TAKE ME OUT Previews- Page 3

[SisterGeorge]

Posted: 3/16/22 at 11:32am

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/15/theater/jesse-williams-interview-broadway.html

Not already being a devoted Jesse Williams fan, I'm not encouraged to see this based on the pre-opening pr article in NYT--at least not early in the run. No previous stage experience and learning on the job? Great,. Just what I want in a Broadway lead. 

[Dollypop]

Posted: 3/16/22 at 11:33am

Years ago I saw Dixie Carter in MASTER CLASS and there was a group of Bible Belters in the audience. They were horrified at the language in the show and became quite vocal about it. Before the first act ended, they got up and left en masse. 

During intermission they were at the box office demanding refunds and claiming that they should have been warned beforehand that the show contained profanity.

This, and the girl who sat in front of me slurping split pea soup, ruined the performance for me.

[imeldasturn]

Posted: 3/16/22 at 11:43am

http://twitter.com/nytimestheater/status/1504119508662902793

Interview with Jesse Williams on the NYT

EDIT: Ops, sorry Sister George, I didn't notice you had already posted it!

Updated On: 3/16/22 at 11:43 AM

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 3/16/22 at 12:07pm

Borstalboy said: "Yeah, the casting of Ferguson seemed off to me, at least on paper.

Mason Marzac is supposed to be kind of a schlub. The kind of gay that gay culture renders invisible. Denis O'Hare fit this to a tee but when I saw the mini-tour the part was played by the more handsome T. Scott Cunningham and something was lost. Ferguson, with his great figure and snazzy red hair, doesn't really seem quite right."

For what it's worth, while Ferguson's performance didn't work for me, I had no trouble buying him as a schlub. Maybe he packed on some pounds for the role (or added padding), but he appeared to have a belly and was frequently dressed in a way that made him look unkempt.

[theatretenor2]

Posted: 3/16/22 at 12:54pm

This thread is making me question our tickets for Saturday night, Does the theatre offer refunds?

[quizking101]

Posted: 3/16/22 at 1:13pm

theatretenor2 said: "This thread is making me question our tickets for Saturday night, Does the theatre offer refunds?"

Second Stage does offer refunds up to two hours prior to curtain, but I still feel like you should give it a chance and formulate your own opinion. 

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 3/16/22 at 1:59pm

theatretenor2 said: "This thread is making me question our tickets for Saturday night, Does the theatre offer refunds?"

My review may have come out more negative than intended. If you were local, I might suggest waiting until after opening to give them time to work out some kinks, but from the other thread it sounds like you're not. If it is your only chance, I'd probably go for it.

[theatretenor2]

Posted: 3/16/22 at 2:11pm

MemorableUserName said: "theatretenor2 said: "This thread is making me question our tickets for Saturday night, Does the theatre offer refunds?"

My review may have come out more negative than intended. If you were local, I might suggest waiting until after opening to give them time to work out some kinks, but from the other thread it sounds like you're not. If it is your only chance, I'd probably go for it."

Wasn't yours. Was the person who said this play is awful.

[kurtal]

Posted: 3/16/22 at 2:21pm

I was also at the show last night.  And, for context, I saw the original Broadway run.

I agree with a lot of the takes thus far, although I liked Jesse Tyler Ferguson more than some of the other posters.  I liked act one quite a lot and thought Patrick Adams was excellent.  I also thought Tyler Weaks gave a charming performance in a small role.  I wasn't as keen on Jesse Williams.  He was a little flat at first, which isn't too problematic given the character, but I didn't think it built throughout the show...perhaps that will change with a few more performances under his belt.  

I struggled with the second act, particularly the confrontation between Williams & Michael Oberholtzer and its repercussions.  It just felt...wrong?  And the resolution was unsatisfying.  I think my issue is mostly with the writing and how it just didn't feel like an appropriate series of events for 2022.  But maybe with better direction and acting it could have worked.  Not sure.

