2,809 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Feb 21, 2020 13:03:14 GMT
Was about to post it myself, it's such an interesting read!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2020 22:40:26 GMT
Whenever this gets revived, I hope it happens after the playwright and the director (and/or a skilled dramaturg) do some major trimming. As good as some of the moments in each part were, the overall play was unnecessarily bloated.
It's taken many years, many rewrites, and many productions for both parts of Angels in America to be pretty reliable crowds pleasers. Perhaps The Inheritance will experience a similar trajectory.
|
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Feb 22, 2020 10:18:02 GMT
It's taken many years, many rewrites, and many productions for both parts of Angels in America to be pretty reliable crowds pleasers I dunno, Perestroika is still too long and incoherent, or was in the NT revival.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2020 10:27:15 GMT
It's taken many years, many rewrites, and many productions for both parts of Angels in America to be pretty reliable crowds pleasers I dunno, Perestroika is still too long and incoherent, or was in the NT revival. If I recall, many of the critics' reviews said this was one of the best stagings of Perestroika they had ever seen. It is always going to be messy and more rambling though when compared to the tightness of Millennium Approaches.
|
|
1,016 posts
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2020 10:31:35 GMT
It's a slightly scattershot take, but some of the points definitely ring true. I found this: “it must have a little bit romantic for London audiences to see New York gays,” explained Sam Maher, a Broadway producer and influencer marketing consultant. It was “probably so cool for British audiences to see what life is like” for homosexual men across the pond, he said....fairly patronising. They go to the theatre and eat pizza and have drinks and talk? How exotic! So cool! What makes much more sense to me is the marketing and financially difficulty of a two part Broadway show that isn't a big tourist draw like Harry Potter, doesn't have an enormous celebrity in a role, and especially one that didn't grab the critics. Maybe the bad reviews were to do with setting it in the New York metropolitan scene as the author says, maybe it was too close to home. Maybe it's the fact that the play was set in America but produced in Britain and became so well received that it put up everyones backs on the transfer. It wasn't perfect, but it was a very very good play that I don't think deserved the reception it received. On Broadway more than anywhere else a bad set of reviews will destroy a production before it even gets going, and the lukewarm reception it received did it in much more than it's lack of "influencer marketing campaigns" or the fatigue of New Yorkers about the concept of gay men travelling to Fire Island.
|
|
6,299 posts
|
Post by Jon on Feb 22, 2020 12:03:10 GMT
I wonder if perhaps a run off Broadway or at a non profit would have been better in hindsight?
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Feb 22, 2020 17:41:49 GMT
First off...what an unlikeable person...
A fair bit of 'spin' in there as well.
While the show was a hit with the critics and sold-out at the Young Vic when it was £10-£40 to see both parts, it didn't do at all well in the West End. It was on discount sites from the day it opened until it's closing was announced which seemed to create more interest. But not many lined up to pay £250 for something they could've seen for £80 a few months earlier. It didn't do Caroline or Change 'bad', but it was far from a hit once it made the move.
What is missing from the article is the fact that if a show doesn't 'crossover' and become something the general public want to see, it just isn't going to do well. That is very difficult for a 'gay' play to do, let alone a 2 part one. Angels in America had just flopped. Torch Song flopped BADLY on Broadway after it's successful Off Broadway run. If those 2 classics couldn't do well with star studded casts, how was a new play full of nobodies ever going to put bums on seats? Boys in the Band was a smash, but it was full of the 'hottest' gay actors working in America and the play hadn't been revived for many years. There aren't enough gays in New York to make something a success, especially when if requires 6 hours of your life to support.
I also think a lot of American gay men 'buck up' at supporting things that they may feel is specifically 'aimed' at getting their dollars.
|
|
1,435 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by marob on Feb 22, 2020 21:29:47 GMT
Shame it's run's been so short in America, but hopefully this means we'll get Kyle Soller back on stage over here again soon.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 23, 2020 12:10:34 GMT
Boys in the Band was also not about the AIDS crisis.
People go to Broadway to be entertained - most shy away from heavy stuff. They’re paying so much money for tickets they *must* have a good time for it - most won’t risk paying to see something difficult or confronting or complex.
