math tangents (with a professor who was about 50 in 1955 and still the same age in the mid-2000s) and then a whole finance trial scene!? Why is that there?! And why do they have cell phones in 1960 and discuss having high definition TVs in the 1980s?

---

Updated On: 4/2/24 at 11:41 PM

You joined to sing praises off a first preview, question how long have you worked on the production for?

---

I was also at the second preview last night. By my watch, it ran 2:33 (which is far less than the original projected 2:50 I heard about)

It’s certainly an odd play that tries to strike humor into what we know will be the inevitable rise of a dictator. It sometimes hits and sometimes misses. The Boris character does give an air of Roy Cohn/Angels In America in that he’s a rich kingmaker who ends up creating a monster that he cannot stop. I will say that the action between Act I and II is imbalanced and creates a pacing issue. Act I is brisk and moves at a clip while Act II tends to lose steam toward the end, especially during a final scene with Boris and his mathematics professor. However, taken as a whole, I would put it beside APPROPRIATE as one of my favorite new plays of the season.

Stuhlbarg and Keen are running the show with Thallon as a great supporting role. I definitely see Tony nods for the former two. Also, the set design was actually pretty cool with its use of projections, mirrors, and a bar-like setting that has a multi-functional use.

---

Updated On: 4/3/24 at 07:20 AM

Are they even trying to sell this show? I don’t see any marketing

Cape Twirl of Doom said: "Saw the 2nd preview tonight, God the first act is so deathly dull and boring. The woman next to me kept nodding off. The humor just did not work at all. There were so many lines that seemed like they were supposed to get a laugh that maybe a couple people lightly chuckled at.

Second act was better at least though Putin’s change from wanting liberalization to becoming a power-hungry murderous dictator is so sudden without any real explanation. I guess if that’s how it really was then there’s not much they can do but narratively it was a bit of whiplash.



I really have no idea how this play was so well received. I kept finding myself so bored during all the math tangents (with a professor who was about 50 in 1955 and still the same age in the mid-2000s) and then a whole finance trial scene!? Why is that there?! And why do they have cell phones in 1960 and discuss having high definition TVs in the 1980s?"

This was exactly my experience seeing this during my trip into the city last week. Every minute of this play felt like two.

Yes, the opening performance is a Monday matinee. Allows the press to also be present at the opening of The Heart of Rock and Roll that evening.

Saw this tonight - learned more about Russia in those 2.5 hours than I learned through all my [american] schooling, media, and documentaries.

I thought it might be a BORE but it was borderline delightful, largely due to its two leads and the "that's crazy; it'll never happen!" insinuations when we know exactly what has happened. An unexpected surprise for me.

I saw the matinee today (love a 1pm matinee!) and thought it was very good, but not exactly great. I was upset I had to miss this in London so very excited for the transfer but I think this is a play where the performances may be better than the material, itself. Stuhlberg (who is rarely offstage) is such a brilliant actor and just watching him do what he does makes the time fly and kept me constantly engaged, but I’m not sure if I would have enjoyed this as I did had it not been for him.

One thing I couldn’t stop thinking about though was why the entire cast had British accents yet were all playing Russians. Maybe on the west end it would make sense like it would make sense for the actors to just use American accents here in New York but it was a bit distracting, for some reason.

I see that Netflix is a lead producer so odds are maybe it’ll get filmed for them. If so, I’s definitely love to watch it again at some point.

Updated On: 4/20/24 at 04:07 PM

as others have said, this is a very adequate and certainly engaging piece, but it never really takes off. it actually reminded me of The Crown--compelling retelling of historical facts, but nothing all that earthshaking in terms of writing or ultimate message/thesis.

and thats ok, i guess. Stuhlbarg is magnificent from start to finish. He is always playing such unseemly characters on TV that he could get lazy with his "greedy bad guy" take but he doesnt, he finds a way to be sympathetic and rational while also wild-eyed and desperate. Just masterful work. By contrast, Will Keen is doing some likely very accurate take on Putin, but it doesnt translate. I think the play's most glaring flaw is that this Putin seems so strange/twitchy that it becomes hard to make sense of his switch into dominant power force.

polite, full Saturday evening audience. audience reactions made me think this was a very educated, and possibly russian-american, audience. i was rear orchestra and wish i was a bit closer but i did like the set and dont think theres a bad view really.