The Flick returns to New York — Page 2

"Did anybody go to the first performance last night or is planning on going during the run?
Even though I trashed the show earlier, I tried reading it again and for some reason it seriously moved me the second time I read it. Sorry for bashing it before, but it just shows you that you have to actually finish a play in order to make an assessment of it.
I'm going back to New York in the fall and I'd love to see this, though I can't imagine it would have that long of a run considering the negative audience response for the show when it played at Playwrights Horizons."

Negative response ?

Out of curiosity, I meant to check my watch on Saturday night as the performance was beginning, and again just as it ended, but forgot to do either. My rough recollections are that the show started at least five minutes after the scheduled curtain time (as most do); that intermission seemed to lasted closer to twenty minutes than the scheduled fifteen (again, not uncommon); and that the show ended around 11:25. (My watch said 11:30 when I finally remembered to check it, on the street a minute or two after leaving the theatre). Meaning that the actual playing time was probably a hair over three hours NOT including intermission, for a total running time of 3:15 - 3:20ish including intermission.

I hadn't seen or read the play before, though I did remember reading about the controversy it sparked at PH. (Full disclosure: I worked on The Flick's set for a few days in 2013, without knowing anything about the play itself, except that it would apparently have to be staged within the parameters of a hyperrealistic set that was going to be filled with movie-theatre seats all the way to the apron edge, which struck me at the time as an unusual challenge. But I wouldn't say that that brief and exceedingly-minor connection to the show -- which I'd nearly forgotten about, two years later -- inspired any particular loyalty to, nor prejudice against it).

I suspect that trimming fifteen minutes off the playing time might be a good thing overall, but I didn't begrudge those 15min, nor did they sink the show by any means. (Trimming off as much as 45min would sink it, I'm virtually certain; there's just not that much air to squeeze out, as far as I could tell from a single viewing).

It's neither altogether flawless nor wildly revolutionary, but it's certainly not deserving of the hostility it has elicited from some quarters. Purely as a matter of personal taste, I'd rather have seen the Pulitzer go to Fun Home. But The Flick is an interesting and worthy and quietly effective piece of writing (and staging/performance), and it does push gently at certain boundaries in commercial playwriting which could probably use the nudge. The physical production is pretty much ideal (though I'd like to have seen it at Playwrights too, just for comparison between the two spaces), and the cast is quite good. I'm curious to read the script now, just to see whether it reads much differently than it plays.

Updated On: 5/15/15 at 01:00 AM

http://f**kyeahgreatplays.tumblr.com/post/118694712921

(replace the asterisks)

Updated On: 5/13/15 at 08:56 AM

For the record, run time last night (May 15): 3 hours, 15 minutes.

(Started 8:05pm, ended 11:20pm)

Critics in attendance.

Opening night: May 18

Not sure why this production is 15 minutes longer than when it was at Playwrights (and contrary to all "3 hours including intermission" run time listings and signage at the theater).

Would anyone who has seen this at The Barrow Street Theatre please comment on ideal seating for this staging? Is the first row too close for the raked cinema seating on stage? Is the audience seating at Barrow Street raked or flat?

Would anyone who has seen this at The Barrow Street Theatre please comment on ideal seating for this staging?

It couldn't hurt to sit a few rows back. I was sitting I believe in the fourth row center and had a fine view.

Interesting the games they seem to be playing about the play's running time. The website says three hours, one intermission, rather than three hours plus one 15 minute intermission. The night I saw it, running times for both acts were posted, and the first act went at least 15 minutes over.

"Would anyone who has seen this at The Barrow Street Theatre please comment on ideal seating for this staging? Is the first row too close for the raked cinema seating on stage? Is the audience seating at Barrow Street raked or flat?"

Audience seating is raked. I was 4th row center and had good sight of everything, even the projectionist's window. I don't think you'll miss anything wherever you sit in BST--though I can imagine having a sore neck after sitting in the front row for three hours as the stage is fairly high and close to the audience. Minor complaint: Louisa Krause was sometimes difficult to hear and understand when she was upstage. A number of people left at intermission. Too bad. Their loss. This is a great production and Matthew Maher's Sam was worth every single minute of the 3-hour and 10-minute evening.

I saw the show a couple of weeks ago and thought every bit of it was fantastic.

Every single moment on that stage felt needed and full. Having heard so much about the long moments of silence, I was shocked by how short they actually were/felt. The actors filled every moment on that stage, even if, physically, all they were doing was sweeping the floor. The show didn’t feel long to me at all – it felt like less time had passed than in other shows I saw that week which were shorter.

If I hadn’t heard so much about the length of the piece and the silent moments, I honestly don’t know if I would have even noticed or thought much about either.

If the full, natural silences (like, the time it would take to get up to the booth and come back down or to go out to a waiting car and back) weren’t taken to their full extent, it would have felt false in a play like this.

I sat front row and there are, occasionally, moments when one person’s face is blocked (when they are sitting in the seats, but I could always at least see one person’s face). It didn’t bother me at all and I didn’t miss anything. Surprisingly, my neck didn’t hurt – I didn’t feel like it was straining at all. I would suggest a couple of rows back, but if front row is your only option, it was perfectly fine for me.

No one walked out in the middle of the show (as far as I could tell), but I’d say we lost about 10% of the audience at intermission. I can’t fathom leaving the show at that time – I was much too moved and invested to leave these characters.

Almost 3 1/2 hours? Wow. I too think that this play has a great concept, but that does seem like a bit much. Then again, as a writer I sometimes have trouble with making things long ENOUGH, so it may just seem daunting to me...

I found it a challenging play to read. In print, it has a first draft long-winded quality, and seems to meander off on self-indulgent digressions that don't immediately coalesce. The writing itself is certainly solidly authentic (specificity of voice, appropriateness of naturalistic diction in the demographic), the characters developed. The milieu is absolutely compelling. As is the premise and personal stakes that accompany it. It's just so dense and discursive, so unrelentingly static, the tangents about film lore among aficianados begin to feel repetitive. I still plan to try and see it, because I'm too fascinated by its impact in performance. I wish it were cheaper.

Updated On: 7/7/15 at 01:18 PM

Extended to January 10, 2016!