I saw the show this evening through TDF (Mezz Row B). While there were more than a few walkouts at intermission, many people seemed to enjoy the show. There was frequent laughter, and exit applause on a least two occasions, including (if I remember correctly) after James Joyce dresses down Tristan Tzara.
I was unfamiliar with the play and liked it a lot overall (Act I more than Act II, actually). Also, although I'm sure I missed some allusions, etc., it seems to me that Stoppard fills in the historical basics in a helpful manner to keep people from getting seriously lost.
But I agree with the thrust of an earlier comment that the production came across as more superficial than necessary. Partly, I think, this is just tentativeness during early previews of an extremely wordy play (for example, tonight the actor playing Bennett had some trouble with one of his long speeches and seemed to be prompted by Hollander -- along the lines of, "I believe you were going to say something about Marx." )
A more significant problem, to me, and one reason I preferred Act I, was the focus on Lenin in Act II. Lenin's views on art, as presented, struck me as not only much less intellectually interesting than any of the other characters' -- which I would imagine is the point -- but also less compelling in even their practical implications (due not only to the fall of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc but also to a possibly related loss of stature suffered by the arts themselves -- unlike in the 1970s, I think it's very hard to view art as a serious threat to anything these days).
Updated On: 3/31/18 at 03:16 AM