SYLVIA Previews and Reviews — Page 2

Huh? I'm assuming he doesn't play it as a man? So then, why would the playwright write it with different genders to only have it played by one actor?

Charming show. I'm assuming they'll cut down on the run time throughout previews as it did drag a bit in spots. I wish they had mics, even though you can hear fine, it was just quite enough to make the show a little too laid back and subdued. I've never been a big fan of Broderick, lately he seems very out of it, like his mind is somewhere else. But somehow it works for his character in this show, go figure. Ashford is impeccable as always, the real reason to see the show. Her comedic bits are gold. White was a nice surprise, she had some wonderful scenes in the second. Sella was an issue for me. I've never found men dressing as women just for the sake of it to be funny. They obviously combined the male/female roles to save money but it just doesn't work at all. Most of the humor relies on the fact that he's dressed as a women. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the show. Especially as the psychiatrist when he starts talking about his gender ambiguity. Why couldn't the psychiatrist have just been a man? Or hire an actress. Overall the show is a wonderful vehicle for Ashford to show off her comedic genius. White also deserves some praise.

Updated On: 10/5/15 at 06:28 PM

I saw this tonight and found it to be such a delight. Yes, the play is totally slight, and needs to be cut down. I totally agree about the psychiatrist scenes need to go. Honestly I worry that the whole thing is too quaint and slight for today's audiences. (Tonight's audience was enthusiastic, but only the center section of the balcony had people in it, the sides were totally empty).

The reason to see this is Annaleigh Ashford. It is a true tour de force of physical comedy. She is hysterical, and I hope is remembered come TONY time. I also quite enjoyed Matthew Broderick who is well cast and definitely more engaged onstage than I've seen him in a long time. Julie White does have a tough part, but I still thoroughly enjoyed her. Robert Sella has a few unnecessary parts, but I thought his scene with Julie white in their apartment was hysterical.

Overall, the whole thing is still too long (for the content here, I think an intermission-less 1:45 would do), for the most part moves along smoothly. The physical production is lovely. The whole evening felt like comfort food. I came out with a smile on my face and sometimes that is enough.

I haven't seen this production yet -- in two weeks. But I've always loved the show and had the good fortune to play Greg opposite a very talented actress and had a very talented director.

It's kind of sad that the whole idea of the sexual ambiguity of three different characters (all being the "counselors" of the piece) goes over the head of some of the audience. There is a definite reason that one actor gives three different gendered perspectives of the relationship between the man and the dog.

Save money by casting one actor? Seriously? You didn't get it? Did you get anything out of the relationship between Greg and Sylvia other than one is a dog and the other is her master? Did you also think they could have saved more money by using a real dog?

I absolutely adore this play. I don't think it is slight. I feel as if it does have some deeper meanings behind it. I had the opportunity to play Phyllis/Tom/Leslie in a production a few years ago. The role of the three characters are meant to be played by one actor. That is the comedy behind it. A person can agree or disagree with the comedic aspect of that ploy, but that was A.R. Gurney's intention. I am not sure the play would work with three separate actors playing the trio role. I just couldn't imagine laughing nearly as much without the Phyllis/Tom/Leslie Character.

I am curious to see how long this show will last. It sounds like no one here hated the show as much as I did (I left at intermission), but I have seen the word "slight" mentioned quite a few times. I am curious to see how this fares with the critics and if it will be able to find an audience.

Saw this tonight. What a weird play. I've read it, but I didn't really remember much of it. There was a musical interlude, an epilogue. The whole thing just went on way too long.

Ashford is funny as the dog, but it's her same ol' schtick she's been doing. It's funny, but, at least for me, got less funny as the evening went on. The dog, the central character of the play, doesn't really seem to build to anything. So she's less interesting as a central character.

Broderick was terrible. His energy killed the whole show. There was no character development to him and he and Julie White just didn't seem like a real couple struggling.

White, I thought, was pretty great. She has the unfunny role, but I was really into her performance. I saw struggle, I saw hardship, I saw her come around.

Sella KILLED it. He was incredible. When he was on stage I was engaged. I thought his Phyllis was the highlight of the show to me. Just incredible. And his therapist was hilarious and interesting. How he could make so many interesting choices, yet Broderick can't make one is beyond me.

The play is just too damn long. There's really no conflict or interesting ideas brought up. I guess the idea of gender ambiguity is a thing, as mentioned by someone above, but I honestly didn't really GET what the playwrights intentions were. I felt like the whole thing was just so repetitive. And so boring. And then it ends in a depressing epilogue? Beyond weird. And today people laughed through the epilogue, which apparently annoyed the actors, I heard from someone involved in the show.

The audience started off into it, but I could feel the laughter lagging after the Phyllis scene.

It looks great though. Very beautiful design. It feels very Broadway. Direction was good, etc. It's worth the ticket price at least for that reason, but I just can't imagine it will catch on.

Talking to a friend who works on the show, the cast apparently was annoyed that tonight's audience wasn't laughing as much as previous audiences. Perhaps a reason Broderick was so lackluster in the Second Act?

I just feel like this character could have been interesting. But Broderick literally brought NOTHING to the table. He basically laughed for the first hour of the show because of Ashford.

He apparently was mad that we laughed at the Epilogue, but his line delivery was so stilted and comedic, we had to laugh.

mc1227: After re-reading your review, if by "chemistry" you mean that Broderick stood there and smiled while Ashford did her thing, then yes. But he brought NOTHING to the show. I would love to see someone else play the part. He's the anchor of the show. He's the reason we're sitting in our seats for 2.5 hrs. And he's not interesting.

And the fact that he complained afterwards that the audience wasn't laughing as much or that the audience laughed the epilogue? Well, maybe trying making a CHOICE and see how that changes things.

I didn't find broderick terribly lifeless. Schticky, yes. But the point of the play is kind of that Greg has checked out.

My daughter and I saw Saturday night's performance too. I agree with most of what was said here.....loved Ashford as Sylvia, for her physical comedy and her ability to transform "dog" actions into people actions. As a dog owner I appreciated that. She was great.

Sella was amazing in his three roles, and was still bounding with energy when he came out of the stage door. Broderick was.....well, Broderick. My daughter said he was playing his role the same way he played the last three roles we saw him in. And she's just a kid. He's become a character himself and seems to just bring that to the stage. Sometimes it's appropriate, sometimes not. I would have liked to see more from him Saturday. Julie White was okay in what I see as a one-note part.

And yes, there is some funny dialog in the epilogue that asks for laughter....so why would they mind if we laugh?

The show was too long for what it gave us. It could have been 45 minutes long and conveyed the same message.

PS...saw the LA production with Stephanie Zimbalist years ago and it had a lot more energy.

Saw the Sunday 7pm show. Got in rush line at 11:30 and was second, and got a front row aisle seat. I enjoyed the show, it was a nice evening of theatre. Ashford kills me as Sylvia, but I feel as though the character is the same until the ending, there isn't much there but she nails it. White was a standout, taking the role and making it something. I thought Sella was great, Phyllis was my favorite. The psychiatrist my least (I'll get back to it). Having seen Broderick before, I knew not to expect much, and it is essentially what I expected. He was there, adding little to nothing to a scene. I think the play is too long and the song and certain scenes need to be cut down (like the psychiatrist). I also didn't like the ending, I felt like it was totally different than the rest of the play, kind of left me unsatisfied at the end. I would recommend to someone looking to just enjoy the night at the theatre. I am going to go back with my mother, it is something she'd love.

Anyone know where the rush seats are located?