| re: Same reaction exactly. | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 07:17 pm EDT 10/27/15 |
| In reply to: | re: Same reaction exactly. - Ann 06:29 pm EDT 10/27/15 |
|
| |
| I read with interest your post below that mentioned a generally positive response, and understand that you see all of the posts, not merely those on a given day. I don't cherry pick, to be fair, so my reading isn't a thorough appraisal. Thus I'm now convinced my take-away from the threads was not an ultimate consensus. Still, a couple of us clearly had the impression the show wasn't gaining much traction. I'm pleased for the author, but as you note, maybe (some of) his audience expected something similar to "Prophet." I now feel glad I get to see a play that's had such a powerful reception. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Same reaction exactly. | |
| Posted by: | Ann 07:47 pm EDT 10/27/15 |
| In reply to: | re: Same reaction exactly. - Delvino 07:17 pm EDT 10/27/15 |
|
| |
| OK, I went back and checked and counted 9 negative and 7 positive posts; 3 I disregarded because I couldn't tell if they liked it or not. (Also, it seems a couple of the negatives posted more than once.) So, not more positive than negative, but not resoundingly negative. That said, I heard more positive outside of this board, so I guess I had that in my mind. Either way, I don't think there are enough posts to make any kind of point. And I wonder if anything was changed during previews. I do think things look more dire if you're reading about a show you're looking forward to, and the posts are not glowing. At least, that happens to me. Sometimes I am ultimately pleasantly surprised. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| Minor spoilers (perhaps) below | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 08:10 am EST 11/01/15 |
| In reply to: | re: Same reaction exactly. - Ann 07:47 pm EDT 10/27/15 |
|
| |
| At the talkback yesterday, it did sound like a few changes were made during previews with what goes on during the final sequence. It did sound like it might have seemed more surreal or otherworldly or supernatural during early previews than it does now. It still seems a bit like what goes on could be otherworldly, but nothing happens during it that would necessarily demand a supernatural explanation, even if one thing that happens does seem a tiny bit unlikely. If I understood correctly what was said at the talkback, it seems that in earlier drafts of the play, and perhaps even in the draft with which they started rehearsals, there was talk of an actual gargoyle figure on the building that was visible through the upstairs window, and at the end it was going to appear in the window. It sounded like it did appear in the window during early previews, but that was cut. And it sounded like it may have been especially confusing to audiences as by that time earlier discussion of there really being a gargoyle figure there had been cut. At least that's the impression I got from what Reed Birney said at the talkback. At the risk of being repetitive, since I already said this in response to mikem, I'll say again that much of the audience seemed to like it a great deal yesterday. The audience certainly seemed held by it. There was much laughter and there were few coughs or other obvious signs of boredom or indifference, at least that I was aware of. The comments during the talkback were very positive. I'm quite sure that some people in the audience did not like it. As I mentioned in response to mikem, a woman in the row behind me was a bit annoying during the play in seeming to want us to know that she wasn't much liking it. But hers seemed to me a minority reaction. I may be misremembering, but I thought that during previews at least one person wrote here that the subscribers seemed most unhappy with it. Whether it was because the reviews have predisposed people to like it, or because the playing has gotten stronger, or simply because yesterday afternoon's audience was ready to go with it, my impression was that most of the audience liked it and that many of them liked it a great deal. And I will add that this is one of the best acted productions of anything I've seen in years. I will rarely say of any production that I did not think there was a single false note in the acting, but I would say of this production that if there were any false notes, there were fleeting and insignificant. A beautiful ensemble. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: spoilers below | |
| Posted by: | Ann 09:39 am EST 11/01/15 |
| In reply to: | Minor spoilers (perhaps) below - AlanScott 08:10 am EST 11/01/15 |
|
| |
| I don't remember a gargoyle at the window (or any audience unhappiness, if I could even tell that). It was the ending, with the somewhat surreal treatment of the Asian woman walking past the downstairs door, that seemed to me to be the intended conclusion of other effects seen/heard earlier. I didn't/don't understand the meaning of that. If it all just happened, without it being made to seem to mean something more, I wouldn't wonder about it (and that's the only way I ultimately can take it). And, yes, on the acting. Superb and so believable. I see it as a look at a family that holds together through more than their share of adversities - some of their own doing and some not. Real people on stage. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: spoilers below | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 01:27 pm EST 11/01/15 |
| In reply to: | re: spoilers below - Ann 09:39 am EST 11/01/15 |
|
| |
| I wish I had taken down what Reed Birney said yesterday about the final sequence. I don't want to incorrectly convey what he said. He definitely has his own interpretation of it, which he said had developed over time and continues to develop. I am sure he said that for him it had something to do with Erik's willingness to move into the tunnel. I'm not sure that I entirely buy the ending, but I liked it so much overall that I'm mostly willing to go with it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| It IS interesting, sort of... | |
| Posted by: | garyd 12:23 am EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | re: Same reaction exactly. - Ann 07:47 pm EDT 10/27/15 |
|
| |
| I decided to see this since I was not sure it would transfer. I like it. I also liked "Sons of the Prophet", "Disgraced", and "The Lyons'. I would not have invested in a Broadway transfer of the latter three though two of them transferred. "The Humans" is a very good play, nicely directed, well acted. It does not have the emotional pull or fun staging of "Curious Dog" or the comic melodrama of "August: Osage County'. I have no idea whether or not it will survive on Broadway. I just have a gut feeling it will not appeal to or draw a large mainstream audience. Hope I am wrong. | |
| 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: 0.033047 seconds.