Priest's NYC Trip and Reviews Part II (Bee, W, DRS, Democracy and Rent) — Page 2

you are right. I do apologize.

no. just a horrid choice of words on the part of Shwartz. trust me, if you have to put that much thought into it you're only making it worse...

Updated On: 2/14/05 at 10:45 PM

AWESOME reviews. You're so frickin' lucky. Weren't you JUST in NY less than 2 months ago?

---

Democracy

I was highly looking forward to this. I heard mostly great things about it. Only one person I have spoken to didn't enjoy it, but that person was someone whose opinion I HIGHLY regard, so I didn't know what to expect.

Being a fan of Frayn's other work, I was anxious nonetheless.

The show starts off slowly. Not being familiar with German history at this time period, it took me awhile to become engrossed with the action onstage. To be frank, it gave me a headache for the first few moments.

However, about twenty minutes into the first act, everything clicked. The wit and intelligence caught my attention but it was the characters that had my heart racing.

Without giving away spoilers, there was an incident a little over midway through the first act that gave my heart a leap. And my heart was racing and racing all the way through intermssion until the end of the play. Frayn could have explored his ideas of a democracy, a place where every person is a seperate country ("There are 60 million Germanies") and it is just a bunch of fighting egos, a little more intricately, but for the most part succeeds.

My major problem with the production was the theatre. The Brooks Atkinson is one of the smaller theatres on Broadway, but I felt a more intimate space would have made the play increasingly entrancing. I was sitting way up in the balcony, and couldn't view the actors expressions as well as I would hope.

The decision to not use mics is both refreshing and problematic. At times the actors spit out their lines so quickly, it is hard to understand them without amplification. However, it gives the play a raw and real quality that suited the play. And it heightened the emotional jolt whenever the Chancellor would speak with a mic.

The actor who most critics saw as the production's major flaw, I saw as its major asset. As Chancellor Willy Brandt, James Naughton gives a smooth, underplayed performance that works remarkably well. His smoothness, an apparent Naughton trademark which he used so well to grab the Tony as Billy Flynn in the recent Chicago revival, makes his charisma and prescence shine through. But his real gift is what he says through his eyes. Like the character he portrays, Naughton says and does the most when saying nothing.

In the pivotal role of Gunter Guillaume, Richard Thomas, I felt, was highly miscast. His performance rubbed me as too much whining, specifically in the first act. It is not until late in the second act that Thomas seems to give his character any real emotion or drive. But depsite his weak performance, his dismay for betraying a man he came to love is heart-breaking.

I felt the weakest performance was given by Richard Masur. A usually fine actor, his performance just seemed so out of place in this production and in this setting.

But the actor who gives a brilliant, low-key performance is the always dependable John Dossett. He was the actor to whom my eyes would turn to, so I could see his reaction and catch his every move. I hope he begins to get the recognition he deserves.

The set is used to great effect, especially the file folders set against all the shelves. A little too white, though.

I highly enjoyed Democracy and would recommend it to anyone, but the play would have been better suited to a smaller theatre. And if Frayn had known more about what he wanted to say, perhaps the audience would have listened to the words more intently, instead of being entranced by the performances of the actors.



****Side note: The group I went with made me embarassed to be a teenager. At least 7 of the 18 people I went with SLEPT through nearly the entire first act. Then all but four of them LEFT AT INTERMISSION. This might be stuck-up, but I find leaving at intermission, no matter how much you may like or dislike the show, is incredibly disrespectful to the actors. The only reasons I feel are legitimate for leaving a show is if the subject matter makes you uncomfortable or if you are having health problems. Some of them were verbally bashing the show INSIDE the theatre. One of them, who is perhaps one of the dullest and most annoying people I have been around, yelled out "The only thing this play is good for is studying the dream cycle"
--The funny thing is that all these people are, or claim to be, theatre people. Perhaps I'm being a bit snobby, but I found it very distasteful.

---

Updated On: 2/15/05 at 05:36 PM

Excellent review, Priest.

And about the "Mutual of Omaha" joke, I think most people are too young to understand it.

I actually liked Richard Thomas' performance. It was Naughton's that took until Act II to grow on me- his silences during Brandt's vacation with Gillaume spoke volumes. But I had the same reaction as you to being plunged headfirst into German history I was unfamiliar with. :)

And you're absolutely not being snobby when you criticize the behavior of your group, Priest. But let's face it- a lot of people our age who claim to be "theater people" are actually just fascinated with their own theatrics.

Plum, it seems as if most everyone else agrees with you about Naughton and Thomas.

I was shocked to find that most of the critics disliked Naughton.

The only critic, that I read, who agreed with me about Naughton was Feingold of the Village Voice.

"The fullest performance, ironically, is the one that's been most carped about, James Naughton's Brandt. He starts out as the usual Naughton smoothie, but digs deeper emotionally as the narrative rolls on. Since Frayn has given him such rich soil to mine, he unearths emotional gold. The frightening notion that democracy might be an inherently unworkable system takes up memorable, harrowing residence in his eyes. "

---

"And about the "Mutual of Omaha" joke, I think most people are too young to understand it."

That may be true on the board, but I would imagine people in the audience will understand.

A sizeable laugh went up around me after the "Mutual of Omaha" joke -- it seemed like most of us got it.

---

Priest, thanks for sharing with us your opinions. I always enjoy reading what others think of the same shows I've seen.

I do disagree with you about leaving at intermission. I'm not exactly sure how someone near you falling asleep or leaving makes you embarrassed to be a teenager. As a regular theatre-goer, I see many adults do the same. In fact, I've seen more adults nodding off and leaving than teenagers.

Secondly, I have left plays/musicals at intermission before and think nothing of it. Most audience members get up to use the restroom, stretch their legs, or chat with friends during intermission. If I have paid money for a ticket and am not enjoying the show, I see nothing wrong with slipping out. I agree that you shouldn't make a scene and boast that you are leaving. I have seen people stand up and leave during a show. That I have problems with. Slipping out at intermission, I don't.

As I've said before, I'm a Television News Anchor. As an on-air talent, I know if we are having a slow news day, if a story becomes boring, or if people just don't like me, they will flip the channel. I'm aware of this and it doesn't bother me. I am providing a service and for some, entertainment. If I or my program aren't living up to expectations, I would flip to. You can't tell me you haven't watched a television show and haven't flipped the channel? What about stopping a movie half-way though?

Now, some will say that theatre is more personal. Is it really? The actors can't see out very far. They won't miss me. If I don't make a scene, chances are they will never know I left. I on the other hand see a daily ratings sheet. I know exactly how many people left during my "performance."

My point is, if I have paid for a ticket and am not entertained or moved, I have a right to leave, and will. In March I will have seen over 100 shows. I've only walked out on two.

---

Updated On: 2/15/05 at 09:12 PM

Oh, how terribly bright they are. Can't say I'm surprised, though. That opinion is implicit in a lot of postings here, where you'd think people would know better.

Updated On: 2/15/05 at 09:19 PM

Well, to be fair, only one of them left for that reason. I would hope.

---