Thoughts on THE INTELLIGENT HOMOSEXUAL'S GUIDE...

[americanboy99]

Posted: 3/24/11 at 10:51am

Saw the show last night at the Public.

I liked it quite a bit. It's good, but not the best thing I've seen in awhile. It's too bad that it's being hyped up as the theatrical event of the season because, as written, I don't think it is that at all. For me, it's just not an eventful piece of theatre. But that's not a bad thing; not every play has to be "an event." I love Kushner and I was waiting there for an angel to fly on or a singing moon, but that never happens. It's not a bad thing by any means; it's just not exactly what I was expecting.

The show clocked in at precisely 4 hours. We were on the street by 11:05. The show needs a little more meat to justify that kind of time commitment. There were a few speeches (mostly those of the father- Gus- and the daughter- Empty) that seemed to stretch on to eternity.

I loved the first act. I thought it was clever, thoughtful and refreshing. The second act left me a little cold; the talking over one another tactic works to me for a little but eventually just becomes numbing. I was also shocked by how farcical the second act became. It worked, in some ways, but it obviously needs some tightening. The third act was nice, but a little preachy. The ending hit hard.

The story is quite simple. A father of three children announces to his children that he plans to kill himself after a failed attempt a year earlier. The family takes a vote and decides that a consensus (agreeing or disagreeing) must be reached before the committing will be done. The play's journey follows those votes and reaching that consensus- one way or the other.

The performers were great with the exception of K. Todd Freeman, who I was just outright confused by. An off night, I'd hope.

Michael Esper is a refreshing, young jolt of life in the show. He could use a bit more sharpening, but, for me, he was the show's heart. Stephen Spinella is fine, a bit cartoony perhaps. Linda Emond is great - very natural, you feel her pain- but her character suffers from some of the evening's most sleep-inducing speeches.

Michael Cristofer, whose character is at the show's center, is great. His big act one speech is without-a-doubt the show's highlight. Once you see the show, you'll know what I mean. Fabulously written and expertly performed. There were audible reactions throughout the entire audience. Great moment in the theatre.

The ensemble supporting cast is fun. It could all just use to some tightening. Danielle Skraastad scores big laughs with the her act two opener. She's great comedic relief, but her character's relationship with Empty seems to be one of the show's most troublesome points.

It's a good play. Kushner just needs to do some real editing. Off the top of my head, a long speech about phones ringing in the theatre at the top of the show seems out of place in retrospect and could probably be cut. Other endless speeches (most about the BIG words that fill the play's title) could also be cut down.

A good thirty minutes needs to be cut from the show. It's simply running too long. There are moments of absolute brilliance, but, then again, there are many moments of awkward schtick and some philosophizing that zoomed over the heads' of audience members and never amounted to anything.

This one has potential to be a great American play. But it's not there yet.

[Ariella]

Posted: 3/24/11 at 11:47am

Those were my thoughts too, americanboy, when I saw the show at the Guthrie summer '09. It's like a rough gem - the potential for a great American play - that needs more refining, and I'm disappointed it hasn't (by your description at least) made that jump yet. Glad to hear Emond and Esper are still doing well - they were the beating hearts of the show in its first incarnation too.

[rorschach37]

Posted: 3/24/11 at 3:10pm

I'll be seeing it on Saturday, and I'm really excited! Not really looking forward to the length, but thank you so much for posting your thoughts. So glad to hear Esper is doing so well. He's what drew my attention to the play in the first place.

[Ariella]

Posted: 3/24/11 at 8:30pm

FYI, Michael gives a very different performance in iHo, bearing no resemblance to what he did in American Idiot. Eli in iHo is one of the show's most troubling characters, so don't go in expecting an experience comparable to Idiot. That being said, he gives an extraordinary performance that demonstrates his true virtuosity as an actor.

[fallingawake]

Posted: 3/25/11 at 12:32am

It's nice to read thoughts on this! I saw it in Minneapolis, but it's nearly been two years since then, so I'm not sure I'll be able to detect any changes from what I remember. I saw it early in the run at the Guthrie, and from what I recall, the biggest issue on it was I thought it really needed to be edited down as well. curious to see it again in May.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/29/11 at 12:53am

I usually resist responding like this because I hate contributing spoilers, but SPOILERS:


"The story is quite simple. A father of three children announces to his children that he plans to kill himself after a failed attempt a year earlier. The family takes a vote and decides that a consensus (agreeing or disagreeing) must be reached before the committing will be done. The play's journey follows those votes and reaching that consensus- one way or the other."

I feel this summary is inaccurate and completely misses the point in the whole set up. The family doesn't take a vote and in that vote decide that a consensus must be reached. In fact, it is explicitly stated in the dialogue that Gus is announcing that his family will reach consensus about the decision to kill himself and the aunt explains specifically that consensus does NOT mean a vote, that in fact it means the group arrives at a conclusion they can live with, even if they don't like it. I mean, that's kind of the whole point and probably the first gigantic detail of the kind of political work Gus had entwined his personal, family and work with. At great cost. Great costs are the major theme for almost all of the characters.

