| Ishy pans SYLVIA in the Times | |
| Posted by: | StageLover 10:34 pm EDT 10/27/15 |
|
| |
| I thought it was charming and funny. | |
| Link | http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/theater/review-sylvia-in-which-a-man-loves-a-dog-too-much.html?hpw&rref=arts&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r= |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Ishy pans SYLVIA in the Times | |
| Posted by: | TheHarveyBoy 07:48 am EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | Ishy pans SYLVIA in the Times - StageLover 10:34 pm EDT 10/27/15 |
|
| |
| Not quite a pan, more mixed I would say. According to Ken Davenport's website, DidHeLikeIt.com, only Time Out and Associated Press gave it raves, with the Times, Variety and Entertainment Weekly giving it mixed reviews | |
| Link | Did He Like It (Sylvia) |
| reply to this message | | |
| Yeah,not a pan... | |
| Posted by: | garyd 10:39 am EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | re: Ishy pans SYLVIA in the Times - TheHarveyBoy 07:48 am EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| Tbe performances are "fine', the direction 'nice", and the sets "handsome". Isherwood does not care for the play. No argument from me on that point. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Yeah,not a pan... | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 10:40 am EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | Yeah,not a pan... - garyd 10:39 am EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| Nor from me. I saw the original. People were convulsed around me; I was not. We all have different tastes. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| a woman playing a man's pet dog, in 2015? | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 05:57 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | re: Yeah,not a pan... - Delvino 10:40 am EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| I haven't seen or read the play, but I have heard about it for years. And it struck me reading about it again now, how odd it seems to me in 2015, to have a play where a woman plays a man's pet dog. I'm surprised it hasn't struck a negative chord in this sense - that someone hasn't bashed it as clearly just the male fantasy and the treatment of women. I'm not saying it does express that or that they'd be right, I'm just saying based on the premise that I'd surprised it doesn't come up. Does it seem strange to watch it as a play? Or does it just SOUND like a potentially iffy idea. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: a woman playing a man's pet dog, in 2015? | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 07:04 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | a woman playing a man's pet dog, in 2015? - Chazwaza 05:57 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| To the issue you raise, which I support, I'm in the minority, I get what Isherwood responded to. It has nothing to do with being overly sensitive (or a "cat" person, as he quipped). The premise, for my sensibilities, is cloying, and allows the middle age man losing his mind over a chick to become a middle age man losing his mind over a young bitch, literally. It still has an slightly icky horniess to it, sorry, and that's what makes all the ass scratching and crotch sniffing so obvious and tedious to me. It has some clever lines. Yes, it also reminds people of the way dogs are fawned over and humanized. Still, it's impossible for the play not to conjure fantasy, and if it were, say, a cute male dog in skimpy togs that crawled over Broderick and wet the floor, how would we respond? Isn't the intended heterosexual appeal the very gendered response of Broderick's character? (Yet do people really seize the gender of their dogs as even a partial basis for their affection? I haven't found that true.) It's how I felt at MTC when I saw it with his cute, hot wife, who played the titular character the first time. People truly love it. They giggle, they guffaw. They awwww. I didn't, and if others disagree, I certainly take your point. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| It might be a better play... | |
| Posted by: | garyd 09:37 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | re: a woman playing a man's pet dog, in 2015? - Delvino 07:04 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| if Sylvia is, I dunno, "Sam", a middle aged male dog dressed in khakis and a sweater vest. Greg just wants to "connect", to have someone with whom he can talk and someone who will listen minus the analysis and criticism. Sooner or later, according to Gurney, Greg still has to realize that his best friend is the person with whom he has shared a life, not a vertebrate who rolls over on command. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: a woman playing a man's pet dog, in 2015? | |
| Posted by: | MikeR 06:46 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | a woman playing a man's pet dog, in 2015? - Chazwaza 05:57 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| The dog is female. Would you rather she be played by a man? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: a woman playing a man's pet dog, in 2015? | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 07:42 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | re: a woman playing a man's pet dog, in 2015? - MikeR 06:46 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| I wouldn't rather anything. I'm just bringing something up. There are implications with anything. But I really wouldn't have been surprised if this production switched the genders and made it a female owner and a male dog. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| But that's not what the play is about. (NM) | |
