THE HUMANS: really?

Now that THE HUMANS has been pronounced the great play of this millennium, is there anyone else out there who found it a 95-minute cliche? We've seen these kitchen-sink dramas over and over for countless years, what makes this one so special? I never cared for or about these characters, not from beginning to end. Extremely well-acted, to be sure, and Mantello certainly stages it well on an atmospheric set. And although Karam is a favorite playwright (loved SPEECH AND DEBATE and SONS OF THE PROPHET, thought they were far more provocative and involving), there is no new ground explored here. And the so-called "supernatural" elements never jelled for me. Is there anyone else who feels that this play has been overpraised and over-awarded? Please tell me what I missed today.

My partner and I did not care for it at all. I do not understand all the appeal, hype and awards it has received. Was nothing special but I suppose there is something there that's just not appealing to me. To each their own :)

I honestly think that it's more because that there are SO many different themes and diverse issues within that one family unit is why it has done so well. I feel that each and every person can find something, if not a lot of things to relate it to his/her life. It is unbelievably realistic, and modern.

I don't think it's ever been touted as revolutionary or the best play of the decade, but I think it can be applauded for being a very simple, beautiful portrait of an American family. The similarities between my family and the family I saw on stage were staggering. It felt like people I knew, which is great for the direction and the actors. But the play is very beautifully written and simple. It doesn't have the August: Osage County twists or set pieces, it's just simple. And that's different and very slice of life.

I actually just wrote a paper about "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" and "The Humans" and how they honestly portray the sensibilities of different times. I adored The Humans - especially how relevant each topic it brought up was. Maybe you thought the characters were cliched, but I found each one to be seating portraits of individuals - not characters, but people. And maybe that's why, though nothing monumental happened during the play, I felt completely changed when the lights came up.

OK, why I love this play:

For its exquisite mix of farce and tragedy, its nuanced use of symbolism (especially at the final curtain), its consistent intelligence and tonal integrity, its extraordinary humor, the way it captures how some family interactions can serve up joy and bitterness and love and venom in the same breath, and its having its fingers on the pulse of the struggles of ordinary contemporary Americans.

It's unlikely that I'll be able to see this play anytime soon, so I was wondering if someone could please outline its supernatural elements for me and how they fit into the realism of the piece.

jkcaesar2 said: "It's unlikely that I'll be able to see this play anytime soon, so I was wondering if someone could please outline its supernatural elements for me and how they fit into the realism of the piece."



If you search for its earlier previews thread (and maybe even the reviews thread) you'll find lots of comments about it.

I actually rather liked it, but it took me a while to get there. I think it's an interesting examination on how both big and little-t trauma affects different people in different ways, and how that plays out in a family system. The supernatural element was unexpected, but upon pondering it I think I understand its use.

I found it a very satisfying 70 minutes set within a 90 minute play. The promise of the first 4/5ths of the evening was considerably weakened by the final fifth with it's utterly unconvincing and bafflingly surreal ending. We pondered the point of it all that night over a late dinner, and gave up on giving the show any deeper resonance than the well-acted kitchen sink drama the OP claimed above. Oh, but those first 70 minutes were really terrific.

jayinchelsea said: "I've been going to the theatre for more than 50 years now, and I'm still astonished that this play has garnered so much praise. When I saw VIRGINIA WOOLF as a kid, I certainly didn't get it all, but in subsequent viewings, I came to understand its importance as a milestone in theatre. Don't think I'll come to that "aha!" moment with THE HUMANS. I have seen countless variations on the "dysfunctional family" theme over the years, many of them far more interesting than this. Yes, I understood all their pain and anguish and anger, but no, it in no way enlightened or "changed" my life or viewpoint. I did laugh a bit, but I was never moved. I simply found the characters ultimately tiresome and trite."

So after 19 intervening posts, you are basically back where you started: it did not resonate for you as it did for some others and as it also didn't for still other others. Nothing wrong with all that. It seems to be the way this question almost always plays out.

I thought the supernatural elements (much more understated than what I expected based on posts) aligned perfectly with the play's theme that we should be more afraid of ourselves than the things that go bump in the night (aliens, bogeymen, ghosts, etc.). Loved it, but the direction and acting definitely elevated the script for me.

Updated On: 7/18/16 at 09:32 AM

I found the play itself to be just okay, certainly nothing profound. Mantello's direction and the performances really elevate it, but I felt Best Play should have gone to King Charles III.