I understand you think the long speech about cellphones could go, but I saw it as a curtain raiser written by a verbally dextrous playwright that replaces the "turn off your cellphone" announcement in an extremely clever and funny way. It also includes a tip of the hat to Minneapolis. It wasn't all that long.

[Ariella]

Posted: 3/29/11 at 1:54pm

I agree with you, Namo. I thought the pre-curtain exchange was deftly humorous back in Minneapolis (and obviously it got a big laugh there). On opening night they even handed out bookmarks with Michael Esper/Eli's line "So any good theater in Minneapolis?"

Namo, what did you think of the "verbal symphony" scene where everyone was talking at once?

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 3/29/11 at 2:10pm

I actually loved the "verbal symphony" scene. There were breaks in the dialogue for us to hear some "important" lines, and it just worked perfectly. Others during the second intermission complained about not being able to hear all the dialogue, but I think that was the point. I thought it worked extremely well.
Updated On: 3/29/11 at 02:10 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/29/11 at 2:12pm

You mean the "if you liked my verbal Fugue for Two Couples in Angels in America" on steroids scenes? I found them electric, but as luck would have it, Michael Greif and his note taker were sitting in front of us, and he was often a-little-louder-than-whispering things during those scenes. It was approximately one voice too many.

I was aware of a few moments where dialogue between one pair was obviously being foregrounded over more mundane commentary by other pairs. When I see it again, someday, I'll get a better sense of what's delivered during those scenes.

[americanboy99]

Posted: 3/29/11 at 4:36pm

Namo, I don't think it's really yours to say that I missed "the point." But I do understand how you interpreted it.

Updated On: 3/29/11 at 04:36 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/29/11 at 6:14pm

Reaching consensus was the decision-making modus operandi of the communist organizers, and since that is specfically what is "lost" to the lead character in 2007 Brooklyn (and what he longs for), it seems on the face of it to be "the point," as explained by Aunt Bennie. Explicitly. In the text. As written by Kushner.

[americanboy99]

Posted: 3/30/11 at 12:46am

Ah, Namo. I hadn't realized Kushner was such a simple writer. Silly of me to take something different away from his work.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/30/11 at 10:31am

You do realize you are the one who wrote: "The story is quite simple," right?

[americanboy99]

Posted: 3/30/11 at 11:29am

The story is simple, yes. The play is not. Two very different things.


Why are we bickering about this anyway?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/30/11 at 11:47am

I don't mean to be bickering, but the plot point is the consensus building. Commie life would have been so much simpler if people could take a vote. I think the 3.5 hours of the play is one big attempt to show the messiness (impossibility?) of consensus building.

[Ariella]

Posted: 4/1/11 at 10:04pm

Okay, having seen it twice in as many days here goes. I was actually surprised at how little has changed from the first staging in Minneapolis. Given Kushner's proclivities for rewriting I expected intensive overhauls, but it's quite similar and nothing has been done to address the show's structural issues. Just some modifications of dialogue and a few scenes compressed or combined. I maintain that iHo has the potential to be brilliant, genius, but it's still rough around the edges, and Kushner needs to keep chiseling at it.

I think a lot of people (at least, based on my eavesdropping during intermissions) were expecting some sort of "sequel" to Angels, and iHo will most certainly disappoint as Angels' successor. It's a very different play - very, very dark and entirely devoid of the catharsis that makes Angels such an emotional release. iHo deliberately avoids catharsis, sending audiences away troubled, questioning, and confused. The show has only gotten darker since Minneapolis, especially with the respective relationships between Gus & Empty and Pill & Eli. Linda Emond as Empty and Michael Esper as Eli are absolutely superb.

For me, the first act felt a little slow, disjointed, and underrehearsed, but the actors really seemed to warm up during Act II. I'm in the camp of people who love the overlapping conversations (especially at the end of Act II), but the show peaks at the end of Act II and never completely recovers its momentum. That being said, Act III is incredibly harrowing and I spent most of last night awake thinking about the show. Which would probably please Kushner.

I'm still not sure what this play wants to be, and frankly, I don't think Kushner does either at this point. iHo doesn't offer audiences an "enjoyable" experience, per se. Its characters emote through all their complex politico-socio-economic theories and ideologies because they're incapable of speaking to one another directly. This makes for fascinating characters, but they don't have the same accessibility as some of Kushner's past creations. Like, sometimes you wish they'd converse without all the theoretical jargon but all the intellectual acrobatics make them who they are - because their expansive intellects are curtailed by limited emotional capacities. So even though the characters certainly aren't deprived of their humanity, there's definitely a weird distancing/alienation effect going on.

I'm mostly rambling at this point, but I think the show's fascinating even if it's far from "done." Definitely planning to go back in a few weeks to see what's up - I'm told Kushner is planning to introduce new material again next week.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/1/11 at 11:26pm

I think he wants it to be his Arthur Miller political family drama, doesn't he?

[Ariella]

Posted: 4/2/11 at 9:29am

At the Guthrie, Kushner did speak openly about trying to craft a traditional family drama - you can feel the influences of Miller, Williams, Chekhov etc throughout.