Overall, though, I wouldn't *not* recommend it.  If you're interested in the source material -- or the cast -- give it a go and make your own conclusions.  There was a lot of good stuff to take away.

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 3/17/22 at 9:40am

kurtal said: "I struggled with the second act, particularly the confrontation between Williams & Michael Oberholtzer and its repercussions. It just felt...wrong? And the resolution was unsatisfying. I think my issue is mostly with the writing and how it just didn't feel like an appropriate series of events for 2022. But maybe with better direction and acting it could have worked. Not sure."

Well said (as were all your comments). I've been thinking (too much) about this, and for me, I think the problem is both Williams not selling the character's motivation in the scene, but also Oberholtzer in Act One. Shane needs to be stupid and mean to make the comeuppance work, but Oberholtzer was playing it as stupid and childlike, verging on mentally challenged. Even in the shower there was something about him that seemed too vulnerable and helpless (the fact that he reads as so much younger than Williams didn't help), so there wasn't much satisfaction to be had from seeing him taken down, and the confrontation didn't work.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/17/22 at 11:08am

After I posted the snippet of a Brantley review above that ended up a paean to Dennis O'Hare, I investigated other reviews of the original. Though a Tony-winning Best Play, the script always had detractors and reviews voiced some reservations*, about both the plot and the depiction of various aspects of LGBTQ temperament, the Mason character already considered a stereotype in 2002 by Brantley in one of his two reviews (and to be fair, he felt O'Hare mitigated that aspect of the writing). I didn't have that impression -- gay men can be lonely, needy, and any other recognizable qualities; role model LGBTQ characters airbrushed of human flaws can be two-dimensional. But it'd be curious how the play's sociopolitical prism lands today. Any thoughts among those who've attended? Does the play's point of view feel 2022? Does it matter?  

*Variety:  "Unfortunately, that kind of truth — not to mention some other kinds — is largely missing from long stretches of the play. Greenberg has a tendency to imbue too many of his characters with the intelligence and acerbic eloquence that sits easily on Mason but seems suspect when it’s handed out in similar doses to both Lemming and his best pal on the team, the thoughtful Kippy Sunderstrom.."

"...the actors cannot disguise the synthetic nature of much of the dialogue. Too often it seems driven by a relentless search for continual comic payoffs rather than the actual truth of the intriguing situation Greenberg has chosen to examine. And while Sunjata gives an appealing, confident and often sensitive performance as the man at the calm center of the storm he’s kicked up, Darren remains something of an emotional cipher; the character and his motivations never really come into focus." 

Updated On: 3/17/22 at 11:08 AM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 3/17/22 at 9:33pm

MemorableUserName said: "kurtal said: "I struggled with the second act, particularly the confrontation between Williams & Michael Oberholtzer and its repercussions. It just felt...wrong? And the resolution was unsatisfying. I think my issue is mostly with the writing and how it just didn't feel like an appropriate series of events for 2022. But maybe with better direction and acting it could have worked. Not sure."

Well said (as were all your comments). I've been thinking (too much) about this, and for me, I think the problem is both Williams not selling the character's motivation in the scene, but also Oberholtzer in Act One. Shane needs to be stupid and mean to make the comeuppance work, but Oberholtzer was playing it as stupid and childlike, verging on mentally challenged. Even in the shower there was something about him that seemed too vulnerable and helpless (the fact that he reads as so much younger than Williams didn't help), so there wasn't much satisfaction to be had from seeing him taken down, and the confrontation didn't work."

But also, in a 2022 world, I don't think there's really any justification for what Lemming does in that scene,  that would make it satisfying or okay. Like, yeah, it'd be great to see a racist and homophobe get his due, but I can't help but feel that there are a multitude of more dramatically compelling and less harassment/assault-y ways to do that. 

