SONS OF THE PROPHET - LOVED IT!!!!- Page 2

[ooblogway]

Posted: 10/1/11 at 10:20am

I had high hopes for SONS OF A PROPHET as the message boards were mostly positive and I had several people I know see it Thursday and all liked it. But I was disappointed. I liked it better in the 90s when it was called MARVIN'S ROOM...

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/1/11 at 10:26am

Huh? You're comparing this to Marvin's Room? That's like saying you didn't like The Lion King because that story was done better in Dancing at Lughnasa. I don't see any comparisons between the two.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/1/11 at 10:32am

I can see some comparisons, but who cares really. MARVIN'S ROOM would be dated today, this play will probably feel dated in ten years, but right now it feels timely and has the gift of dialogue that resonates with the culture we live in right now.

I do think there will probably be a bit of an age divide on this one; I think it will most appeal to people in their 20s/30s, which isn't the vast majority of the Roundabout audience, but an essential part of the future of theatre so I think the Roundabout is to be commended for producing something so far outside of their normal comfort zone.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/1/11 at 10:37am

MB, what are the similarities between the two? Besides Thr two sons taking care of their uncle (and it's a completely different scenario than in MARVIN), I don't see it.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/1/11 at 10:47am

Not so much plot, but the flair of the dialogue. Marvin's Room, when it played Off Broadway felt very similar to the way this work plays now. Fresh, brash but realistic dialogue, characters faced with emotional crisis based on family/health issues, unexpected emotional connection -- which isn't to say that this play has MORE in common with Marvin's Room than half a dozen other plays that came out at the same time period -- my point being more an argument about the validity of a work (in some people's eyes) being in the eternal nature of its longevity.

Some won't like this play because they don't think it has a real plot or will say its not good because it will likely feel like a museum piece in another decade. My defense ultimately being if a play feels fresh and of the moment NOW that is something powerful and not to be dismissed - even if the piece itself ultimately has a limited shelf life, or is reminiscent of a play that was once resonant and timely for a generation before it.
Updated On: 10/1/11 at 10:47 AM

[sskeats2]

Posted: 10/1/11 at 11:22am

I'm not in my twenties nor in my thirties.Far from it. As was the woman I was with as well as the rest of the audience. And they loved it.

I think it will appeal to people who recognize good theater, IMHO.

[vegas2]

Posted: 10/1/11 at 2:08pm

In what way does it appeal more to people in their 20s and 30s? I am still deciding whether to see it, and sometimes shows targeting that age group (Rent, Spring Awakening, Avenue Q) do nothing for me, while others (Sleep No More) I enjoy. It seems rare that a straight play would target a younger age group, since they seem more drawn to musicals.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/1/11 at 2:33pm

I say the play may have more appeal to people in their 20s or 30s because its written by a playwright who is that age.

He is writing in the voice of his generation and in a loose structure that (according to the people I saw who didn't like the play - all of them older) is bombastic and without a real narrative payoff.

That coupled that most of the people on this board who have really loved the play have been in their 20s, makes me think that it could in part be generational thing.

I'm happy to hear that skeats feels like that is not the case, and that the play will have wide cross appeal, but there were definitely some more traditional theatre goers who were dissenters.

[sskeats2]

Posted: 10/1/11 at 3:19pm

Across the aisle from me were two guys in their late twenties or early thirties who didn't like it at all.

I think you're generalizing too much about which audience it appeals to. Knowing the roundabout, I doubt they would put on something just for that younger group.
Maybe in the black box. But even that is a generalization and projection on my part.

It happens to be a damn good play and I think it will have a long shelf life, especially in the regionals. The protagonist issues are not isolated to merely the age of this very talented playwright.

[notabb]

Posted: 10/2/11 at 12:01pm

MichaelBennett , I'll just jump on and say I'm a lot older than 20' and 30's and you'll see from my comments that I really liked this. I don't know where the divide is on SONS OF THE PROPHET , BUT I DON'T think it's age. So damn funny.

[Cearsgk]

Posted: 10/2/11 at 5:51pm

I saw it in Boston. I'm 60. I liked it a whole lot.

[jdrye222]

Posted: 10/3/11 at 1:31am

I loved it. I could go on and on, but I don't really feel like it, I'm just enjoying how it made me feel. It is a rare play with humor and emotion, and meaning, and it doesn't make an effort to tie up a really distinct message, it just exists how it wants.
PS - I totally get the connection to "Marvin's Room" - if only because the humor in both plays makes the emotional connections and serious moments that much more poignant... We can all recognize both the humor and emotion in every day life that is depicted in both plays. However, one thing you cannot dismis when discussing "Marvin's Room" - It was written and performed (originally) within the realm of the AIDS crisis, when friends were unexpectedly caring for friends, lovers, etc, and illness was completely out of whack with age and perceived health... Even though its plot doesn't deal with AIDS, McPherson was ill when he wrote it, and had just finished dealing with his lover's death, and the AIDS crisis really permeated that play on another level.

