The Inheritance - Previews — Page 4

Roscoe said: "I'll echo the sentiments of those who found the play underwhelming. It all felt so familiar. I felt like I'd seen it all before. The literary pedigree adds some shape to the proceedings, sure, but well, I just can't say I ever gave a damn about what was happening on that stage. The gay play tropes got predictably trotted out without anything fresh being added. I swear I sat there accurately predicting punchlines before the play was fifteen minutes in. And the play's ongoing need to ram each and every serious point into my face repeatedly got frankly irritating -- the dead man's re-appearance, after his letter has been burnt,to remind us all about Exactly What That House In The Country REALLY MEANT had me rolling my eyes.

The performances, well okay, I guess. I felt like Mr. Hickey accomplished a lot more by simply standing still than much of the younger cast did with all their flouncing shouting.

I can't imagine bothering with that second half.

Hey Roscoe--Can you tell me how long the show was--and what time it let out? Thanks!

I'm SHOCKED by some of the "underwhelmed" notices on here. Was expecting to come on and see universal raves, as Whizzer has posted. Truly surprised to see so many who aren't impressed by it. It's certainly, in my opinion, one of the best and most profound pieces of theatre I've seen on a Broadway stage in many years.



Paul Hilton, Andrew Burnap, and Kyle Soller all deserve awards. Their categorizations will haunt my nightmares. Like throwing darts at a dart board to figure out which actor gets in lead and which gets in featured. I would think Andrew Burnap and Kyle Soller will be in Lead with everyone else falling in Featured.



The final 5-10 minutes of Part 1 had me a weeping mess in the theatre like I've never been before. See this one. It's the show of the year.

It’s a soap opera, swarming with predictable storylines and dialogue. I was often hearing dialogue responses in my head before they were spoken.

The guts of this play are spread thin. And it certainly has a bag the tricks. Stopping the play for 15 minutes so we can listen to a round table discussion that mourns Musical Theatre Mondays at Splash. This has been hailed as the play of the century. Not of the century so far. The century, and we're only 19 years in.

And Part One's act endings are gorgeous little nuggets amounting to emotionally manipulative strategies to hoodwink the audience. I think the ending of Part One, Act III is convincing people to forget the play's problems and believe the entirety of it is good. Simple because they were mystified by 5 minutes of it.

This is derivative of every gay fiction that came before it. I won't drink this kool-aid of “it’s good because it’s good!” Or “guess I’m supposed to love it so I love it!” The people coming onto this thread and expressing their shock and disapproval that some of us aren’t impressed have offer no arguments supporting why they love it and why they believe it deserves to be loved. All they have is “it’s wonderful,” “it’s everything,” “it’s the most important thing that’s been on a Broadway stage in years!” WHY? Why is it these things? Give me reasons. Beyond the triggers, the direction, the barely there set, the lighting, and the actors. Why does this text deserve my respect?

Updated On: 11/23/19 at 05:58 AM

clever2 said: "It’s a gay elitist soap opera, swarming with storylines and dialogue so predictable your brain is miles ahead before the play has a chance to get there. And usually what you predict will be correct. I was oftenhearing dialogue responses in my head before they were spoken.

The guts of this play are spread thin and they hover over shallow waters. And then the tricks. Stopping the play for 15 minutes so we can listen to a round table discussion that mourns Musical Theatre Mondays at Splash. THIS IS THE PLAY OF THE YEAR? OF THECENTURY?

And let’s talk about those act endings. Those gorgeous little nuggets that are nothing more than emotionally manipulative strategies to hoodwink the audience into believing the entirety of the play is good because they were mystified by 5 minutes of it.

This is not important. This is a rip-off of every gay fiction that came before it. This is NOT Angels in America for the new generation. This play is NOT in conversation with Angels in America. This play and Angels in America have never met.

