The Minutes Preview Thread- Page 4

[JBroadway]

Posted: 3/1/20 at 6:13pm

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?

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Didn't they all contribute to the cover-up? And sure, some of them vote to get the information to Mr. Peel, but did any of them support Mr. Peel's stance once he finds out? Did any of them defend Mr. Carp in any real way? Plus, all of them participate in the re-telling of the story of the battle, even though, at this point, they all know it's false.

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

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

We aren't meant to believe that that ACTUALLY engage in this ritual at the end of every meeting. It's meant to be surreal - a metaphor for the idea that all of these people, in their passivity, are complicit. You don't believe that some of these people would join in, but in a way, that's sort of the point. Even nice people, kind people, people with a generally good moral compass - even these people can still contribute to the the erasure of Indigenous people by choosing to ignore it. 

 

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

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 3/1/20 at 7:17pm

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. 

 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 3/1/20 at 7:35pm

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! 

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 3/1/20 at 8:03pm

Amen, indeed. If people are enjoying it, great. 

I dont mind surrealism for the record- the premonitions in Ferryman are a good example of how it works in an otherwise realistic work. but that was a feature of the plot, not a complete upturn of it, if that makes any sense. I thought the end of Ferryman was similarly lazy, fwiw- a sudden shocking thing that seemed like a desperate attempt to come to an ending- but the content and tone wasnt a total left turn where suddenly an alien appeared or everyone broke into Spanish. 

[Owen22]

Posted: 3/2/20 at 1:06am

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.

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 3/2/20 at 2:01am

its certainly possible that I wasnt smart enough to catch the surrealism throughout- that would certainly explain why i didnt like it. but the examples you gave included a thunderstorm and the irritating electricity gambit, so im wondering if maybe you just dont know what surrealism is? 

[Michelle chouraqui]

Posted: 3/2/20 at 10:55am

Won the lottery for tomorrow night. Will report back with seat location and thoughts. I'm trying not to read anything, but intrigued with what I've heard thus far...

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 3/2/20 at 12:05pm

Remember the play premiered in fall 2017. I'd compare the ending to:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

The folks who said they'd move to Canada after the U.S. election. Then discovered how difficult it would be to do so and opted to stay.

 

[Michelle chouraqui]

Posted: 3/3/20 at 11:19pm

I won the lottery for tonight. Balcony row A seats 11&13. We were happy with the seats (not a lot of legroom for tall people though). the theater was only 3/4 full. the audience was super reactive and lots of laughs, until the end of course. I've never seen an audience flip like that. Very light applause at curtain. I guess this is a super unpopular opinion, but I really liked it and thought the end was fitting. I know what he was trying to do, and it came out clear to me... but its sad for the cast to not get the acclaim they deserve. So, maybe he should have made the same statement another way?

[VotePeron]

Posted: 3/4/20 at 12:00am

Michelle chouraqui said: "II guess this is a super unpopular opinion, but I really liked it and thought the end was fitting. I know what he was trying to do, and it came out clear to me... but its sad for the cast to not get the acclaim they deserve. So, maybe he should have made the same statement another way?"

I don't think that's an unpopular opinion, I've only heard positive things from my inner-circle, and I certainly loved it.

As far as reception at curtain call, I would imagine Letts loves how he has the audience in the palm of his hand all night and then completely pulls the rug out. I see it as the audience being stunned not because they don't like it, but because they're so invested. Besides, if the actors are really walking out of the theater at night wishing they gotten more acclaim, I think they're doing it for all the wrong reasons.

[BenElliott]

Posted: 3/4/20 at 1:14am

Saw this tonight. It's a really good, maybe even great play. Wish the audience was more responsive. The cast is great. I love what it has to say and I ask people to not look at the ending so literally. I don't want to say too much as I think it's best to go in blind.

[fitzdavid2]

Posted: 3/4/20 at 8:59am

Saw this last night...and was truly surprised.  An absolutely stunning piece of theatre...think about Our Town crossed with some Jordan Peele ("Get Out" with vividly realized characters (should one expect less of Tracy Letts who is one of the major playwrights of our time), with an expert ensemble of actors.  Don't want to give anything away but my friends and I talked about it for nearly an hour after...it's exciting when a play can be that stimulating and it is, as advertised, only 90 minutes!!  You're in for a ride.

[BenElliott]

Posted: 3/4/20 at 9:29am

WARNING: Do NOT go in expecting realism.

Btw, the dialogue is gorgeously written. I should expect nothing less from one of America's finest living playwrights. The ending is definitely jarringly satirical and will be controversial. One of the ushers was asking people if they enjoyed it and there were a lot of "I don't know. I thought I did." The ending definitely slapped some people across the face as the play seems like realism until perhaps the final 10 minutes or so. I could tell that a lot of people didn't know how to respond. I may have to return to this and watch it more closely. It's definitely a compelling piece.

Shockingly enough, I always find Letts' plays to be vehicles for great performances, but here the actors almost take a step back to allow for the play to speak. There aren't really any standout performances. It feels like a true ensemble play.

[hveasey]

Posted: 3/4/20 at 10:22pm

Saw the show last night and overall enjoyed it although the ending seemed to not fit with the rest of the piece and only worked with some further thought/reflection as it’s very jarring. Thinking about it later, it’s clearly metaphorical but in the moment it doesn’t play that way and takes you out of things.

