"It's Only a Play" Preview Thread- Page 5

[little_sally]

Posted: 9/15/14 at 12:50pm

A friend of mine saw the show Thursday night and only Rupert Grint came out.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 9/15/14 at 1:18pm

"It looks doubtful that anyone who has just seen the play will get anywhere near the stage door. The crowds obviously form there well before the show ends. Not cool; there should be at least a separate area for ticketholders."

There actually is a separate side for ticketholders. They've been doing that more and more recently for the celebrity stage-doors and it's worked out great for me, as I've always been a ticket-holder. For It's Only a Play, the barriers on the theatre side are only for ticketholders, and I was able to nab a spot in the front of the barriers without skipping curtain call. I even saw a stage-door official asking people to confirm that they had seen the show. They are actually doing a pretty good job of giving the ticketholders a fair shot.

Updated On: 9/15/14 at 01:18 PM

[mamaleh]

Posted: 9/16/14 at 10:05am

I didn't realize that was the set-up as I left. All I saw was a horde of people on both sides who had obviously not come from that day's performance. Thanks.

Updated On: 9/16/14 at 10:05 AM

[gleek4114]

Posted: 9/18/14 at 7:30pm

I went last night and I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. As many others have discussed, Stockard was out last night. With that being said Isabel was amazing! I would have loved to have seen Stockard but with Isabel you barely noticed she was gone. Nathan Lane was Nathan Lane. Funny, charming, and on point. I have noticed a lot of negative comments about Matthew, but personally, I thought he did fine. Not the strongest link in the cast, but certainly not as terrible as others have been leading on. The biggest thrill for me was getting to see Megan Mullally. I have loved her forever and this was my first time seeing her live. I think she was hilarious and not at all miscast. Micah was fine. Not a ton of diversity in his role but I used what he had and overall did very well. Rupert was the same. Used what he had and gave a pretty great performance. One side note: WTF was going on with the puppet? I had no clue what was happening at that moment, but for some reason could not look away. F. Murray Abraham was good. I thought he was funny, but for some reason I felt his character had little to no purpose. He was just there. I had a great time and the one liners killed. I especially loved the dig Nathan had at THE ADDAMS FAMILY. The stage door was nuts but I somehow managed to make my way up to the second row of people. Rupert came out first and signed for like 10 people then left. Micah on the other hand was fantastic at the stage door. He signed for everyone and posed for a picture with everyone who asked. Yes, I know that actors are under absolutely no obligation to come out the stage door and sign, but in regards to Rupert I think that if an actor comes out the stage door, they should sign for all or none. It was not fair to the people who actually saw the show. I don't know where someone got the idea that they were checking tickets, because absolutely none of that was going on. Also the security guards were a bit grumpy. I know its not the easiest job in the world when there are three of them and 40+ fans waiting, but they could have been a little bit nicer. All in all I say go for the cast. The play was funny and I had a great time, but it was basically one liners and zingers one after another. And I agree this is more funny to someone who knows about theatre. I was laughing historically while the couple next to me did not even smile.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 9/18/14 at 8:10pm

"I don't know where someone got the idea that they were checking tickets, because absolutely none of that was going on."

I just remember a security guy asking someone if they had seen the show, not checking their ticket. I noticed it right when the show was letting out. I think it was right after the 2nd side of the barricade was set up, because when I came out of the show there were only a couple of people on one side and a huge mob on the other, so it was very clearly divided by ticketholders and non-ticketholders. I'm not implying that they check everybody's ticket.

[gleek4114]

Posted: 9/18/14 at 8:23pm

I think the crowd was to much for them to differentiate between ticket holder and non ticket holders. By the time I got to the stage door there was a big mob on both sides.

[theatregeek6]

Posted: 9/19/14 at 3:10pm

Saw it last night. Overall a B- (and that's because I had 2 glasses of wine before the show)

Second act was better than the first. They still need to cut 10 minutes - mainly of Broderick's monologues. Nathan Lane, Micah Stock and Isabella Keating were the highlights. F Murray was good, Mullaly (of who I am a big fan) was meh and Broderick was just awful - it's not the character it is him. The monotone is just bad. They honestly need to replace him - and the general concensus of overheard conversations agreed

The piece just seems amateurish

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 9/19/14 at 8:03pm

I guess Nathan loves the crowds by the stage door. Wink Wink

[BroadwayBen]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 1:45am

What a disappointment. I saw the show tonight, and it was like sitting for two hours while air sloooooowly goes out of a balloon. It was a sold-out, general audience Saturday night, and they were there for a GREAT time, and while the play started strong (all due to ever amazing, always dependable, and throughout this really wonderful Nathan Lane) after the first half hour it all began to fall a part and you could feel the disappointment build throughout the audience. At intermission, lot's of "ehs…"

