The Substance of Fire at Second Stage — Page 2

I was wondering how this play would hold up. I saw it at Lincoln Center years back, with Ron Rifkin and Sarah Jessica Parker and Daniel Breen and I think John Benjamin Hickey, and enjoyed it a good deal. It did feel rather rushed, though, as if entirely too much was being talked about, which wasn't a complaint I had about the film (scripted by Baitz and with Rifkin) which felt a lot more leisurely somehow -- the story and characters could develop on their own without feeling crammed into two sets. Check out the film, there's a lot to recommend it, I think.

---

Let me just start by saying that this perfectly sums up my reaction after seeing this show last night.



This is definitely one of the biggest disappoints I've seen in recent memory. Not that I had high hopes for the play (I didn't) but I did enjoy OTHER DESERT CITIES and have a lot of love for John Noble. I wish my first experience of seeing him on stage wasn't in such a dreadful play.

Let's start by talking about the material which actually started off with a good first act. While I didn't think the kids were good actors at least I was getting a sense of their personalities and motivations. Unfortunately the second act seems to have been a totally different play altogether. We are introduced to this character that has appeared out of the blue with no connection to the story set up in Act One. As people have said this is just a lot of rich white people with problems and this play is one.

The only saving grace was that both acts showcased John Noble's talent. I was so annoyed during Act Two that I wanted him to turn into the Horseman of War and just kill that damn social worker. I must say the rest of the cast was pretty much a mess. The worst by far was Charlayne Woodard. She was acting in an entirely different play which maybe was a comedy because she had a dumb ass grin the whole time. There was one instance where she totally blanked on a line and another where she busted out laughing at something John Noble said but definitely wasn't planned. I'm all for colorblind casting but this struck me more done because the material is so white that they thought they needed to include someone of color. Based on her performance I couldn't imagine that she was the best actress to read for the part.

Another major problem I had was with the staging/costuming. If this play is going to be set in 1987/1990 they could have attempted to make it look like that. I guess you can say that someone wearing a suit could be from an era but the women's costumes were in no way representative of the time period. The generic office space could have been but the apartment was most definitely not. Things like that really take me out of the play because I start to analyze them and focus more on those aspects. Although maybe I wouldn't have been as caught up in that if the play wasn't so bad.

Why Second Stage chose to revive this for their 35th anniversary is beyond me.

P.S. There was cake last night (red velvet) but I think that's done since it was just during the first week of previews.

---

I saw this last night and my thoughts pretty much in line with what Clyde wrote. My main reason for going was to see John Noble, and well, at least he'll have Sleepy Hollow to go back to!

While the first act wasn't a work of art, I found it interesting enough. After some of the bad reviews here I thought I was going to be in for an atrocity. It was just typical, average stuff delivered somewhat amateurishly by everyone but Noble. Certainly nothing offensive.

But then the second act came along. It's three and a half years later and an entirely different plot line is brought up that I really didn't care about. Charlayne Woodard's character wasn't especially well-drawn and her performance didn't do much for me either. (Normally I'm a big fan; her work in "Stunning" at LCT a few seasons ago was just that, but this character didn't come off so well.)

I completely agree about the costumes and set design not evoking the period. It wasn't until the second act that I even figured out when it was set! Even men in suits can be tailored to look like the 80s/early 90s. The son in the second act looked like he just stepped out of a J Crew catalog from 2004.

Maybe my expectations were lowered after reading some of thoughts beforehand, so I didn't hate it, but just found it pointless and bland.

---

I saw this with a comp tonight, and I don't think I ever had such a violent reaction to a play before, and I enjoyed Other Desert Cities. I did not find one redeeming character in the piece.

The first act is set in a book publisher conference room with a kitchen to the side. It is a nice looking room, with glass doors and windows. There are lots of bookshelves with ornate looking books on them. Act II takes place in a Gramercy Park apartment overlooking the park where only residents get a key. It has floor to ceiling windows. It is snowing outside. The apartment also has a lot of bookshelves. I was watching Million Dollar Listing the other day for the first time and a similar Gramercy Park apartment went for something like four million dollars. The set alone is not worth seeing this...