Posted: 10/6/18 at 3:40am
Am not seeing it again until next week but I have heard that the second part has been extensively rewritten for the West End transfer. Still think this is the best thing I’ve seen this year.
Posted: 10/6/18 at 4:40am
Posted: 10/6/18 at 5:12am
imeldasturn said: "No it's not extensively rewritten, they added a few lines, cut maybe a couple and *I think* changed the position of the second interval. All its problems are still there."
Problems? WTF? It’s the most perfect piece of theatre you could ever hope to see.
Posted: 10/6/18 at 5:32am
Posted: 10/6/18 at 9:43am
qolbinau said: "With the melodrama and annoying characters you just have to spend a few nights going out with a couple of gay groups in the scene and you’ve seen it all before. Queer as Folk and Looking mashed with The Normal Heart and Angels in America - voila you’ve got The Inheritance."
respectfully disagree, I thought it was terrific. Full of heart, humanity and thrilling storytelling. An authentic theatrical knockout.
Posted: 10/6/18 at 9:01pm
I read the play before watching part 1 and I thought it was well done though the minimal set surprised me. I've heard the set was minimal at the Young Vic but it seemed like they didnt' make any changes for the West End transfer. It reminded me of the set of Sunday in the Park with George (with Jake Gyllenhaal and Annaleigh Ashford).
One thing I think it can improve on is the background sound/music especially during some of the moving/emotional scenes (i.e. like in Angels in America or Harry Potter). There was one scene in part 1 with a long speech from Walter that I felt some background music may have made it more effective. I hope it transfers to Bway.
Posted: 10/7/18 at 4:18pm
Posted: 10/7/18 at 11:15pm
I had a similar experience as you Giantsinthesky. I was looking for a copy in the USA and the only store in NYC that sold it was drama bookshop. After getting my copy, I couldn't stop reading it. Sure, there are moments that I thought were a bit unrealistic (I've been a New Yorker for over 10 years and I'm the same age as Eric Glass) but overall I connected with it.
Posted: 10/8/18 at 1:57am
To me the fact that his name is Eric Glass is a bit....eh?
Posted: 10/8/18 at 9:54am
Yeah I didn't understand where the name Eric Glass came from either. It seems that Matthew Lopez (the playwright) chose to keep Henry Wilcox and Leo's names the same as their counterparts in Forster's Howards End.
Not all the characters in the play had disposable incomes and as a New Yorker for over 10 years now, I've friends who always seem to be broke and also have friends who always have an endless amount of $$$ in their bank account. Regardless of one's socioeconomic status, we as humans beings have a need to connect with one another. I think people can relate to the overall message of this play and the multiple meanings of an inheritance. When I saw the part 1 two weeks ago, the play reminded me tidbits of Howards End (obviously), Angels in America, Torch Song Trilogy, and even Hamilton.
In today's day and age, I did wish that Matthew Lopez made at least one of the main characters (Eric, Toby, Henry, Walter, Adam, or Leo) a person of color. I'm not sure if Lopez is Latino or Hispanic but it would have been cool to see a gay man of latino/hispanic descent as a main character.
Posted: 10/15/18 at 12:30pm
Reviews for the West End transfer are mostly positive. On the plus side critics praise the ambition, themes and cast. Andrew Burnap gets cited many times.
On the minus side the Howard's End framing means that the focus is on white, affluent men. Some critics point out this makes the play less diverse or universal than the other plays it's paying homage to. Several feel the second half is still weaker than the first and that Vanessa Redgrave's cameo is "distracting" and "unnecessary."
http://www.playbill.com/article/read-the-reviews-for-west-end-bow-of-the-inheritance
Posted: 10/15/18 at 2:52pm
I find it a little odd criticizing the play about exploring the world of white, gay affluence when it's being seen through the prism of a queer playwright of color. As if representation only happens on stage rather than behind the scenes. We've seen that conversation happen here about how 'representation' means the actors on stage and the not the voices of the playwright, directors or the producers moving projects forward. I find that a little tough to swallow.
Posted: 10/15/18 at 7:56pm
This will definitely come to nyc. These days lots of risky plays go to London first A) because its cheaper and B) because its subsidized over there. Things like Wolf Hall could never come here without that. It's smart that they are starting it there to get that funding and the buzz will help it here.
Posted: 10/15/18 at 11:22pm
SonofRobbieJ said: "I find it a little odd criticizing the play about exploring the world of white, gay affluence when it's being seen through the prism of a queer playwright of color."
I felt Lopez borrowed a lot of ideas/themes/plot of this play from EM Forster, who was a closeted white queer author.
As for a NYC transfer, I'm more curious whether they'll transfer the same cast or if they'll change it up a bit.
Posted: 10/16/18 at 11:50am
I think it's ridiculous for an ambitious new American play by an American playwright to debut in America with a mostly-British cast in a British premiere production , but I wouldn't be shocked if that was the case.
Posted: 10/16/18 at 11:55am
Yes, it is a bit ridiculous, but the expense makes it impossible to do shows like this and very hard to take chances at all. I believe art should be subsidized in this country like it is in London. That is the only way we get things like The Ferryman that has 21 cast members. Or this six hour American Play.
Posted: 10/16/18 at 1:24pm
Expect Brantley to review "The Inheritance" and the new West End "Company" in the New York Times very soon. That could affect the NY future of both productions.
Posted: 11/6/18 at 2:41pm
Posted: 11/6/18 at 5:54pm
Jordan Catalano said: "Each part is over four hours long, right? It’s in my list of things to see in London this Fall but damn, that’s LONG."
No, it has been cut down.
Updated On: 11/6/18 at 05:54 PM
Posted: 11/6/18 at 5:56pm
brian1973 said: "imeldasturn said: "No it's not extensively rewritten, they added a few lines, cut maybe a couple and *I think* changed the position of the second interval. All its problems are still there."
Problems? WTF? It’s the most perfect piece of theatre you could ever hope to see."
agree.
Posted: 11/6/18 at 6:03pm
Saw this last week in London and it was remarkable. Everyone will want to compare it directly to Angels in America because it is indeed a gay fantasia but I think it stands on its own. This attempts to answer the question of what it means to be gay in the prep era. We have our rights now, we're out of the closet, and w have a prevention for AIDS so now what? In my late thirties I have been asking all the questions and going through all the same trials as the characters in this play and it spoke to me directly. I have a feeling that the generation who identified so closely to Angels in America may not identify with this play as deeply and will therefore say it is "second rate" but ignore them. This play is written from the perspective of those who were young when AIDS was at its worst. What do we pass down from generation to generation as gay men if our inheritance doesn't come from our straight parents? What besides the virus?
This is the greatest and most important play I have seen since RUINED. I will be surprised if it doesn't win the pulitzer and best play (when it transfers.) Run to see it - and try not to compare its parents - it's its own thing.
Posted: 11/6/18 at 6:08pm
TotallyEffed said: "It reminded me a bit of Sex and the City with the way characters always had fabulous apartments falling into their laps and a seemingly disposable income. It makes it quite hard to relate to."
I felt like this was directly explained in the script. It's actually the main focus of the plot... who has money and who doesn't and where it comes from... and what you do to get it... and what you do when you have it... the play is called "inheritance." Maybe that's hard to relate to, but it's definitely explained. Though to think of it it's explained thoroughly on Sex and the City too - they were VERY successful women (lawyer, PR, socialite, writer for NY times and vogue... ok technically it was the New York Star but everyone knew what they meant.)
