GRACE: Preview Thread- Page 4

[Dawn Davenport]

Posted: 10/4/12 at 4:21pm

I guess I should probably disregard the negative reviews here and make it a point to see this, if only for Michael Shannon.

I saw him in Mistakes Were Made, and the play itself wasn't the greatest. BUT....I thought Shannon's performance in that was so intense and skilled, I was (literally) shaking and crying when I left the theatre. He's just a compelling actor. I had the pleasure of meeting him at Broadway Flea the other week and told him how extraordinary I thought he was in that play. Nice guy btw :)

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 10/17/12 at 6:06pm

I am also unsure of why everyone is hating on the show. I don't think it's groundbreaking theatre or anything but I did think it was really good. I agree with everyone else about what the point was. It seemed it was doing what a lot of other plays have recently and just pile topic upon topic and see what will elicit a reaction out of someone.

I could definitely have done without seeing the ending first because there is no thrill in seeing the rest of the play when you know what will happen.

My main question (which uncageg brought up also) was why the rewind of the part in the middle where Rudd is on the phone. Does someone have a thought about the purpose for that because it totally escapes me?

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/17/12 at 8:34pm

Spoilers, obviously...

I saw the play a while ago, so bear with me. That was the moment in which everything went to sh*t for Rudd's character, correct? His wife was out of the house, having an affair, he wasn't getting any answers about his allergic reaction, and he just found out about being duped and his money being stolen. Doesn't he go get the gun to try to kill himself right after that moment? The play "rewound" the two biggest turning points in the show; the opening/final scene, and the crux of the whole piece, the moment in which Rudd's life sort of falls apart. What exactly Wright was trying to say by doing that, I'm unsure of. I don't know if it was just to highlight that those were the two moments in which Rudd sort of "snaps," or if it was something more. I meant to post on here and see what everyone thought the point of rewinding that moment was.

I thought the show was just okay, when all was said and done. Why it attracted the likes of Asner, Rudd, and Shannon, I'll never know.

[Buffyfan51]

Posted: 10/17/12 at 9:55pm

I'm have tickets to see the show in a few weeks. Does the cast still come out at the stage door and if so, do they do it during matinees or just evenings? Thanks in advance!

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/27/12 at 8:20pm

SPOILER

Saw it this afternoon, and I was baffled by the second "rewind" moment, which happens 3/4 of the way through and was difficult to follow, in terms of intention and impact. (Why is his allergic reaction such a big part of the story? Did I miss something? Probably.)

I found the premise compelling, and the mix/overlay of stories very well thought out. Yet finally it felt schematic and despite winning performances from everyone, the characters were pushed around by the author to make the plot happen, and to make thematic issues pop.

The production is exquisite, and the unsung hero is Paul Rudd, who has to make persuasive a shorthanded story arc, which has too many turns off-stage or under-dramatized.

The theatrical stylization -- the revolving set pieces, the Acykborne-like device of using the same place -- arresting visually, but what did it have to do with the storytelling? Everyone is in everyone else's lives, so why not stage it thus? Interesting to watch, but a lot of arch effects hooked up to a fairly conventional LAW AND ORDER episode. Metaphysical bells and whistles are nice, but it's a story about why someone does something unspeakably evil. So finally, it's about another guy "losing it." Going crazy is only so fascinating, dramatically, and the play doesn't effectively argue that this self-proclaimed "Jesus Freak" would turn to bloodshed. I had trouble with his buying the gun, which seemed convenient, and out of character even for a hot-headed hypocrite.

But it's beautifully acted, and provides a great showcase for Shannon. It's a very Michael Shannon-esque role (despite the Times odd appraisal that it's supposedly not) and he mines it for all its colors and emotional depth.

Updated On: 10/27/12 at 08:20 PM

[vegas2]

Posted: 10/27/12 at 8:54pm

I, too, was very impressed with Michael Shannon. Rudd was pretty good, too.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 10/27/12 at 11:58pm

Saw this on Tuesday and thought it was the most excruciating thing I've ever seen. I felt trapped. Went through phases of anger, phases of boredom and phases of sheer WTF... Seems to be getting polar responses.

[aaronb]

Posted: 10/28/12 at 10:17pm

@Auggie27 - I think the "rewind" effect is meant to underline the question of whether or not we can change the outcome of our lives. After all, the last line of the play, "We can't," is a response to Paul Rudd's character talking about how he wants to go back and change everything.

Anyway, I thought the play was very good, even if it hasn't been on my mind as much as I thought I would after seeing it. I reviewed it here: http://scribicide.com/2012/10/04/the-secret-sits-in-the-middle-and-knows/

Updated On: 10/28/12 at 10:17 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/28/12 at 11:37pm

Interesting, my reaction was the opposite: I was curiously unmoved and disconnected watching the play, but haven't stopped thinking of it since. I give Wright and company full credit for exerting a delayed response. It actually fascinates me, despite my stated reservations.