The writing and acting is generally good, and I was surprised at how much I liked Armie Hammer in this. Never really been impressed with his film work, but I thought he was great here (and much more attractive in person and up close). Everyone seemed to have their characters well developed for an early preview although I noticed a few moments where it seemed like people slipped on certain lines. I wish Jessie Mueller had more to do, she seemed a bit wasted in her role and her participation in the ending after the rest of the play really didn’t make much sense given how her character acted previously.

[wolfwriter]

Posted: 3/5/20 at 12:32am

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.

[Owen22]

Posted: 3/5/20 at 5:24am

JDonaghy4 said: "its certainly possible that I wasnt smart enough to catch the surrealism throughout- that would certainly explain why i didnt like it. but the examples you gave included a thunderstorm and the irritating electricity gambit, so im wondering if maybe you just dont know what surrealism is?"

 

Oh, aren't you cute, passive-aggressivrly lashing out. :)

 

[Wallman2]

Posted: 3/5/20 at 6:48am

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.
 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 3/5/20 at 7:19am

wolfwriter said: "There was little laughter around me, throughout."

Wallman2 said: "many of the people around me were laughing a great deal"

 

A perfect example of why I hate the old "people around me agreed with me" tactic. You two attended the same performance, and have contradictory reports as the the audience reaction. Maybe this difference came as a result of being seated in different places, but either way, it's arbitrary, because it proves that your perception of the audience's reaction is very limited. Plus, maybe the people laughing just liked the jokes and not the play overall, and maybe the people not laughing were intensely focused and absorbed. You don't know. It seems like everyone just projects their own opinions onto the people around them.

I really wish we could put a stop to this habit, as it's so obviously a tactic to validate your own opinion - even if it's subconscious. Just be confident in your own opinions and don't try to rope in strangers to avoid feeling threatened by people who disagree with you. 

[AlanB3]

Posted: 3/5/20 at 7:39am

^yep

Observations: the tangible behaviors we witness

Inferences: the meaning we assign to them based on our own experiences, perceptions, and/or biases

Life often is much easier when we stick with observations and check out our inferences.

[wolfwriter]

Posted: 3/5/20 at 10:23am

JBroadway said: "wolfwriter said: "There was little laughter around me, throughout."

Wallman2 said: "many of the people around me were laughing a great deal"



A perfect example of why I hate the old "people around me agreed with me" tactic. You two attended the same performance, and have contradictory reports as the the audience reaction. Maybe this difference cameas a result of being seated in different places, but either way, it's arbitrary, because it proves that your perception of the audience's reaction is very limited. Plus, maybe the people laughing just liked the jokes and not the play overall, and maybe the people not laughing were intensely focused and absorbed. You don't know.It seems like everyone just projects their own opinions onto the people around them.

I really wish we could put a stop to this habit, as it's so obviously a tactic to validate your own opinion - even if it's subconscious. Just be confident in your own opinions and don't try to rope in strangers to avoid feeling threatened by people who disagree with you."

 

I completely agree with you, JBroadway.

I mentioned the lack of laughter because others had mentioned the show was very funny and that it was "funny until it wasn't."

Other than the two people on either side of me, who said they didn't like it, I don't know what anyone thought. Applause seemed respectful. Not over the top and not tepid. Nobody stood by me, but I was 5th Row Orch, so I couldn't see behind me.

I think I’ve had the most negative response to this, so far, and I’ll flat out say that I hated this, but as I said, I’m glad I saw it.

Tracy Letts and I go way back to Killer Joe, but, I think, sadly, it’s time we have to break up LOL

[Pashacar]

Posted: 3/5/20 at 3:49pm

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]

Posted: 3/6/20 at 4:13pm

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 of Carousel.

Updated On: 3/6/20 at 04:13 PM

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 3/6/20 at 5:13pm

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.

[VotePeron]

Posted: 3/8/20 at 1:53pm

For anyone who saw the first week of previews, you're in luck. They've cut about 30 seconds off the finale -

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

The show now ends with the first little dance led by Tracy, followed by Armie returning, and the circle of blood acceptance/screaming. Armie is then only offered the blood, with Tracy saying "Here is your future." Armie contemplates taking it - blackout.

The show used to then continue, with Armie taking the blood, smearing it on his face while yelling, before Jessie gave a big call to arms and led the group in a more advanced tribal dance. They chanted before gathering down stage center and screaming. 

I know they did it to make it easier for audiences to swallow, but damn, do I miss the rest of the ending. Why leave the blood offering to Armie as a cliff hanger, if he's already returned and we know he's going to take it? The tribal dance was so fun, too, with the thumping music and chant.

 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 3/8/20 at 5:15pm

Thanks for that update VotePeron! Very interesting to hear about that change. One question:

**SPOILER*** (sorry, on mobile, can’t seem to do spoiler toggle)


I’m slightly confused by tour wording - Do they still do a tribal dance, or no? Is it that they still do it, and it’s just shelter? Or they just do the blood and not the dance?

If so, that’s disappointing. I thought the tribal dance was fascinating (and it looks like they brought in Ty Dafoe from Straight White Men to choreograph it). But I do sort of get the idea to make Peel’s involvement more ambiguous.