THE INHERITANCE Closing Very Soon?- Page 2

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 1/21/20 at 11:46am

Re Copley Scott 17

Burlap and Levine are playing at different scales. I saw the show from the back balcony during previews. Burnap was giving a layered, engaging performance while Levine didn’t register. I’ve read the script and still don’t have a sense of who his part one character, Adam, is. I’ve seen some critics rave about him and suspect they sat closer to the stage.

[Mark Waltz]

Posted: 1/21/20 at 1:05pm

My thoughts on "The Inheritance" is that it is certainly excellent and well worth seeing. But unless someone has friends coming in from out of town, would people really reconsider going to see it a second time (either part). Certainly if Vanessa Redgrave were to reprise her role, replacing Lois Smith, it would have a longer life, and I too am hoping that Lois wins the Tony Award. (I participate on a fansite of the TV soap opera "The Doctors" where Lois had a major part from 1975-1977, and she has been mentioned by several posters as one of their favorite characters.) 

I had seen "The Humans" Off Broadway (before they made the announcement that it was transferring), and didn't go back to see it on Broadway because as great as it is, will the impact really be the same so soon after seeing it? I've seen several plays in their original production, went back to see a revival, or went to a revival after seeing the previous revival. Word of mouth will be needed to keep this going, but I'm not believing any closing notice until I see one on a theater board, and will continue to recommend it to friends. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 1/21/20 at 1:41pm

I’ve seen it four times, so yes.

[magictodo123]

Posted: 1/21/20 at 2:19pm

Highland Guy said: "magictodo123 said: "I was also in an area where I heard producers/people in the industry talking about how it wants to continue until awards season."



How did you know they were producers/people in the industry?

"

they were in a theater I was working in and I know they were involved somehow-they kept talking about how it would try to last until awards season. I can say with confidence that they work in the industry. 

[Highland Guy]

Posted: 1/21/20 at 2:41pm

magictodo123 said: "Highland Guy said: "magictodo123 said: "I was also in an area where I heard producers/people in the industry talking about how it wants to continue until awards season."



How did you know they were producers/people in the industry?

"

they were in a theater I was working in and I know they were involved somehow-they kept talking about how it would try to last until awards season. I can say with confidence that they work in the industry."

 

And you know that they were producers because............?

 

[LuminousBeing]

Posted: 1/21/20 at 5:50pm

I saw it in previews and plan to go back when I visit NYC in February, so yes from me, too.

[Will3700]

Posted: 1/21/20 at 6:11pm

I am so hoping this lasts til I can see it in May!!! 

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 1/21/20 at 7:34pm

I am likely returning to NYC next month for work and hope to make room to see both parts again.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/21/20 at 8:25pm

42% ore potential gross; $482., down. Not good news. The Goldwyn casting hasn't helped, as some opined that it might. Mainly, it's winter on B'way. Play, not a musical. It's all about the break-even and the deep pockets of a producers who heroically stand by this production. 

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 1/21/20 at 8:50pm

There were a good amount of people at the stage door saying that they came just to see Goldwyn, which I found interesting.

I also could totally be reading into things, but when people mentioned seeing it more than once, or maybe coming back for a second visit, almost every cast member was eager to say something along the lines of, “Please do/Tell your friends/etc.”

[SouthernCakes]

Posted: 1/21/20 at 8:55pm

I mean yeah... they wanna keep their jobs...

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 1/21/20 at 11:10pm

The play has so much potential yet it reads off so much like a first drafts with cluttered ideas unrealized and themes jumbled together. Many of the emotional moments are not earned, and the stakes in the play aren't high at all since money always pops out from somewhere or someone when needed. While many might not like comparing this with Angels, the ending of Angels is earned and a satisfying end to the journey, while the ending of The Inheritance just...happened? I wish they could've done more workshops with the material and develop some of the amazing ideas it has. I am harsh on the show because I really loved it when it shined, but was disappointed by the potential it might never be able to realize. 

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 1/21/20 at 11:23pm

I think you just didn’t like it. The play went through many reworkings. Anything you’ve identified as short comings are actually very deliberate decisions on the part of the playwright and creative team. It’s definitely chill that you don’t like something and I appreciate the time you’ve taken to articulate what you didn’t like... but it’s weird to suggest these are objective truths that Stephen Daldry, a true theatrical genius, just somehow missed during the several years he’s worked on the play with Matthew Lopez.

