The Inheritance - Previews — Page 2

standingovation79 said: "So I was at the first preview of the show last night, and I have to say, (cast withholding, it's previews they'll get better) this show is just flat out over hyped. The writing is just not special enough to be anything but trite. There's no central conflict so scenes go on and on without engaging the audience. And quite frankly there is just no real character development here. Sorry not sorry, Matthew Lopez is not the next great american gay writer....that takes revealing hard truths. there are none here that haven't been said before and this feels more like and exploitation of them than an honest dramatization.

And yes, it is previews, but the cast seemed like avatars...not a single performance to get behind, except maybe Paul Hilton's.

The star of the show IF ANY is Stephen Daldry's elegant direction/staging. The only reason to see it in my opinion."

Are you kidding? Kyle Soller? Andrew Burnap?
I hope you are seeing Part 2 to alter that opinion.

Dolly80 said: "standingovation79 said: "So I was at the first preview of the show last night, and I have to say, (cast withholding, it's previews they'll get better) this show is just flat out over hyped. The writing is just not special enough to be anything but trite. There's no central conflict so scenes go on and on without engaging the audience. And quite frankly there is just no real character development here. Sorry not sorry, Matthew Lopez is not the next great american gay writer....that takes revealing hard truths. there are none here that haven't been said before and this feels more like and exploitation of them than an honest dramatization.

And yes, it is previews, but the cast seemed like avatars...not a single performance to get behind, except maybe Paul Hilton's.

The star of the show IF ANY is Stephen Daldry's elegant direction/staging. The only reason to see it in my opinion."

Are you kidding? Kyle Soller? Andrew Burnap?
I hope you are seeing Part 2 to alter thatopinion."


Is this truly going to become a “The Inheritance is a perfect play and every other opinion will be attacked” thread? This is going to be exhausting.

The hype around this play is ridiculously large - it is bound to disappoint people. I’m sure it’s a wonderful show. But people are allowed to not like it.

Someone on the other board said it didn’t get out last night until 11:15. The show’s website says the running time is three hours and fifteen minutes. Why would it get out at 11:15 if it started at 7:30? Did they start late or have long intermissions last night?

Getting worried because my train home is at 11:17 from Penn next week.

Updated On: 9/28/19 at 04:53 PM

It got out late because both intermissions ran incredibly long. It's safe to say the audience was overwhelmingly men and the restroom lines were insanely long. I've seen a ton of theatre and "gay" plays but it was the first time I've ever seen ushers telling men to use the woman's room towards the end of intermission with the lines for both being long.

The audience also laughed a lot more than the audiences in London, but god bless the actors for never holding too long and just plowing through, often at the expense of other jokes.

BroadwayLuv2 said: "Any word on where rush tickets seat locations are? "

I posted above - For Tonight, I got Orch P-24 (extreme right). Thought I also kindly requested an aisle if possible given my size, so I’m not sure how accurate mine is in the greater rush scheme

Just had a stop down because of a lighting dysfunction during the first ten minutes of the second act. They’re fixing it now, but not sure how long it will be.

UPDATE: After 10 minutes or so, Stephen Daldry came out and apologize and explained the lighting board had a glitch and crash and the off-kilter lighting cues were impacting the actors, so they reset the lighting board and the rest of the act went without a hitch

Updated On: 9/28/19 at 09:17 PM

clever2 said: "Okay. Real talk.

I saw tonight’s preview, and I am not having the religious experience promised me. However, there are pieces of the play that are magnificent, and they usually come during the last quarter of each act. Much of the rest of the play, while occasionally funny and entertaining in a soap opera kind of way, feels like a hybrid of Jeffrey, Lips Together, Teeth Apart, Love! Valor! Compassion!..."