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 10/3/11 at 5:22am

Michael Bennett, as you know I'm not in my 20s or 30s and I liked it a great deal. The friend I was with is more than a decade older than I, and he liked it a lot. (And he's the toughest critic I know, especially when it comes to acting.) We ran into several friends of his at the performance. I'd guess that they're all at least in their 60s, and I think one or two of them may be in their 70s, and there was a consensus of enthusiasm for the play and production.

In some ways, I'd think it might resonate even more for people who are a bit older. Not that many people who are 29 are dealing with some of the things that the leading character is dealing with. By the time you're in your 50s or 60s, you're very lucky if you're not dealing with them.

I can see the comparison with Marvin's Room, which I saw at Playwrights and liked a lot. I think this is a slightly tougher play than that one was, and I liked it a lot, too.

[Kad]

Posted: 10/9/11 at 6:08pm

I just saw this this afternoon.

It is now one-act. I don't know if anything substantial has been cut, obviously. It seemed as though an act break would've occurred after the scene at the bus station.

I thought it was a fantastic production of a wonderful script, with marvelous performances. The climactic scene at the meeting was astounding (and hilarious! Those offhand comments by the two moderating women slayed me).

I think it's a truly remarkable and funny production that has a lot to say.

The largely older audience really seemed to enjoy it. It was the grey hairs leading the ovation at the end. (though the older gentleman behind me did not seem a fan of the shirtless making out. Whatever.)

[jbm2]

Posted: 10/9/11 at 8:17pm

Would a 14 yo girl enjoy this show? Is it appropriate for that age?

[Kad]

Posted: 10/10/11 at 12:25am

It's definitely appropriate, but I'm not sure a 14-yr-old would enjoy it. It depends on the 14-yr-old.

[dshnookie]

Posted: 10/10/11 at 1:27am

Kad, I saw the 2nd preview and it did not have an intermission. Do you know if they had been tinkering with an intermission between then and when you saw it?

jbm2, there is a scene SPOILER................... where two men kiss somewhat passionately with their shirts off. you be the judge.

[Kad]

Posted: 10/10/11 at 1:46am

Well, the program states that there would be a 15-minute intermission... so, I'm assuming they have.

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 10/10/11 at 7:42am

I was at the first preview and there was no intermission.

[theatreguy]

Posted: 10/10/11 at 10:46am

There was an intermission when it played at the Huntington Theater this summer. It was cut during the final week of rehearsals in New York so there wasn't enough time to change the first round of Playbills.

[Owen22]

Posted: 10/12/11 at 10:37pm

I HATED the first scene, I was really worried, but went on to really enjoy this play. The last scene, though I didn't hate as much as the first, was very problematic for me.

SPOILER

The final scene introduces a character who we have never seen before to help us with the denouement. That's just bad playwrighting (though she does have one FABULOUS line). Some plot points are left unresolved, most of the important ones. I'm sure the playwright had a point in doing so, but it was frustrating.

Plus, the gnome in the logo/artwork...a gnome is referenced once and, unless I'm being thick, had no impact on anyone or any of the themes of the play. Unless the gnome was Santino and the black eye represents his trials...? If that's it then...ew....
Updated On: 10/12/11 at 10:37 PM

[MadonnaMusical]

Posted: 10/13/11 at 4:20am

I laughed the ENTIRE time, but felt that the ending was rushed, and most of the plots didn't get resolved. I could have easily sat there for 20 more minutes till the play should have actually finished. He had our attention, he should have used it to finish his story....

So... YES... I loved it.... but it was like really good sex, and then your partner finishes before you do... and you're left wanting more....

there's been a lot of Pulitzer buzz included in the positive word of mouth.... I don't think so.

[Kad]

Posted: 10/13/11 at 11:16am

I didn't mind the unresolved plot points, as that tied into the overall theme of the piece. Nor did I mind the sudden appearance of the kindergarten teacher at the end, whose symbolism was obvious and I think effective.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/13/11 at 11:21am

Exactly. That last scene wasn't about the Kindergarten teacher, it was about him.

Also, how would you have "resolved" everything and not made the play either 3 hours long and span an additional 10 years or seem false and forced?

[Owen22]

Posted: 10/13/11 at 11:44am

I don't know. I just liked the characters enough that I wanted to know what happened to them.

Very near the end the playwright introduces the idea that SPOILER.......

.....Santino's character's ails might be psychosomatic. If this is what we were supposed to believe, then the character's continued search is so sad it sort of thwarts the optimistic ending...
Updated On: 10/13/11 at 11:44 AM