TIME AND THE CONWAYS (2017) Previews

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 9/12/17 at 9:17am

Previews for the first-ever Broadway revival of J.B. Priestley's Time and the Conways [1938] begin in two days (Thursday, September 14, 2017) at the American Airlines Theatre. Directed by recent Tony winner Rebecca Taichman (of Indecent) and starring Elizabeth McGovern (of Downton Abbey), Time and the Conways will open officially on October 10 for a limited run through November 26.

Who's going?!

Updated On: 9/12/17 at 09:17 AM

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

Posted: 9/12/17 at 9:21am

WhizzerMarvin recently told me he was summering in another country. I wonder if he'll be returning to his masterwork reviews for this new season.

[Valentina3]

Posted: 9/12/17 at 9:22am

Is this the official thread though? :P

[wolfwriter]

Posted: 9/12/17 at 11:52am

Heads up if anyone wants Access10 tix to see this. Roundabout has released a bunch.

[matty159]

Posted: 9/12/17 at 6:46pm

Thanks for the heads up, wolfwriter!  Grabbed seats for Friday.  I haven't seen them release these tickets so close to opening.  Must be looking to fill the house.  Not complaining for $10.  And there are still seats available.

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 9/14/17 at 9:49am

Anybody going to first preview tonight?

[theater_tech]

Posted: 9/14/17 at 11:46am

I'll be there

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/14/17 at 12:08pm

I'll be there too. 

[@z5]

Posted: 9/14/17 at 12:17pm

Going tomorrow night.

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 9/14/17 at 10:31pm

Is there anything to report from the first preview?

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 9/14/17 at 10:38pm

Jeffrey Karasarides said: "Is there anything to report from the first preview?"

Pretty sure it was an 8 p.m. curtain, so it might just be getting out now. 

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/14/17 at 11:21pm

I just got home from tonight's preview. The runtime was 2.5 hours. 

The play is a bit odd. One of these old plays from the 1930's that is very talky with loads of exposition during the first act. You sit through it and absorb the info in hopes of a grand payoff in the next two acts; there is only one intermission, placed between acts two and three. I actually felt the play ended quite nicely after act two and act three only underlined what we already knew rather than presenting (m)any new ideas. Gabriel Ebert had a rather lovely monologue on the metaphysics of time at the end of act two; he was also my favorite actor of the evening, never pushing too hard or overdoing it. 

Act one takes place in 1919 after the end of WWI. Everyone is happy and brimming with optimism in the Conway household, which consists of the recently widowed Mrs. Conway and her six children. Act two time jumps nearly 20 years in the future to 1937 when things are not quite as rosier as everyone imagined them to be. Act three returns the action to 1919 to remind us differently the characters expected things to turn out. 

Roundabout also seems to pull out one of these types of shows every other season or so. It's reminiscent of The Winslow Boy and comes off about as well. The acting ranges from fine to good, but almost everyone has a moment (or several) of going a bit over the top. 

The set is cool and there's an impressive change between acts. 

I guess you might classify this play as an old chestnut, but even that might be going too far. It's more like half a chestnut. 

 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/14/17 at 11:26pm

For some reason, this show really interests me. Is there some "time travel" portion? I'm kind of interested in seeing it, but it also sounds rather boring. 

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 9/14/17 at 11:31pm

RippedMan said: "For some reason, this show really interests me. Is there some "time travel" portion? I'm kind of interested in seeing it, but it also sounds rather boring."

Exactly how I feel, LOL! The idea of journeying through time with a family sounds fascinating, and Elizabeth McGovern as a period character also sounds wonderful. But I worry this is just a bore. 

[hork]

Posted: 9/14/17 at 11:34pm

BroadwayConcierge said: "RippedMan said: "For some reason, this show really interests me. Is there some "time travel" portion? I'm kind of interested in seeing it, but it also sounds rather boring."

Exactly how I feel, LOL! The idea of journeying throughtime with afamily sounds fascinating, and Elizabeth McGovern as a period character also sounds wonderful. But I worry this is just a bore."

Yes. Yes to all of this. I felt kind of drawn to this play but now I'm not sure.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/14/17 at 11:35pm

I guess this is a semi-spoiler? 

But to answer your question, Rippedman, there is no explicit time travel per se, but there is a hint at the top of act three that Kay, one of the four Conway daughters, dreamt the future of act two's 1937 and was awakening from her bad dream of the future to come. But no, the characters are not time traveling in a sci-fi type way. This was more like Alan Ayckbourn style playing with time. 

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/14/17 at 11:40pm

I think "interesting and boring" is a good way to describe it. I was interested on a cerebral level, but bored on an emotional one. The characters are mostly well-drawn, but I wasn't invested in what happened to them, save perhaps Ebert's Alan. 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/14/17 at 11:42pm

Hm. For some reason I thought it was  sci-fi (low-fi?) sort of time travel play, which interested me. But sounds like it's not. But I'm not turned off by Alan Ayckbourn. Not an Ebert fan. I just find him...a lot. But I think I'll rush it.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/14/17 at 11:50pm

I mean, I could say something else, but I think if you're going to go you might as well not read that much more about it. Basically it deals more with a theory of time than time travel itself. Ebert lays out the theory in his monologue at the end of act two and we get a greater understanding of how it works at the end of the play. 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/14/17 at 11:55pm

You've piqued my interest. And plus you mentioned an interesting set change, so I'll def. go, ha. 

