The Tempermentals?

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/27/09 at 1:15am

Is it worth seeing? I saw it was on TDF, but I'm just not sure it's worth the time. The production values and the overall like "look" of it, don't really excite me, but I think the story sounds vaguely interesting.

[Pianolin717]

Posted: 7/27/09 at 1:26am

I've always been intrigued by this and I'd go see it if only to see Michael Urie.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/27/09 at 1:28am

Yeah, I mean, he doesn't do much for me, ha, so I'd rather not sit through a 2 hour show if it's not that good.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 7/27/09 at 1:32am

The story could have been interesting, but instead I found it be an overly long snoozefest. In fact, the seating is divided in two by the stage, and in the front row across from me two people dozed off in act two.

A problem I had was that there was no conflict or suspense as to what would happen to these people. They also should have impressed upon the fact this was a true story. ****MINOR SPOILER**** They mention in the epilogue what happened to each person later in life, and it wasn't until this moment that I realized they weren't fictional characters. ***END MINOR SPOILER***

The space was small and the direction was not very imaginative, which isn't a good combination. The two leads only played one character, but the other three played many and the differences between the minor characters were often not very stark.

The sad thing is, like I mentioned, I think the subject matter could have made for engaging, or at least informative theater. Unfortunately I just didn't find it to be very well-crafted.

EDIT: I'm a big fan of Urie's on "Ugly Betty," and he was fine here, but it's not like the material gives him a chance to shine.

Updated On: 7/27/09 at 01:32 AM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/27/09 at 1:46am

Thanks! I think I'll pass. I mean, it does sound interesting, but nothing to really spark my interest too much.

[fiesta1]

Posted: 7/27/09 at 7:16pm

I saw the show this past weekend, and I enjoyed it. I will admit though that I generally prefer dramas to musicals (and hated Norman Conquests which I also saw over the weekend).

I knew little of 1950s gay history, so the piece was a good history of the closet and movement pre-Stonewall. I thought the 5 actors were very good. The script is a bit 'talky', but it raises some interesting issues that my group talked about for hours after the show.

[stevenycguy]

Posted: 7/27/09 at 9:47pm

From what I heard, the running time is a lengthy 2 hours 30 minutes. Did the show get out at 10:30pm?

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 7/27/09 at 10:52pm

any Nudity?

[fiesta1]

Posted: 7/28/09 at 8:38am

I recall the show being about 2:20.

No nudity (this is the 1950s after all, and I doubt anyone was nude in the Eisenhower era!). I recall 1 actor in a swimsuit and 1 other shirtless.

[joleslie]

Posted: 8/2/09 at 5:39am

Has anyone been to the Stage Door for this (if there is one)?

[vodkastinger]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 12:45am

Saw the most recent incarnation of this show at NWS tonight.

I'm really wondering how this play has garnered buzz and a continued run. I found it to be a boring, lumbering mess of a show. While it taglines itself as 'Milk' meets 'Mad Men', it is much more reminiscent of 'Crash' and 'Will & Grace' than either of those two works.

It is clear from the first scene that the writer has set out for this play to be 'important'. I almost always find that when a writer clearly sets out to write something important, it rarely is. He then undermines that at every chance he gets with psuedo-camp one-liners that aren't true to character or mood, and are also not funny.

The entire show is written cinematically and watches like a failed screenplay treatment that no one in Hollywood wanted to make. The focus is entirely on getting from plot point to plot point, neglecting to develop meaningful characters along the way. The epilogue is so trite and overwritten it's almost laughable. The cast gives one-note performances, although it's such a one-note script, it would be hard not to.

I'm curious to see if this sustains an audience at NWS, as the show seemed to be sold out tonight. In the canon of gay literature, this makes 'Next Fall' look like 'Angels in America'.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 12:50am

If anyone goes on Monday evening and catches the talkback with Larry Kramer, I would be very interested to hear about it. I would go if not for conflicting plans that night.