It's a great comic cast, but unfortunately, most are miscast, and Isabel as a sub is pretty painful. She gets so few laughs. The play is so odd in tone and substance, and they're all really awful people, so you don't really care at all about their stupid flop play. McNally cuts up extreme theatre cliches and "types" with a wicked scalpel, but the purpose for all this becomes more dull and fuzzy as it goes on, and why he needs this brittle and shallow dissection to be a play. This should just be a cocktail party conversation. From the get-go, its clear this story is all completely unreal, no matter how topical the jabs, so we're in farce land, and it just doesn't gain any momentum. Jack O'Brien's direction is really drawing room comedy traffic control,. Megan Mullally is vibrant but her character never real makes any sense, and F. Murray Abraham and Mathew Broderick are just woeful. The new kid (Michah…?) is pretty terrific in another thankless part. I found the whole thing really dispiriting and I have no idea what McNally was doing in writing this play. It's just mean and dull and weird. But again, its another reason to see Nathan Lane, and he absolutely delivers with a fun, nuanced and honest and hilarious performance. He's one of our greats, if not the great.

[Jotebry]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 5:27am

Holy Moly Broadway Ben...Who pissed in your corn flakes ? Well, everyone is entitled to their own ridiculous opinion. Thanks for sharing yours. I've shared my positive opinion of this very funny play earlier, as have many others. Sorry, but in my humble opinion, you really missed the boat on this one.

[AC126748]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 9:14am

I'm not sure why this show needs shills, since it's apparently doing fabulous business, but it definitely has one in Jotebry.

BroadwayBen is (mostly) correct. It's kind of a lame play, little more than a collection of winky jokes (some funny, many not) occasionally punctuated by a painful speech about the importance of the theatre. The audience laughs less because the jokes are funny than to show how smart and in-the-know they are for getting them.

Mr. Lane does what he always does, and he does it damn well. Micah Stock is talented, and hopefully the exposure he's gaining here will lead him to better roles. The rest of the cast struggle with roles that aren't well-suited.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 10:11am

Jotebry....why is a different opinion from yours, "ridiculous"? There are plenty of posters here that didn't think the show was the comic masterpiece that you claim it to be. B'way Ben gave very articulate reasons WHY he didn't care for it -- far from ridiculous.

I'm seeing this in a few weeks, and while I HOPE I agree more with you (who doesn't prefer to be entertained) my opinion will not be ridiculous -- no matter how I feel.

[Justin_]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 12:01pm

It seems like Stockard Channing will be out until 'next week'.




Stockard Channing Temporarily Out of Broadway's It’s Only a Play on Doctor's Orders Updated On: 9/21/14 at 12:01 PM

[LucyEth]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 7:22pm

I don't know what show a lot of you saw, but I've just come back from the matinee and was completely entertained. Yes, it's a tad long (the playwright's pontificating stops the show cold -- who even remembers what theaters they tore down to build the Marriott?), but it's laugh out loud hilarious 90% of the time. There's not much play to "It's Only a Play," but when you're laughing that hard, who cares? Nathan does his thing better than anyone else, and while I missed the star wattage of Stockard Channing, Isabel Keating acquits herself admirably. Grint is spot on and deserves to be up there, and Mullally, while not earth shattering, is just fine. F. Murray Abraham does well with a thankless role, and Micah Stock is adorable and very funny, a real find; he more than holds his own. Jack O'Brien keeps things chugging along nicely, and the set is fab, especially that chandelier! Broderick? Ah, there's the rub. He really is phoning in it, and in the most unprofessional way possible. I actually wondered, after a while, if he were ill. He kept forgetting lines to the degree that the audience was actually gasping. No s**t. Pretty appalling. All in all, though, I had a blast and would recommend it to anyone. And no, I'm not a shill!

[mc1227]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 8:18pm

Very surprised to hear that Broderick was so bad. I have seen the show twice, once the first week and again last Sunday. He was very good last Sunday and I thought his performance from the first week of previews had improved quite a bit.

I too feel that the extensive dialogue affects the pacing of the show and thought some of it would be cut by the second time I saw it. I enjoyed the show and also sometimes wonder why my opinion of shows differs so much from many of the long time posters on this board. I have never seen a show that I couldn't find something wrong with, but I tend to accentuate the positives and with this play, I feel the positives far outweigh the negatives.

[LucyEth]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 8:30pm

Well, when everyone who enjoys a show is accused of being a shill, is it any wonder that they hesitate to express positive opinions? I also think that people who like a show don't always bother to post, whereas people who don't -- well, they can't wait to run to their computers.