[After Eight]

Posted: 9/15/17 at 8:07am

The first scene was boring in the extreme; the second and third were very good. Elizabeth McGovern was excellent, bringing thought, shading, and vitality to her characterization. Gabriel Ebert knows how to play feckless characters to perfection, as he shows here. 

In the end, i think it offers a worthwhile evening at the theatre, with a moving overall theme.

[Cesare2]

Posted: 9/15/17 at 8:35am

I have to disagree with Whizzr's assessment of Act 3.  Act 3 is very important.  In Act 3, which follows in linear time immediately from Act 1, we see the seeds sown leading to much of the despair in Act 2.  (Merrily We Roll Along, anyone?)

The play is informed by Priestley's view that time is not really linear, but rather that past, present, and future exist simultaneously.  Priestley finds consolation in this.  You don't have to buy into this theory, though, to get a lot out of the play.

About 20 years ago, Priestley's An Inspector Calls, his best known "time play," was a big hit in a staging by Stephen Daldry.  This play is not as didactic but has similar themes.

I saw the Roundabout production last night.  It's still getting its bearings, not yet up to the 1985 BBC TV production starring Claire Bloom available on youtube.

[theater_tech]

Posted: 9/15/17 at 9:52am

I am no expert in reviewing/analyzing plays (I’m much more familiar with musicals and see them much, much more), but here are my two cents:

Everything whizzer said is true. The first half of act 1 is “set” in 1919 Brittain; second half of act 1 is in 1937 Brittain. Second act is in 1919 Brittain again. I write “set”, because this is where the concept of time kicks in. I can’t say anything else without giving too much away. 

Downton Abbey watchers will definitely remember Mrs. Crawley watching Elizabeth McGovern, who did a terrific job, by the way. The rest of the cast were great as well. Not mind-blowing, but good enough. I thought their British accents were a little off. 

Yes, there is a lot of exposition. Very little action occurs (there’s singing and one slap on the face). To my own surprise, I did not get bored or lose attention throughout. 

To summarize it terribly: first part of act 1 is joyful and everything’s okay; second part of act 1 is “oh no, everything is wrong and terrible”; act two, we go back to the time of the first part of act 1 (1919), but because we know what’s going to happen, it’s “aaw, they have no idea “

I guess the interesting part of the show is the fact that we’re shown the same timeline (1919) but see it in different perspectives during act 1 and act 2 respectively.

No Doctor Who-style time-traveling occurs.  

I can confidently review that the theater design aspects of the show are fantastic. Neil Patel’s set of the living room(s) reflect the passing of time. Paloma Young’s costume are colorful and compliments the set very well (also helps differentiates the characters). Christopher Akerlind’s lighting takes the cake though. There IS a cool set change where all of these come together, and, yes, it is quite possibly one of the coolest set change I’ve ever seen. 

Overall, I had a great and entertaining time, and the show was well worth $79.

[dave1606]

Posted: 9/15/17 at 10:48am

I was there last night and agree with Whizzer. I'm in a unique position (long story) that I ended up with two sets of tickets and will be going back on Saturday. I'll report back then as well. 

I saw An Inspector Calls in London and about the only thing I liked was the set design.  I found the play frustrating and pointless.

The set design is definitely a standout and I really thought it worked well for the second scene. 

But this I found interesting if not completely successful. I love the themes that it is exploring. I found the first half to be much more successful and agree with Whizzer that it could very well have ended after the second scene and I would have been happy.

Elizabeth McGovern seems to still be getting her bearings. She has a bit of a bipolar part to play, seemingly fun loving mother in the first scene to nearly full-on August Osage County in the second.  I think tonally its a tricky part to play and she veers into camp for some of it. I adored her on Downton Abbey and hope she finds a good balance.  

Matthew James Thomas (who is British and who I usually love) has a bit of a strange accent and didn't really work for me here. I liked most of the sisters though Gabriel Ebert was definitely a standout and is a warm presence on stage.

Overall, despite my issues I am actually happy to return to the play and interested in Cesare2's assessment of Act 3 which I will focus on a bit more on my next visit. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/15/17 at 11:29pm

MY GOD, I ADORED THIS PRODUCTION. 

 

It shocked the hell out of me. I have to say, the thought of sitting through yet another antiquated drawing room Roundabout show was not something I was particularly looking forward to. But this play just really touched me on a pretty deep level tonight. The themes on time that it explores are themes that I've always been fascinated with and drawn to. I've always had a very deep emotional connection tonplays like OUR TOWN and SIDE MAN and shows  like that and this fits very nicely in there. 

 

The cast is uniformly strong, led by McGovern who deserves a Tony nomination and I'll riot if she doesn't get it. But everyone is so strong and perfectly cast here. The set, very simple at first, is extraordinary in how it changes throughout the show. I can see where people might say it drags in a few spots and I can't argue with that but the sum of the piece more than makes up for those very few moments. 

 

I can very easily see myself next year saying that this was my favorite show of the 2017-2018 season.