THE BAND'S VISIT Previews — Page 7

After Eight said: "In the theatre, it's the creators' job to do ALL of the work, not the paying customers'."

No. It is most definitely is not. We can debate the degree to which the audience should do some of the work and what that work should entail, but part of the magic of theatre is that we are not mere passive consumers of whatever literally is presented on the stage. I do not want to simply download what is happening on the stage.

Putting in no effort IS being passive. You might not like to do so, which is fine, but that can hardly be the fault of the show.

After Eight said:

Being a consumer does not mean one isa passive consumer. We are human beings, not blocks ofgranite. We react.Reacting isnot the same as working. I react to the taste of the chocolate cake I eat in the restaurant. That doesn't mean Iwas expected to bake it. I didn't have to do any work at allto love Hello, Dolly!, Tovarich, Mary, Mary,The Star-Spangled Girl, and so manyothers. I just sat in my seatand experiencedthe joy.The creators did the work for me, as they should have.And they did it well. I had to put no effort into it, nor should I have."

Up until today, I had suspected that After Eight possessed a modicum of intelligence (though a troglodyte) but now I'm not so sure. He obviously does not know that "doing the work" in the context it's being used here means nothing more than thinking about something as opposed to having something fed to us like pablum (not that we can't enjoy some pablum from time to time.) Now that we understand After Eight only wants to sit in his seat and experience joy when he goes to the theater, it explains why he almost always comes across as the crotchety, grumpy, disagreeable old man he seems to delight in being.

RippedMan said: "Sinister Teashop, as someone who loved the show off-Broadway, I do think that's a fair critique of the show. It somehow bowled me over. The guy waiting for the telephone call..I don't know...it brought me to tears. But I'm a hopeless romantic like that."

The guy waiting for the telephone was very moving and beautifully written, directed and performed. I thought his centrality to the show was also about a people waiting in the desert for a sign from god.

I don't think the show requires "work" from the audience. As others have said, the build is emotional. This is essentially a static show that slowly increases the intensity of the longing of its characters until it is meant to be overpowering. But I wouldn't call the show's climax cathartic. For a catharsis to happen you have to actually go through conflict and the show short circuits conflict and jumps directly to emotional transcendence. That's a deceptively lovely journey because it erases things that real conflict deals with like conquerors and the conquered and justice.

BakerWilliams said: "sinister teashop said: "I thought his centrality to the show was also about a people waiting in the desert for a sign from god."

I also got this from the show. I seem to be joined by many in my opinion of the work, but rather alone in my assessment of its almost unbearable sadness. I really would hardly think of the show as anything other than a minuscule tragedy."

I can see that but I would say tragic rather than tragedy. Wandering around in the same circles forever can be unbearably tragic but for a tragedy to happen there needs to be some kind of climactic breakdown which can also bring enlightenment and resolution.

Updated On: 10/14/17 at 01:02 PM

I just saw this production a couple of nights ago and I think it's improved since it's Off Broadway run and that it's one of the best and most interesting musicals that I've seen in a while. Yes it's a quiet, slow burn, but the story is deeply touching and profound. I have to agree with whoever said that it reminds them of a play with music. Yes, the music is integrated into the story and provides character development, but the actual structure and overall feeling of the show feels like a play. It's a bit like Fun Home and less like, I don't know, something like The Great Comet or Hello, Dolly! If you like big, flashy, plot heavy musicals with a big happy ending, this probably isn't for you. I could actually see this appealing more to the "play going" audience as opposed to the "musical going" audience.

As for the performances, the cast is sensational, especially Shalhoub and especially Katrina Lenk who should be the 2017-18 winner for Best Lead Actress in a Musical. She's absolutely enchanting. The staging is beautiful and effective and the book and score are phenomenal. It's just a really great new musical that's also super innovative. Honestly, I really loved it.

The person I was with also really loved it and said that it reminded them a bit of Passion, where it's a brilliant, but deeply complicated and kind of isolating show that musical theatre audiences hate for some stupid reason. I am really a bit concerned that musical theatre audiences have become "stupid." They seem to want short, flashy, rewarding, simple musicals based on blockbuster films and everything else is just too "weird." It makes me wonder how Rodgers and Hammerstein would do if they were writing today. Anyways, I'll probably be seeing the show again after it opens and I'll update then.

Updated On: 10/14/17 at 01:36 PM

Wolfwriter wrote:

"Why do you applaud after Put On Your Sunday Clothes,"

Because it's wonderful and I love it.

"I can't fathom you would like the work of Shakespeare, Sophocles, Edward Albee, Chekhov, Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams"

Your fathoming needs work, then.

"and you must HATE Eugene O'Neill."

Wrong again.

"In fact, I can't think of one 'classic' author or play that you would enjoy (and that's fine)."

I think you need to rethink your thinking.

" I not only expect the audience to work, in a way, I force them to. If they don't, they probably should be in a different theater."

How nice of you. I hope you'll inform us where your next work will be presented, so I can avoid that theatre.

"Curious to know anything from 1966 (or 1982) forward that you enjoyed."

Post 1966: Forty Carats, Dear World, Darling of the Day...
Post 1982: Pyjama pour six, La Cage aux Folles...

"Curious to know what plays (not musicals) you enjoyed (from the 20th/21st centuries)"

The plays I already cited were from the 20th century.

"Curious to know what classic authors you enjoy and what plays (not musicals) you enjoy."

Shakespeare, Congreve, Wycherley Corneille, Molière, Racine... I enjoy their plays.

" The opera requires significant work. "

Not from me. Mozart, Bellini, Verdi, Gounod, et al. did the work; I enjoy the fruits of their labors.

" I'm hard-pressed to imagine why, if, by your own admission, you want to be a 'potted plant' "

Your words, not mine. I never could imagine that a potted plant would enjoy Hello, Dolly!