[Jane2]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 1:09am

"much more reminiscent of 'Crash' and 'Will & Grace' than either of those two works"

Are you really comparing this to a tv sitcom? We saw two different plays.

I saw the play last week and didn't know what to expect. I really liked it and saw it again, and plan to see it again pretty often. I look forward to it.

I'm not good at all with writing theater critiques, so I'll just do the best I can. I found the story interesting because it's all about the creation of the Mattachine Society which was one of the first organizations for gay rights and the men who started it. Michael Urie plays Rudy Gernreich who was a big designer at the time ( most famous for his topless bathing suit .) Gernreich is the partner of Harry Hay, the central character of the story.

Urie is the standout although every single actor in that play is superb. The acting is what keeps me riveted to this piece. The set and lighting both greatly add to the drama also.

Although there are a few laughs, the Temperamentals is NOT a comedy by any stretch of the imagination.

I strongly recommend this play.

[vodkastinger]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 1:27am

I guess we did see different plays, as I found the writing to be trite and shallow.

I really wanted to like this, but I found in lacking in any sort of compelling drama. However, I'm glad you enjoyed it. I always find it refreshing when people can connect with new dramatic theater, and go back again and again. This play just wasn't for me at all.

[Jane2]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 1:37am

I can't call the writing trite and shallow since it's based on truth and the story is historically important to all people, gay or straight.

Naturally, gay men will be most moved by this piece, but as a straight woman, I was deeply affected by the plight of these brave men.

I'll be going back several times because I work there, but I look forward to seeing it each time.

btw, there's a review posted already on ATC. That one happens to be a rave, but it's a much better written one than mine!

Updated On: 2/28/10 at 01:37 AM

[vodkastinger]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 1:47am

Just because it is based on a true story with historical significance doesn't mean it is good writing.

I am a gay man, who is very politically inclined, but I also want theatre that is character driven. These stories should be about the people, not the events, and for me, nothing seemed motivated or honest. Writing historical drama is tough because you rely on imagined conversations of real people, and the conversations that Jon Marans wrote to me rang as trite and shallow. And they did not help advance the plot from the world of the characters; it seemed from scene to scene that the next event happened because that's what historically happened, not because it was being pushed forward from within the world of the play.

Sure, the lives of these men are moving. But if I just wanted to know the story of what happened, I would watch a documentary. If I'm going to the theatre, I want the playwright, director, and actors to create a world in which history happens from character driven reasons.

[Jane2]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 1:53am

"it seemed from scene to scene that the next event happened because that's what historically happened, not because it was being pushed forward from within the world of the play."

I'm not sure what the difference is between the two, but what you said above is why I found it so interesting. I hadn't known the story before.

Anyway, sorry you didn't like it. I'm sure opinions will vary about the Tempermentals.

[Kad]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 11:27am

I saw this on Thursday. I largely enjoyed it- there were some funny lines, Michael Urie was extremely charming and watchable as Rudi, and Thomas Jay Ryan was great.

However, the second act drags, the epilogue is unnecessary and cliched, and there are a lot of attempts at camp throughout the show that just don't work and conflict majorly with the rest of the show. Every character aside from Gernreich and Hay is 2-D (especially Bob Hull. As a whole, the play feels like A Very Important Play About Important Events.

[Jane2]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 11:50am

I agree about the dragged out ending (no pun intended, if you saw it, lol). So much of it was unnecessary.

[Jane2]

Posted: 3/1/10 at 10:54am

Glad to read all the raves today, especially Brantley's. I was watching him as he took in the play and wondering if he was writing pans or praises. He loved it!

[Kad]

Posted: 3/1/10 at 11:18am

I was surprised by how much he liked it. Jane, were you there last Thursday as well?

[Jane2]

Posted: 3/1/10 at 11:40am

I was there for the very first preview. Yeah, I guess that was Thurs.