#26
Posted: 9/20/18 at 12:37pm
followtheneon, I hate to be that person, but...can you say what the running time is?
THE LIFESPAN OF A FACT Previews — Page 2
#27
Posted: 9/20/18 at 12:38pm
Sauja said: "followtheneon, I hate to be that person, but...can you say what the running time is?"
For some reason, it actually says right on the show's website on a big banner that it's 1 hour, 35 minutes with no intermission 
#28
Posted: 9/20/18 at 4:02pm
Sauja said: "followtheneon, I hate to be that person, but...can you say what the running time is?"
No worries! It probably ran a bit longer last night. It was about 1hr 40min with no intermission. I think it's supposed to be around 90 minutes.
Updated On: 9/20/18 at 04:02 PM
#29
Posted: 9/20/18 at 4:07pm
Wow, it's already 40% off at TKTS.
Actually now that I think about it I'm not sure I've ever looked for a first preview on there, so maybe it's common.
Updated On: 9/20/18 at 04:07 PM
#31
Posted: 9/20/18 at 8:50pm
Not too uncommon for plays.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#32
Posted: 9/20/18 at 11:22pm
Saw the first preview tonight.
There are definitely some excellent moments, but overall it left me a little cold. Structurally, the play feels imbalanced. The show is roughly 95 minutes, and the first 40 minutes or so feels mostly like build-up to the inevitable face-off between the writer and the fact checker (Radcliffe and Canavale). And when the faceoff finally happens, it gets old really quickly because it’s just “this fact you wrote is wrong!” “But I want to keep it the way it is!” “But facts are important!” “But style is important!” Over and over again in different variations. Plus it gets kind of preachy in the end, though I was happy that they avoiding making explicit references to the Trump administration, which would have been all too easy given the themes and subject matter. They do explore some interesting philosophical and ideological territory, but the most insightful sections are also the least dramatically interesting.
Some of the problems do seem fixable: For example, the last 15 minutes or so feel very busy and muddled, like the playwrights are trying out some different ideas all in a row, none of which feels very fleshed out. Hopefully they’ll find their footing in previews.
The good news is: all three actors are perfectly cast, and they do a great job. It’s really fun watching Radcliffe and Canavale play opposite each other, with Jones as the frustrated mediator. Radcliffe and Canavale in particular have great comedic timing, which tends to elevate the just-ok jokes.
Overall, a worthwhile time at the theatre to see some charming and talented performers.
#33
Posted: 9/20/18 at 11:30pm
Factual accuracy is important in describing news events. So declaims the Daniel Radcliffe character repeatedly in this new play which had its first preview this evening. I wholeheartedly approve of the sentiment. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the play. It's a slight piece (95 minutes, no intermission.), that rehashes the same arguments again and again in less than arresting fashion. There are a few moments when dramatic sparks fly, but unfortunately, too few, as the drama wanes more often than it waxes.
Cherry Jones gives another expert performance here. Daniel Radcliffe attacks his part with laser-like determination. Unfortunately for him- and us -- the character is one note, and frankly, irritating. He plays one of those elite-school know-it-alls who constantly lecture others in self-righteous superiority. And yet our moral paragon is not averse to overhearing conversations of others who are unaware of his presence. Bobby Cannavale performs well in a part that could use some beefing up.
#34
Posted: 9/20/18 at 11:38pm
I saw the show tonight and thought it was very good. All three actors did an excellent job. The last 20 minutes of the show are particularly amazing. After about an hou at the stagedoor, Daniel came out and signed for everyone and took pictures with anyone.
#35
Posted: 9/21/18 at 12:39am
If you showed this play to a group of journalism students, they'd all rush to the registrar and change their majors to something more exciting.
It's an odd little play about fact-checking an essay. There's nothing really awful about it, it's just bland. It's like if the color beige was a play. It's only 100 minutes but it feels much longer. After a really monotonous opening scene, it gets a little better, and the final half hour is the best. However, there are a lot of fictional names and events being thrown around, so it's really easy to get lost.
The actors elevate these caricatures, but nobody's getting a Tony nomination here. The editor role such a waste of Cherry Jones's talent, I can't believe she's returning to Broadway in this after 2 Tony's and an Emmy. Cannavalle is probably the best but he's kind of one-note. Radcliffe is onstage most of the play, but the play would probably be better with someone more quirky and neurotic, like Jesse Eisenberg or Aziz Ansari. His American accent is great though!
Also, a big deal was made about the all-female creative team in the press, but that's a lie: the hair/wig designer is a man. (And the 3 playwrights, 2 source-material authors, and 3 of the 4 producers on the top line are all men.) It's a small gripe, and it's still MUCH better gender parity than most shows, but the play needs to fact-check itself!
If you go, I wouldn't spend more than $30. Or you could save your money and queue up a Harry Potter movie, an episode of Handmaiden's Tale, and an episode of Vinyl.
#36
Posted: 9/21/18 at 8:40am
I quite liked it. I thought the three actors were all pretty wonderful and the play cracked along nicely. It does a lovey job of approaching questions of truthfulness in an especially relevant way.
Could it be a better play? Yes. The tension never reaches a fever pitch, the stakes don’t feel as high as they could, and the exposition is clumsy. But that said, it’s also quite funny and really very thoughtful. And it’s getting about the best production it could—the cast has great chemistry, the design is fantastic, and it’s beautifully directed.
