THE INHERITANCE - Reviews — Page 3

raddersons said: "Does a show have to be important to be good? "

Of course not! I'm of the mind that Broadway could actually stand to use more frivolity from its plays- new American plays tend to be Important.

And The Inheritance definitely presents itself as an Important Work.

First of all, the acting was superb. The story line was good- nothing particularly deep- easy to understand- and very relatable. It was a story of a bunch of gay men dealing with issues we all- of a certain age- dealt with in the eighties- and its legacies live on. Let's not make more of this show than it is- but also lets not dismiss it because it is not Shakespeare.

Overhyped and indulgent. They tried to convince us that this was the most important play of this century. Really? I don’t think so. Why 6.5 hours? And let’s face it. Those numbers from last week are down right awful. Even for a preview week. The reviews won’t help. They were mediocre.

The comments accompanying the NY Times review are well worth the read. I thought the article in The New Yorker a few weeks ago was well written BTW.

MrsSallyAdams said: "The people who give it flat out raves seem to see themselves in the characters.

YES. Not just on these boards, too. When I talk to people about the show, I hesitate even longer than I normally would before giving my opinion because those that like seem to respond from a place of identity, seeing themselves, feeling seen. And I don't believe in raining on that. Good for them. But very quickly while watching, I started wondering where the rest of New York was in this play, the rest of the community. And I couldn't get around just how pretty, white and wealthy it all was. (And if someone wasn't wealthy, they were gorgeous and white and in a scene taking place in an opulently wealthy space.) There's nothing inherently wrong about this. I mean, I happen to be sick of it in gay plays, but also, not every play has to be all things to all people. But it's strange when people say it represents the community today and don't notice this.

ColorThe Hours048: "The problem is that The Inheritance wears its self-proclaimed importance not just on its sleeve, but on its face, its chest, and on top of its head. It flaunts it like a fancy new outfit."

Exactly! It's one thing to have hype, and another for a marketing team to work to create it. But then, the whole play and production plays with a self conscious self-importance that my anti-hype knee-jerk response, which I usually try to quiet, kicked in halfway through the first scene!

Updated On: 11/20/19 at 07:40 AM

Miles2Go2 said: "Popularity doesn’t always equal quality."

Clever2 said: The Howards End conceit? F*CK it

This right there sums up the plays biggest difficulty. Lopez has talked in every interview about how passionately he feels about the novel. But he never gives the audience a reason to feel the same. Howard's End is primarily about a small group of privileged, wealthy, unpleasant people. I don't see the possibilities in it that Lopez does. It feels like the conceit is holding back the play's more interesting ideas.

The play is kind of like a Desperate Housewives, Gay 2.0. I did not see myself in it- but it is not necessarily that kind of work. I think people are looking at HBO-level drama- and wanting Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky. That is not what this is. But a good HBO-level drama ain't all that bad. Perhaps the two part length of the play is the problem. It could have been whittled down to one three hour production and it would not have suffered. I am looking forward to the next big thing- The Lehman Trilogy- which also got amazing reviews and for which I do have high expectations.

Updated On: 11/22/19 at 10:09 AM

Updated On: 11/22/19 at 10:13 AM

clever2 said: "You are not interested in having a conversation. You were interested in attacking and belittling. I wrote about ideas and hopes for what a self proclaimed gay epic about all homosexuals should be. Which the inheritance is not. It is not what it purports itself to be. It is a lie. Stop talking to me."

And you're STILL talking to me?

I saw the show the first time they did Part I and II back to back in October. It has taken me this long to get my head around it. So, sorry in advance for the rambling. I have never posted on this board before so I’m praying I won’t get roasted. LOL.

Part I has some simply stunning moments. Walter's monologue and the end of the third act in particular. The staging is spectacular in its effective simplicity. But I think it is more about the staging than the writing. Yes, the monologue is effective, but would it have been as affecting without the staging? As heartbreaking as the end of Part I was, I was sobbing and couldn't move from my seat, isn't it too similar to "Longtime Companion"? I will say though, it is one of the most moving moments in any play I have seen in my theatre going life.

Part II never really reached the emotional heights of Part I, in my opinion. It seemed to be unnecessarily long. It could have gotten to the point it was trying to make in a three act play, honestly. And been better for it. Mind you, I was never bored. But again, Daldrey’s staging kept it moving at a very brisk pace.

As a gay man living in a small town, the show was very elitist. Lopez seemed to be talking only to a certain demographic of gay men: "NYC gays are so cool and upwardly mobile!" We get it! Therein lies one of my biggest problems, I didn't really bond with any of the characters. Maybe Eric? When they are all together taking about how much the city has changed: Splash bar, etc. I would be in misery if I was at a party with these men and their pretentious conversations: Ravel?? Come on! Ugh! It was almost as if Lopez was saying, "I am part of this elite clique and look how cool I am!" This creates a distance between the characters and the audience. A very big gap.

As good as the actors are, the biggest slap in the face is that out of the company, the majority of the actors are straight. Especially the leads. Only Hickey is a gay man out of the 5 main characters: Soller, Burnap, Levine and Hilton are all straight. If Lopez is "preaching to/teaching" the audience about the history of gay men what kind of reference do these actors have? Ryan Murphy's revival of "Boys in the Band" was publicized heavily that each of the actors were gay. There is a knowledge there. An understanding. An actual history. I can't believe this hasn't been more of a talking point. I understand that all actors can play any number of characters, blah, blah, blah and shouldn't be typecast, BUT! Don't get me wrong, the acting was terrific, I am taking away nothing from their work. It is just an ethical point to me. Lopez constantly reminds us about our history and understanding, but how can these actors even imagine what it is like to walk in our shoes? Shouldn't the casting process be about authenticity with a play like this? The "gay play of the decade" and the majority of the actors are straight? I might in the minority here, but it was insulting to me.

Updated On: 11/20/19 at 10:55 AM