I haven't seen this production yet, so take my comments with a grain of salt, but it seems like its succumbing to my worst fear--that the play's intimacy would be lost in a bigger space. The play can still work wonderfully. I saw a production in Chicago two years ago (featuring Deanna Dunegan as Aunt Ruth) that was shattering. But it really needs that intimacy to get off the ground. I still plan to see this, but I'm less hopeful now.
Michael Feingold is the only writer today I can think of who is actually a critic, rather than a reviewer. He doesn't just say whether something is good or bad. He puts works of art in a cultural context. I always enjoy reading his perspectives.
As for reviewers, I think Jesse Green and Alexis Soloski are the best writers currently in the game, but I don't go to anyone for specific advice about whether to see a show or not.
I would call her a great under-sung heroine of the musical theater, but she's highly respected, and deservedly so (witness this post and thread).
I would assume that her decision to move to Seattle around 20 years ago--and, aside from occasional returns to New York, largely center her career on the West Coast--is largely why she isn't the big Broadway name she could have been. But she has said in many interviews that she is content with the choice she made. I thi
TFANA's rationale for rejecting the adaptation of the play never specifically mention length. Keep in mind that a completely uncut HAMLET would run around 6-7 hours. An adaptation of HAMLET can easily be "aggressively cut" (to use the language TFANA used) and still be quite lengthy.
I saw a regional theater production over the weekend and was seated directly in front of a (very minor) local critic. This woman loudly took notes throughout the entire performance, shuffling the papers of her notebook distractingly, AND chewed gum like a heifer with her mouth open. (I have no problem with taking notes during a performance, but it should be done discreetly.) I admonished her during an appropriate break in the performance. I'm friends with the artistic director of this the
Umm...Philly, Boston, Miami, SF--by the most technical definition, NOT "flyover country".
"Flyover country" is an insulting phrase meant to suggest that any place other than New York or LA is devoid of culture and intelligence. Spend any time in the cities I mentioned and you'll quickly find out that neither coast has exclusive rights to culture. Suggesting that a show like WAR PAINT--which isn't particularly sophisticated to begin with--won't play outsi
That said, as a matinee on a two-show day even though it flew by, it does go a little long. It was around 2 hours 45 minutes when I saw the show. I have no idea how long Sweat runs. So that's something to think about.
Sweat runs 2:25, if that matters at all to your decision-making.
I saw the show during its Philadelphia engagement last week. While I would have preferred to see it in a smaller house, I didn't think all intimacy was lost in the Forrest Theatre (which is approx. 1900 seats). The staging is very similar to the production at the Public, and Gold has directed the show to maximize the intimacy factor in larger houses, such as playing a lot of the show downstage center, as close to the audience as possible. Unlike many tours, the performance was mercifully