The Minutes Preview Thread — Page 4

JDonaghy4 said: "Kad said: "even if we are meant to buy into the gross lunacy Letts is going for with respect to his own character and some of that character's sidekicks, the idea that many of the others (who had throughout the play resisted it) were secretly privy to this, uhm, cult/ritual, is ludicrous and an unearned way to wrap up the 90 minutes of *conflict between the members of the council* that just disappears in the last seconds."

 

Who resisted it though?

Also, I think you're taking the ending a bit too literally...

Updated On: 3/1/20 at 06:13 PM

It sounds like you did follow my point, and I now understand your point slightly better with your response. By your interpretation, yes, I would agree that it does, in a sense, erase the degrees and nuances of the characters established earlier in the play. But I would just say again: I think that was the point; to imply that, despite the many degrees of complacency, they are all guilty in a sense. 

Personally, I'm a big fan of the device of showing realism devolve into surrealism, or realism with tinges of surrealism. I thought this device was used effectively in other recent, well-regarded plays such as The Ferryman (Maggie FarAway's premonitions), Heroes of the Fourth Turning (the screeching sound), and The Antipodes. 

It sounds like we interpreted the play the same way, but we just had different reactions to it. Which is totally fair! 

JDonaghy4 said: "Owen22 said: "JDonaghy4 said: "76Trombones 2 said: "I think for the ending to work, this moment needs to be more thoroughly developed. I would love to hear your thoughts."

Everyone is being so charitable about the ending. It rips the rug out from under you, and invalidates the 90 minutes you just spent with these characters. Its cheap beyond cheap, and Letts gets the last laugh when people try to twist themselves into pretzels to generate some deep meaning out of it, or try to solve blatant inconsistencies like the one 76Trombones raises.

(to your point, of course that makes no sense- if you think about VARIOUS characters in the play not just him,and the stances they had taken throughout, their participation at the end makes no more sense.)"

It invalidates nothing. There are portents for that ending throughout the play. The lightning and thunder. The electrical grid going in and out? How the council members all of a sudden knew how to act out this specific piece of Big Cherry history? I'm not saying that specific ending is inevitable, but it doesn't come out of nowhere."

I think you're misunderstanding me: the electricity going in/out and the rain are hardly indicative of the characters traits/views/qualities/outlooks. The weather and the lighting certainly signal something is afoot (in a pretty lazy way) but that doesnt speak to the characters in any way shape or form. The idea that we are meant to believe Pendleton's Mueller's and Freeman's characters are part/parcel of this- sorry, I am glad it worked for you, but i found it insulting.

JBroadway, i take your point re the non-literal ending, and would just say that 88 minutes of realistic, mostly well written, mysterious-but-grounded dialogue followed by 90 seconds of sudden surrealism is less than satisfying, to put it mildly. Its the kinda thing that gets a polite nod from an undergraduate writing professor. Just dont buy it. And I really dont follow your other point- of course there was a cover up, and all are complicit, but we spent 88 minutes exploring the nuances of each character's participation, their relative levels of involvement/reluctance, etc. How did the ending not blow all of that out the water? Turns out they all the same whatever-it-is. Thats what I mean by invalidation and feeling cheated.

"

No. What you misunderstood is that there was surrealism threaded through the entire play. Not just the last 90 seconds. And no, if you read my post the play did not work for me. But I at least understood the technique and was prepared for the ending.

Saw this tonight and I want my 90 minutes back. I was bored until the end when you could hear my eyes roll in Ohio. I don’t know which of the people on either side of me checked their watch more often.

To quote the woman next to me, "Well, that was an ending and what a waste of Jessie Mueller." There was little laughter around me, throughout.

It's impossible to speak in specifics without spoiling the play.

On the way home, I realized that I've seen so much of Tracy Letts work as both a playwright and an actor and I like almost none of it.