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 1/21/20 at 11:30pm

I agree it has its messy moments. It’s not perfect by any mesns, but I still found it emotionally resonant and found those emotional moments earned. I find it ironic that many of the criticisms of The Inheritance (mostly white monied characters, not much depth to the characters, etc...) could also be lobbed at Howard’s End. Yet, Howard’s End is held in such high esteem. However, I found The Inheritance much more resonant than Howard’s End. Granted, I’ve never read the novel. I’ve only seen the movie and mini-series. While I found things to like about both, I never felt emotionally invested in most of the characters and sometimes scratched my head at characters’ behaviors as they made little sense to me, mostly because I had little sense of their interior lives.

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 1/22/20 at 8:12am

KJisgroovy said: "I think you just didn’t like it. The play went through many reworkings. Anything you’ve identified as short comings are actually very deliberate decisions on the part of the playwright and creative team. It’s definitely chill that you don’t like something and I appreciate the time you’ve taken to articulate what you didn’t like... but it’s weird to suggest these are objective truths that Stephen Daldry, a true theatrical genius, just somehow missed during the several years he’s worked on the play with Matthew Lopez."

I think it's an objective truth that many of the problems that the characters are faced with are not resolved by confronting the problems, but either by having someone come to their rescue or by a change of situation that has very little to do with the effort from the characters themselves. I think it's also an objective truth that many people find the ending of Part I manipulative is because it is not "earned" by the character(s)' actions. There are many dramaturgical problems with the show that many people have pointed out in the preview and review threads. If they are deliberate choices, I don't think they work as intended. It's also baffling to me how these problems escaped Daldry all these years.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 1/22/20 at 8:25am

Dancingthrulife2 said: "I think it's an objective truth that many of the problems that the characters are faced with are not resolved by confrontingthe problems, but either by having someone come to their rescue or by a change of situation that has very little to do with the effort from the characters themselves.”

 

But viewing that as a significant flaw in the play is NOT an objective truth. Many viewings might find that either unobjectionable, or maybe even compelling in some way. 

 

”I think it's also an objective truth that many people find the ending of Part I manipulative is because it is not "earned" by the character(s)' actions.”

 

It may be an objective truth that “many people” have said those things, but that doesn’t make the thing itself  an objective truth. It’s a subjective opinion that you objectively share with others. 

It just so happens that I agree with you about the show’s dramaturgical problems, but I’m also a firm believer that all of us on this board should keep perspective on what’s subjective and what’s objective. 

 

 


 

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 1/22/20 at 3:16pm

Here's Lopez and Soller on ''The Tonight Show'' ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVJSVM5oYzQ&t=15s

[JSquared2]

Posted: 1/22/20 at 3:21pm

Dancingthrulife2 said: "I think it's an objective truth that many of the problems that the characters are faced with are not resolved by confrontingthe problems, but either by having someone come to their rescue or by a change of situation that has very little to do with the effort from the characters themselves. I think it's also an objective truth that many people find the ending of Part I manipulative is because it is not "earned" by the character(s)' actions. There are many dramaturgical problems with the show that many people have pointed out in the preview and review threads. If they are deliberate choices, I don't think they work as intended. It's also baffling to me how these problems escaped Daldry all these years."

Hmm, let's see -- could it possibly be that many people (including the director, the playwright and the producers) don't share your opinion that these are "problems"?  

[Pose2]

Posted: 1/22/20 at 3:32pm

"It's also baffling to me how these problems escaped Daldry all these years."

Perhaps he doesn't think of them as problems....

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 1/22/20 at 3:44pm

Miles2Go2 said: "I agree it has its messy moments. It’s not perfect by any mesns, but I still found it emotionally resonant and found those emotional moments earned. I find it ironic that many of the criticisms of The Inheritance (mostly white monied characters, not much depth to the characters, etc...) could also be lobbed at Howard’s End. Yet, Howard’s End is held in such high esteem. However, I found The Inheritance much more resonant than Howard’s End. Granted, I’ve never read the novel. I’ve only seen the movie and mini-series. While I found things to like about both, I never felt emotionally invested in most of the characters and sometimes scratched my head at characters’ behaviors as they made little sense to me, mostly because I had little sense of their interior lives."

