Slave Play coming to Broadway in September?- Page 12

[ArtMan]

Posted: 9/25/19 at 11:03am

ArtMan said: "I'm in the minority on this. I hated it and couldn't wait for it to be over. The best thing was the legroom of my $39 ticket in the rear mezz."

When I posted I didn't state why I didn't care for it.  I wanted to avoid any type of spoilers, but since viewing the thread, anything I would have said, was already mentioned, so I guess it's not a spoiler.  I enjoyed the first act and it kept my interest.  I also enjoyed the seriousness of the third act and thought it was well written and acted.  It was the middle with the therapy that just dragged on and on.  Some parts were okay, but the actresses playing the therapists, I just couldn't get into.  I also didn't like the set when you could see the orchestra audience.  It distracted  my attention at times.  I guess the director want the rest of the audience to see others reactions?  If wrong, please correct me.  They also filmed it Monday night, but I didn't see any cameras, since I was in the rear mezz.

[Kad]

Posted: 9/25/19 at 11:15am

The set is literally a wall of mirrors... I think it's pretty safe to assume that the director wanted the audience to be reflected at itself. 

[joevitus]

Posted: 9/25/19 at 12:13pm

Mike Barrett said: "joevitus said: "Mike Barrett said: "I’m not sure what’s odd about a showing being liked and not performing well at the box office. It hasn’t opened yet and has no stars, it’s going to be a tough sell. The Prom did poor in sales for most of their run but their reception has been positive online for the most part. Some shows I think just provide more broad appeal to theatre goers who are willing to pay more $$, Slave Play likely won’t be that."

I don't think it'sodd, except inthe wide disparity between its reception here and at the box office. That the disparity exists to begin with is fairly predictable (non-musicals aren't generally as popular, challeging shows alienate the "I just want to relax" crowd, theater enthusiasts can be counted on to have more interest than the casual theatergoer). I would have expected to see a couple of more negative assessments to compare the positive ones to than I've seen so far."

Thats fair. I think your point of theater enthtuisiasts finding this show might be the more accurate thing. Id presume a play like this will attract more "serious" theatre goers or at least theatre goers who want something thought provoking. Its also still in previews, where I tend to find more hardcore theatre goers attend. I think it'll be more interesting to see grosses after opening and reviews have come out. Plays tend to struggle in gross anyways though, sadly."

Indeed. I can't tell you how frustrating it is, halfway across the country, trying to get a sense of this show from second hand reports. I want to be part of this conversation, because this is a living moment of theater going on. To be honest, what I've read apart from the plaudits here does not make it sound like a great show. I've tried to find a copy of the American Theater issue that contained the script, but that's not going to well (unsurprising, considering the show's support among ardent theatergoers, that people aren't letting go of their copies, yet). I'm trying to figure out the quality of the show from what people say here, what the critics are saying, the box office is (but that least of all) and therefore figure out what I think. But I'm obviously the blindman trying to describe the elephant, and I'm hanging onto every report I encounter, trying to put the thing together in my mind.

[joevitus]

Posted: 9/25/19 at 12:13pm

Kad said: "The set is literally a wall of mirrors... I think it's pretty safe to assume that the director wanted the audience to be reflected at itself."

That's a pretty cool visual cue. 

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 9/25/19 at 12:52pm

Kad said: "After missing this at NYTW, I finally had the opportunity to see this last night. It's a smart, very well acted and directed production, but not nearly as provocative or innovative as its hype suggests. It front-loads the "edgiest"content- the antebellum sexual stuff- into the first half hour. It then shifts and the meat of the piece, the largest part, its heart, reveals itself as something pretty conventional: thecrucible ensemble play. You know, the play where a group ofcharacters are placed in a controlled environment they cannot really leave (group therapy, an audition, a competition, etc) and then one-by-one have a major moment. The forward momentum is the fact that you know everyone will get a moment.

It's here that the play disappointed me as a piece of drama. Rhetorically, it's great. It is well-written and makes extremely insightful arguments about racial dynamics. But as a piece of drama... it's a letdown. It's an extremely contrived scenario that does not hold up to any sort of scrutiny, and the characters are less fleshed out people than they are vehicles for these arguments. It strains credulity that three characters each come to such profound epiphanies about their identities and themselves in rapid succession. Harris created an ideal situation for him to make pop-psychological and sociologicalarguments on his terms. And it gives the actors great showcase moments. But it feels just so... contrived and safe. The black characters' romantic partners are essentially straw men to be knocked down, while their therapist interlocutors are merely necessary for the action.

