The Library - March 25th?

[mjohnson2]

Posted: 3/24/14 at 1:52am

Hello all,
So the Public Theatre's website (which is very confusing) says that the show begins on the 25th of March, but is this when previews start or is this opening night? If this is for previews, when is opening night? Thanks for the help.

[oasisjeff]

Posted: 3/24/14 at 2:03am

Previews. I'd guess they open on 4/15, since that show on the calendar isn't available to select, but follows their performance schedule otherwise.

[mjohnson2]

Posted: 3/24/14 at 2:21am

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and nominate the Public for having the worst website ever.

[showchoirguy]

Posted: 3/24/14 at 3:00am

Worse than Telecharge?

[stevenycguy]

Posted: 3/24/14 at 8:49am

I absolutely love their new website - it has everything you need to know about the shows (select your own seats, running time, upcoming shows/start dates, etc). Very professionally done!

[willep]

Posted: 3/27/14 at 3:28am

Has anyone seen this yet? I'm curious to hear how it is.

[PlayItAgain]

Posted: 3/27/14 at 7:36am

im seeing this on april 16th, really curious to hear about this as its several peoples nyc theatrical debuts.

[VotePeron]

Posted: 3/27/14 at 1:09pm

Anyone try rushing?

[PlayItAgain]

Posted: 3/31/14 at 8:27am

has anyone seen this yet?

[CarmenDeBris]

Posted: 3/31/14 at 5:11pm

I saw it last night and was very moved. The show handles the material beautifully. Chloe gives her best performance to date in this show.

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/31/14 at 5:27pm

Here's a less than glowing post from All That Chat. I haven't seen it yet--is the lighting really that distinctive?
http://www.talkinbroadway.com/allthatchat/d.php?id=2199529

[CarmenDeBris]

Posted: 3/31/14 at 5:33pm

The lighting is very distinctive for sure. I thought it worked for the material. For what it's worth this is the only piece I've ever seen handle a school shooting well.



Updated On: 3/31/14 at 05:33 PM

[haterobics]

Posted: 4/1/14 at 11:45pm

This didn't really work for me. I thought Moretz was good, and I've always loved Lili Taylor and was happy to see her perform live, but I found the overall piece a bit blah. There were some timeline issues that seemed to be arranged for dramatic effect, but pulled me out of the piece. I'll spoiler it in detail at the end, so it's easier for people to find and skip.

I would say that if anyone goes to this, I'd only sit from row G back. I was in Row C, and there is a table at almost the lip of the stage, and the rest of the set is two rows of tables set further back, so when people are laying on or sitting on those tables further back, the table at the very front of the stage is either blocking them or restricting visibility from the action. So, better to be above all the tables for good eyelines.

I didn't mind the staging, which is mainly five tables and assorted chairs in a glossy black box, with the back panel of the stage often used as a dramatic lighting element.

In a talkback after the show, the writer said the narrative was taken specifically from events at Columbine, although this play isn't really about Columbine. It is about how narrative is shaped when things like this happen, and how people need different narratives to be able to move on... that sounded interesting in the talkback, but that was more direct than the show.

A lot of people who stayed for the talkback seemed to not have any of the issues I am about to unspool, so your mileage may vary, as well.

Most of my issue was with the structure and timeline, which I will SPOILER now to end this post...

This is the SPOILER:

This is about a school shooting that occurs in, as you might guess, a school library. Without giving away the narrative thrust of the story, a police report questioning the events during the shooting is being assembled throughout the show. But, while this report is being assembled, and is not finished... one of the characters not only writes a book about her daughter who was killed in the library, it is climbing the bestseller charts on Amazon (now, if you factor in grief, then writing a book, then the editing, publishing, and marketing... how long would that take? Apparently, less time than it takes to finish a police report in the world of this show). There is also a fund being paid out to victim's families, which also factors into the story. Even these people are getting their money before this police report is completed. And the logic of the story does make these things existing in the same linear time, it's not like it is jumping all around and I didn't follow it. The insurance company meetings seem to go with things as they are experienced in advance of the finished police report. All of this delay is only to serve the structure of the play, which ends dramatically with the findings of the police report. It might seem silly, but this weird little thing pulled me out of the show. Then, more is revealed about the case that made me wonder why it took so long, or would have been so crucial, to assemble such a detailed investigative report anyway. To be fair, I was a former newspaper reporter, that worked on criminal justice issues and trials, but even so... by setting so many things in the future, months or years after a police report would be compiled, it sort of pulled me out of there being any reality here. And if it is about broad themes and narrative and how people need to cling to them in difficult times, this can all be told without future events, things happening on a timeline, and a linear structure that makes time a relevant factor in the story. He also said the show would be frozen soon, so this seems like a pretty big structural element, so I have to imagine it isn't going anywhere.

