Theresa Rebeck's MAD HOUSE in London, starring David Harbour & Bill Pullman, directed by Moritz von Stuelpnagel

This is the first I'm hearing of the play, which opened tonight on the West End. Anyone seen it? This feels destined for a 15-week run on Broadway considering the talent involved (and is produced by Ambassador Theatre Group).

Reviews are coming out and appear to be mixed with a few positives –– unsurprising for a Rebeck play, but might not matter to audiences.

Updated On: 6/26/22 at 09:53 PM

She’s not a great playwright and amazed she keeps getting high profile. Her fiction book was awful too. Smash was awful. I don’t get it. 

Rebeck wrote a couple of plays that premiered at a theater I ushered at through college. All of them seemed to be okay, but nothing much more special than that(though, I will say I enjoyed her most recent piece that played last spring. It was a cheesy self referential 'celebrating our return to the theater', but it was honestly joyous). How does she keep getting work when her plays never seem to do particularly particularly well. Is there an appeal I'm missing?

the hudson is only 970 seats 

Rebeck's career reminds me of that saying (paraphrasing) "Women can't achieve equality with men until they can bounce back after failure as quickly as men can." Rebeck is one of the rare few –– though there are still LOTS of mediocre men being produced as frequently as she is.

She also wrote (and has the story credit on) THE 355, a big Hollywood bomb that opened this past winter with an insane cast: Jessica Chastain, Penelope Cruz, Lupita Nyong'o, Édgar Ramírez, Diane Kruger, and Sebastian Stan among others.

I think Harbour means something similar to Sam Rockwell or Michael Shannon. Does that feel like a fair comparison? IMHO he means more than Gatan because he's an actual adult, and was a Tony nominee/character actor before this. Means more than Chris Sullivan returning to Bway after This Is Us, and more than some other recent Bway folks like Ariana DeBose, Alfie Allen, Danielle Brooks, Mare Winningham, and Blair Underwood.

Bill Pullman paired with another name definitely means something still. He's not going to sell 900 seats a night on his own, but I think there's a mentality of "these are 2 actors I know and like." Similar to John Larroquette or Jeff Daniels (Blackbird) or Chris Cooper (Doll's House 2).

JasonC3 said: "A lot of people also like plain vanilla ice cream. The moderate success (particularly at local and regional theaters) of average plays for average people isn't all that surprising to me, Rebeck or otherwise.."

This has nothing to do with regional or community theatres. Factually speaking, Rebeck has had 4 plays on Broadway. 3 of those have received poor reviews. None of her plays have sold well, even though all attracted semi-stars (Janet Mcteer, Alison Pill/FMAbraham, Alan Rickman, Katie Holmes). None have received Best Play nominations. Her track record in theatre beyond Broadway hasn't been much better, nor has her screen work (The 355, Smash).

Sometimes we see playwrights being produced regularly because at one time they had great success and there's hope that success could be repeated, even if they haven't had a hit in a long time. (John Patrick Shanley, Richard Greenberg, David Mamet, Suzan-Lori Parks, Terrence McNally when he was alive, Tony Kushner post-ANGELS, etc). That's not the case with Rebeck, who has never had great success.

Updated On: 6/27/22 at 11:27 AM

We saw it on Sunday (the gala premiere). Pullman and Harbour and Henry are great - and make Act I terrific.

But, Act 2 is an entirely different show, and the actor (Matthews) playing Pam is just ..... not good, in my opinion. Her character is vile - but it was the line deliveries that just left the vileness feel flat and forced. I think it may be that her accent was .... different - she was not raised in the same family or location, even though Pam was. And, perhaps Matthews was so concentrating on her accent that she just forget about acting. And it just took almost all of Act 2 down. Henry and Harbour have a great Act 2 scene, though. Indeed, as my bride and I left, I openly wondered if maybe we didn't see Matthews, but rather an understudy. But I doubt we would have seen an understudy for the premiere - however, I didn't check the board before the show. (Note: not that understudies can't be exceptional - as we saw three exceptional alternate/understudy performers in Bonnie & Clyde the night before)

The show ends very abruptly. Like, "really? shouldn't there be just a little bit more?".  It's almost like Rebeck reached her page goal and said "ok, I'm done." Or that Rebeck wanted to give the audience something to leave thinking about - but in a clumsy fashion. Rather than exploring any of the multiple themes, it was more thinking "what?" I think my issue would have been easily fixed with a simple stage direction that was not present. Without giving too much away, obeying Ibsen's rule about guns would have helped, in my opinion. 

I guess you could describe this show as someone trying to combine Beth Henley and Tracy Letts - and getting the outline right, but not the writing.

Also, this feels very un-2022, despite some lines uttered by Pullman's character. The attitudes about mental health just seem like 40 years ago. And yet, Harbour supposedly assisted in the script given his own mental health experiences. 

This could have been so much more. There are some real highs - some real hilarity - some real drama and some interesting characters. Harbour's character is most fully drawn - and this is his show. Pullman's character is mostly one note - but he he makes that note sing. Henry is a joy - and an anchor - as well as the conduit for exposition! Matthews' Pam is one note and she is off-key on that note. 

So, three stars for three star performances. 

Updated On: 6/27/22 at 12:57 PM

Hey ErmengardeStopSniveling,

If you read my post carefully, I was speaking about average plays/playwrights in general, intentionally not just speaking about Rebeck and Broadway.