| 1 |
Strong, innovative new play Review by: IggyCat, Dec 1, 2009 |
| Interesting how the first review here is a very long, negative review and the second is a short, glowing review. I respect both, but it seems to me that both are a little too extreme. This struck me as a solid, innovative, enjoyable play, not with major narrative problems like the first reviewer asserts and not perfect as the second reviewer suggests. There is a mix of laughs, serious issues, character development, and very strong acting,... read more, and overall this is an enjoyable addition to the Broadway lineup this year. |
|
|
My recommendation:
Make an effort to see
|
| Acting: |
 |
| Production: |
|
| Story: |
 |
I saw this show with:
Spouse/Partner
|
Recommended for:
Adults
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
The most blissfully perfect play in decades. Review by: GothProf, Nov 24, 2009 |
| Hands down, the most joyous play I have seen in years. An astounding production that will leave you celebrating. Think A Doll's House turned on its side with a blissfully happy ending- Just perfect. Additionally- the writing is amazing- simply amazing! This is a play I will teach in college lit classes for years to come. Thank you Sarah Ruhl for reminding me why I go to the theater...! |
|
|
My recommendation:
must see!
|
| Acting: |
|
| Music: |
|
| Production: |
|
| Story: |
|
I saw this show with:
Spouse/Partner
|
Recommended for:
Romantic Date, Seniors, Adults
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
Disappointing, Not Ready for Broadway Review by: BroadwayBabySawIt, Nov 15, 2009 |
| We went hoping for the best, we usually love Lincoln Center productions like Contact, A New Brain, South Pacific and Joe Turner's Come and Gone. We were hoping for a great evening, knowing that the cast includes excellent actors, such as Michael Cerveris, Laura Benanti and Chandler Williams - but we were disappointed in this play. The set is lovely, the costumes sumptuous, the lighting perfect - it looks like a first-rate, Lincoln Center ... read more production. So it is difficult to figure out why it is not an enjoyable evening of theater, but the best we can say that it is not a Broadway play yet, meaning that it does not yet have a clear plot, it's all over the place. It's trying to say way too much - about human relationships, and sexual encounters, about what we expect to happen in a marriage, in a friendship, in a doctor's office, in raising a child - that everything cancels out and no real message emerges. It also does not help that characters' motivations change completely between the first and second halves, but with no real indication of the reason for the changes, what happened to them during intermission? In short, it is really an experimental theater piece that means a lot to someone, but what they are trying to say is not clear and so it is not a satisfying experience for the audience (no pun intended). The relationships that are set up in the first half do not amount to much in the second half, which consists mainly of people saying good bye to others or to their past - why? We don't know. The characters seem to change during intermission, so they surprise us in the second half, but the reasons for the changes are not clear. The acting is solid, but the plot is just not there to support them, and the frequent depictions of orgasm that at first get big laughs quickly just get boring because they lead no where. The nudity at the end is like the TV phrase "jumping the shark" - a strong tactic without any real point, just something supposedly shocking to keep us watching. The ending is not real, it does not belong to the play, and so it means nothing to us in the audience, and we have no way of figuring out what the author or the director intended it to mean, other than the fact that they are putting a nude actor in the snow - what is that? Is it a heavy-handed reference to frigidity? Not sure. The nude actor looks uncomfortable, and we feel sorry for him, but does the nudity mean anything to the plot? Not that we could figure out. There are lots of scenes of actors and actresses depicting orgasm - but nothing you haven't seen before, in fact less than what you've seen before, because the actors depicting orgasm are all fully clothed. Chandler Williams, who was wonderful in Mary Stuart, appears in the second half and brings up the energy of the show a thousand-fold, but like the play itself, his character seems to be there just for shock value, there is no pay off to his character's part of the play. We kept trying to understand what the play is trying to say, but it remains an irritating mystery on many levels. Sorry to say, we cannot recommend this play to anyone except those who like unresolved mystery, but we hope that those who developed it take it back to a workshop setting and rework it so that a clear plot emerges, because the original ideas - the use of vibrators in a medical setting, and what sexual satisfaction adds to life, health and relationships - could be the basis of a really good, interesting play. |
|
|
My recommendation:
Don't go
|
| Acting: |
 |
| Production: |
|
| Story: |
 |
I saw this show with:
Spouse/Partner
|
|
|
|
|
|