The last third of the play is the most intimate and raw, the only time we see the characters seem truly human. It's largely a stunning monologue by Joaquina Kalukango, and it's here that Harris' dramatic writing is strongest. It is poetic and evocative, suffused with pathos. But, of course, since this sequence is just Kalukango and Paul Nolan, it means the other characters are denied such humanity.

I could not help but think of two other plays this year that tackled similar themes, though I am loathe to lump these works all together- Fairview and Strange Loop. Of this trio of works by black writers that really interrogate what it means to be black and what it means to be black and live under white supremacy, it makes sense Slave Play is the one to go to Broadway. Its writer is the most charismatic... and the work, despite its hype, is the most conventional. Fairview made its point by deconstructing and then turning the form inside-out. Strange Loop was incredibly specific to the experience of its fat, black, and queer writer and used that to create a musical character study. But Slave Play is- depictions of some fetish-driven sex aside, and despite Harris' provocative posture- oddly accessible. I can't imagine anyone being made uncomfortable by its ideas, though I run in more progressive circles than many in a Broadway audience.

It is giving voice to ideas that aren't really heard on Broadway, and that itself is a big deal. It means it will reach a larger, more diverse audience than it ever could've off-Broadway. But as a work of drama, I can't help but feel it's weighed down by a very thin center.

I really appreciated your review. You articulated so well what I struggled with-the characters as talking heads and not flesh and blood. The way they were discarded in Act III didn't sit well with me. 

I agree that it's great that Slave Play made it to Broadway and will create dialogue. However, I feel like a lot of the marketing is geared toward it being shocking and provocative. I didn't really see it that way. I've seen other shows that felt more dangerous or vulnerable. It's smart, but thin and a lot of weight is put on provocative reveals, which I think is a trend in modern writing-provocative reveals that aren't really earned. 

"

 

[Mike Barrett]

Posted: 9/25/19 at 12:58pm

joevitus said: "Mike Barrett said: "joevitus said: "Mike Barrett said: "I’m not sure what’s odd about a showing being liked and not performing well at the box office. It hasn’t opened yet and has no stars, it’s going to be a tough sell. The Prom did poor in sales for most of their run but their reception has been positive online for the most part. Some shows I think just provide more broad appeal to theatre goers who are willing to pay more $$, Slave Play likely won’t be that."

I don't think it'sodd, except inthe wide disparity between its reception here and at the box office. That the disparity exists to begin with is fairly predictable (non-musicals aren't generally as popular, challeging shows alienate the "I just want to relax" crowd, theater enthusiasts can be counted on to have more interest than the casual theatergoer). I would have expected to see a couple of more negative assessments to compare the positive ones to than I've seen so far."

Thats fair. I think your point of theater enthtuisiasts finding this show might be the more accurate thing. Id presume a play like this will attract more "serious" theatre goers or at least theatre goers who want something thought provoking. Its also still in previews, where I tend to find more hardcore theatre goers attend. I think it'll be more interesting to see grosses after opening and reviews have come out. Plays tend to struggle in gross anyways though, sadly."

Indeed. I can't tell you how frustrating it is, halfway across the country, trying toget a sense of this show from second hand reports. I want to be part of this conversation, because this is a living moment of theater going on. To be honest, what I've read apart from the plaudits here does not make it sound like a great show. I've tried to find a copy of the American Theater issue that contained the script, but that's not going to well (unsurprising, considering the show's support among ardent theatergoers, that people aren't letting go of their copies, yet). I'm trying to figure out the quality of the show from what people say here, what the critics are saying, the box office is (but that least of all) and therefore figure out what I think. But I'm obviously the blindman trying to describe the elephant, and I'm hanging onto every report I encounter, trying to put the thing together in my mind."

Understnadable. Id imagine this show will be published after it plays Broadway in some way, whether it is a recording of the show or the play is available to read online. I think this is a show that must be seen with the staging, though. And thats coming from someone who hasn't been spoiled about really anything regarding it. I think it all needs to be seen in context. Im curious how the reviews for this show will be. Off Broadway got raves. 

[joevitus]

Posted: 9/25/19 at 2:25pm

I suspect you're right that staging is integral to the effectiveness of this show.

[Pashacar]

Posted: 9/25/19 at 3:36pm

Having seen it, I don't think this particular staging is integral. But I do think, without giving specific spoilers, that because of its nature, it's definitely a show that is FAR better experienced live on stage than on the page.

[joevitus]

Posted: 9/25/19 at 4:45pm

Maybe it'll be taped, then. Or I'll see it regionally (though when I saw Take Me Out regionally, all I could think was "This is it?"--which probably related to the production more than the material).