After Eight said: "Wolfwriter wrote:

"Why do you applaud after Put On Your Sunday Clothes,"

Because it's wonderful and I love it.

"I can't fathom you would like the work of Shakespeare, Sophocles, Edward Albee, Chekhov, Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams"

Your fathoming needs work, then.

"and you must HATE Eugene O'Neill."

Wrong again.

"In fact, I can't think of one 'classic' author or play that you would enjoy (and that's fine)."

I think you need to rethink your thinking.

" I not only expect the audience to work, in a way, I force them to. If they don't, they probably should be in a different theater."

How nice of you. I hope you'll inform us where your next work will be presented, so I can avoid that theatre.

"Curious to know anything from 1966 (or 1982) forward that you enjoyed."

Post 1966: Forty Carats, Dear World, Darling of the Day...
Post 1982: Pyjama pour six, La Cage aux Folles...

"Curious to know what plays (not musicals) you enjoyed (from the 20th/21st centuries)"

The plays I already cited were from the 20th century.

"Curious to know what classic authors you enjoy and what plays (not musicals) you enjoy."

Shakespeare, Congreve, Wycherley Corneille, Molière, Racine... I enjoy their plays.

" The opera requires significant work. "

Not from me. Mozart, Bellini, Verdi, Gounod, et al. did the work;I enjoy the fruits of their labors.

" I'm hard-pressed to imagine why, if, by your own admission, you want to be a 'potted plant' "

Your words, not mine. I never could imagine that a potted plant would enjoy Hello, Dolly!"



I know many on this board are mean and say nasty things to you. I am not one of them and I don't care for it under any circumstances.

However, I cannot engage with someone who hasn't made a single coherent argument nor refuted a single point that I made. I think you may have just misunderstood my point about audience "work." No matter. Enjoy whatever you enjoy and I hope you find much to your liking. Good night.

^Well, she's currently not up against much!

And GeorgeandDot: I don't think audiences are stupid at all! The fact that "Hamilton" is a massive hit speaks volumes. The fact that "Fun Home" won the Tony and turned a profit. Same for "Come from Away" and "Dear Evan Hansen." I actually think the easy cash grab musicals - "On Your Feet" - have been failing miserably. I think audiences are longing for new and interesting stories. Sure, "The Band's Visit" is a movie, but it's not well-know like "Pretty Woman." I guess we will see how it fares, but hopefully it finds an audience.

Saw this tonight from Box50, seat E3.

Sitting next to the rail in the box was totally fine for this show, yes you miss some performers in the corners of the stage playing instruments but it did not take away from my experience. I Do NOT recommend sitting in the 2nd seat in each row, even though there is not much to miss it must have felt like it, because the guy near me kept standing up to be able to try to see. I'd rather be closer and off to the side than sit further away in the mezz. Just my preference and glad I took the box on this one.

The first orch row in this theater looked awesome. A nice distance from the stage and not too high at all. Jealous of anyone who scored those seats.

The posts on this board along with my friend saying "you will not like it" curbed my expectations a ton. I can say after seeing pretty much everything the last year that it was refreshing to watch a show that was more subdued. I have a hard time understanding accents but they spoke slowly and I didn't have a problem. There were a lot of really funny moments! Katrains comedic timing was in point. The music was beautiful and Katrina had me entranced. The moment with her and Tony on the bench brought tears to my eyes.

I am not a fan of the 90-minute musical. They could have gone into so much more depth with these characters. There was a very brief moment where the entire cast sang together and I would have given anything for that to have lasted longer.

On a side note, if you have a watch that beeps at the top of the hour LEAVE IT AT HOME. Also despite the turn off your cell phone screen, some guy kept turning the flashlight on on his phone to try to read his playbill during the show. Ugh.

I wish there was a cast recording, if there was I'd be listening to it right now. Beautiful music.

Wolfwriter wrote:

"I think you may have just misunderstood my point about audience "work.""

I misunderstood nothing. Here's what you stated in your initial post:

"But, if you don't mind doing some of the work, staying engaged and allowing the emotion of the piece to build, you'll connect to it, as I and my companion did."

So if a person does sufficient "work" (like trying to maintain interest in the tedium emanating from the stage), then that person will connect to it, just as you and your companion did. You did not say, "perhaps you'll connect to it," but a categorical "you'll connect to it." That means that even if a person doesn't mind doing "part of the "work," (as you define it), and that person willingly "works" until the cows come home, and yet, after all that, somehow, shockingly, still does not connect to it, then the fault is entirely that person's, and the show's creators bear no responsibility at all. And of course, if that person DOES mind doing some of the "work," (as you define it), then the show's failing to engage interest is obviously that person's fault and that person's alone.

And you know what I have to say to all that? I say to hell with all that! This show is sorely wanting in several respects, and I'm not in the slightest bit to blame for that, no matter whether I "work" up a storm, or not.

Updated On: 10/15/17 at 11:07 AM

After Eight said: "And of course, if that person DOES mind doing some of the "work," (as you define it), then the show's failing to engage interest is obviously that person's fault and that person's alone."

You're a dotard. If you don't know what that means, look it up.

"Doing the work" when it comes to seeing a show, reading a book, etc. does NOT mean having to work to keep from falling asleep. Very simply, it means using your brain to connect some of the dots that the author might not have provided as spoon fed pap. If a show puts me to sleep, it puts me to sleep, period. But if an engaging show requires me to do some work to understand some of its subtleties, fine. But it's clear from every single word you've written that you object to having to think one iota about what you're seeing.

Kad said yesterday that it's foolish to even try to engage with you as you're not a worthy debate partner, and while I know he's correct, sometimes it's too difficult to hold back.