| IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. | |
| Posted by: | portenopete 12:43 am EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| I am just out of IT'S ONLY A PLAY, which I got at TKTS for about $80. I know the box office has been down since Nathan Lane left, but the house looked pretty full to me (although I couldn't see upstairs admittedly). Everyone was in, although Matthew Broderick seemed to be nursing a voice/throat issue. There was at least one glass of water surreptitiously hidden which I noticed him pull from behind a plant to take a sip from. (Not sure why it seemed hidden, when presumably all the characters would be walking around with drinks in their hands.) I really didn't like the play or the production and found the tone to be awfully self-aggrandizing. If we're meant to take Peter as McNally himself- which I am assured by many theatrical cognoscenti is the case- then he had better have a good briefcase-full of terrific plays behind him in order for me to view him as a noble genius. McNally has had a thoroughly-respectable but spotty career- almost all of it Off-Broadway and regional, with a handful of musical books on Broadway (which will probably be his greatest legacy). The one piece I've seen of his that lives in my memory is MASTER CLASS, which I thought was ingeniously constructed and of course gorgeously performed by Zoe Caldwell. (THE RITZ- because of its audacious setting and even more audacious Googie Gomez- is also something I am glad I experienced and is probably one of the more successful post-farce era farces.) I remember liking LOVE! VALOR! COMPASSION! without much passion and CORPUS CHRISTI I have no memory of at all except for the metal detector going into MTC and the cast of pulchritudinous young men, many of whom were on the cusp of stardom. I know I go on so I'll try and isolate a couple of things I found irksome. The heavy-handedness of the "satire". I am thinking that the wunderkind director is meant to be.....who? Trevor Nunn? Peter Brook? (The likelihood of a 30-ish director being knighted- let alone made a Lord- is far-fetched, especially when the only credits he has that are mentioned were an American regional show and something at RADA.) And the sneering tone towards the British just seems so personal and mean-spirited. I can understand that, back in the '80s, there was that snobbery/insecurity about the British invasion in musical theatre, but if anything, the directors were the ones who made those shows work. I can't help but think that McNally is bitter about never having had much success in Britain and then to see playwrights like Stoppard, Bennett and Hare come to Broadway and go home with Tonys. (The title of the fake Hare play referenced in the script is so broad and puerile that I cringed as the joke went on and on- and was met with silence as most of the audience would have no idea what kind of plays David Hare writes.) But leaving even the most disappointing Hare play- and I've seen a few of them- I would never deny that they were devoid of ideas or craft, and that's something I can't say about IT'S ONLY A PLAY. I also questioned why the characters would allow a critic- especially one who has been cruel to them in the past- to remain in a private bedroom at a private party. I admit I've seen critics lurking about at opening parties, but in a theatre lobby milling about in a big crowd. I've seen it noted in a review, but Julia Budder's vapidity was hard to buy as a lead (and sole) producer. I like the idea of skewering all those investors we see crowding each other on the Tony daïs, but I don't buy any of them could ever single-handedly get a show to Broadway. (And McNally- knowing what's good for him- makes her a moral compass, to boot.) I thought the only performance that seemed to conjure up a real person was Martin Short's, who is not terribly well-cast in a role penned for Coco/Lane, but actually seemed to care about what he was saying. To say the opposite is true of Matthew Broderick is putting it mildly. I haven't seen him onstage since THE WIDOW CLAIRE thirty years ago. I thought the deadpan automaton schtick I saw/heard on HOW TO SUCCEED and PRODUCERS clips was pretty right for Leo and Ponty, but I am at a loss to fathom what he thinks he's achieving here. And does Jack O'Brien like it? Or is he powerless? Stockard Channing would seem to be at least twenty-five years too old to play a role originally played by Joanna Gleason in the mid-'80s, and there's a very different feel about a 40-ish addict than a 70-ish addict. Katie Finneran does her best with dud material and manages a few chuckles. Maulik Pancholy- who always made me laugh on 30 ROCK- seems like a high school student here: monotonous high-pitched voice, barely-discernible English accent (tough when your Englishness is the main character trait) and seemed to stop acting whenever he wasn't speaking. F. Murray Abraham I found kind of on the money: blissfully clueless about his reputation, which I'm always amazed about when I meet critics. And I'm glad Micah Stock is getting good buzz, but I found him to be a collection of tics and poses and drawls, none of which built to a believable character. Maybe I'm swimming against the tide of what New York theatregoers want. They dutifully applauded and stood up when Broderick was feeding them the cues in the dribble-off final moments of the show, and they seemed to exit the theatre quite satisfied. But for long stretches- when the playwright should have been crafting character and situation and mood- they seemed to be adrift and unsure of what to make of it. I'm not sure they realized it in the end, but I don't think they had a very good time. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. | |