[ArtMan]

Posted: 9/25/19 at 5:43pm

joevitus said: "Maybe it'll be taped, then. Or I'll see it regionally (though when I saw Take Me Out regionally, all I could think was "This is it?"--which probably related to the production more than the material)."

I stated earlier, the night I saw it, it was being taped.  Don't know if it was for in house use or for public.

[joevitus]

Posted: 9/26/19 at 9:24am

I had missed your comment, so thank you for mentioning it again. 

[jagman1062]

Posted: 9/26/19 at 3:37pm

Pashacar said: "Having seen it, I don't think this particular staging is integral. But I do think, without giving specific spoilers, that because of its nature, it's definitely a show that is FAR better experienced live on stage than on the page."

I didn't see the show at NYTW, but I suspect that there were more diverse audiences than traditional Broadway audiences.  Do you think that the set and staging differ based on the nature of the audience?  If traditional Broadway audiences, mostly comprised of older Caucasians, are reflected on stage, isn't it possible that the audience becomes a silent character in the play?  There were diverse audience members the night I saw it last week, but the majority of audience members were Caucasian. enough to note the majority in the reflection on stage.

Updated On: 9/26/19 at 03:37 PM

[Pashacar]

Posted: 9/26/19 at 4:03pm

jagman1062 said: "I didn't see the show at NYTW, but I suspect that there were more diverse audiences than traditional Broadway audiences. Do you think that the set and staging differbased on the nature of the audience? If traditional Broadway audiences, mostly comprised of older Caucasians, are reflected on stage, isn't it possible that the audience becomes a silent character in the play? There were diverse audience members the night I saw it last week, but the majority of audience members were Caucasian. enough to note the majority in the reflection on stage."

I'm sure everyone has a different experience with the mirrors, but for me they were interesting before the show and during transitions, and then as soon as actors appeared I found myself focused on the action. So yes, there is an interesting statement in the mirrors, but at least for me, they didn't make up an integral piece of the work. Can certainly see someone having a different reaction, but it's not as if they're used much or referenced in the action of the show.

Also, anecdotally, my NYTW performance was more diverse than your average Broadway audience, yes. But not by *that* much.

[Skip23]

Posted: 9/26/19 at 11:56pm

Saw this tonight.

 

LOTS OF SPOILERS:

 

So you know the 3 section format.  Actually, the transition between sections 1 and 2 was surprising and welcome as the acting-out scenarios got a bit sexually gratuitous.  

Section 2 of the therapy session just drags on with so much recrimination and angst.  Very Boys In The Band.  Nothing very revelatory from these patients.  And we're supposed to go with the outrageous construct that these 3 couples have signed up for this Antebellum play acting therapy.  Sure it's the playwright's right to be absurd, but still...

The third section is just excruciating.  And, as that's the point, I just sort of squirmed and let it play out.

 

So, was it worth it?  Maybe, only because it certainly commands your attention.  It's not dramatically solid.  Just emotionally manipulative.

 

One big problem, for me - the lighter skinned gay guy was supposed to be a person of color.  From my seat, he looked typically Irish. He kept saying that he was a person of color.  I thought he was trying to make a statement, not telling the truth.  Odd.

 

 

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 9/26/19 at 11:59pm

Slightly off topic, but are they selling any merch?

[Skip23]

Posted: 9/27/19 at 12:24am

Yes.  I noticed magnets and a bag.

 

[uncageg]

Posted: 9/27/19 at 12:31am

GreasedLightning said: "Slightly off topic, but are they selling any merch?"

 

I posted what they had earlier in this thread. Merch stand is downstairs.

 

[jbird5]

Posted: 9/27/19 at 11:28am

“One big problem, for me - the lighter skinned gay guy was supposed to be a person of color. From my seat, he looked typically Irish. He kept saying that he was a person of color. I thought he was trying to make a statement, not telling the truth. Odd.”

I think that was the point, he considered himself a person of color and genetically he would fit the definition of a mixed race person, but because of the way he looks no one accepts him as one - especially other POC.

[Skip23]

Posted: 9/27/19 at 1:10pm

jbird5 said: "
“One big problem, for me - the lighter skinned gay guy was supposed to be a person of color. From my seat, he looked typically Irish. He kept saying that he was a person of color. I thought he was trying to make a statement, not telling the truth. Odd.”

I think that was the point, he considered himself a person of color and genetically he would fit the definition of a mixed race person, but because of the way he looks no one accepts him as one - especially other POC."

 

I guess I missed the line that confirmed that he actually IS a person of color.