I don't think you can take the same offense at a book published in 1910 and a play published in 2018. 

 

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 1/22/20 at 5:27pm

Bettyboy72 said: "Miles2Go2 said: "I agree it has its messy moments. It’s not perfect by any mesns, but I still found it emotionally resonant and found those emotional moments earned. I find it ironic that many of the criticisms of The Inheritance (mostly white monied characters, not much depth to the characters, etc...) could also be lobbed at Howard’s End. Yet, Howard’s End is held in such high esteem. However, I found The Inheritance much more resonant than Howard’s End. Granted, I’ve never read the novel. I’ve only seen the movie and mini-series. While I found things to like about both, I never felt emotionally invested in most of the characters and sometimes scratched my head at characters’ behaviors as they made little sense to me, mostly because I had little sense of their interior lives."

I don't think you can take the same offense at a book published in 1910 and a play published in 2018."

I don’t find the movie/mini-series offensive. I just find the most of the characters to have little interior life and find some of the plot points real headscratchers. Surely, we should expect movies/novels/plays (especially those that are so well regarded) to have regardless of what century they originate from. 

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 1/22/20 at 5:42pm

JSquared2 said: "Dancingthrulife2 said: "I think it's an objective truth that many of the problems that the characters are faced with are not resolved by confrontingthe problems, but either by having someone come to their rescue or by a change of situation that has very little to do with the effort from the characters themselves. I think it's also an objective truth that many people find the ending of Part I manipulative is because it is not "earned" by the character(s)' actions. There are many dramaturgical problems with the show that many people have pointed out in the preview and review threads. If they are deliberate choices, I don't think they work as intended. It's also baffling to me how these problems escaped Daldry all these years."

Hmm, let's see -- could it possibly be that many people (including the director, the playwright and the producers) don't share youropinionthat these are "problems"?"

Okay. I agree that any “truth” is based on assumptions, many of which people take for granted, and many of which people specialized in their fields or developed their skill sets in particular systems take for granted. It does seem to be the case that what I consider to be problems are not problems for the creatives, but many people, like me, do think they are problems, and therefore not buying tickets to see the show for a second time or even for the first time. I’ve seen the show twice personally, and these “problems” were amplified by my knowledge of what Would happen and became the major distractions for me to immerse myself in the journey the second time around.

[Mace44]

Posted: 1/31/20 at 12:20am

GiantsInTheSky2 said: "There were a good amount of people at the stage door saying that they came just to see Goldwyn, which I found interesting.

I also could totally be reading into things, but when people mentioned seeing it more than once, or maybe coming back for a second visit, almost every cast member was eager to say something along the lines of, “Please do/Tell your friends/etc.” "

Goldwyn has a huge fan base that traveled from far and wide to see him last season in Network; which was nearly sold out each week.  Several of his fans bought stage seats multiple times.   They are coming in droves February-April with set tix to see him in this current show, which is when his fan traffic picked up last year at stage door.  Not a solution, but will hopefully help with more ticket sales.   It has to do with the time of year IMO.  January is a dead month.  I would anticipate a pick up mid Feb - April.

Updated On: 1/31/20 at 12:20 AM

[OMG U Guyz]

Posted: 1/31/20 at 1:50am

They’ve been getting between 55-60% capacity which is not good but Sonia Friedman has deep pockets so you might be fine for March.

[Kad]

Posted: 1/31/20 at 10:33am

Mace44 said: "GiantsInTheSky2 said: "There were a good amount of people at the stage door saying that they came just to see Goldwyn, which I found interesting.

I also could totally be reading into things, but when people mentioned seeing it more than once, or maybe coming back for a second visit, almost every cast member was eager to say something along the lines of, “Please do/Tell your friends/etc.” "

Goldwyn has a huge fan base that traveled from far and wide to see him last season in Network;which was nearly sold out each week. Several of his fans bought stage seats multiple times. They are coming in droves February-April with settix to see him in this current show,which is when his fan traffic picked up last year at stage door. Not a solution, but will hopefully help with more ticket sales. It has to do with the time of year IMO. January is a dead month. I would anticipate a pick up mid Feb - April."

While I'm sure Goldwyn sold some tickets to Network, it is indisputable that Bryan Cranston was the marquee name for that production and the one most responsible for its box office success.