YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU previews.- Page 3

[JPeterman]

Posted: 8/28/14 at 11:35am

Has anyone who has gone to the preview sat in the front orchestra near the stage? I want to know how high the stage is - I'm interested in buying tickets for the first or second row but before I do so I would love to know if the set has a high stage. Thanks

[Patash]

Posted: 8/28/14 at 1:11pm

"With all due respect... Kaufman and Hart wrote a perfect play."

Yes they did indeed -- a perfect play for 1930's audiences. If they were alive today and if they were writing it for 21st Century audiences, there is little doubt they would devise doing it with only one intermission. Just saying. . .

Rights have often been granted for things much more major to "update" plays than taking away an intermission. And Follies was originally done with NO intermission, but all revivals have had one. Again, just saying. . . And it's kind of hard to defend "momentum" in the play when the audience is expected to stop not once but twice for intermissions!

Incidentally, I know this is not the only one, but Wikpedia mentions:
"A two act version was staged at the Royal Exchange Theatre Manchester from December 2011 to January 2012. It received excellent reviews and played to packed houses."throughout.

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 8/28/14 at 1:17pm

Suggesting they go to intermission when the Kirbys arrive is crazy. It's in the first part of the second act! If you want to lump Act 2 and Act 3 together that might be one idea (I personally still don't like it) But to decide you want to rewrite the show is a different idea all together. People were howling in the audience so I guess it still works today. Saying it was written for an audience is the 1930's is just not relevant. But you are entitled to your view. I respect that and disagree with it.

[Patash]

Posted: 8/28/14 at 1:35pm

Well then I also hope they charge and arrest the set designer (and those who shared in that set decision). Kaufmann and Hart never envisioned starting the show with an exterior of the house and then revolving to the interior. It is nowhere in the original script! Clearly that is a misguided attempt at trying to give "modern" audiences something new. Shame! I'm sure I'll love that but that is just NOT what the playwrights intended with their perfect play. And for that matter, can you imagine a black grandpa in the original? Times change. Audiences change. Plays change. Just saying. . .

[NewSynchopation]

Posted: 8/28/14 at 1:46pm

Two intermissions is nice. It gives a nice bit of respite and breaks up shows better than just one intermission.

[dreaming]

Posted: 8/28/14 at 2:08pm

This show is running at an excellent clip, too. I didn't mind the two intermissions one bit. The show let out pretty much when it was supposed to. I didn't notice any stragglers from the restrooms at the intermissions-it seems like they have everything running smoothly.

[BwayinVan]

Posted: 8/28/14 at 9:03pm

Anyone have any information about how the stage door has been?

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 8/29/14 at 12:40am

"There are two intermissions, which I was happy about. It was nice to get both the breaks the authors intended us to have."

I'm happy to hear you make this point, Whizzer. I directed a production and the producer insisted that we do it in two acts. This often happens nowadays as it is percieved that audiences won't sit still for a three act play unless it's epic. Same thing happened when I did All My Sons and it's really not respectful of the authors' original intentions. It's a wonderful play and I'm thrilled that it seems to be off to such a terrific start.

[Patash]

Posted: 8/29/14 at 8:30am

Wilmington, I hope you never go to see Shakespeare. You know all his plays were written to be done without intermission, so all those companies who add them are doing a tremendous disservice to the playwright.


I was only playing a bit of devil's advocate here, and started the bit about one intermission because I first saw that in a bang up production at one of the festivals a number of years ago (Shaw? Oregon?). And I thought it was often being done that way. I'm glad it is working well with two, and it's fine that they keep them. Although how many times have I read here and elsewhere that a new play should be cut down a bit to allow for a 90 minute intermissionless show. Not that every show should be done that way. But there is little doubt that attention spans in the theatre are NOT the same as they were some 70 - 80 years ago.

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 8/29/14 at 2:14pm

Well you learn something every day. I have never heard that Shakespeare's plays were written without intermissions. Not sure I could make it through the entirety of Hamlet with no break. And I would bet that most productions of YCTIWY and others written in three acts are presented nowadays in two acts. But I admire Ellis et al. for sticking with what the authors constructed. And I'm sure the theater owners are grateful as well as it gives them an additional opportunity to sell drinks and all the other crap.

[macnyc]

Posted: 8/29/14 at 2:22pm

Didn't the recent wonderful production of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? have two intermissions too?

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 8/29/14 at 2:39pm

Your insistence on arguing about the three acts is just make the thread unpleasant. Think about that before you decide to play devils advocate next time.

[Patash]

Posted: 8/29/14 at 3:02pm

It's really sad when someone calls open discussion "arguing". Go back and read. No where did I ever ARGUE that it should be one intermission. My DISCUSSION started with a surprise that it wasn't, as I later said because I have seen it that way, thought it worked perfectly, and thought it is often done that way today.

If you find such discussions, including branching off into examples of how plays change or get adapted for audiences, "unpleasant" then perhaps it's time for you to ignore a site such as this. I honestly thought that's much of the purpose of such discussion boards. By the way, what brilliant offerings did you bring to this discussion?

[LightsOut90]

Posted: 8/29/14 at 10:38pm

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT?


