THE PRIDE?

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 2/19/10 at 1:34pm

I'm thinking about seeing this in the next week or couple of weeks.

Has anyone seen it? How is it?

[Patash]

Posted: 2/19/10 at 1:44pm

There has been at least one thread here with numerous comments.

[April Saul]

Posted: 2/19/10 at 6:51pm

I loved it! There's been a lot of discussion about it on the ATC board, if you want more comments, but if the play has shortcomings--and some feel that it does--the acting more than makes up for it.

[Upland]

Posted: 2/20/10 at 10:33am

Variety review was quite good

[newintown]

Posted: 3/17/10 at 1:53pm

Four very hard working actors in a play that feels heavily, heavily influenced by "Angels in America." Each scene is about someone trying to say or do something, but not saying or doing it, which, depending on what you like in theatre, can be torture or bliss. The talented, skilled actors work very, very hard, and you realize that amateur productions will probably not work. But it seems that the ultimate point is "Being gay is difficult."

[bjh2114]

Posted: 3/17/10 at 2:02pm

I was obsessed with the first scene, but after that it went downhill. Act 2 was atrocious! Some interesting ideas, but not great writing.

[Fanb]

Posted: 3/17/10 at 6:08pm

Very good acting. Some love the play, but I felt that it did not cover anything I had not seen elsewhere before.

[stevenycguy]

Posted: 3/17/10 at 9:39pm

I must say it was rare to see the entire orchestra & mezz full at the Lortel, but I didn't get what all the fuss was about this show. Too often the narrator told of actions that were happening (as opposed to having the playwright SHOW us what was happening), which pulled me out of the play. The "intellectual" discussions (especially at the very beginning) were unnecessary - this is not a Tom Stoppard play!! And the shifts in time (and actors playing multiple roles) were quite confusing. The first scene (and much of the play) was deadly boring. Although there were some very poignant moments which I very much enjoyed, about being "in the closet", being who you are, true love, etc. So I'm glad that I went, but overall I found Next Fall to be MUCH more satisfying than The Pride. I don't see this show moving to Broadway. At 2 hrs 26 minutes, it was also WAY too long.
Updated On: 3/17/10 at 09:39 PM

[mybigsplash]

Posted: 3/17/10 at 10:56pm

This play was the best gay-themed play I've seen all year. It was way better than Next Fall. I would see The Pride again for sure, but I certainly wouldn't see Next Fall again.

Of just a selection, I rank

1) The Pride
2) The Tempermentals
3) Next Fall
4) Yank (Do not see this show)

[Patash]

Posted: 3/18/10 at 8:46am

I'm curious if younger people have more problems with The Pride than older ones. Having lived through the "secretive" gay life of several decades ago, I found those older scenes quite believable and touching. It may seem that gay life was "boring" to young gays now, but sorry, that's really much of what it was like. It is that contrast of then and now that made the play particularly effective to me.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 3/18/10 at 9:12am

Patash, you can't keep using that as an excuse to justify bad theatre. You said the same thing about Clybourne Park a few weeks ago. Just because a show may be ACCURATE does not make it good THEATRE. While I appreciated The Pride's concept and story (and I'm sure it IS touching to those people who lived through the time period...the early one that is since I think we ALL lived through the later one...), the quality of the writing is terrible. Plain and simple. The author relies too much soap-opera ish dialogue to convey the drama rather than doing it through well thought out conversations. And then the whole Will and Grace scene that takes place in Act II is like a bad sitcom. I am not trying to say it didn't happen like this, but I'm saying that the fact that it's accurate doesn't make it good automatically.

[Patash]

Posted: 3/18/10 at 5:36pm

I'm sorry. Are you talking to me? Maybe you need to go back and re-read my post. Where did I once suggest the show was well written or even good? You're sure trying to say I'm saying a lot of things I didn't say! I did say the show was "touching to me". And I was curious if those who lived through the times might like the show or understand it better than those who didn't? Why isn't that a valid question? Does simply asking that mean I think it deserves a Pulitzer or something?

Nor did my comments about Clybourne Park have ANYTHING in the world to do with either what you're saying, or what I said about The Pride.

I think you need to start reading better.

By the way, I don't believe EVERYONE agrees with you that it was BAD writing or that the "quality of the writing is terrible". Believe it or not yours is just an opinion too -- but that doesn't mean that I've even given an opinion on the quality of writing. Hopefully you can re-read my post and see that I didn't!

[bjh2114]

Posted: 3/18/10 at 11:30pm

Sorry if I misunderstood your post... it just seemed from your first two sentences as though you were saying "young people probably don't get this show, but I do because I lived through it." I'm sorry if that wasn't your intention, but that's how it came across to me. And I never said that you said anything about the writing. I said that accuracy doesn't justify bad writing. I find the writing to be terrible. I never said everyone had to agree with me.