 

on the day after viewing, I am annoyed at the jokey, typically clueless characterization of the two therapists.  How they over intellectualize everything and therapy-speak everything to death.  Easy laugh, empty impact.

And how the therapy session is basically a free-for-all with little resolution.  Only confirming that this form of "therapy" is bullcrap and really just a theatrical gimmick.  

 

But it is compelling. Voyeurism is a kick.

 

 

 

[jagman1062]

Posted: 9/27/19 at 1:21pm

jbird5 said: "
“One big problem, for me - the lighter skinned gay guy was supposed to be a person of color. From my seat, he looked typically Irish. He kept saying that he was a person of color. I thought he was trying to make a statement, not telling the truth. Odd.”

I think that was the point, he considered himself a person of color and genetically he would fit the definition of a mixed race person, but because of the way he looks no one accepts him as one - especially other POC."

 

It's not clear what the character, Dustin, really identifies as except that he claims he's not white.  It's implied that he might be Latino by one of the therapists, which makes him a minority in his own right.  I thought Latinos identified as people of color.  I agree that because he may appear to be white, that he may be more privileged than his partner, but I also think that his level of privilege is determined by geography. 

There is discrimination among people in the white community.  My Italian grandparents faced discrimination when they arrived in the US, and so did my parents.  My parents weren't allowed to purchase a house in a lake community in the early 60s because they were of Italian ancestry.  This was all in New Jersey which is believed to be more progressive.  Southern and Eastern Europeans faced discrimination from people from central and northern European backgrounds. 

In the play, the action takes place in Virginia, but I don't recall if where the gay couple actually live is identified.  I've encountered people from Virginia who look down on 'white' people who are from 'other' regions.  I wondered if this dynamic is the perspective that Dustin was trying to convey when he so poorly insisted that he was not white.  I found his reasoning difficult to understand because it is never clearly communicated, so I could see how many people would think his comments were bizarre. I think Harris could have done a better job helping the audience to understand Dustin's comments because many people could dismiss them easily.  Just my thoughts on the matter and I'm not saying that discrimination in the white community is equal to the discrimination against people of color..

 

Updated On: 9/27/19 at 01:21 PM

[52889j]

Posted: 9/27/19 at 1:39pm

jagman1062 said: "jbird5 said: "
“One big problem, for me - the lighter skinned gay guy was supposed to be a person of color. From my seat, he looked typically Irish. He kept saying that he was a person of color. I thought he was trying to make a statement, not telling the truth. Odd.”

I think that was the point, he considered himself a person of color and genetically he would fit the definition of a mixed race person, but because of the way he looks no one accepts him as one - especially other POC."





In the play, the action takes place in Virginia, but I don't recall if where the gay couple actually live is identified. I've encountered people from Virginia who look down on 'white' people who are from 'other' regions. I wondered if this dynamic is the perspective that Dustin was trying to convey when he so poorly insisted that he was not white. I found his reasoning difficult to understand because it is never clearly communicated, so I could see how many people would think his comments were bizarre. I think Harris could have done a better job helping the audience to understand Dustin's comments because many people could dismiss them easily. Just my thoughts on the matter and I'm not saying that discrimination in the white community is equal to the discrimination against people of color..

"

They live in East Harlem. Dustin's show-stopping monologue mentions not wanting to have to take the 6 train and then cross town to get to an audition. 

And to concur, I think the entire point is that the character identifies as a POC, though he's ethnically ambiguous based on appearance (though obviously more white adjacent than black adjacent). We can draw our own conclusions from there.

Updated On: 9/27/19 at 01:39 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 9/27/19 at 2:54pm

James Cusati-Moyer is himself of a Middle Eastern background.

[quizking101]

Posted: 9/28/19 at 6:46pm

I saw the show this afternoon via TDF and we were dead center Row E orchestra. Definitely the premium seats.

The Good: It lives up to the expectation of being shocking, provocative, and uncomfortably funny. There are really strong performances all across the board and I felt they truly worked as an ensemble. The first “act” (the sexual vignettes) were both comical, discomforting, and ridiculously hot. Also, as a psychiatric nurse, I found the second “act” with the therapy “processing” to be hilarious in the fact that the therapist characters very much leaned into the tropes that come with group sessions (having been clearly guilty of abusing the “I see you. I hear you” line many times before). I honestly felt like I was sitting in on a therapy session and was tempted to kind of jump in and help facilitate. The final rape scene with Kaneisha and her man (I forgot the character name) literally shook me to the point where I almost flipped over the back of my seat.