We have a different play-going culture in London that is driven by the subsidised sector and facilitated by (until recently) much cheaper ticket prices. Off-Broadway tackles the same kind of subjects and has a similarly adventurous audience but it doesn’t drive the culture of Broadway in the same way.
Even star names do not sell out most serious plays on Broadway.
Also kind of startling to see so much of the criticism being based around ‘woke’ ideas - that the cast are straight (I mean, I have no idea whether the main cast are actually straight or not, due to them not being famous enough for their private lives to be the subject of gossip) and that it’s not diverse enough, that the Republican character gets too much stage-time. There is clearly a pre-conceived idea about what stories should be told on stage and how they should be presented among some taste-makers, and it’s getting in the way of them actually engaging with plays on their own terms. And that’s obviously not just applying to this play, but if you don’t understand why this *particular* story features a prominent conservative, then you can’t understand what it is doing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 15:33:15 GMT
Attributing or dismissing relevant criticism as "wokeness" oversimplifies what happened here I think. Might wokeness be in play somewhat? Sure. A bit.
But gay male life as represented in popular media and the arts in the States for a very long time has overemphasized well-off white males. We've had many plays in which that was the crux of what appeared on stage.
In the year 2020, many people looking at a play coming in with some of the marketing proclamations of The Inheritance is going to expect a greater diversity in the stories and representation. I don't know if this criticism would have been less vocal had the play not been heralded in the manner in which it was.
Regardless, the gay community is expansive and diverse. Hoping to see a bit more of that among seven hours of a supposedly major new play really is not an off-base aspiration or even expectation. And the playwright's rather defensive column in the New York Times did little to tame the concerns raised.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 23, 2020 17:28:58 GMT
I was referring to the Forbes piece’s thesis.
The thing is, a play using Howard’s End as its template cannot do so without a politically conservative character at its centre, or a main character who is upper-class, politically progressive, privileged and and naive.
Obviously a certain section of the audience just didn’t want to see that, and it seems they couldn’t engage with the piece beyond their dislike of that main conceit.
Was that the fault of the expectations raised by the marketing? Perhaps. But The Forbes article doesn’t understand why London critics loved the play so much (that thing about exotic NY gays is clearly bollocks) which makes me think there’s a more profound disconnect going on with the play itself.
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Feb 23, 2020 18:17:20 GMT
the gay community is expansive and diverse. Yes it is which is why I am always very confused when 'gays' go and watch 'gay entertainment' and then do nothing but bitch and moan because they don't see a mirror reflection of themselves. How narcissistic do you have to be seriously? It's like they consider themselves the only 'gay in the village' as we hear this same complaint every time something 'gay' hits the mainstream. I would say 95% of 'gay' entertainment I see doesn't represent me or my partner in the slightest but that has nothing to do with me liking or hating it. I don't watch something to see my story, I watch it to see other peoples stories. Sometimes I can relate to something, but that happens in any type of production I see gay or straight because I'm a human being not because of who I am sexually attracted to. I certainly don't want to pay an exorbitant amount of money to sit and watch myself for 2 hours, it's bad enough putting up with that bullsh*t 24/7 as it is
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 18:23:53 GMT
I would hardly call hoping to every once in awhile see yourself represented in the stories on stage, in television, et al as "narcissistic," but maybe I am misunderstanding your point. That some of those complaining do not reduce their gay identity merely to "who they are sexually attracted to" is exactly why these criticisms are being raised. They want to see the complexity, the intersectionality, and the layers of their identity in some of the stories being told.
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Feb 23, 2020 18:25:08 GMT
But The Forbes article doesn’t understand why London critics loved the play so much (that thing about exotic NY gays is clearly bollocks) Seriously why would people who live a stones throw away from 100's of most beautiful islands on earth consider some sandbar filled with gays off the coast of America 'exotic'?