This is an otherwise talented cast, completely wasted by the expositional nonsense Letts has written. No one has a chance to shine. I guess Austin Pendleton steals the play, from an acting POV, but nobody has anything interesting to say or do. And, don’t get me started on Ian Barford.

The arguments and fights here just happen. There’s nothing earned or organic here. It’s like we walked in, in the middle of something, but we don’t know where we were and we aren’t really going anywhere.

As someone said, the thunder and lightning is indicative of how lazy Letts is. He wants to pontificate and that’s fine, but it takes enormous effort to couch it in an interesting story that’s not filled with exposition. Letts doesn’t bother to make the effort.

My first playwrighting teacher would have thrown this back at me and told me to re-write it, in much the same way as I wondered how a first draft like Linda Vista ever got produced.

I get what Letts is going for. How can you not? He all but comes into the audience and bashes you over the head with a sledgehammer to make sure you get it.

This is a political show, lacking in craft and designed for an audience that wants a helping of confirmation bias for their $150 ticket.

I’m glad I saw this. It’s the play that finally made me realize that Tracy Letts’ work is just not for me.

My reaction is completely different than the recent post.   The play is still fresh in my memory from the performance last night.   I credit the playwright for creating a funny (yes, many of the people around me were laughing a great deal at the machinations of the town council of Big Cherry), original, and finally frightening play.  And thought-provoking, especially in these times.  It's a first-rate production and all the actors make an indelible impression-- I was especially taken with Armie Hammer, who seemed, at moments, to be channeling James Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (one of my favorite movies).   Blair Brown and Austin Pendleton were very amusing as long-standing members of the council, and Danny McCarthy and K. Todd Freeman, making unique proposals to the committee, were fiercely funny.  This play seems to be as polarizing as our country is now, making Letts almost prescient in his writing.  My recommendation:  see it and decide for yourself.  It's the best 90 minutes I've spent in the theatre in a long time.
 

wolfwriter said: "Saw this tonight and I want my 90 minutes back. I was bored until the end when you could hear my eyes roll in Ohio. I don’t know which of the people on either side of me checked their watch more often.

To quote the woman next to me, "Well, that was an ending and what a waste of Jessie Mueller." There was little laughter around me, throughout.

It's impossible to speak in specifics without spoiling the play.

On the way home, I realized that I've seen so much of Tracy Letts work as both a playwright and an actor and I like almost none of it.

This is an otherwise talented cast, completely wasted by the expositional nonsense Letts has written. No one has a chance to shine. I guess Austin Pendleton steals the play, from an acting POV, but nobody has anything interesting to say or do. And, don’t get me started on Ian Barford.

The arguments and fights here just happen. There’s nothing earned or organic here. It’s like we walked in, in the middle of something, but we don’t know where we were and we aren’t really going anywhere.

As someone said, the thunder and lightning is indicative of how lazy Letts is. He wants to pontificate and that’s fine, but it takes enormous effort to couch it in an interesting story that’s not filled with exposition. Letts doesn’t bother to make the effort.

My first playwrighting teacher would have thrown this back at me and told me to re-write it, in much the same way as I wondered how a first draft like Linda Vista ever got produced.

I get what Letts is going for. How can you not? He all but comes into the audience and bashes you over the head with a sledgehammer to make sure you get it.

This is a political show, lacking in craft and designed for an audience that wants a helping of confirmation bias for their $150 ticket.

I’m glad I saw this. It’s the play that finally made me realize that Tracy Letts’ work is just not for me."

Thanks for sharing this; you just saved me 90 minutes and 50 bucks.

I agree with you 100% on Linda Vista – and don't get me started on Barford, either – so I imagine I'd feel similarlty to how you do about this.

Updated On: 3/5/20 at 03:49 PM

Call_me_jorge said: "Not really anything to do with the show itself, but I just wanted to point out the fun tidbit Sally Murphy and Jessie Mueller were both Julie Jordan in the last two revivals."

I didnt think of that- but i did note that she and Pendleton are Fiddler alumni.