| Posted by: | Seth Christenfeld (tabula-rasa@verizon.net) 10:02 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | re: a woman playing a man's pet dog, in 2015? - Chazwaza 07:42 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| Seth, for pete's sake | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: a woman playing a man's pet dog, in 2015? | |
| Posted by: | KingSpeed 06:44 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | a woman playing a man's pet dog, in 2015? - Chazwaza 05:57 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| What does 2015 have to do with it? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: a woman playing a man's pet dog, in 2015? | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 07:39 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | re: a woman playing a man's pet dog, in 2015? - KingSpeed 06:44 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| it's a shorter way of saying "in this day and age" ... referring to it being so far along in time, and knowing this is a year when the rights and respect for women are on many lips and minds and it is a very visible and popular issue. It might not have been given a second thought 30 years ago, 20 years ago, but it might now. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: a woman playing a man's pet dog, in 2015? | |
| Posted by: | Chromolume 07:27 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | re: a woman playing a man's pet dog, in 2015? - KingSpeed 06:44 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| This is all sounding more like Sylvia the GOAT rather than Sylvia the dog...;-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Maybe... | |
| Posted by: | garyd 09:44 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | re: a woman playing a man's pet dog, in 2015? - Chromolume 07:27 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| but Sylvia the Goat is a much better play/examination of a similar topic. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Ishy pans SYLVIA in the Times | |
| Posted by: | drummergirl 07:50 am EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | re: Ishy pans SYLVIA in the Times - TheHarveyBoy 07:48 am EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| Roma Torre of NY1 gave it a mixed review as well. Very positive for Ashford, and gentle if still pointed comment about Broderick basically playing the same characters he has for a while (I'm probably relaying it less articulating than she). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Broderick's perma-performance. | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 08:05 am EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | re: Ishy pans SYLVIA in the Times - drummergirl 07:50 am EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| The notice taken this morning of the Broderick boilerplate boy-man shtick seems behind the curve. He's been using this for so long, it's almost a trademark, and for better or worse, what audiences expect for their (fill in the blank, from TDF to Premium). We can all list countless performers who recycle or lean into an existing persona, all the way to the bank. Our tolerance for the steady predictability varies, based on a subjective appreciation of the markers. I can think of a number of film and television actors whose bag of tricks feel overused; Broderick may be unique in that he employs his more consistently in theater. To me, it's more about the turn he made as Leo Bloom (stepping into Gene Wilder's shows, after all), when the young leading man became a character actor. He never quite pulled up the Bueller DNA again (look at him in old films like "Godzilla," the first remake, when he was till persuasively a young lead, picture quality irrelevant). He's now turned the crazy uncle with the funny voice into a bankable commodity. It may endure, or "Sylvia" made retire some of it. I'm neutral on him as an actor; wouldn't go out of my way to see him in anything, but it's generally because he hasn't surprised me since "The Producers," exactly what Isherwood and company pick up on. Do we really want to know exactly what we're getting? Many do. But maybe "Sylvia"'s box office will be the final piece of evidence here. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Gene Wilder's shoes. | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 08:57 am EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | Broderick's perma-performance. - Delvino 08:05 am EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| Not shows; sorry, iphone typing. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Elizabeth Vincentelli on Broderick. | |
| Posted by: | TheOtherOne 09:37 am EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | Gene Wilder's shoes. - Delvino 08:57 am EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| There might be something to this: "But Broderick has the potential to be effective onstage. There’s something a little unsettling about his low-boil detachment, and you could imagine him playing one of those churchgoing men who turns out to be a psychopath. Too bad Broadway sees him only as a funnyman." (from her review of "Sylvia.") | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Elizabeth Vincentelli on Broderick. | |