The Bad: This Show is way too long to not have some kind of intermission. The second “act” did feel unnecessarily protracted at times. Also, during that second act, the dialogue seemed to be going way too fast for me to process, and I’m used to people speed-talking at me. I know there’s a lot of feelings in the characters and a lot of psych jargon in there (How much is real is dubious based on my knowledge) and I wish I had a hard copy of the play in order to analyze what was being said. At times, I felt the play could be very talkative without actually saying much at all, and I felt the dialogue hit a lot of buzzwords to keep the audience engaged (privilege, n*gger, etc). Also, there was absolutely NO resolution for two of the couples and that kind of pissed me off.

Overall: I left the show absolutely speechless and that’s the first time that has happened in the 160 shows I’ve seen in my life. Normally I come out with hard opinions, but I’m still going to be pondering this one for a while. It’s definitely a must-see but, as already proven, it’s a very polarizing production.

The Stage Door: Most of the actors (Save for one) came out an signed after the matinee and seemed surprised that there were people waiting. What was awesome was that they engaged in a dialogue with us about the play and seemed appreciative that those of us there were so receptive to it.

Bonus: I was actually sitting behind Jayne Houdyshell the whole time. We were both chatting on the way out. She is truly a lovely person, and we commiserated over being left speechless by the show. It was an awesome moment for sure.

Updated On: 9/28/19 at 06:46 PM

[Rosette3]

Posted: 9/30/19 at 11:46am

jagman1062 said: "jbird5 said: "
“One big problem, for me - the lighter skinned gay guy was supposed to be a person of color. From my seat, he looked typically Irish. He kept saying that he was a person of color. I thought he was trying to make a statement, not telling the truth. Odd.”

I think that was the point, he considered himself a person of color and genetically he would fit the definition of a mixed race person, but because of the way he looks no one accepts him as one - especially other POC."



It's not clear what the character, Dustin, really identifies as except that he claims he's not white. It's implied that he might be Latino by one of the therapists, which makes him a minority in his own right. I thought Latinos identified as people of color. I agree that because he may appear to be white, that he may bemore privileged than his partner, but I also think that his level of privilege is determined by geography.

There is discrimination among people in the white community. My Italian grandparents faced discrimination when they arrived in the US, and so did my parents. My parents weren't allowed to purchase a housein a lake community in the early 60s because they were of Italian ancestry. This was all in New Jersey which is believed to be more progressive. Southern and Eastern Europeans faced discrimination from people from central and northern European backgrounds.

In the play, the action takes place in Virginia, but I don't recall if where the gay couple actually live is identified. I've encountered people from Virginia who look down on 'white' people who are from 'other' regions. I wondered if this dynamic is the perspective that Dustin was trying to convey when he so poorly insisted that he was not white. I found his reasoning difficult to understand because it is never clearly communicated, so I could see how many people would think his comments were bizarre. I think Harris could have done a better job helping the audience to understand Dustin's comments because many people could dismiss them easily. Just my thoughts on the matter and I'm not saying that discrimination in the white community is equal to the discrimination against people of color.." 


His monologue even with the slow build and one of the memorable ones IMO. I interpreted him as being a white passing Latino/Hispanic after the therapist code switched to Spanish accent with rolled R's and emphasize L's (which I found to be also slap stick funny to me and remind me of the Abeula skit from Pero Like). I started off rolling my eyes, "cry me a river" reaction at the begining of Dustin's monologue seeing him as a typical ethnically ambiguous person with the privilege of passing off as white when it's convenient to them etc but playing his violin about identitying as "not white" and trying to stand in solidarity with those who are discriminated against because of their skin color. (Colorism is a big issue in many communities esp multi-ethnic ones like Latin cultures but I digress). I became more sympathetic fighting off urges of playing "oppression olympics" in my head because race is complicated and at the end of the days there's still this frustration Dustin grapples with that white passing, ethnically ambiguous, mixed race etc. peoples' experience. Just because it's not as overt as discrimination, for example the black community faces, doesn't mean their discrimination is insignificant and should be dismissed. It made me think about my prejudices I have of against others who I assume don't "get it" just because they won't experience the same racial discrimination I have. 

[LxGstv]

Posted: 9/30/19 at 12:16pm

quizking101 said: "Also, there was absolutely NO resolution for two of the couples and that kind of pissed me off."

I felt the same way after seeing it, but after thinking a bit more about the play, I feel like the 2 other couples did have their resolution during the second act. Gary, Dustin, Phillip and Alana had a bigger presence than Jim and Kaneisha during the session. Also, Gary’s monologue towards the end of act 2 was pretty impressive and I don’t think there was anything left to be said after that. They had all come to a bigger understanding of their relationships, as one of the therapists points out: “This is a day 6 revelation” or something similar.