PLAZA SUITE Previews — Page 2

Exactly, as I posted above. Simon was commended for that challenging act in the original production, Scott and Stapleton, two superb dramatic actors, finding pathos and a poignant reality in that longest of the three pieces. I was a teenager when I saw it with Betty Garrett and Larry Parks, and remember how they strong the start was. As the time, it was my favorite, though you can't resist the farce in the third act.

When they announced, I had a radical idea: start the play with the 2nd act, then do the third, take a break, and save the serious piece for the end. Not the first multi-piece evening to end on the more dramatic note. (See Noel Coward in Three Keys, etc.) If they started broad and found the human scale in the first play late, the laughter-sated audience might be more willing to go to new place. No one will agree, and it won't happen, but I would be curious to learn if the audience would adjust, seeing Parker looking dowdier, recognizing the new grounded world of an estranged couple.

Updated On: 2/28/22 at 08:50 AM

I see your original post about reordering the acts.

Auggie27 said: "Exactly, as I posted above. Simon was commended for that challenging act in the original production, Scott and Stapleton, two superb dramatic actors, finding pathos and a poignant reality in that longest of the three pieces."

Can anyone familiar with the 1971 movie comment on whether it kept that darker tone, or was it lightened for Matthau and his fans? Also, did the movie gain anything (other than two more star names to sell tickets) by splitting up the female roles among 3 actresses (I know they kept Stapleton for the first "act."

This is Marc Shaiman’s original score.

Dollypop said: "ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "That set and costume design looks fabulous and both actors seem to be having a great time.

Is that stock music in the montage, or is that Marc Shaiman's score for the show?"

As someone who's done a number of theater reviews in the local papers, the phrase they "seem to be having a great time" is used when the reviewer is having a very difficult time saying something positive about a bland performance."

Or maybe also by someone who is merely describing what they see in a 49-second long b-roll clip? I don't think the person is claiming to be writing a review of the production itself.

I'll just say this wasn't for me. I think instead of writing one great play, Simon wrote 3 mediocre ones and slapped them together. I really could have done without Act 2 and if it was removed for a shorter evening overall the audience wouldn't have noticed either. Majority of people were there for SJP and Broderick (for some reason). Both got entrance applause when they came in at every act which seemed like overkill.

The main thing I wanted to bring up are the lottery seats. I was sat in the balcony (fine) and the tickets were marked partial view (maybe fine). The issue is that the part of my view obstructed was the bedroom/bathroom which made a large majority of the show feel like a radio play as I stared at the wall and back of lights. For Act 1 I probably saw 75% of the show. Act 2 was played mostly outside the bedroom so I saw about 90%. Act 3 is where I was screwed. I'd say I saw about 25% of the show because there is so much played on the very side of the stage. Avoid A22 in the balcony if at all possible...even at $39. They're selling A18 marked as partial view for $79 which I find outrageous. If I was more invested in the show I might have cared more about how little of it I saw.

This is the best performance I've seen Broderick give in 10+ years. (I know, that's faint praise.)

I was unfamiliar with the play going in beyond the concept, and it is a really thin piece of writing. Maybe George C. Scott and Maureen Stapleton and Mike Nichols could bring more juice to it, but the play just feels tedious and each act feels like it goes on for about 15 minutes too long.

In part 1, she was trying to bring the weight, and he wasn't up to it; I can definitely see how someone like George Scott or Jon Hamm or Jefferson Mays or David Hyde Pierce could find the right balance that Broderick can't. They are probably best in the second part (which has the worst writing).

We all laughed plenty. The Sex and the City fans seemed to have a nice time. It's gorgeously designed, SJP is fine-to-good, and they both appear to be having fun working together. But this is neither great art or great entertainment. It is a dinner of last week's cotton candy...which for some people might be enjoyable enough.

Some people have been hoping that Neil Simon's work can get reappraised and discovered by a new generation, who could find new ways to make it fresh. However, between this and the tepid response to Brighton Beach Memoirs and 2005 The Odd Couple, Neil Simon will remain a relic on Broadway for a while more.

Updated On: 3/3/22 at 04:37 PM

rattleNwoolypenguin said: "I think Neil Simon is a writer who unfortunately will have a lot of his work start to fade with time. He's probably best suited as scene study for kids in high school cause the objectives are often very clear what's going on."

I would like to think someone can find a way to reinvent his work and make it fresh and relevant while keeping the text intact, in the same way that David Cromer's OUR TOWN and YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU and Robert O'Hara's LONG DAY'S were subtly adapted.

I don't know Simon's full body of work, but LOST IN YONKERS and the 3 Eugene plays are probably the ones that have the greatest chance of finding commercial viability as dramas, right? ODD COUPLE and SUNSHINE BOYS will continue to get produced in amateur theaters around the country, and maybe could come to Broadway with the right star pairings (Kroll & Mulaney? Nathan & Harvey?). But the evolution of comedy styles means that some of what was funny in the 60s-70s is cute or dated when produced in a naturalistic, "classic" way, like with this play. The naturalism of the surroundings could be the killer.

Updated On: 3/3/22 at 05:28 PM

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "This is the best performance I've seen Broderick give in 10+ years."

Did you see his "Shining City" at Irish Rep a couple of years ago. He was cast against type but gave a totally un-Broderick type of performance and was very, very good.

I don't even care about the show, that curtain call speech by SJP made me cry, it was just beautiful and it just made me feel so grateful about us being able to see theatre on the other side of the last two years.

quizking101 said: "What do they have on the merch end of things? Going tonight and looking for a windowcard."

Answering my own question - they had TWO windowcards, one with the Playbill design and the other in color - both beautiful, as well as the usual t-shirt, tote bags, and whatnot.

As for the show…meh. To me, this entire production was very much the straight Play answer to “The Music Man” - a revival of a show with two prestige stars that may not have otherwise been mounted. The whole show just felt very dated and stale to me. As someone said in a previous post, I could TOTALLY see how this would land in the early 1970s, but it doesn’t hit the same way now.

Broderick…Oy. He definitely loosens up throughout the night and is much better by Act 3, but something has happened with him in the last few years where his characterization and delivery in nearly any role he takes is just so STIFF and CONSTIPATED. It’s hard to believe he once had the range for roles from “Brighton Beach Memoirs” to “Torch Song Trilogy”. While the roles in this are very much “straight man” roles, the character shouldn’t feel so constricted (or in the case of Act II, creepy).

Meanwhile, on the complete other end, SJP was actually pretty damn good. I wasn’t sure what to expect from her on stage (though I’m fully aware she is an accomplished stage actress) and I could easily see her getting a Tony nomination. She acted circles around her own husband and nailed every laugh line, especially in Act I, when the audience applauded no less than 6 times because of how she landed the joke. It made dusty old material seem a little fresher. She was clearly the driving force of the whole evening and looked like she was having a ball up there. Even at curtain call, you could see her beaming with a smile and blowing kisses to the audience. I honestly wonder how this play would’ve been if she was working opposite someone other than her husband.

I sat in Balcony Right C14 - the view was mostly fine, but just take into account when buying tickets that the further house right you sit (regardless of section), Act 3 will be hard to enjoy since it’s mostly played upstage left.