Not to mention what we bought with us to our seats on those days. I saw The Weir expecting to love it... I was exhausted that day, and not the most fast-paced show, it put me to sleep in 30-45 minutes. Or maybe I should say it help facilitate a nap, or it did not keep me awake. Is it that play, which is slow by the nature of what kind of play it is, have the responsibility to keep a tired audience member awake, or the blame for putting them to sleep?
I know many other viewers had a much better experience than me. It's not fair to say the play put me to sleep, even though I know if I'd been seeing Hairspray that day I would have not fallen asleep.
For the recent Twelfth Night... I was seated in an incredible lower level on stage seat. I couldn't have had a better experience if I'd forced myself because I paid $140 (I paid $27).
Then I saw Richard III for the same price, but standing at the back of the orchestra (which I've done many times, even for Long Days Journey). Even though I know Twelfth Night is unanimously agreed was the better and more enjoyable play and performance of the two, I can help but assume had I had the same seat as Twlefth Night I'd have had a better experience at Richard III than I did (I still liked it quite a lot).
And that brings up another point, which is I honestly think that some people (less so on this board I assume), are much more receptive to any show being good if they paid a lot of money for it... I always say people today with give a standing ovation to a janitor sweeping the floor if they paid $150 to see it. And on the flip side of that, some people are much harsher critics, expecting that it "better be f*cking brilliant for this much money".
|