[AC126748]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 9:21pm

Not everyone is accused of being a shill. That's hyperbolic. But when someone (like Jotebry) joins the board the day after the first preview of a specific show, only posts glowing reviews of the show, and accosts those who disagree...well, if the shoe fits.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 10:47pm

^This. x1000.

Everyone has the right to their opinion, but it pisses everyone off when any poster writes off another's opinion as "ridiculous".

There are at least 20 or 30 regulars here that have no problem giving their opinion: yea OR nay, and regardless of what anyone else thinks. There really aren't many people "afraid" to write what they think.

[mjohnson2]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 11:41pm

Also to come on this board and instantly start accusing members of having no life and that their opinion is ridiculous or idiotic and one-sided because they disagreed with them is highly unlike most new members.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/22/14 at 10:34am

My mother saw the show Friday night and was unimpressed. She found Lane to be quite funny, as expected, but was really wowed by the standout performances of Abraham and Grint. She though Broderick was predictably dull and the rest of the cast forgettable. Her biggest complaint was the lack of substance in the script. Mostly one-liners that tend to get monotonous after the first half hour of the show with nothing substantial to drive the plot. She was happy to see the cast, and she's a huge McNally fan, but she was bored and disappointed by the writing.

[jnb9872]

Posted: 9/26/14 at 4:59pm

I saw it last night, and while I enjoyed a lot of the jokes, it really is less than the sum of its parts. The performers succeed to varying degrees. Nathan Lane hits pretty much every punchline like the old pro he is and acquits himself wonderfully; Micah Stock makes a fantastic debut, I knew many young men like him when I first came to the city (and I still do, sad to say!) I wasn't as negative on Broderick, as I think the character is written a little naively and guileless, so his performance kind of plays into that, but there's no denying that he's playing wooden even for a two-dimensional character (if that.) Stockard was out, but Keating did a fine job with a role that doesn't have much purpose. That's the whole show in a nutshell: I think the literal purpose of writing this play is to make fun of the community rather than to tell a story of any significance. What's awkward is that what story there is to tell, the story of the New American Play, is much better served by McNally either writing a new play or having all these stars sign on to a Play of significance by any of the writers namechecked in the second act (Nottage, McCraney, Gionfriddo, Baker, etc.) instead of doing this play. This production is actually it's own antithesis, which wound up really rubbing me the wrong way. Maybe that's McNally's point, but it's an awfully narcissistic way of making the point.

[LucyEth]

Posted: 9/26/14 at 5:32pm

I don't think that the writer's role is written as guileless and naive, unfortunately, I just think that that's what Broderick does. He's simply miscast. The character is the author of avant-garde, metaphoric theater, for God's sake, he's not sad sack Leo Bloom. His diatribe about the end of the theater as we know it and his prayers to the God of theater should be impassioned and dramatic, not mildly hangdog.

[haterobics]

Posted: 9/27/14 at 10:21am

I love that on the "Backstage" segment they did on Fallon, Nathan and Matthew didn't realize that most people in that segment just talk about being "backstage" at the Tonight Show, and instead just riffing backstage theater stories from the Producers, some fun stuff...

https://www.broadwayworld.com/videoplay.php?colid=837033#.VCbDwr6e2TU

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/5/14 at 10:18pm

Saw this last night, I laughed, and sometimes loudly, but overall? Meh.

MOST of the fault lies with the script itself...sweet, funny, but rather =static. There is no real conflict to speak of.

As to the performances, theywere exactly what you would expect from the actors involved: Lane, bigger than life (but, thankfully, not over the top); Broderick as the simply, boyish, everyman, Channing as the sharp tongues wit, Mullaly as the less-drunk, less-intelligent Karen Walker.

I thought both Abraham and Grint were my biggest suprises, and I was disappointed in the performance of Micah that everyone was raving about: I jut felt like he ripped off Jim Parson's Big Bang Theory's character.

I was "entertained" but only minimally. I got to chatting with a couple next to me thaqt erroneously double booked this with You Can't Take it with You. They asked me not to tell them if they'd made a mistake about which show to see. (I'd just seen YCTIWY at the matinee). While I refrained from that opinion, I'm pretty sure I convinced them to still get a pair of tickets to it!

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 10/6/14 at 7:00am

I'm going tomorrow night. My friend saw it on Saturday..they gave it an 8. Average script, some great performances, not all great performances and a lot of laughs. I still look forward to it...

Also, I may have a free seat for The Last Ship on Wednesday. Not sure if I am hoping it comes through or not.