I couldn't decide if the ending was a tribute or just plain rip-off of "Love! Valour Compassion!"

quizking101 said: "When I read the play, as written, I saw Toby as a rather grotesque character and imagined him not looking like he just felt out of Men’s Health magazine. That took quite a bit of getting used to, though I eventually got on board. "



So interesting that Toby is the one you picture as a character you saw as someone not in shape. In my experience, particularly in the NYC gay scene, it’s exactly those who look like they dropped out of Men’s Health who are more likely to act like Toby and are indeed grotesque. Disclaimer: I do not think that EVERYONE who is in shape is automatically an a**hole, but I’d say there’s some theatrical underpinning for having such a classically handsome, in-shape guy as arguably the most internally tortured characters in the play.

HOWEVER, that is not to say that there shouldn’t be body diversity. It was my biggest gripe in London too. Glad to see there’s more ethnic diversity in this cast, though.

Dancingthrulife2 said: "I’ve been under the impression that this is going to be the next Angels but some people here obviously disagree. I love Angels but unlike many I find Perestroika a lot more satisfying and enjoyable than Millennium Approaches for its philosophical ambles and the depth they make room for. For those who’ve seen The Inheritance, how much do you think it resembles Angels? Should I lower my expectation when I see it in two weeks?"

They're similar in length. Lopez has said this is a response to Angels (and the other gay plays mentioned in this thread) and there are obvious parallels and allusions to Angels especially some speeches in Part 2 that are almost directly from the mouth of Belize, but The Inheritance is more a straight forward story with less philosophy and heady ideas. Part 1 essentially builds the world for Part 2 to come in and shatter what you think you know.

Angels is essentially Louis's struggle to cope with what is happening to the gay community around him and The Inheritance is George trying to understand and respond to the world Louis lived through while both being thankful we aren't going through that now and making sure we never forget.

People compare to to Angels because on the surface they're both two part plays dealing with gay men in New York dealing with the AIDS crisis and they're obviously in conversation with each other, but Lopez isn't setting out to write Angels 2: Back in the Gay Bar.

But to basically answer your question, I love Part 2 more than Part 1, same as with Perestorika.

I have mixed feelings about it so far. Very interested to see Part 2, though, as the end suggests it could really get interesting.

Exquisitely directed, acted and designed. Some transcendent moments and had the audience moved and audibly sniffling.

There is some self-conscious writing in it, as well, though. Long sections where I really hear the playwright in the room, not the character. I especially disliked the extended gay culture debate at the start of Act 2 (I think?). It's a conversation I've certainly had with friends and it's relevant, but it's also shoved in and stops the action cold for 15 minutes. It's an Op-Ed, not drama. When the next scene starts, and the older character remarks about how impressed he was with the talk, I thought, "Oh look, the story started again. They've could've cut that whole scene and from that one remark, I would have gotten everything I needed for the story."

Also, though, I reluctantly felt like it's yet another upper middle class white boy gay play. There are actors of color, but they're all the small parts. The central characters are three very pretty white boys, and a couple older white men. And while the characters may be middle class or even poor sometimes, every scene takes place in wealthy spaces. And if someone lacks for money, there's always luck or a very wealthy person there to provide. It acknowledges class openly, but then produces yet another play of well-off pretty white boys.

I just felt like I've seen this play before, but this is just the more ambitious and deliberately elegant version of it.

This sounds harsher than I mean it. Very likely Part 2 will win me over, but these were my reservations on Part 1.

Saw part 1 on Saturday. Went in with ver low expectations and was pleasantly surprised.

The biggest surprise is that the stage is COMPLETELY BARE. Minimum props and costume changes too. But you somehow see EVERYTHING! Amazing actors and direction. Bravo.

The story is very accessible and my seem basic to most. I enjoyed it and am anticipating part 2, although I must say I didn't find it groundbreaking or anything. It was a wonderful night and I don't regret spending the 3 and half hours in the theater. That alone says a LOT about this show. Skillful writing.

I repeat, this show is completely bare. Super minimum. And I still was tied up in it from start to finish. Quite the feat!!! Not the most moving thing I've ever seen, but mark my words: it's cleaning up at the Tonys in June. It will at least win best play. That writing is no joke.