| Posted by: | Mc1227 09:20 am EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. - portenopete 12:43 am EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| I have seen this twice and enjoyed it each time. It's not the greatest play ever written but the performances were top notch each time and I dion't understand the Broderick bashing on here. He is not playing Leo Bloom or Felix Unger at all. If anyone was rechanneling a previous character, it was Mullally. He is playing the voice of the writer and is the only character that is not completely over the top. I am curious to see how Martin and Kate fare in these roles, so I may see it again with the discount offers now in place. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. | |
| Posted by: | BroadwayTonyJ 12:54 pm EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. - Mc1227 09:20 am EST 01/19/15 |
|
| |
| I'm with you on this one. Peter Austin is nothing like Bloom or Unger -- he's the grown-up in the room -- The Golden Egg is his child -- he's crushed by every word of every bad review he hears. I think Broderick takes the right approach by underplaying the role and he's pretty deft at it -- it would be out of character for him to go for big laughs. I found the show hilarious from beginning to end with the characters of James Wicker, Virginia Noyes, and Gus nailing the laughs -- Austin is the foil IMO. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. | |
| Posted by: | jtong43 01:24 pm EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. - portenopete 12:43 am EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| All I can say is that we saw it in October we laughed and laughed. Good enough for me. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. | |
| Posted by: | portenopete 03:11 pm EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. - jtong43 01:24 pm EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| That's great! I'm glad you enjoyed it! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. | |
| Posted by: | mikem 01:08 pm EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. - portenopete 12:43 am EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| When I saw the show a couple of months ago, I thought the audience (including myself) was enjoying it a lot, but I remember thinking that most of the credit for a funny night in the theater went to Nathan Lane rather than the script, with able assistance from Channing and Stock. But Lane really made the show work. I don't always think he comes across so well on the screen, but I think he is a true comic genius of the theater. His lengthy opening scene with Stock is hilarious and sets the tone for the whole show. And negative points to Broderick, who was so low-energy that he sucked some of the life out of the show. I've enjoyed his work in other shows, but at my performance, I thought he was sleepwalking. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY....or not... | |
| Posted by: | boyartist 01:04 pm EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. - portenopete 12:43 am EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| I was involved in the early 1990's production in Los Angeles, ( I illustrated the poster...), where the role of FRANK FINGER was played by David Hyde Pierce, ( this was just before "Frasier"). In my notes from the producer, I was told that FINGER was based on PETER SELLARS, who, at that time was called a "boy wonder director". Mr. Sellars was known for being very over-the-top and experimental in his theatrical and personal style. I don't think he was British, but a home grown type. I also remember that during the out-of-town tryout of "My One & Only" in Boston, Sellars was fired and replaced by Mike Nichols. The BOY WONDER is pushing SIXTY, and does anyone know or care where he is today, or what he's doing? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY....or not... | |
| Posted by: | ptownguy 03:55 pm EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY....or not... - boyartist 01:04 pm EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| I believe he was replaced by Thommie Walsh and Tommy Tune (Tony nom), not Mike Nichols. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY....or not... | |
| Posted by: | portenopete 03:15 pm EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY....or not... - boyartist 01:04 pm EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| That's an interesting piece of information. Peter Sellars recently directed a chamber version of A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM at the Stratford Festival that was quite well-received. I'm assuming he still does a lot of opera? My gut feeling is that McNally feels that some directors will screw with and ruin his vision as a writer by making it their own. I agree that it happens with great plays by masters, but I can only imagine that the work of Sellars or his ilk might make McNally's pieces more interesting as theatre. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY....or not... | |
| Posted by: | larry13 02:55 pm EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY....or not... - boyartist 01:04 pm EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| You really didn't know where Peter Sellars is today? And couldn't be bothered with looking it up instead of displaying your ignorance here? And IF he WAS ever known a "the boy wonder" it must have been long before the early '90s; maybe back in the early '80s at the time of MY ONE AND ONLY. Wasn't this McNally opus originally written even before that? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY....or not... | |
