Sarah Ruhl's Passion Play

[Play Esq.]

Posted: 4/29/10 at 7:05pm

Just bought tickets for a performance this weekend. Anyone seen it yet?

[theaterkid1015]

Posted: 4/29/10 at 11:34pm

I was at the first preview last night, and it absolutely blew me away. I liked it so much more more than THE VIBRATOR PLAY. It's definitely got some construction issues, but I really don't feel like they're anything major. I really hope you enjoy it as much as I did!!

[bjh2114]

Posted: 4/29/10 at 11:35pm

I am going May 15th. What was the runtime theaterkid?

[theaterkid1015]

Posted: 4/29/10 at 11:44pm

3 hours and 30 minutes...It was a a first preview, so I'm guessing they'll aim to get about 5 minutes off. But, there's two ten minute intermissions. And even last night, it did NOT feel like it was too long.


Oh, and they pass out bread and wine or grape juice during the first intermission, free of charge.

Updated On: 4/29/10 at 11:44 PM

[chinkie azn jai]

Posted: 4/30/10 at 12:13am

Is the director the same one when the show was at the Goodman Theatre, Mark Wing-Davey? I remember seeing it and scratching my head a lot. I think a lot of the symbolism went over my head.

[Play Esq.]

Posted: 4/30/10 at 9:35am

^Thank you! Even more excited about this play now! I remember first reading about it and thinking that it has the makings of the next "Angeles in America."

Can't wait!

[theaterkid1015]

Posted: 5/8/10 at 1:53am

Bumping this, dying to hear more thoughts.

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 5/8/10 at 4:50am

I saw at the Yale Rep a couple of years ago, and I thought it was amazing. I am glad that its getting another major production.

[scott68]

Posted: 5/10/10 at 3:08am

I saw it this afternoon and thought it was absolutely brilliant. Yes, there are some issues, but I went in with no real knowledge or expectations and walked out with my head spinning.

[Play Esq.]

Posted: 5/10/10 at 10:53am

Absolutely marvelous experience! Such a completely joyful production and truly epic in scope (if not in production values).

I've always found Ruhl's work to be somewhat cold and a little too smart for her own good. However, this is the first play of hers that I felt finally lived up to her reputation. And, surprisingly, despite (or perhaps because of) the play's ecumenical themes, I felt that it was her most accessible work to date. (Full disclosure: I did not see Ruhl's Euridice.) Also, I was rather impressed that a clearly boisterous liberal (see the program author notes) was able to discuss the Reagan-era (and Reagan himself) without a whiff of condescension or arrogance.

What the production lacks in production values, it certainly makes up for in creativity. A strong cast (if not top notch) drive this play forward. Even though the running time was roughly 3 hours, I felt it flew by. Ruhl has created a decidedly modern, entertaining, and thoughtful interpretation of the Passion Play.

Making it that much more of a unique experience, the play is housed in a converted church near Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn.

Such a treat!
Updated On: 5/10/10 at 10:53 AM

[angelplays]

Posted: 5/11/10 at 11:19am

It was back to 3 and a half hours on Friday, and I felt every second of it.

Color me the opposite of everyone here. I didn't get it. Symbolism is only good as long as your audience gets it, and from comments I heard from those around me who didn't know any of the performers (apparently Friday was friends and family night) I wasn't the only one who didn't get the fish throughout. They only make sense in the first play (she calls them acts, but it felt more like three distinct plays around the same basic theme).

[Vespertine1228]

Posted: 5/11/10 at 1:43pm

I thought it was fascinating. I'm not sure how much it actually amounted to, but it didn't feel long to me at all, and I'm not a fan of Sarah Ruhl. It's definitely worth seeing.

The space itself is absolutely fantastic too. I heard the staff saying that this is the first of several productions planned for the Irondale Center and that's great news. I look forward to seeing many more shows there.

