Mr. Burns @ Playwrights- Page 5

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 8/31/13 at 2:03pm

Even if you scroll down to skip the offending parties' posts, you still are faced with some disgusting picture you may not want to be forced to look at, or the sight of some grimacing, whining guitar-player. They're gone from my life now, and I'm so much happier for it.

Based on that, methinks he's blocked Wicked.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 8/31/13 at 3:43pm

Even if you're right, Kad -- and you may well be -- you know he's far too egotistical to not read them, anyway.

He believes that playwrights and theater companies are actively producing work -- spending days, weeks, months, and years of creative energy, thousands of dollars, hiring hundreds of people to mount the shows -- for the sole purpose of persecuting, marginalizing, and insulting him and those of his "ilk," to use one of his favorite words.

Think about the size of the ego that sort of delusion requires.

That's the ego of a person who reads every post that mentions his name.

[Kad]

Posted: 8/31/13 at 4:07pm

Oh, no doubt- after all, he accused me (well, more like declared) that I have been copying his writing style in an attempt to seem more intelligent/cultured or something.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 8/31/13 at 4:26pm

I'm laughing. That's actually hilarious.

Hilarious and disgusting.

Is that in a thread here? I'd love to see it.


EDIT: Also, uh, just to stay on topic... I'm seeing this tomorrow night, and I'm excited.

Updated On: 8/31/13 at 04:26 PM

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 8/31/13 at 4:41pm

Oh I'm sure he's blocked me. Because according to him I'm an ageist. K.

[ooblogway]

Posted: 8/31/13 at 8:55pm

I saw MR. BURNS and I have to disagree with the people that say you don't need more than a passing familiarity with The Simpsons. I had even seen the episode they recreate, albeit once a long time ago, and I felt totally lost.

I'd say if there is any way to view this episode if you are going to see MR. BURNS - do it! Heck, they should even be playing it in the lobby before the show!

All that said, I did like a lot of the show and have been thinking about it a lot since I saw it. But yes, I did feel like I was not in on the joke.

Updated On: 8/31/13 at 08:55 PM

[notabb]

Posted: 9/4/13 at 1:18am

I saw the Simpsons episode it was based on but it was so long ago it really didn't help. I also love Playwrights Horizon and it's always one of my subscriptions every year. that being said , I found MR. BURNS a bore. I was in row E where the aisle is and could see a number of people leave during the break in the first act. I see a lot of theater and took my brother who was in from Texas who sees almost no theater. At intermission we just looked at each other and knew it was time to leave . I couldn't have taken another 90 minutes without falling asleep. I felt bad for the actors because a fair amount of people left at intermission. I can't see this getting all raves but it does look like one of the plays that really divides people. Either you go for the ride or you don't. I didn't. I would sum it up by saying proceed with caution. One last thing, I did have trouble understanding the actor people have mentioned in the thread and missed a lot of his lines. It's a shame these threads have to get so nasty. It's a show, you liked it and I didn't. Maybe next time we'll both love it. Why do some people need to construe an opinion for someone being right or wrong. I hope everyone on the board will give A GENTLEMANS GUIDE TO LOVE AND MURDER a try. I saw it with Jefferson Mayes and thought it was delightful with a lovely, clever score. After you see it give the novel it's based on ,ISRAEL RANK a try. To read it before would give to much away and you'll be surprised to see how dark the ending gets. Both the movie it's based on KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS and GENTLEMANS GUIDE don't touch it but it worth checking out.



Updated On: 9/4/13 at 01:18 AM

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 9/4/13 at 1:33am

At intermission we just looked at each other and knew it was time to leave . I couldn't have taken another 90 minutes without falling asleep. I felt bad for the actors because a fair amount of people left at intermission.

Obviously you didn't feel that bad or you wouldn't have left...

[notabb]

Posted: 9/4/13 at 1:46am

I think it's worse to stay and fall asleep especially since one of the actors came out during the first act and was crouched down right in front of me. And yes, I did feel that bad for actors to come out and see a good portion of the audience has left. That doesn't mean I should stick around for a show I felt wasn't worth my time. And what was point of your post except that snarkiness that seems to pervade this board.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/4/13 at 1:51pm

I, too, think it's perfectly plausible that one could feel bad for the actors and leave at intermission. Some folks just like to cast aspersions 'round here.

Going back to After Eight's somewhat odd tirade against popular culture, however, I see even there a germ of a perfectly valid critique - that is, against what seems to be a prevalence (which has perhaps always existed) of caring only about popular culture, to the exclusion of all else. It seems there are many people who only respond to cultural elements that are contemporary (or contemporary with their lives), and who have little to no interest in anything that happened before the "now."

I once heard someone say that he "hated all classical music," and I could only wonder, "ALL classical music? You hate everything from Dufay through Bach through Rachmaninoff through Nico Muhly?"