For anyone thats seen it, apparently this production is using onstage fireworks, how do they look?

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 8/29/14 at 10:52pm

It's not really a spoiler if you have ever seen, or read, the play before. They do about the best they can with the fireworks. It's effective. They mostly look like big sparklers, but there is so much else going on by the point they come out at the end of ACT TWO mostly, they are just icing on the cake.

[Diva_Dom]

Posted: 8/30/14 at 1:20am

I saw the show tonight and I absolutely loved it!! I sat row B in the orchestra and had a great view! This production was casted perfectly. Analeigh Ashford was born to play Essie. Kristine Nielsen was great as Penelope. Her comedic timing was spot on. And of course James Earl Jones was fantastic. The role suited him well and you could tell he's enjoying himself! Rose Byre had her funny moments. As far as the stagedoor goes...there weren't many people waiting afterwards which was a plus but many of the cast members didn't sign unless you asked them! Im sure with time they will create a system to make everything run better at the stagedoor. I figured james wouldn't sign which is fine because he was nice enough to thank everyone for coming. As for Rose...she wasn't very into stagedooring. You could tell she was very annoyed when asked for a picture. I must also comment on how creative the set was. From pictures hanging on the walls to toy soilders hanging out on a ledge the set excecuted the crayziness of the family! I will definitely be going back

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/30/14 at 9:15am

Most actors don't sign unless you ask -- how do they know you even want them to? I seldom stage door and even when do (with my teenage daughter for example) I have no desire of a signature. It would be rude and presumptious of them to assume otherwise. And awkward if they ask you, and your answer is no thanks.

[jnb9872]

Posted: 8/30/14 at 10:20am

I caught this from the balcony and thought it was utterly delightful. The material really holds up and is relevant in surprisingly fresh ways. Only a few moments feel dated, and I was actually shocked at how few of those there were. The cast is uniformly great, but this show is really stolen by Annaleigh Ashford. She was born to play that part.

Nothing about this production was surprising or revelatory, but it was a slice of simple theatrical joy for the brisk two-and-a-half hours. And put me in the camp of thoroughly enjoying the two intermissions. The act breaks were well-earned, the pace kept up, and the evening delightful. And with our two intermissions we still got out before GENTLEMAN'S GUIDE across the street.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 8/30/14 at 10:39am

How is Elizabeth Ashley? That's the most intriguing casting. (One can imagine Nielsen wiping up with the part, but of course she deservedly has the much larger one.) It's such a perfect jewel of a role. Ashley's not so much an odd choice, as a daring one.

[gleek4114]

Posted: 8/30/14 at 11:11am

I know it's VERY early in the season, but do you guys think that Ashford and/or Neilson might get some award recognition? From reading these early reports it sounds like they are stealing the show.

[rjm516]

Posted: 8/30/14 at 1:50pm

I'm so excited to see this next week (I hope, I'm going to try to get tickets day of). Are the two intermissions both equal in length? Like, are they both bathroom breaks, or is one just a few minute pause like I've seen in 2 intermission shows?

[HighFlyingAdored97]

Posted: 8/30/14 at 4:55pm

Here was the full rundown of my afternoon:

STUDENT RUSH: My friend and I arrived at the Longacre at 7:15, we were the first people in line. We got Box A Seats 1 and 2. My seat (seat 1) was perfect. Seat 2 was a little more obstructed because of a large fan in the box. No one sat behind us so my friend moved to Seat 3, which was not obstructed.

THE SHOW: Was absolutely delightful. It was entertaining and funny. No actor was the "highlight" for me. This was a uniformly strong ensemble. The set design was incredible!!! I know it's VERY early in the season, but I think it's going to boil down to this and It's Only A Play for Best Scenic Design at the Tonys.

STAGE DOOR: A few of the actors came out, including Annaleigh Ashford, the sweetest person ever. James Earl Jones doesn't come out after matinees.

Overall it was a really fun and enjoyable afternoon at the theatre. Don't miss out on this one.

[jnb9872]

Posted: 8/30/14 at 10:38pm

I had to take the bait: Given the highly technical prowess of CURIOUS INCIDENT's set, the stories of THE ELEPHANT MAN giving the Booth a Victorian make-over, the to-be-determined environmental creepiness that THE RIVER is (hopefully) planning for Circle in the Square, plus whatever great work MTC and Roundabout are likely to put together (as they tend to design more reliably than choose great material) for their season's shows and there's almost no way to make any sort of statement about the Scenic Design Tony. Not this early.

Carry on with the thread about this delightful revival!

[AHTC]

Posted: 8/30/14 at 11:17pm

Elizabeth Ashley is fine, but I was shocked at how small the role was. I knew it was small, but it truly is about 12 lines and 4 minutes of stage time.

[gleek4114]

Posted: 8/30/14 at 11:36pm

Yeah, Gay is a very small part. We are doing this show at my school, and I thought the character would have a bit more. But in my opinion I think Gay could be a scene stealing role, it all depends on who is playing her and what they bring to it. I got cast as Mr. Kirby and was surprised at how much larger it was than I had previously thought. I just counted and I have 96 lines.