| Posted by: | LegitOnce 02:17 pm EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY....or not... - boyartist 01:04 pm EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| Sellars directed an extremely well-received staging of the Bach "Johannes-Passion" that sold out the Park Avenue Armory in October 2014. He's currently in London working with the English National Opera on a new piece by John Adams, The Gospel of the Other Mary and an adaptation of Purcell's The Indian Queen. Also last year he supervised revivals of his production of Handel's Hercules and Wagner's Tristan und Isolde in Madrid, Toronto and Paris, a collaboration with Bill Viola that has been touring for 10 years. And the Met's most controversial production in years, The Death of Klinghoffer is a work Sellars originally conceived, though it was presented in a production by another director. Not everyone likes or appreciates Sellars' work, but he has directed and curated steadily for more than 30 years. But since when have facts stood in the way of McNally's making a cheap joke at the expense of a greater artist than himself? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY....or not... | |
| Posted by: | portenopete 03:24 pm EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY....or not... - LegitOnce 02:17 pm EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| I don't blame the poster for not looking his s**t up: I'm guilty of that on this board. But as you say, despite his detractors, Sellars has been a major force in American Theatre (and World Theatre) and McNally does seem to be taking a cheap shot rather than a pointed jab at someone whose work he probably can't fathom and is threatened by. And the whole idea of people calling this kid director "Sir Frank" is pretty ludicrous. The only knight of the realm whom I've heard likes the honorific used is Ben Kingsley, but I'm pretty sure that Olivier was "Larry", Gielgud "Johnny" and Maggie Smith is "Mags". | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY....or not... | |
| Posted by: | 15minutecall 01:59 am EST 01/18/15 |
| In reply to: | re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY....or not... - portenopete 03:24 pm EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| How is it a cheap shot at Peter Sellars if there's nothing in the text or McNally's comments that would link his character to Sellars? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY....or not... | |
| Posted by: | larry13 03:36 pm EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY....or not... - portenopete 03:24 pm EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| I'm sure I too have been lazy and asked questions here instead of trying to get the info myself. What really irked me with this poster was how he worded HIS "cheap shot" AND "pointed jab" at Sellars combined with his seeming proud ignorance of the director's career. No one has to like Sellars or anyone else but just say that. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY....or not... | |
| Posted by: | whereismikeyfl 01:26 pm EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY....or not... - boyartist 01:04 pm EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| "The BOY WONDER is pushing SIXTY, and does anyone know or care where he is today, or what he's doing?" Only people who keep up with theater and opera care about what Sellars does today. He is no longer fashionable, but Met production of Nixon in China improved on his original version and showed that he is still one of the best opera directors around. But most of his productions take place in California or Europe. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. | |
| Posted by: | tpdc 11:56 am EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. - portenopete 12:43 am EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| I don't think this is about McNally's success in London or Trevor Ninn at all. It's just a backstage comedy with an all star cast. The night I saw it with the original cast, there were more laughs, and truly long big laughs, than I have seen in a Broadway show in years. Saying that the audience didn't enjoy the show is really projecting a lot. If audiences weren't enjoying this show it would have closed when Lane left. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. | |
| Posted by: | portenopete 03:28 pm EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. - tpdc 11:56 am EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| I don't agree. I think audiences routinely give standing ovations to shows they don't like. And they recommend them to their friends. Now if they were laughing, that's another matter. I saw FINDING NEVERLAND with an audience at ART that was incredibly enthusiastic: I didn't quite get what they liked about it but I couldn't deny they seemed to be digging it. The crowd at IT'S ONLY A PLAY were not nearly so vocal and responded mostly to the lines and choices that were underlined and highlight mercilessly. Like the actor at curtain call who lifts his arms and gives an audience the cue to stand. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. | |
| Posted by: | John_Patti 10:44 am EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. - portenopete 12:43 am EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| Maybe plays like these have been produced to help you hone your opinions into more easily digestible missives in the future with a little less selfagrandizing on your part. What a stretch that the author character could have some of the author in him. The same is assumed of all the characters. This was a star driven production people go for the stars not the play. Great producing because now even at discounted rates the show can run a bit longer and Broadway should always have a comedy running and even if not the best it's still fun to spend time in their and the authors company. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. | |