It's much easier to understand someone who has read Middlemarch and doesn't like it, than it is to understand someone who has never heard of it and doesn't have any interest in its existence.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 9/4/13 at 2:32pm

That is a perfectly valid critique, newintown, and your last paragraph sums it up well. But you’re being extraordinarily generous in extrapolating that from After Eight’s word salad. I’d be interested to see if even he would concede that as (one of) his intention(s).

Unfortunately, that idea has nothing to do with this play, and anyone who came away from it seeing that as either a goal or achievement of Washburn or the production either wasn’t paying attention or has a terribly faulty noggin.

Oh. Wait.

And I also see he deleted his post from this thread where he misused a word after condescendingly chastising another posters’ typo.

He’s a stand-up guy.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 9/4/13 at 2:49pm

'He’s a stand-up guy.'

I thought After Eight was a sit-down gal...no?

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 9/4/13 at 3:53pm

First let me start by addressing, notabb. The reason for my post was to point out the fact that what you said seemed like double-talk to me. On one hand you feel bad for the actors that people leave at intermission when you yourself are doing the same thing. This is one of the shows that you might have actually very much enjoyed Act III because it is vastly different from the first two and brings the entire point of the piece together.

Now I will give my thoughts on the show. At first I thought this was something that I appreciated more than I enjoyed but then it really stuck with me. It was actually surprising to me how much of the humor relies on a knowledge of The Simpsons (especially Act III). I agree with Whizzer that it's best to watch the episode before seeing this because you definitely appreciate the jokes that much more.

I'm very glad that I saw this because it isn't the typically structured story of beginning, climax and denouement. That is the whole point to show how storytelling can evolve in a world where everything is changed. The whole cast seemed game for whatever it was they had thrown at them. I can see where people are coming from when it comes to Matt Maher but I could still understand everything he said. My one weak link that I would point out is Colleen Werthmann. I wasn't really loving her performance in Act II.

Something else that greatly altered my view of the show was the fact that I saw VAUDEVILLAINS right after and they used some of the same songs showcased in MR. BURNS and it further illustrated the point of how a story (or song) is changed based on who is telling (or singing) it.

I wouldn't say this is for everyone and I know I'm going to sound totally ageist but I don't think it's for anyone over the age of 40 unless you're a huge Simpsons fan. I'm basing this off the people who left during intermission and also the comments that I heard from those people who left. I feel like some shows are just written for a certain demographic in mind and while it may seem limiting to the playwright it's just the fact of the matter.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/4/13 at 4:09pm

"...I don't think it's for anyone over the age of 40...

Anyone over the age of 40? Or would it be "most" people over 40? "Some" people over 40, maybe?

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 9/4/13 at 4:11pm

It's funny that you didn't include my entire quote...

I don't think it's for anyone over the age of 40 unless you're a huge Simpsons fan.

"Pardon my prior Mcfee slip. I know how to spell her name. I just don't know how to type it." -Talulah

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 9/4/13 at 4:12pm

Yeah...I'm 39 and remember first being exposed to The Simpsons via Tracey Ullmann when I was 13-ish. So, 40 is probably not the right cut-off.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/4/13 at 4:44pm

The rest of the quote doesn't mitigate the statement in any significant way. Saying that the only people over 40 (!) who would enjoy this play are "huge Simpsons fans" isn't really opening up the demographic...

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 9/4/13 at 4:58pm

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/15/13 at 10:59pm

Brantley's review is in and it's a RAVE:

When was the last time you met a new play that was so smart it made your head spin? Not in years, huh? Well, get ready to reel, New York. Anne Washburn’s downright brilliant “Mr. Burns, a Post-Electric Play” has arrived to leave you dizzy with the scope and dazzle of its ideas.

http://theater.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/theater/reviews/mr-burns-a-post-electric-play-at-playwrights-horizons.html?pagewanted=all

[AndrewAndrew]

Posted: 9/15/13 at 11:40pm

A play about a future without electricity where the remaining members of the human race competitively re-create Simpson's episodes to while away the time? Sounds creepy and hilarious! But at three acts should someone have pulled the plug after thirty minutes? Find out in our full review below.
Review of Mr.Burns

[Kad]

Posted: 9/15/13 at 11:54pm

I don't think I've ever seen a bigger rave from Brantley.

[AndrewAndrew]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 12:06am

@Kad It's weird that it got such a rave; not a bad show, but he fails to mention many of it's flaws ...

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 12:27am

The more I've thought about this show and discussed it with friends the more I love it.

I couldn't be happier for the cast, crew and creatives with this rave!

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 1:02am

I'm finally seeing this on the 26th and could not be more excited!

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 9:51am

Part of me thinks Brantley gave it a rave to appear edgy or relevant. I have yet to meet anyone who liked the damn thing and I know many who walked out.

Brantley is desperate to get some attention. She's a dinosaur.