Question about The Philanthropist

[sadann]

Posted: 6/23/09 at 11:53pm

I know this question has been asked before by other posters, but I didn't see one regarding this particular show. I, like some other people on this board, become a bit jumpy when there are gunshots in a production, especially if I don't know when or where they'll occur. That said, can someone who has seen "The Philanthropist" tell me about the gunshots? I believe there are some in the introduction to the play as well as when Jonathan Cake's character has a gun a bit later on. I would appreciate it if someone could confirm this and tell me if there are additional ones at other points in the play. Thank you.

[HITcards]

Posted: 6/24/09 at 4:21am

*************************MAJOR SPOILER ALERT*********************















So at the end of the first scene, Jonathan Cake accidentally shoots himself in the head right after they discuss a character shooting himself in the head and his remains being splattered on the back wall, which they do. At the end of the play, Matthew Broderick is holding a gun and looks poised to kill himself. He doesn't shoot the gun.

[mc1227]

Posted: 6/24/09 at 8:13am

**********Spoiler*************************

It is not Jonathan Cake's character that shoots himself, it is a young playwright that is demonstrating something to the characters of Phillip and Don.

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 6/24/09 at 9:29am

Could someone PM me a quick run down of the second act? It would be much appreciated as I left at intermission, I couldn't take it anymore.

[ken8631]

Posted: 6/24/09 at 9:54am

I only remember the one gunshot. It was the highlight of the play. Otherwise, it was a regular snoozefest. Most boring play I've ever seen on Broadway.... Wife agrees.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 6/24/09 at 9:55am

I'm surprised there aren't more gunshots - the audience shooting themselves after witnessing another truly bad performance by Matthew Blahderick

[ken8631]

Posted: 6/24/09 at 9:57am

He gave the most boring, bland performance I've ever seen him give....

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 6/24/09 at 11:09am

I kind of enjoyed it. There's plenty of better stuff on Broadway, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as everyone made it out to be.

[ken8631]

Posted: 6/24/09 at 11:51am

Yes it is....

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 6/24/09 at 12:42pm

I agree. This was only the second time that I left a show at intermission. The other time was the New Group's production of Mourning Becomes Electra earlier this year.

[mc1227]

Posted: 6/25/09 at 6:52am

As a Roundabout subscriber, I was extremely disappointed in their productions this year. I just don't understand why they would revive an already awful play like this one. The rest of the season was almost as awful as well.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 6/25/09 at 7:57am

Don't blame the play - though it is a difficult play to do and requires a very talented actor in the lead part. They had one when this production was done in England. Matthew Broderick is not a talented actor, at least, not any more and he does the same tired schtick in every pklay he does. It's time to stop hiring this very boring actor.

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 6/25/09 at 9:15am

My real problem with Roundabout is not so much with the productions, it is with their choice of shows. Sometimes they will get lucky, like with Waiting for Godot (which I saw last week and thoroughly enjoyed) but they have had some total misfires the past few seasons.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 6/25/09 at 11:22am

The problem with this production is that it's playing in a rather large venue and has a set that works against the actors.

The original London production was done in-the-round and the audience was drawn into the play because they were seated around it. The dinner party scene was especially effective in that version. Still, I don't know if this was ever a terrific play.

The Roundabout's set is too vast for a small cast play and the actors (many of them wearing clunky 60's style footwear) have to make long crosses to enter and exit. It truly slowed the pacing of the play.

Am I the only one who thinks that Matthew Broderick is the most uncharismatic actor on the stage these days? He was excellent in BRIGHTON BEACH and TORCHSONG but has gone downhill ever since.

I enjoyed the performances of Steven Weber and Jonathan Cake, though. Couldn't help thinking what the play would have been like if Broderick and Weber had switched roles.

[mc1227]

Posted: 6/25/09 at 9:43pm

I believe that's a great point about Weber and Broderick switching roles. It might have worked better, however the play itself is such a bloody bore regardless. It has no point whatsoever and I can see that it would be better received in London, but there's no way it could have been successful here.