| Posted by: | portenopete 03:53 pm EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. - John_Patti 10:44 am EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| Not sure how my post is "self-aggrandizing". I wasn't criticizing McNally for making the playwright quasi-autobiographical. But then making him the moral arbiter of the play without giving him anything interesting to say or do was disappointing. And suggesting that he's some kind of noble saint is, as I said, "self-aggrandizing". I don't disagree that it's "star-driven", but so are THE ELEPHANT MAN, THE RIVER, HEDWIG and umpteen other good shows. I just wish this one lived up to the wattage of its performers. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. | |
| Posted by: | haterobics 09:19 am EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. - portenopete 12:43 am EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| "I know the box office has been down since Nathan Lane left, but the house looked pretty full to me." Yes, but when Lane was in it, you wouldn't have been able to get a ticket at TKTS, so filling a house with discounted seats is different from filling the house will premium and full-priced seats. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. | |
| Posted by: | NeoAdamite 08:17 am EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. - portenopete 12:43 am EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| If we're meant to take Peter as McNally Why would you think that? I saw no parallels to suggest it. The director is a parody of a type which I know to be very common in European opera, and not specifically British. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| I was there last night too... | |
| Posted by: | Teacher64 08:15 am EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. - portenopete 12:43 am EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| ...and I agree with everything you said. There were portions that had laugh after laugh, but then there were long stretches of nothing. They guy playing the young director seemed like he was acting in a bad high school play; no comic timing, no enthusiasm, no British accent and no character. Every time he started to speak I would cringe. (When he came out at the stage door, where about 20 people were waiting for Short, people looked at him, and then turned away. Channing left very quickly, not signing at all and Short and Broderick never came out to sign. Only Finneran signed, and she was very nice and took pictures, despite the frigid temperatures.) If you think Broderick's schtick did not work last night, you should have seen him play Felix Unger the exact same way. In fact, he's been playing every character the same way ever since THE PRODUCERS. He was absolutely horrible. There were people sitting around me contemplating leaving during intermission, but they all stayed. There was nothing compelling in the play to make people want to stay for Act 2. And the theater was positively freezing. IT'S ONLY A PLAY barely qualifies under its own title, and it was only the wattage of the stars that are in it that bring audiences to see it. I can't believe it gets good word of mouth --there were many moments last night when I started to doze off. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Wow. I agree 100% | |
| Posted by: | NewtonUK 08:04 am EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. - portenopete 12:43 am EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| nm | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. | |
| Posted by: | davei2000 07:31 am EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. - portenopete 12:43 am EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| But for long stretches- when the playwright should have been crafting character and situation and mood- they seemed to be adrift and unsure of what to make of it.I'm not sure they realized it in the end, but I don't think they had a very good time.... Talk about "self-aggrandizing"! But leaving even the most disappointing Hare play- and I've seen a few of them- I would never deny that they were devoid of ideas or craft, and that's something I can't say about IT'S ONLY A PLAY. Speaking of craft - you managed to say the opposite of what you meant, no?? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. | |
| Posted by: | portenopete 03:56 pm EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. - davei2000 07:31 am EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| I understand neither of your points. Could you pity a fool and explain them? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. | |
| Posted by: | davei2000 07:36 pm EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. - portenopete 03:56 pm EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| Since you're able to divine the experience of an audience better than they can themselves, I figured you could understand me. Maybe you need to look up the meaning of the word devoid? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. | |
| Posted by: | bobby2 01:50 am EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. - portenopete 12:43 am EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| What are the ATC references in the show? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. | |
| Posted by: | portenopete 06:52 am EST 01/17/15 |
| In reply to: | re: IT"S ONLY - NO, BARELY- A PLAY. - bobby2 01:50 am EST 01/17/15 |
|
| |
| Someone mentions "chatrooms" and the producer and Micah Stock's character- I think?- both admit to being denizens. ATC isn't mentioned by name as far as I remember. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
All That Chat is intended for the discussion of
theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)
Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.
[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Sound Advice Upcoming Releases CDs/Books/DVDs, etc. | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]
Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2015 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]
Time to render: 0.267291 seconds.