And I will not drink this ridiculous kool-aid of “it’s good because it’s good!” Or “guess I’m supposed to love it so I love it!” The people coming onto this thread and expressing their shock and disapproval that some of us aren’t impressed with this garbage have absolutely no argument to support why they love it and why they believe it deserves to be loved. All they have is “it’s wonderful,” “it’s everything,” “it’s the most important thing that’s been on a Broadway stage in years!” WHY? Why is it these things? Give me reasons. Forget the direction, the barely there set, the lighting, and the actors. Why does this TEXT deserve my respect?"

If you think this is “garbage”, you need to have your head examined.

clever2 said: "swarming with storylines and dialogue so predictable your brain is miles ahead before the play has a chance to get there. And usually what you predict will be correct. I was oftenhearing dialogue responses in my head before they were spoken"

Err, is it based on a 109-year-old famous novel that has had multiple well-received adaptations over the years. So if you can predict where an adaptation is going, that doesn't seem surprising...

Sure, the play is an adaptation of E.M. Forster's HOWARDS END, which does indeed make certain scenes and events expected as it follows more or less those events with even occasionally lines taken directly from the book (Pencil never counts!) and others (that bag of books from the Strand helpfully includes at least one of the works the play in indebted to). It's just the lack, to some of us, of very much of interest in what has been done with that familiar material that is the problem. The carefully ethnic diverse batch of gay pals, the monologue about the epidemic, the two-dimensionality of way too many of those characters, and so on, it was way too familiar to way too little purpose, it felt like it was simply reshuffling bits and pieces of other works.

And the cliches -- early in the play a character describes being at a party in the Hamptons, and ooooh, Meryl Streep was at that party at the Hamptons! and ooooh, he got really really drunk at that party in the Hamptons where Meryl Streep was a guest, and ooooh, he was really embarrassed when he got sick and threw up at the party in the Hamptons where Meryl Streep was a guest, and I swear I counted down in my head "joke about the guy having thrown up ON Meryl Streep in three, two, one..."

I can't have been the only person to have thought of the same moment in ANIMAL HOUSE where Boon tells Flounder to "Face it, Kent -- you threw up ON Dean Wormer."

Now this kind of re-imagining is nothing new, of course. Robert Altman's film of THE LONG GOODBYE updates Chandler's 1950s novel into 1970s Los Angeles for an examination of that time and place, and it can even be said that Raymond Chandler's novel re-imagines Fitzgerald's THE GREAT GATSBY out of 1920s Jazz Age extravagance into an uglier post-war milieu, with fascinating results. I can't say that Mr. Lopez is able to work anything like a similar magic with Forster.

Clearly, mileage varies. Interest is in the eye of the beholder, and all. Glad folks are digging on a play that takes on important topics. Maybe folks will be moved to check out some of the other works that this play is so heavily indebted to.

Updated On: 10/3/19 at 11:42 AM

Matt Rogers said:
If you think this is “garbage”, you need to have your head examined."

And you are the problem.

haterobics said:
“Err, is it based on a 109-year-old famous novel that has had multiple well-received adaptations over the years. So if you can predict where an adaptation is going, that doesn't seem surprising..."

I have never read Howards End. I have never seen Howards End.

All views on this show are valid. None are garbage, none are wrong.

I see both parts Noveber 10- a Sunday. I do not like dramas without irony, wit, intelligent dialogue and complex characterizations. This is why I walked out of Becoming Nancy in Atlanta- it was not a drama of course- but it was dumbed down theater- and did not excite or stimulate me in any way. Angels in America was a very interesting and intelligent examination of the AIDS era- which of course is ongoing- and I loved it. Hoping The Inheritance is an intelligent examination of current gay culture and history. I do not care if is a bit soapy- that can be interesting and fun, too- but if the dialogue is not witty and the plot is not very interesting and engrossing- I will be quite disappointed. Coming in for a very short time just to see this play based on Olivier Awards and word of mouth in London. Hoping for the best.

JBC3 said: "The issues some have with the writing and cliches is giving me flashbacks to Dada Woof Papa Hot in which John Benjamin Hickey also appeared."

DADA WOOF PAPA HOT at least put actual human beings onstage, an entirely solid piece of theater, and it was never extravagantly over-praised, none of I'd be able to say about THE INHERITANCE.