Seating - Golden Theatre Ave. Q

[armchairdictator]

Posted: 1/6/06 at 1:54pm

I was lucky to get seats to Friday's performance - it is amazing how quickly they get sold by Tuesday. The only downside is I'm in rear mezzanine row D. I was told that the row C tickets sell for a lot more, pretty strang. The row D tickets through F on the inner seating (there are apparently outer seats) are supposedly very good and there is little problem of seeing or hearing the show because the John Golden Theatre is so small. Especially Ave Q they said that you get a full view to the stage and should affect enjoyability at all. Hoping someone can confirm -- at least we are inside the theater but hope it's worth it!!!

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 1/6/06 at 2:04pm

I saw it from the rear mezz (row E or F I think) and I could see everything fine. The only downside was that my seat was broken and the springs in the seat were jabbing me in the ass the whole time, but that had nothing to do with the view

[armchairdictator]

Posted: 1/6/06 at 2:14pm

Many thanks skittles. You aren't the first to say that the view isn't bad at all. As long as you're sure it was the springs jabbing you there you should have been fine. Sounds great. Can't wait to see the show. :)

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/6/06 at 5:24pm

View from there is great..sat in F as well. Enjoy!

[armchairdictator]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 1:58pm

Thanks guys. Saw the show last night. Regarding seating, it's really not a big deal to sit all the way in the cheap seats in the rear mezzanine. The theatre is small and it's "stacked" seating where the mezzanine hangs over the orchestra. I would not want to sit in the back row or the very far corners, since while acceptable it might be just a little far to see the expressions of the actors clearly.

My review of the show: 3.75 stars... OK, maybe a 4. (4.75 for act one.)

The first act is almost all great and one of the funniest bits I've ever seen, period. An amazing, original play which had some phenomenal, clever effects up to the part about "commitment." Right there it felt like one of those plays you just want to love and be a bit of the fanzie and have a few collectibles. Unfortunately I think the writers went a bit overboard putting in way too much of an extended raunch scene instead of just stopping at the point where it was just funny and a little over the top. Soon thereafter it started losing steam and also stopped being as cleverly funny.

Addition: The musical numbers were very good and great use of the puppets and classic "musical" jokes are made. For example, there are creative use of "animated props" that "move" into various forms for the puppets to "dance" and "step" and "climb." Unfortunately, far less of this creativity makes it into the more serious Act II.

The second act felt somewhat useless and not nearly as clever as the first act, if only to cleanly end what the first act put forth. Parts felt like an excuse to extend the very brief resolution of the characters through the second act, which was *far* shorter than the first. While I thought the "Schadenfreude Song" was funny, most people in the audience didn't get the big joke. I didn't like the ending all that, which could have been done much better and ended up feeling like the writers needed to put something together to end it and did. Definitly not horrible, just felt like they ran out of gas and it definitely didn't go out with that "ending on the top" feeling. I also feel that this show could have been one long act with no intermission. It feels like it was done to comply with "Broadway mentality" and to justify a $100+ price tag that some might feel cheated if the show was one longer 85 minute act as opposed to "the usual." My superb company agreed the same and thought that the second act wasn't nearly as good as the first and that there wasn't nearly as much effort to entertain and thrill. Still, quite good.

The cast: Terrific stars and very good supporting characters. The woman who played Gary Coleman was just OK as was the "lazy husband." The real hit IMHO wasn't even Barrett Foa who does a superb job as the "main" character -- it was clearly Mary Faber who stars as Kate Monster. She is simply a *fabulous* talent who oozes charisma and possesses a phenomenal voice. The rest of the cast were good and the Japanese girl was entertaining.

Final Summary: Unquestionably one of the more entertaining shows I've seen in a while. Worth going to just for the stupendously hilarious first act and adorable Mary Faber. The puppet work makes this show so much more enjoyable than yet another love story played out in song. I might suggest getting the cheap seats to this show since it won't detract from enjoyment and IMHO are a true "best bargain on Broadway" in this theatre. For some of you, it might also not feel like you paid top dollar for a stupendously good 75 minute show stretched to 2 hours with a 15 minute intermission - some didn't care for it as much as I. Despite the average Act II, I enjoyed this show more than Dirty Rotten Scoundrels though that show has a more polished Act II. So long as you aren't too prudish and not offended if your childhood loves on Sesame Street are somewhat defiled, you'll come out with a smile and glad you went. And you definitely will laugh...




Updated On: 1/7/06 at 01:58 PM

[SweetQintheLights]

Posted: 1/7/06 at 2:18pm

Athough I don't agree on most things that you wrote, I must commend you on a wonderful summary and backing up the things you wrote. Well done!