TIME AND THE CONWAYS (2017) Previews — Page 2

Saw this tonight and I'm totally with Jordan on this one. I, too, am sure this will be one of my favorites of the year.

The themes of time, fate, destiny, mortality and all that goes with it (life choices, etc) are explored and if you're a certain age (and just had a zero-birthday), it all hits a bit too close to home. There are so many ideas at work here, that there is almost too much to consider in one viewing.

The cast is uniformly good to great. Any slight missteps will easily be remedied by this group of consummate professionals. Still shaking my head at Steven Boyer.

Yes, the scene changes are rather jaw-dropping. The lighting is excellent and actually lends much to the story. The sets are perfect for the mood and ideas being conveyed and the show is very well-directed by the exceptionally talented, Rebecca Taichman.

I have to disagree with Whizzer. Act 3, does, indeed, let us see how expectations are met or unmet, dreams and plans don't always go as planned, for better or worse, and how past, present and future are all here and now. We own time or it owns us. And, the irony of the one character who says "The point is to live," is sad but so true. The references to Blake's poem are interesting, as well.

Act 1 might seem a bit slow to some. Stick with it. It's a necessary set-up for Act 2 and we return to it, in Act 3.

It's difficult to describe the play without giving it away. I will be returning to this later in the run and I'm still trying to figure out the significance of the ending and why the one character who comes downstage, does what she does and says what she says.

I didn't just like this play, I LOVED it. Kudos Roundabout.

How long is the run-time on this?

2:25 last night

This sounds rather interesting. I guess if we can make it through the (slower) Act 1, we will be in for an entertaining evening through Acts 2 and 3. I'm willing to take a chance on my next B'way excursion if 'the price is right'.

When it opens in October, is it being billed as a 'limited engagement' or as 'open ended' ?

I enjoyed the play much more than I thought I would. The contrast between the two time periods and the meditation on time itself were striking. The cast was quite good. I was especially impressed by Gabriel Ebert and Steven Boyer, the latter doing a 180-degree turn from his role in HAND TO GOD. (Was his accent supposed to be Scottish? Or just lower-class British?). Charlotte Parry, playing daughter Kay, reminded me--at least in the 1937 sequence--of Julie Andrews playing Gertrude Lawrence in STAR. I thought Elizabeth McGovern was slightly over the top, but perhaps that quality of "too much" was intrinsic to the character. As the performances mount up, I'm thinking she may become more modulated.

One demur: Some of us in the Access10 seats, at least those bought on the original sale date, had difficulty hearing some lines spoken by certain actors in their "veddy" British accent. Audibility improved considerably in Act 2 for some reason.

Overall, I am quite fond of this production.

I think part of the Act 1 audibility problems has to do with this being by far the least interesting of the three acts. I know other things are already starting to percolate under the surface early on, but a lot of the first act involves chatter and games playing at a 21-year-old's birthday party. Maybe with a few more performances under this cast's belt, it'll seem more spontaneous and less of a slog. That being said, Acts 2 & 3 are certainly worth the wait.

Cesare2 said: "I think part of the Act 1 audibility problems has to do with this being by far the least interesting of the three acts. I know other things are already starting to percolate under the surface early on, but a lot of the first act involves chatter and games playing at a 21-year-old's birthday party. Maybe with a few more performances under this cast's belt, it'll seem more spontaneous and less of a slog. That being said, Acts 2 & 3 are certainly worth the wait."

I was Row B Front Mezz and lost a few lines.

I think the first act is more important than it seems. The charades game and each character's relation to the game (Mr. Beevers saying he never played and later on, being told he played quite well) was the least subtle idea in the play.

I think Act 1 becomes more interesting when you get to Act 3, but I agree that the set-up makes it a bit difficult to get the momentum going.

I heard from someone who was there tonight that McGovern is ill. And it's apparently chaotic at the American Airlines.

We arrived at theater 7:45 and heard it had just been cancelled. Not sure who was ill but understudy wasn't ready. I had ACESS10 so got a refund. Very disappointed.

Oh man, I lucked out. I had access10 for tonight but my plans changed so I switched them to last night.

I saw the show last night...I tend to agree with Whizzer, and I may have even liked it less than he did.

This was my 2nd exposure to Priestly, after An Inspector Calls. I think I had basically the same sense of both plays: I think Priestly has a lot of great ideas. The themes are interesting, the message is significant, the context of when the plays were written are clear, and greatly inform the content. On paper, this play is right up my alley. I love plays that deal with time in emotional ways, exactly like they do here.

My issue is that I just absolutely hate his writing. I just think he is in desperate need of some subtlety, and can't seem to help but batter us over the heads. The big "discussing the future" section in act 3 was so on the nose it made me want to vomit. I literally couldn't help but laugh and roles my eyes several times. And I found large portions of it to be very dull, and agree with Whizzer than most of the performers tended to overact, with the exception of Steven Boyer and Gabe Ebert, who were the standouts, IMO, even though their roles weren't all that meaty. I did enjoy the ends of acts 2 and 3, but I would have found them transcendently beautiful if they had been surrounded by a better writing.

The set change, and the way it's used in Act 2, is indeed brilliant. I also really enjoyed the use of incidental music in pivotal moments.

Based solely on seeing it, I would wager that Stoppard was influenced by this play when he wrote Arcadia. But I think Arcadia is about 100x better than this play in virtually every regard.

Updated On: 9/16/17 at 11:17 PM

Someone above wrote that Times Square was a zoo last night. I wasn't there, but a friend who was an Access10 victim last night said she was accosted near the theater by a stranger who sprayed what she hoped was just Silly String all over her head.

Is some wacko taking the somewhat exaggerated The Deuce too much to heart? I thought those days were over on Disneyfied 42nd St.