Posted: 10/12/19 at 2:19pm
Posted: 10/13/19 at 1:39am
Posted: 10/13/19 at 2:41am
I saw both parts today. As many have said, it's not the next Angels, yet seeing it makes me believe that comparing the two is not fair. On the surface, both shows are about gay men but in different times, yet Angels delves into, flings out of the real, and deconstructs the cosmology of a zeitgeist, and the result is sublime. It speaks to the gay community, yet it also speaks about the erosion of capitalism on a fundamental level. The Inheritance strictly sticks with the gay men and does not go too far away from, nor does it aspire to from what I read, the gay community. Therefore you get the impression that it's about rich white guys who can find financial support when they need it, and taking a break from fighting for social justice or being more idealistic about the fight does not have as big a stake as people from less privileged social groups would. Personally I'm fine with it as this is one side of the "gay community" that deserves to be seen. Yet what I find fascinating about the play is the searingly felt conflict it does not directly address. Gayness is an identity, and with the identity you get the whole package--the assumptions, the history, the shared goal, the responsibilities and such, which not everyone can carry with them nor totally agree with. Yet without an identity you can't even start a fight, not to mention winning it. I think the play is very aware of this conflict yet it cannot find a way to resolve it in a meaningful way. Personally, I believe the play can benefit a lot from more workshops and dramaturgical surgeries. After all, Perestroika started as a 10-hour play if I remember correctly from the oral history book of Angels (which you should definitely give it a read if you haven't). The 3.5-hour version of Perestroika is incredibly tight, and there's so much to get out of in each line. In Inheritance, there are quite a number of scenes that could use some trimming to tighten up the play, and some of the monologues are too long and almost purely exposition. Personally I don't mind the references despite of their cheesiness sometimes, but they are definitely overused and halt some serious scenes when people burst into laughter and not in a passing way.
Posted: 10/13/19 at 11:13am
A kitchen sink play, in that it throws in everything and the kitchen sink.
Overblown, overlong soap opera.
Posted: 10/13/19 at 11:22am
Posted: 10/13/19 at 12:33pm
Posted: 10/13/19 at 12:53pm
SouthernCakes said: "Days later, and reading Howard’s End, I’m still not understanding why people are calling this a masterpiece? “
This isn’t a judgment. It’s only an observation. I’ve noticed the hype for the two Broadway plays that were allegedly going to change the course of theater forever has significantly died down. I’m getting the impression enough people have seen both and have formed opinions that are either outweighing or neutralizing the jubilance that was earlier expressed. The inheritance is selling better than the other one though. From what I can see on Telecharge, significantly better.
Updated On: 10/13/19 at 12:53 PM
Posted: 10/13/19 at 1:17pm
Posted: 10/13/19 at 1:34pm
Bwaydreamer3 said: "This show is for all the gay men who died due to the AIDS epidemic and those who continue to live. Its so much bigger than all of us and it screams for all of our humanities. I am so thankful for having the opportunity to see this! And if you haven't or are undecided, my advice is to see it any way. "
Can you explain to me how you’ve come to the conclusion that this play is for ALL gay men who died due to the AIDS epidemic and those who continue to live? Because none of the people I knew who died of AIDS are on that stage. None of them. Nor are any of the people who continue to carry their honor.
Updated On: 10/13/19 at 01:34 PM
Posted: 10/13/19 at 1:59pm
clever2 said: "Bwaydreamer3 said: "This show is for all the gay men who died due to the AIDS epidemic and those who continue to live. Its so much bigger than all of us and it screams for all of our humanities. I am so thankful for having the opportunity to see this! And if you haven't or are undecided, my advice is to see it any way. "
Can you explain to me how you’ve come to the conclusion that this play is for ALLgay men who died due to the AIDSepidemic and those who continue to live? Because none of the people I knew who died of AIDSare on that stage. None of them. Nor are any of the people who continue to carry their honor."
If you see the show then you'll know... This show makes sure that we don't forget where we came from, the scarifices that were made and the lives that were lost for gay men to be where they are now. If you haven't seen the show than I encourage you to see at least Pt 1.
Edit: clever2 I see you already have your own strong opinions about the show. Thats fine. But please dont try to "call out" everyone else, including me, just bc our opinions dont match... Thanks
Updated On: 10/13/19 at 01:59 PM
Posted: 10/13/19 at 2:01pm
I have seen part one. I don’t comment on plays I haven’t seen. This play is about elitists who never want for money and are doing just fine, aside from a bunch of melodrama. It does not speak for nor represent all those who have died of aids nor the people who carry their memories. It simply does not.
Updated On: 10/13/19 at 02:01 PM
Posted: 10/13/19 at 2:03pm
I've been lurking the boards for years but I've decided to start chiming in as I've started getting more tickets through work, giving me the opportunity to see a lot more theatre. I paid for this one, but mostly because I knew it would be a more difficult ticket to get in a while and the inevitable Tony Awards sweep come spring meant it would only be more expensive.