[whatever2]

Posted: 5/11/10 at 1:48pm

angel: i was there on "strangers' night", and the audience reaction was overwhelmingly positive.

you and i do share what i suspect is a minority opinion on the fish -- i still havent decided what they mean in this play. (of course, fish are very rich sources for biblical imagery, but the way they were used didn't lead me to a biblical allusion.)

while i agree that the three acts can -- and, i believe the program notes indicate, have -- stand alone, i think the integration is a little tighter than your post acknowledges ... there's just an awful lot of continuity: the significance of the roles the cast play from act to act, the continuity (attempting to avoid a spolier here) in the charcter of The Village Idiot/Violet, and a lot of the imagery (including the crazy fish, the ships, the jack-in-the-box), to name just a few.

to me, this was a bit like a kushner work (an analogy that i think has been made before): full of big ideas kind of swirling around in a muddle. but definitely a provocative piece of theater, imho. this definitely is not a perfect play or a flawless production (i actually (!) kind of wish i'd seen it out at the Goodman), but anyone who has a real passion (no pun intended) for theater really needs to see this.

[angelplays]

Posted: 5/11/10 at 1:52pm

The space is very cool. However, there is no soundproofing between different areas in the building. Friday night there was an event going on in the lower portion (I'm guessing some sort of a dance with very loud music), and we could hear music and speaking from that area bleeding into the upper area where the play is. That's really something they should look into correcting as it made focusing on the play even more difficult. They actually made an announcement between the first two segments that was basically to the effect of "Yeah, we know there's noise. Oh well...we share space." They obviously didn't use those words, but that's the tone the announcement was made with.

[Play Esq.]

Posted: 5/12/10 at 6:52pm

Bumping this for critics' reviews.

[theaterkid1015]

Posted: 5/13/10 at 12:32am

Isherwood is positive/tepid
http://theater.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/theater/reviews/13passion.html?ref=theater

And, I also still have no idea what the fish mean. However, I'm not in the camp of "Symbolism is only good as long as your audience gets it" personally. I kind of like that I'm still grappling with it, though I understand the frustration.

[Brick]

Posted: 5/13/10 at 4:23pm

"Her unmistakable voice — poetic and quirky, underpinned with serious feeling and even more serious intelligence — trumpets forth in brash, impressive form in this ambitious and frisky if sometimes unruly (sorry) play[.]"

Can that be the first time a Times writer meekly criticizes, and even apologizes for the criticism?

[scott68]

Posted: 5/13/10 at 5:02pm

He isn't apologizing for the criticism, he's apologizing for the implied pun on the playwright's name.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/20/10 at 10:15pm

The length didn't bother me - it was the overly ambitious script that ended up conveying nothing that did!

I love Ruhl - I'm one of her biggest fans. Hell, I sat for 3.5 hours on an uncomfortable chair in a church in Brooklyn to see this. I give her and Wing-Davey and ETE so much credit for putting it on, but it's just not a very good series of plays.

Too many metaphors (what the hell is up with the fish?), too many plot devices that go nowhere (why does the sky go red? Why can the Village Idiot turn it red? Why is Violet obsessing on birds?) and heavy handed symbolism.

All I know is that Act III would be fantastic as a stand-alone, with Fusuma's performance at its center. Very well acted, all around.

But T. Ryder Smith stole the show. If this were Broadway this year, he'd have that Tony locked up just for his entrance as Elizabeth I.

[Brick]

Posted: 5/20/10 at 10:34pm

Ah, thanks Scott68.

[chinkie azn jai]

Posted: 5/21/10 at 12:22am

I remember seeing this a few years ago and not knowing what the fish meant. I feel so much better knowing others don't get it either.

[theaterkid1015]

Posted: 5/21/10 at 12:58am

Agree about T. Ryder Smith and the ensemble acting as a whole, yankeefan.

And, I can agree with the play being overly ambitious. I think it takes on about as many themes as it possibly can. The symbolism is heavyhanded, though it never becomes clear what it means.

I don't know if it was the language or the staging or what, but something about this production just made all that not matter to me. I'm still considering the questions raised, grappling with the symbols (and finding different answers to them each time), and that's better than I can say for most of the new crop of plays.

Sorry, I usually don't say much on these boards, but like I said, something about this play really touched me.