rOcKS @ 'In The Next Room (or the vibrator play)'

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/25/09 at 1:17am

I'm gonna be honest. Ruhl is not my cup of tea. I appreciate what she is trying to get across in her plays and I get her whole game plan but (like my recent trip to FINIAN'S) I admire her work more than love it. And that's how I felt about IN THE NEXT ROOM. (I think...)

I appreciated it, I understood the point, it had some very funny moments, and a beautiful final 10 minutes or so It's also 20-25 minutes WAY too long. Like...way too long. I was on the street at exactly 10:30 and was sure it was at least 11:00. I really didn't need to see Cerveris naked but I guess it makes sense in terms of the whole point of the play. And I also felt like it took a while to get off the ground. To me, this could have been a 100 minute play with no intermission. As someone who is not particularly a Ruhl fan, I enjoyed it as much as I expected to. Didn't love it, not sure if I even really liked it, but it was fine enough.

The production is really stellar though. The set is lovely (particularly the snowfall scene at the end), the costumes are really gorgeous, and the direction is strong. The performances are fine all-around. Maria Dizzia, in particular, is excellent. Benanti's "modern" twist worked for me; she does seem to tend to play her roles in plays the same way though; seemingly oblivious but clearly still very observant, whip-smart, clever, and knowing. But it works here. She was really wonderful and it was great to hear her sing for all of 20 seconds.

It's really hard for me to give this show a definitive star rating because I still am not completely sure how I felt about it. If you like Ruhl, you'll love it. If you don't, you'll enjoy the production, at least, which is strong.

This is definitely a play that some people will love and totally fawn over and a play that others will just shrug off once it's over. I don't think anyone will hate it. But frankly I found myself shrugging it off...

I'm stuck between ** and **1/2 but..

** out of ****

Go see it for yourself though. It's just not everyone's cup of tea.
Updated On: 10/25/09 at 01:17 AM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 10/25/09 at 1:59am

I just didn't think the show had any drama to it. I think that's why the show felt sluggish. And the whole bringing the curtain down during scenes sort of slows down any momentum the play had going for it.

I also wish they had introduced the male lover in the first act to give us a sense of "oh, what's going to happen."

[Kad]

Posted: 10/25/09 at 2:07am

Where did you sit tonight, rOcKS, just out of curiosity?

As I mentioned in the other thread, I saw it tonight as well.

Although it is sluggish, I was never getting bored or found my mind wandering to pointless things. I think the play could get to Mrs. Givings discovering the vibrator quicker, which I think would reduce the running time a great deal.

Benanti really gives a wonderful, charming performance that made the play a lot more swift for me. Same for Marie Dizzia.

Updated On: 10/25/09 at 02:07 AM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 10/25/09 at 2:10am

I agree. I thought she was pretty wonderful. Did anyone else fee like the other husband was sort of useless until his last scene, which I think could maybe eliminated.

[Kad]

Posted: 10/25/09 at 2:13am

I was thinking that, as well. Mr. Daldry really does do very little until that last section. And even that, I thought, was beside the point by that time.

I am curious if anyone else felt Ruhl was deliberately using the device of characters forgetting things in order to have them return to the stage? It happened so frequently that I felt as if every time a character announced they had forgotten their hat or gloves or scarf the audience would laugh.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/25/09 at 2:25am

I was house right, orch, row E.

And I agree with everyone you guys said. There are whole chunks of the play that could very well be cut. They could basically cut Mr. Daldry's entire part. And while Leo Irving's um...stimulating scene was by FAR the funniest moment of the show (and Chandler Williams is quite wonderful) I felt like Mr. Irving was almost an afterthought. It was like he was just kind of tacked on...

I also am realizing now that the "very funny" parts of the play I referred to were "very funny" because the direction/performances/production as a whole made them funny not necessarily because they were funnily-written scenes.

[Kad]

Posted: 10/25/09 at 2:28am

Much of the comedy came from A) what was actually being done (with the vibrators), and B) the cast itself. I doubt I would even grin if I were reading the script.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/25/09 at 2:32am

Agreed.

I feel like I would be bored to tears if I read the script to be honest. To me, this is just a strong production of a truly mediocre piece. But I know others will fawn over it.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 10/25/09 at 8:19am

I completely disagree. If I were rating the production, i would give it a 3.5 out of 5, with Benanti sticking out like a sore thumb. Was she funny? Yes. Was she appropriate for the piece? Absolutely not. Maria Dizzia was fine, but sometimes felt like she was reading out of the script. For me, the stars of the show were Wendy Rich Stetson as Annie and Quincy Tyler Bernstine as Elizabeth. They were both outstanding.

Rocks, I'm sorry, but I have to COMPLETELY disagree with what you said about this production versus the play. I felt like the one thing lacking was the direction. The only time I felt like the direction actually attempted to interpret the text was the final scene. My problem with that was the almost carbon copy ending of the recent Awake and Sing revival. ***SPOILERS*** The walls fly up, the snow comes down, the rest of the set rotates out. ***END SPOILERS*** If I hadn't known Les Waters was directing, I would have assumed this was a Bartlett Sher piece. I find this amusing since he's the resident director at LCT right now... coincidence?

Anyway, I thought that the text itself was FANTASTIC. There were many beautiful lines that have stuck with me. Elizabeth's last monologue was gorgeous. The only reason that Laura Benanti was cast was her singing voice, which I will say was incredibly beautiful. But for me, the play was the highlight of the evening, and the production took the back seat.