Updated On: 3/17/22 at 09:33 PM

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 3/18/22 at 5:46am

I'm a little disheartened by these early preview reports. Depending on the continuing reports through the preview period and the critics' reviews on opening night, I may be replacing this show on my upcoming May trip (Second Stage offers refunds right now, correct?. I saw a great local production of the play, so I have already seen it before, and done quite well at that.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 3/18/22 at 11:41am

bwayphreak234 said: "I'm a little disheartened by these early preview reports. Depending on the continuing reports through the preview period and the critics' reviews on opening night, I may be replacing this show on my upcoming May trip (Second Stage offers refunds right now, correct?. I saw a great local production of the play, so I have already seen it before, and done quite well at that."

I really strongly did not like the show at all BUT if you like the play itself, it might be worth it. I think most of my issues were with the script, which I thought was a mess and even decent work from some of the cast couldn't redeem. 

[tomwsjr]

Posted: 3/19/22 at 9:08am

Anyone know what the running time is?  

[n2nbaby]

Posted: 3/19/22 at 9:36am

tomwsjr said: "Anyone know what the running time is? "

2 hrs and 15 minutes with intermission.

[theatretenor2]

Posted: 3/19/22 at 11:03pm

Glad we decided to see this. Was really unsure based on some of the comments here. Not sure why people think this play is flawed, but we thoroughly enjoyed it. The cast must be really getting into the rhythm because I didn't observe any of the things other posters mentioned. 

Patrick J. Adams and Michael Oberholtzer were both fantastic. Jesse Williams seems to be coming into his own, but can see how people might think his acting was flat. Jesse Tyler Ferguson chewed up the scenery a few times, and earned applause during several moments.

I recommend this play based on the performance tonight.

 

[quizking101]

Posted: 3/21/22 at 4:15pm

This Wednesday’s matinee is up on TDF for those who care

[Papi2013]

Posted: 3/21/22 at 7:52pm

quizking101 said: "This Wednesday’s matinee is up on TDF for those who care"

I think a Wednesday matinee with the usual silver haired bridge and tunnel crowd would make for an interesting afternoon.  

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 3/23/22 at 4:40pm

[morosco]

Posted: 3/23/22 at 9:55pm

In person do the sets look as amateurish as they do in these photos?

[Synecdoche2]

Posted: 3/24/22 at 1:24am

Weird that this is a play about professional athletes who do almost nothing but talk. I would think baseball players would probably live more in their bodies than these characters, who seem to enjoy speechifying and philosophizing more than playing ball. Even the pointedly unintelligent ones. The strongest argument for baseball is made from the perspective of someone sitting on their couch watching the game — the ones who actually play baseball seem to either hate it or play it with rage. And since Marzac is clearly representing the author, the use extensive nudity throughout kinda comes off as cheap, even though it's not without its cheap purpose. (are we allowed to say p*** on here?) You can just feel the leering eyes that wrote those extended scenes. But I suppose theatergoers are never above leering — my blood pressure was definitely up.

Updated On: 3/24/22 at 01:24 AM

[InTheBathroom1]

Posted: 3/24/22 at 10:59am

morosco said: "In person do the sets look as amateurish as they do in these photos?"

yes

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 3/24/22 at 11:55am

morosco said: "In person do the sets look as amateurish as they do in these photos?"

Hahaha. YUP. Great comment. 

[JSquared2]

Posted: 3/24/22 at 1:07pm

Synecdoche2 said: "Weird that this is a play about professional athletes who do almost nothing but talk. I would think baseball players would probably live more in their bodies than these characters, who seem to enjoy speechifying and philosophizing more than playing ball. Even the pointedly unintelligent ones. The strongest argument for baseball is made from the perspective of someone sitting on their couch watching the game — the ones who actually play baseball seem to either hate it or play it with rage. And since Marzac is clearly representing the author, the use extensive nudity throughout kinda comes off as cheap, even though it's not without its cheap purpose. (are we allowed to say p*** on here?) You can just feel the leering eyes that wrote those extended scenes. But I suppose theatergoers are never above leering — my blood pressure was definitely up."

 

So you think they should play a few innings on stage instead of "talk"?  Also, many playwrights are capable of writing characters in voices other than their own. Greenberg has said that Marzac is not "him".