Updated On: 4/1/14 at 11:45 PM

[nyla123]

Posted: 4/9/14 at 10:50pm

Well the whole part about a book written by a parent based on misinformation about the event is based on a real story that came out of Columbine (SPOILER, sort of, to the general narrative thrust of the show): http://www.salon.com/1999/09/30/bernall/ . Apparently, there was a book written and published and inspiring a movement before the truth came out (although police weren't involved in reality). Just like you, a lot of people had questions as to why the true story was never acknowledged until after the book was published.

As far as the play goes, I really liked it. Acting was great and I loved the Kubrickian set and lighting. I thought Soderbergh did a pretty great job translating his considerable gifts as a film director to the stage. The play was actually fairly complex and interesting throughout EXCEPT for (SPOILER ALERT):

The part after they read the police report until just before the last line. I thought that chunk was just way too on the nose and a little smug. It also sort of undercut the power of the last line, which I thought would have been perfect immediately after the police report scene.

[haterobics]

Posted: 4/9/14 at 11:48pm

The real problem was that in reality it was the book "Columbine" where the truth came out, which was published 10 years after the event happened and that Burns cited as the inspiration in the talkback after the show I attended.

So, to recast a non-fiction book that came out a decade after the initial event as a police report in the play just messes up the timeline significantly.

If the play is about people creating and believing certain narratives as a means of coping, it would almost be better to leave it ambiguous, so we never know who was right or wrong about the events. Or, if he wants to go literal, turn the police report into a book that comes out 10 years later, heh.

[nyla123]

Posted: 4/10/14 at 12:25am

SPOILER:

Well the article I linked to was written (by the author of Columbine) about 5 months after the actual event, but still after the book came out, so I still think timeline isn't that crazy. Sure they could have turned the police report into an investigative journalist, but it probably would have complicated the narrative too much and wouldn't have worked as well theatrically so I kind of give it a pass. It's not a super naturalistic or realistic play so I'm not as concerned if that detail isn't quite right. As you said, it's a detail that only is distracting to the small subset of people who have worked in investigative reporting/criminal justice stuff and most people in the audience probably won't notice it (and at least they comment how weird it is that the police report still isn't finished, despite the fact that the book has been published).

I also think the whole point of the police report part was to show how even having a definitive version doesn't necessarily make it better. Definitely don't think it's a perfect play, but I think its pretty interesting and even-handed with the material (except for the end, when it gets a bit too smug).

[bundy5000]

Posted: 4/11/14 at 10:31pm

I just skimmed so I didn't read any spoilers, excited to see it but did she do autographs?

[VotePeron]

Posted: 4/13/14 at 12:57pm

Hey guys! Has anyone rushed this, or gotten the obstructed seats? Would love to see this!

[AntV]

Posted: 4/14/14 at 11:38am

The obstructed seats are $40 plus $7 in fees. For Fun Home they were $27 total. I'll probably pass on this and hope that Moretz does a better play soon.

[VotePeron]

Posted: 4/14/14 at 12:21pm

I saw this last night (via rush) and I really enjoyed it. I wouldn't say I loved it, but it was really enthralling and kept me interested in the entire 95 minutes. It was really well directed and acted, and I did love the script. Is it up for a Pulitzer? It should be! My only complaint is I was in row Q, 3rd from the back, and while I could see everything great, (it is a marvelous visual picture), the lightning makes it so hard to see faces. I think that may be the point at some times, but at others I couldn't make out expressions, etc. It was a really great show nonetheless!

[haterobics]

Posted: 4/14/14 at 12:24pm

It isn't lit in a way that it is easy to see faces at times. And I was much closer.

But, while I'm not overly concerned about who wins the Pulitzer, I can't imagine this is the best thing in the running. Or short listed. heh.

[haterobics]

Posted: 4/14/14 at 3:34pm

Since the Pulitzer was just announced today, I'd have to imagine this would qualify for (and lose at) next year's Pulitzers, and not this years.