Parsons will come out smelling like a rose and will be remembered for carrying that thing on her shoulders like Herzog's Fitzcarraldo hauling the ship over the mountain.
Roxy, I'm not so sure why you are suprised. Most of us here agreed that it was just meh, and at the fault of the script, not the performances. The thing is: the story is just not that intriguing. If you know the basis of the plot, you know the whole play. You don't even get closure. It's just not "enough".
It just isn't going to hold high appeal.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
What you say about the story is so very true. It's appeal is similar to that of the musical "Bridges" this season--you have wonderful performances but you know what's going to happen and the plot is basically uninteresting, despite the librettist's solid work in attempting to flesh it out. And the producers, just like the "Bridges" producers, will endeavor to keep it open, just for the nominations.
I know, I know. I hate myself for asking, but is there a show curtain?
No.
Uh, there was when I saw the show. I'm pretty sure if the curtain weren't there, it would completely lose the effect of seeing the apartment with the Molotov cocktails everywhere.
In regards to Isherwood, I actually think he's a worse critic than Brantley. At least Brantley is very direct with his opinion. You never have to figure out what his impression of the show was as it's quite clear. Isherwood usually writes these non-reviews that are just factual statements and then throws like 2 sentences of opinion in. Also, I find his taste to be not only undiscerning most of the time, but also quite wrong a lot.
"It's appeal is similar to that of the musical "Bridges" this season--you have wonderful performances but you know what's going to happen and the plot is basically uninteresting, despite the librettist's solid work in attempting to flesh it out. And the producers, just like the "Bridges" producers, will endeavor to keep it open, just for the nominations."
What the **** are you talking about? Bridges had gotten much better reviews than what Autumn seems to be getting!
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
"It's appeal is similar to that of the musical "Bridges" this season--you have wonderful performances but you know what's going to happen and the plot is basically uninteresting, despite the librettist's solid work in attempting to flesh it out."
If you knew going into Bridges there is an extramarital affair, and that is all you got out of it after seeing it, I'm not sure what to tell you, since that certainly wasn't my experience. Now, if you read the novel, then perhaps, but then you're seeing a story you know told in a new form... in either case, I wouldn't call it uninteresting, though. It's a small, intimate story, but about the biggest themes there are.
I doubt producers would keep anything open just to increase the odds of nominations. Rather, they believe they have a show that needs more attention and nominations are a way to hopefully get people to attend so it can stay open.
I must agree with the dislike for Isherwood’s review style. More often than not, I have no idea if he thinks a show is worth seeing or not (or, more simply, if he just plain liked it or not).
If the Tony noms seldom help ticket sales, the Outer Critics certainly won't help.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.