THE THIRD STORY - Charles Busch

[Insider2]

Posted: 1/20/09 at 1:52pm

Has anyone seen this yet? If so, please post your comments. Very curious about this one. A lot of peeople over on allthatchat have posted very negative reviews, which surprised me. Has anyone here seen it? Thanks!

[jordangirl]

Posted: 1/20/09 at 2:10pm

I think I'm seeing it Friday... I need to double check when my ticket is. LOL.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 1/20/09 at 4:33pm

I saw it last week and was underwhelmed. Busch was fine. Turner was still learning the role. But I didn't really enjoy the play itself...the structure was very confusing, but I do think there was a good message in there somewhere. I much preferred "Our Leading Lady," another play of Busch's, which was fantastic!

[jordangirl]

Posted: 1/23/09 at 10:13pm

I left at intermission. Only the second time I've EVER done that. I just could not take any more. Not my thing I guess. It seemed that a lot of the audience was loving it based on the laughs. I don't think I cracked a smile. Yuck!

[otis33]

Posted: 1/23/09 at 10:23pm

I saw it at La Jolla. I enjoyed some of the performances, but frankly, thought Busch was all over the place. There were moments where he really looked like he didn't know what was going on. I also don't know that the La Jolla audience was the right audience for the show. I found it long, and confusing.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 1/23/09 at 10:28pm

I'm seeing it tomorrow. I had been foreward by someone who has already seen it that it is LONG, that Turner is marking through her performance, although the 2nd Act is better than the first. I'll submit my thoughts on Sunday.

[jordangirl]

Posted: 1/24/09 at 9:14am

I will agree that it definitely FELT long. The first act is only about an hour ~ maybe less, but I was actually fighting the urge to squirm. A lot.

Had I been on an aisle I might have tried sticking it out for Act 2 and then leaving if necessary, but I was in the middle of the row. (Had I been on the aisle, I probably would have gotten up when I needed to squirm.)

I'll be interested to hear your thoughts ed. :)

[once a month]

Posted: 1/24/09 at 10:08am

Sorry to report that I was vastly disappointed. It began promising enough and as far as I'm concerned, Charles Busch can do no wrong. The weak link with Turner, who I also loved in Indiscretians and thought did merely okay with The Graduate.
The writing was disjointed, going back and forth between the 3 stories. The third 'magical' story was confusing and I still don't know why it had to be included. The cast, exclusive of Turner, were spot on in their portrayals and dialogue. I wanted to like this so badly, but left the theatre thinking about my grocery list.

Too bad, too, since I had last row aisle seats, and when it began and the lights went down, the usher told us to actually go grab the better seats, 2nd row aisle. Thanks you to the kind usher...all other seats were sold out with the balcony closed.

[bwayfascination]

Posted: 1/24/09 at 12:09pm

I'll be contrary and say that I liked it. It wasn't life-changing, but I thought it was fun and had an interesting structure. I do agree that it would be well served by a good editor.

[mlsheehan]

Posted: 1/24/09 at 1:36pm

I saw it in La Jolla and was vastly disappointed. Way too long. I thought that Mr. Busch might make some changes or cuts, but it doesn't sound like it.

Most of it was mildly amusing to me, but rarely laugh out loud funny. Some good performances, but many scenes that were way too long and some that should have been deleted completely.

There is way too much plot in this show and perhaps "The Second Story" would be much better by removing the "magical" story which is poorly incorporated and doesn't really add much to the whole structure anyway. Stick to what works best the pastache of 40's melodrama mixed with mad scientist story.
Updated On: 1/24/09 at 01:36 PM

[once a month]

Posted: 1/24/09 at 10:19pm

I agree wholeheartedly...the magical elements clearly don't work and should've been jettisoned. I'd have been happier leaving the theatre if it were The Second Story.

[Insider2]

Posted: 1/26/09 at 10:58am

I saw it, finally.

I agree with some, but not all of what has been said here.

I think the show is basically a big mess, but I also thought it was a fairly fun mess. Busch is trying to make some sort of big dramatic statement about mother/son love, but he has to remember that the reason we love him is not because he is Eugene O'Neill but because he is Charles Busch. One goes to a Charles Busch play looking for a zany, fast-paced, spoof or a wild camp comedy, and not a layered drama. Every time he has tried to do a dramatic play, he has failed. Queen Amarantha anyone???

Here, he tries to have the best of both worlds and combines a spoof with a somewhat serious story of an alcoholic mother (Kathleen Turner) and her rather damaged son.

This is not what I was expecting, that's for sure. When I heard that Turner had signed for this, I assumed that she would be playing the role usually played by Julie Halston, the hard-boiled, zinger-spouting best pal of Busch's character. But because Turner is in a different story than Busch, they rarely share stage time (except for when Turner doubles as a minor character in Busch's story). I think this is a big opportunity missed.

The acting is very good, and there is a certain amount of fun to be had here, but the overall feel is that this is really not a very good play. The critical response should be mixed, at best. I wanted to love this, and I'm sorry that I didn't.

[Pocketsquared Fanadu]

Posted: 1/26/09 at 2:10pm

Boy, I have to agree with most of the posts on here. "All over the place" is exactly the phrase that I used to describe this piece, and it could definitely stand cutting. I also thought the actor portraying Turner's son looked more like a spouse or brother. I do love Charles Busch--never miss Times Square Angel each Christmas--but this is just too disjointed. I enjoyed the "author's note" in the playbill infinitely more than the play.

[ZiggyCringe]

Posted: 1/29/09 at 12:40am

Yikes.

Saw this show tonight, and Julie Halston was sitting in front of me. Holland Taylor was sitting to my right.

NOBODY laughed. The room was deadlier than "To Be or Not to Be."

Here's the thing. If JULIE HALSTON, who is the quintessential Charles Busch interpreter, doesn't even chortle at her best friend's show, there's something terribly wrong going on here.

In the playbill, Charles said he has ideas, and the first idea is usually bad, the second is worse, but the "third story" ties it altogether.

I've seen EVERY Charles Busch play, from "Times Square Angel" (up to now, my least favorite) to "Psycho Beach Party" (a work that I think is genius).

But even a middling Busch piece like "Die, Mommy, Die," had hysterical laughs, and was an entertaining night in the theatre. Whether you think Charles Busch is a genius or not, he's never put together a piece of theatre as bad as this is.

NO ONE laughed at the Lortel tonight, including his best interpreter, Julie Halston.

Yikes.

However, the cast was terrific. Especially Jennifer Van Dyck and Scott Parkinson. This production was NOT THEIR FAULT. The entire cast did great work, despite the odds.

It's just, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there was simply no "There, There."

Actually there was not even a "The" there.

Updated On: 1/29/09 at 12:40 AM