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Feb 23, 2020 19:43:36 GMT
I would hardly call hoping to every once in awhile see yourself represented in the stories on stage, in television, et al as "narcissistic," but maybe I am misunderstanding your point. That some of those complaining do not reduce their gay identity merely to "who they are sexually attracted to" is exactly why these criticisms are being raised. They want to see the complexity, the intersectionality, and the layers of their identity in some of the stories being told. It is a problem when you have no other view outside of wanting to see what YOU want to see and then criticising anything that doesn't live up to your unrealistic expectations of how you think things should be. That is not about the production, that is about you. Just because something doesn't connect for one person, doesn't mean it doesn't connect with others. Expecting/demanding it does connect to you and then throwing a tanty when it doesn't IS narcisstic. This is not just a problem with 'gay' entertainment, it is a problem throughout the entire community on practically every level. From personal experience I I think the gays are a pretty entitled bunch who tend to operate in so many fragmented and disconnected 'groups' it is impossible to please everyone (frankly ANYONE) all of the time. No gay artist can ever live up to everyone's 'gay' wishes, because every 'gay' has different life experiences and expectations, so instead they usually try to connect all people on a more human level and then just get attacked for not being 'gay' enough. If your entire existence is 'gay' you are always going to be viewing life from a very skewed bubble and frankly you are never going to be satisfied with anything because the whole world is not 'gay' and no 2 'gays' are the same.
|
|
2,809 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Oct 15, 2020 17:23:45 GMT
It just got 11 Tony Awards nominations, including Best Play, Best Director and four acting nods. Interestingly enough, Andrew Burnap received a nomination but Kyle Soller got nothing
|
|
5,269 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Oct 15, 2020 18:44:39 GMT
I think that Kyle not being nominated is absolutely disgraceful.
|
|
2,809 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Dec 1, 2020 19:43:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2021 18:21:37 GMT
Was this filmed?
|
|
2,809 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Mar 5, 2021 8:07:56 GMT
The official YouTube channel of the play uploaded the moving final scene of Part 1.
|
|
306 posts
|
Post by MrBraithwaite on Mar 5, 2021 10:46:20 GMT
Sadly no (I think) and they are probably regretting it now. Maybe they thought, this would have a long life on Broadway, which didn't happen, and they would have had something to sell as a stream during the pandemic. Pity really.
|
|
541 posts
|
Post by andrew on Mar 6, 2021 14:52:41 GMT
It has been filmed but I don't think it will ever be released as I remember Matthew Lopez saying that he didn't like at all how it translated on screen. I really hope the show gets a future life in London at some point...
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 6, 2021 22:43:29 GMT
I loved this show especially part 1, part 2 wasn’t so good. However where it was loved here, it didn’t seem to have received the same acclaim in America.
As for a future life, it is a seven hour play, with a large cast. Also I wonder if the pro-Trump monologue would seem dated now?
|
|
27 posts
|
Post by jvoom on Mar 7, 2021 14:57:22 GMT
I'm curious as to who played the "spirits" at the end of part one? Were they understudies/standbys?
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Mar 7, 2021 16:21:04 GMT
I'm curious as to who played the "spirits" at the end of part one? Were they understudies/standbys? Believe it was a mixture of understudies and supernumeraries (which is a fancy term for non-speaking extras, often these are only paid expenses or a minimum wage and do it for the credit/experience - although I don't think they even got a programme credit for this to save the surprise).
|
|
4,589 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Mar 11, 2021 13:15:00 GMT
I'm curious as to who played the "spirits" at the end of part one? Were they understudies/standbys? Believe it was a mixture of understudies and supernumeraries (which is a fancy term for non-speaking extras, often these are only paid expenses or a minimum wage and do it for the credit/experience - although I don't think they even got a programme credit for this to save the surprise). And the performance I attended they sadly didn't even get a curtain call. Phantom I'm with you on favouring part 1 over the 2nd. I didn't think VR was the strongest and I wonder if this was a part of it? Or maybe my mind just wandered off after the 6th hour...
|
|
|
Post by sph on Mar 15, 2021 19:25:04 GMT
I'm curious as to who played the "spirits" at the end of part one? Were they understudies/standbys? Believe it was a mixture of understudies and supernumeraries (which is a fancy term for non-speaking extras, often these are only paid expenses or a minimum wage and do it for the credit/experience - although I don't think they even got a programme credit for this to save the surprise). I wonder if they got a curtain call/programme credit in New York? I imagine they did as the Actors Equity union over there is far more strict on those things.
|
|