| Posted by: | StageLover 09:40 am EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | Elizabeth Vincentelli on Broderick. - TheOtherOne 09:37 am EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| Not unlike the revival of NIGHT MUST FALL, which Broderick gave a creditable performance in. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Her "review" was an embarrassment | |
| Posted by: | bythesea2007 09:48 am EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | re: Elizabeth Vincentelli on Broderick. - StageLover 09:40 am EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| It was not so much a review of the show but a review of him. She has never been an admirable critic and this is, perhaps, her worst. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Her "review" was an embarrassment | |
| Posted by: | Jackson 10:13 am EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | Her "review" was an embarrassment - bythesea2007 09:48 am EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| Nobody should ever trust EV as a critic. She is not credible. Then again, Post readers rarely attend the theatre. J | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Her "review" was an embarrassment | |
| Posted by: | TheOtherOne 10:22 am EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | re: Her "review" was an embarrassment - Jackson 10:13 am EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| I am not commenting on her as a critic overall. "Sylvia" is probably never going to be a play that lends itself to in-depth criticism anyway. Her comments on the Broderick conundrum, which seems to hang over most reviews and discussions of any production he appears in these days, are intriguing. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Her "review" was an embarrassment | |
| Posted by: | davei2000 10:26 am EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | re: Her "review" was an embarrassment - TheOtherOne 10:22 am EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| Here it is so people can judge for themselves. You have to wonder if this was all that made it into print of a longer piece. | |
| Link | http://nypost.com/2015/10/27/when-matthew-broderick-is-just-ok-that-counts-as-a-triumph/ |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Why the quotes? | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 12:28 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | re: Her "review" was an embarrassment - davei2000 10:26 am EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| "A big problem is that he’s often miscast, as in the 2012 musical 'Nice Work If You Can Get It,' where he gave 'one of the most unappealing performances of the past few years.'" Why on earth is that last phrase in quotes? Whom is the critic quoting? Herself? Or maybe it's just a weird editing error? Not that I disagree with the quote, I'm just wondering.... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| yes, she is quoting her own review of Broderick in Nice Work | |
| Posted by: | Esther 12:31 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | Why the quotes? - Michael_Portantiere 12:28 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| link below | |
| Link | April 2012 review |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: yes, she is quoting her own review of Broderick in Nice Work | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 12:34 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | yes, she is quoting her own review of Broderick in Nice Work - Esther 12:31 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| Thanks. I think it's kinda weird that the quote suddenly appeared without attribution. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: yes, she is quoting her own review of Broderick in Nice Work | |
| Posted by: | writerkev 01:04 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | re: yes, she is quoting her own review of Broderick in Nice Work - Michael_Portantiere 12:34 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| In today's review, that quote is clearly indicated as a hyperlink. You click it, and the older review pops up. So the attribution is right there. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: yes, she is quoting her own review of Broderick in Nice Work | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 01:46 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | re: yes, she is quoting her own review of Broderick in Nice Work - writerkev 01:04 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| Thanks. For some reason, when I first read the review, I didn't notice that the quote is a hyperlink. I just checked the print edition, and the review is not in there at all, so that answers that question. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: yes, she is quoting her own review of Broderick in Nice Work | |
| Posted by: | MikeR 01:23 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | re: yes, she is quoting her own review of Broderick in Nice Work - writerkev 01:04 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| How does it appear in the print edition? Does it appear in the print edition? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: yes, she is quoting her own review of Broderick in Nice Work | |
| Posted by: | JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 02:31 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
| In reply to: | re: yes, she is quoting her own review of Broderick in Nice Work - MikeR 01:23 pm EDT 10/28/15 |
|
| |
| Print Edition? What's a "print edition?" :) | |
| 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: 0.299085 seconds.