Thoughts on Modern Terrorism

Tonight I saw Modern Terrorism at Second Stage. I went in knowing nothing about it and only read the blurb on the website and it seemed interesting. It seemed like it could be funny and give an absurdist view on topical events. That was clearly the playwright's attempt. However, to say that it was a failed attempt is a bit of an understatement.

Without going into much detail, the attempt was to have the audience laugh at a band of misfit terrorists who come up with a plan to blow up the Empire State Building. The issue with that is that that concept made many in the audience uncomfortable. I can't tell you the number of people I have heard say that this isn't something to joke about, or it's too soon during the intermission. There were also a good chunk of people who felt too uncomfortable and left at the intermission.

The cast is good and does a good job with the material. However, it's kind of hard to feel any bit of emotion for people who are planning to blow up a building.

I am someone who has a sense of humor that gives room for pushing the envelope a little. But, even I felt uncomfortable and regretted staying for the second act. I honestly can't say anything good about this show and do expect better from Second Stage.

---

People have been openly "talking about it" constantly since it happened. You know very well that isn't the problem and people can hardly be blamed for its failure in provoking laughter.

And, I don't know, but a piece that sets out to be funny and fails to stir the intended response, in this case laughter, is the very definition of a failed attempt.

---

I was addressing PlayItAgain's ideology and not so much taking Winston's word for it and calling it a flop without having seen it. Guess I felt the fact it is new and just started its run (not to mention me being in Los Angeles) made that clear without saying.

But maybe I should make it a point of specifying these things, and further gift y'all with more babble. *cuddles*

---

Well, I totally disagree with Winston on this one. Yesterday I saw If There Is, I Haven't Found it Yet in the afternoon, and Modern Terrorism at night...and I have to say the latter was the better play of the two (although I thought Jake G. was terrific in his part!)

The writer--and Second Stage--are really gutsy to present this. Yes, there've been walkouts; last night, some couple tried to leave after 15 or 20 minutes and wound up going through a door that leads backstage, which was awkward. And there's a serious change in tone near the end, but I think I'm okay with that. But wow, this playwright Jon Kern can do dark humor like nobody else, the script was just incredible.

Of course, people have the right to say they're not ready for any kind of humor where terrorism is concerned, but I found this riveting. (Then again, Martin McDonagh is a fave of mine as well!)

Also appreciate Pammy's post about the playwright's own experience in being so close to Ground Zero and helping out after, which helps to understand where he's coming from here. But there's no denying his talent, and I'll keep an eye out for him in the future.

In terms of new plays, I am taking what folks say here with a grain of salt...there's a lot of purists on these boards, as well as the fact that the first few previews of a production don't always reveal what it will become. (And I know what I'm talking about, as I was at the invited dress rehearsal for Motherf***** with a Hat, and it wasn't very good then at all!)

Hey Winston--I wasn't referring to you when I used the word "purist"...I was thinking about the other poster who said that often, people here are very rough on shows that he/she winds up enjoying. I've found reading these boards that especially with revivals, folks can be extremely critical, remembering earlier versions of shows that they've loved...hence the use of the word "purist."

But these things are really subjective; I would never criticize someone here for not liking a show that I liked, so I wanted to clarify that

Did you leave after 20 minutes Bynster? I'm curious because for me, it the end, what I was so dazzled by with this play was that it did start out so stupid: it's dick jokes and potty humor, and the only thing interesting about that is the contrast with the bombing plot. But as the show went on, slowly teasing out deeper themes, hinting at the the intensity that was to come, and then it became actually shocking in the end, mostly by presenting a predictable scene that the playwright was able to subvert expectations about principally by giving us something so thin at the beginning.

Taken as a whole, I think this is an incredibly well-calibrated play that gets at some deeper truths by keeping the audience a bit off balance. One of the more interesting evenings I've had in the theater as of late. But to say it's going to be divisive is a massive understatement.

Growl--Go see it! People are either going to love it or hate it, but man, it's a very exciting piece and it's much cheaper to see it now than it will be later if it's as well-reviewed as I think it'll be. Can't wait to hear other people's opinions here...

^ (rolls eyes) what a terribly delusional comment

After Eight, sorry, but that just makes no sense. Did all the critics ban together and decide to do that? Nope. They actually liked something.

I haven't seen any of them, so I can't say, but just commenting on your comment.

Inventing conspiracies is the only way After Eight can justify his worldview.

Gee. Does this type of delusion remind anyone of a current political movement?

---

Except, of course, for those in the public, being of sound and free mind, who don't think they're awful and think the things that you like are awful.

Opinions, wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

---

I saw it Sunday night and enjoyed it thoroughly. I especially liked the performance of the neighbor. I agree, it is the kind of play either you will love it or hate it.

You forgot the third option.

Show C: Obscure show predating 1970 that no one remembers? After Eight probably loved it.

---