It’s thought-provoking, entertaining, and imperfect. I’m glad I saw it.
Could it be a better play? Yes. The tension never reaches a fever pitch, the stakes don’t feel as high as they could, and the exposition is clumsy. But that said, it’s also quite funny and really very thoughtful. And it’s getting about the best production it could—the cast has great chemistry, the design is fantastic, and it’s beautifully directed.
It’s thought-provoking, entertaining, and imperfect. I’m glad I saw it.
#37
Posted: 9/21/18 at 9:01am
For me the play was a rare combination of intelligence and humor that not only had me laughing out loud frequently but was also thought-provoking. I think Daniel Radcliffe keeps growing in stature as an actor, and his performance here is the best I've seen him in New York. He's intense, spirited, and throughly believable. Both Cherry Jones and Bobby Cannavale are equally fine. The audience was definitely with it and gave the play a sustained standing ovation. A friend I was with told me that since Roundabout is doing "Kiss Me Kate" at Studio beginning in February, this is a limited engagement that is actually really limited, unlike "The Ferryman" and "Network". I think this is a good start to the season.
#38
Posted: 9/21/18 at 9:01am
For me the play was a rare combination of intelligence and humor that not only had me laughing out loud frequently but was also thought-provoking. I think Daniel Radcliffe keeps growing in stature as an actor, and his performance here is the best I've seen him in New York. He's intense, spirited, and throughly believable. Both Cherry Jones and Bobby Cannavale are equally fine. The audience was definitely with it and gave the play a sustained standing ovation. A friend I was with told me that since Roundabout is doing "Kiss Me Kate" at Studio beginning in February, this is a limited engagement that is actually really limited, unlike "The Ferryman" and "Network". I think this is a good start to the season.
#39
Posted: 9/21/18 at 9:07am
I don't think I'll see it but it sounds essentially like the same 3 characters in the recent 'the stone witch' with the writer being crazy. I don't think I can ever bear anything remotely like that thing.
#40
Posted: 9/21/18 at 9:13am
Looking forward to seeing this...and I think you're right about the "limited engagement" of Network, where truth isn't really truth (is it ever?) in advertising. An actor told me that a colleague was told that it was a potential 30 week engagement so that the production has a chance of recouping. I understand that the National's acclaimed (deservedly so) and award-winning "Angels in America" lost over 80 per cent of its investment. Could that be true?
#41
Posted: 9/21/18 at 9:58am
rg7759 said: "I don't think I'll see it but it sounds essentially like the same 3 characters in the recent 'the stone witch' with the writer being crazy. I don't think I can ever bear anything remotely like that thing."
YES, it was a lot like the Stone Witch! Except I don't think the writer character is crazy here, just a pretentious a**hole.
#42
Posted: 9/21/18 at 11:46am
For anyone wondering about rush. I showed up today at about 11:15 and was able to get 2 tickets. Seats are in the rear mezzanine Row FF on the end.
#44
Posted: 9/23/18 at 2:28pm
I saw it Friday night.
Funnier than I would have expected, very intelligent, and very well cast. Daniel Radcliffe is absolutely perfect for the role of Jim and his American accent is very good. Bobby Cannavale did a good job as D'Agata, and he and Radcliffe play off each other well, with Cherry Jones doing a wonderful job as the mediator.
It's quite thought provoking, especially with the questions asked in the final moments. Really well paced and put together for a second preview, ran just under 90 minutes. I agree that the design is great and that it's well directed.
Overall, definitely worth it, in my opinion.
#45
Posted: 9/24/18 at 1:02pm
After Eight said: "the character is one note, and frankly, irritating.He plays one of those elite-school know-it-alls who constantly lecture others in self-righteous superiority."
Why does this sound so familiar?!
#46
Posted: 9/24/18 at 9:59pm
I thoroughly enjoyed the show tonight. It ran about 85 minutes, with the lights coming up at exactly 9:30. Like others have said, they were parts of it that were very very funny but it’s actually a very thought-provoking play - especially today, with actual facts being less and less important to some people. For me, the show did not drag at all so maybe they’re getting more comfortable with the characters. This is a play I think I’ll go and see again before closes since I’m sure I’ll be thinking about it quite a bit for the next couple of days.
#47
Posted: 9/24/18 at 10:36pm
I was putting off buying a ticket to see if this popped up on TDF, but this thread convinced me to check Stubhub. I managed to get a pretty good ticket for less than face value, even after the fees, for this Thursday (and with my luck it'll be on tdf tomorrow). I'm excited, I last saw Daniel Radcliffe in Equus and absolutely loved him in that. I'm excited to see him again.
#48
Posted: 9/24/18 at 10:41pm
haterobics said: "After Eight said: "the character is one note, and frankly, irritating.He plays one of those elite-school know-it-alls who constantly lecture others in self-righteous superiority."
Why does this sound so familiar?!"
C’mon, haterobics. You know very well that you-know-who never went to school (none of them met his high high standards).
#49
Posted: 9/24/18 at 10:51pm
How’s the design? Sounds like a big space for a small 3 person play.
#50
Posted: 9/24/18 at 10:54pm
They use the space well. At first it’s an office (a desk and two chairs, really) that slides on and off stage and then turns into the living room of a house for the remainder of the play.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95