Rushed during the holiday period; the first people in line arrived at around 6 am. I got there at about 8:40, and there were four people in front of me, and they all needed multiple tickets. The people after me got there at about 8:50, and by 9 the line was growing fast. It was a two-show day, but by 10 am there were probably 30 people.
The pricing was tiered; when it was our turn we were offered $30 partial view tickets in the balcony that they said were "very" obstructed, o
Angels. Angels is essential, vital, mammoth, transcendent, easily one of the great works of the English language. Take her to see it live on a huge, huge scale while she's got the chance. I was only slightly older than your daughter is now when I met the play for the first time and it changed the course of my life.
I sat in the second row and have absolutely zero regrets about it. I feel lucky to have gotten to see Denise Gough act from up that close. I think if you can find a seat on the side of the stage that's the bottom of the seating chart, those might be a little bit better. The other side seemed to be treated a little bit more like the back of the stage in terms of where the actors were facing at times.
And I'm assuming SRO is only when it's sold out? I'll probably try the lottery and then if I lose pop over to TKTS. When I'm already paying to fly into town I'm not super in the position to spend $99 or whatever their lowest full price is.
The 2006 revival did not get rid of the 70s references. The timelessness was all in the aesthetic; and you felt it because it was a production that didn't beat you over the head with the fact that it's the 70s. Doyle experimented with cell phones in Cincinnati, but ultimately decided to remove them because they weren't necessary and were potentially distracting.
I'm so glad there are finally dates and a location for this; that information is, to me, totally secondary to the casting announcement; every time it was pushed back, or the timeline was vague, I feared that it was never going to happen.
I am intrigued and curious and I have so many questions that I can't wait to have answered. But my questions aren't skepticism; I'm on board with the idea and I think it's going to challenge a lot of long-held perceptions abou
I own four published copies of the script including a hardback 2nd edition (the oldest one I have) and they all have the tapestry reference. That's not to say it was always the tapestry, I don't know, but for whatever it's worth.
Scarywarhol said: "I keep finding in recent seasons that people (and often the artists themselves) are quick to call criticisms of a minimalist or radically overhauled production "traditionalist," like the dissenters are automatically a bunch of unimaginative stuffy old museum curators. It's often a very easy way to dismiss any notion that the take actually doesn't work.
Sorry, I think you misunderstood me, and also sorry if I wasn't clear.
kdogg36 said: "I'm wondering if maybe our differing reactions to this production correlate closely with our previous engagement with Pacific Overtures. I maintain that it was a very compelling piece of theater, but I can see why others would be quite bothered by the cuts and the stylistic changes."
Absolutely. I have actually always thought a version of that rings true of experiences with him in general. His Company was my f
Yeah, I overheard some unahppy people. I suppose advertising it differently could've been useful, but in CSC's defense, they have sent numerous e-mails (and send you more if you have tickets) that clearly state it's 100 minutes with no intermission. If you know the show well enough to be like, irate about changes to the libretto, then "100 minutes, no intermission" should probably tip you off that it's different. (Or maybe people just don't read.)