rOcKS @ 'Waiting for Godot'

I'm going to keep this as short as possible and will gladly answer questions.

A word to describe the evening? Painful.

At one point, Bill Irwin's character says "this is awful." I couldn't agree more.

I don't see how this is a comedy...I laughed twice. Irwin is good, Lane is alright but he could be so much better, I actually felt bad for Glover stuck in the role he's in, and Goodman is horrendous.

The direction is non-existent. The set is nice to look at for the first ten seconds and quickly becomes an eyesore.

A question I had ringing in my head during intermission and at the end of the show was "why?" Why is this show on Broadway? I just don't get the purpose of this really bad revival. Nothing about it is worth buying a ticket for. I spent ten bucks and wish I would have followed my instincts and left at intermission.

I saw two audience members leave after five minutes. They had the right idea.

The only time the show worked was at the beginning of the second act with the first few minutes of Irwin and Lane's patter back and forth. That is the only time you get a glimpse of what these two great performers could be doing on stage together. The other two hours and ten minutes of the show? Hear that sound? It's another one of Roundabout's productions falling flat on its face.

I'm stuck between one star and a half a star but I'm feeling generous so * out of ****

Who else was there? I think I sat in front of some BWWers but didn't realize it until towards the end of intermission. And didn't want to interrupt the convo that was going on and you guys ran out as the lights came up (good idea)! I was in the mezz. row JJ seat 4...anyone?

Updated On: 4/3/09 at 11:20 PM

(siiiiiiiiigh)

Dear Mr. Roundabout.

What the Hell.

Seriously, what is going on over there? What Magical S//t Pills do you have, and why are you lacing the water coolers with them? Did you spend a lot of money, did you feel like you just had to use them? Did you run out around 2004, and that's why ASSASSINS worked so well?

And I understand that this is the first preview, and that shows can turn themselves around between first preview and press night. Just like they did with MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG, and MERLIN, and IMPRESSIONISM, and THREEPENNY OPERA, and HEDDA GABLER, and... do you know how rarely that kind of turnaround happens?

So what's going on? Why does Roundabout, an important non-profit, seem to be churning out mediocre-to-bad productions by the season? Is it because the creatives don't have the same energy when working on a limited-run, and thus limited-audience show (if so, what an awful mindset)? Is it those S//t Pills?

And maybe I'm overreacting after one horrible review. But after all the mediocre you've put us through...

What's happening?

---

Updated On: 4/3/09 at 11:43 PM

I don't understand why anyone would ever go see a first preview of a Beckett play... I get it was 10 dollars... but it's totally dependent on the beats picked in front of an audience. I would imagine it would change quite a bit before it opens.


kmc

---

No way!

Sorry I didn't say anything; I feel stupid now. Ha

I saw this off-Broadway a few years back.

I really just did not enjoy it as a play. Perhaps I'm small-minded, but it was just obnoxious, repetitive, and had me counting down the minutes until the end. I thought perhaps it was the cast but it sounds as if even with a stellar group of actors it isn't any more salvageable.

I would have loved that! I'm so sorry I didn't say something; I didn't even think to say something until toward the end of intermission and then didn't want to look like an idiot if you guys weren't BWWers. Sorry!

Ah, I feel so stupid...we would have a LOT to talk about over coffee that's for sure.

I don't think it was THAT bad, but it definitely wasn't great at all. There were a lot of boring parts that I was dozing off during, but the show had a lot of great moments, and if I wasn't in the second to last row of the mezz (which has absolutely NO leg room) that I would have been more invested in the show. I thought Goodman was great in the first act, but boring in the second. Glover was great, but had such a small part and I wish he had more to do. Irwin and Lane were fine.

Wow.

Well, good to see people enjoyed it. I just found it to be a complete bore.

You know, I didn't hate it. I loved Irwin and I always enjoy Nathan Lane. Unfortunately, Glover and Goodman were AWFUL.

The show itself is kind of dull, but I thought the direction and the two leading performances helped move it along and I actually enjoyed parts of it (other parts were painful though).

It wasn't a total waste of an evening (like Impressionism was), but it certainly wasn't the best evening of theater either.

The show takes place on a country road and only requires a tree...

I was not too far from the couple that left after the first 5 minutes.

its so sad that the set has to be true to the script, we worked on this play in my scenic design class when I was back in school, and there were some interesting designs.

Bustopher, you rant about Roundabout because one person - not you- did not like the first preview of a play which, while accepted by the critical establishment as one of the greatest ever written, has always had difficulty winning over a mass audience? Joe Papp said if some people weren't walking out of a performance, the show wasn't doing its job. I think it takes guts for Roundabout to put on the play, and they've hired actors who can handle both comedy and drama. The best show I've ever seen was a production of this play. It won over little kids and highbrows. I hope this measures up to that, but won't decide that it hasn't based on only one person's opinion.

I wanted to sleep on my thoughts before I posted.

First I'll respond to something you said Yankeefan: this is NOT the Godot of two people sitting on a bench talking, which is what I expected btw. The direction has everyone running around and employing physical/slapstick comedy throughout. Someone else at the stagedoor who had seen numerous productions of Godot said that this was the most frenetic production he'd seen.

I think this style of direction really helped out the material, especially since the set was so barren and bland. There was always something going on, almost as if the director was told, "People generally don't like this play and find it boring. Don't let it be static and dull."

I was familiar with the play, but had never seen it staged. Overall I didn't hate it like I feared I might, but I don't necessarily know if I liked it either. Everytime I began to get into the show and enjoy the dialogue/performances the play seemed to shot itself in the foot.

Bill Irwin is giving a great performance and the beginning of act 2 was the highlight of the evening for me. If anyone has a shot at a Tony nomination it would be him. Lane is half playing a character, half just being himself, but it mostly works. Irwin and Lane play it like a Vaudeville comedy act, which I think is a fine approach to the material.

Goodman was not good, and that's putting it nicely. The show ground to a halt when he entered, especially in act 2. That was the low point, accentuated by the wonderful patter Irwin and Lane had right before. I actually feel bad for Glover in his role. At least he could lay there and take a nap during act 2.

I don't think I'll be recommending this to anyone, unless you're a hardcore fan of the show. If you want to catch an absurdist comedy this season it's a no brainer to opt for Exit the King.

---