This is brilliantly staged. This is Daldry's show, make no mistake. What he's able to achieve with the bare stage (plus some surprises) is nothing short of masterful. There is meticulous craft in every single look, move, and syllable. It's difficult for me to comprehend any criticism on the staging; it's that good.
In terms of performances, Paul Hilton turns in my favorite. His 20-minute epic monologue in part 1 had me practically shaking, and I don't know if I've ever experienced that kind of silence in a Broadway theatre before. Kyle Soeller and Andrew Burnap are both very excellent, along with John Benjamin Hickey when he's finally given the chance to work as more than just an expository character. Samuel H. Levine is good, although It takes you a bit to realize his blankness is 100% a choice (that pays off toward the end of part 1) I have my money on Lois Smith for Featured Actress this year; given her age, the role is practically tailored to give someone who is long overdo a Tony Award. Regardless of deservedness, it just seems to make sense.
As for the play- oftentimes the humor doesn't land with wit but rather cheekiness. There are so many moments that range as the most vital, raw bits of theatre I've ever seen. And the moment of magic at the end of part 1, whether or not it was really warranted dramatically speaking, had me sobbing. There's a lot of fat in this play that could be trimmed (it won't be, mind you. I've doubtful any extensive cuts are going to be made at this point) But even the fat was still much more engrossing than a lot of the monotony I've seen the past couple seasons. It's lovely, imperfect, witty, cheesy, and deeply affecting. Comparing it to Normal Heart or Angels is just flat out dumb; the DNA they share is merely spiritual. I don't regret going and I don't feel like it wasn't worth it. This isn't the most important play of this generation (it probably hasn't been written yet) but it's A Very Good One. just my take.
Posted: 10/13/19 at 2:04pm
Posted: 10/13/19 at 2:08pm
Posted: 10/13/19 at 2:28pm
Those of you who have read what I wrote can you please tell me if i said something wrong??? If so I will gladly apologize. My intent was never to hurt anyone. But I never said that what I was saying was fact I gave my opinion of a show that I saw. If you dont agree with that then that is fine. Im sorry you had to go throught that. I could never imagine what that was like, but hating on a show that is trying to honor these mens legacy will not help anyone. If it bothers you so much that people actually enjoy this show then dont be in a thread where people might express that they like the show. I wish you the best.
Updated On: 10/13/19 at 02:28 PM
Posted: 10/13/19 at 3:54pm
You said and did absolutely nothing wrong. Your opinion is valid, just like everyone elses. But, no play represents an entire group of people completely traumatized and changed by the AIDS epidemic. No show is for "all the gay men who....". People from all over the world, all walks of life, all different income levels, all different races died or survived. No show in the world can possibly represent millions and millions of people who all had different experiences.
Posted: 10/13/19 at 5:57pm
Posted: 10/13/19 at 9:15pm
Someone mentioned above that both the plays that were supposed to change the theater are dying down in that hype. What is the other play that has been getting that kind of promotion?
Posted: 10/13/19 at 10:31pm
Can someone please DM me to explain the staging at the end of Part 1? I really want to know what could possibly make people sob so universally. I read the play and found it to be quite thin and, to quote others, very much a glorified soap opera. That being said, I had hoped to catch at least Part 1 last week when I was in the city, but my schedule did not match with theirs. Thanks!
Posted: 10/14/19 at 5:42am
Leadingplayer said: "Someone mentioned above that both the plays that were supposed to change the theater are dying down in that hype. What is the other play that has been getting that kind of promotion?"
My guess would be Slave Play.
Posted: 10/14/19 at 10:34am
Nasty_khakis wrote:
“during Lois Smith's scene she played the audience like a fiddle”
Yes, she was very good. But the truth is, her role was unnecessary. In fact, so much of the play was unnecessary, and all to its detriment, I might add. If they were to cut out all the bloat- the narration; the history lessons; the pontificating — the play would be far better served. They even overdid the subject of the cherry tree—- and I love cherry trees.
A simple, straightforward narrative would help matters greatly. It would be no less of a soap opera, but it would be a lot easier to sit through, to be sure.
Updated On: 10/14/19 at 10:34 AM
Posted: 10/15/19 at 9:30am
Looking for advice about seating. We're planning to come up to see both parts in December. Does anyone have thoughts on if front center mezzanine would be be more or less preferable than side orchestra? Thanks in advance.
Posted: 10/15/19 at 9:59am
Miles2Go2 said: "The trailer alone gives me chills. I’ve got to make it back to see this.
Are there pics of the tote bags online?"
Would love to post a pic of the tote bags here, but am not sure how to do it. When I click the IMAGE icon, it only allows me to enter a URL for an image? I can't just cut-and-paste a picture I took?
Posted: 10/15/19 at 10:15am
