joevitus said: "leighmiserables said: "I was at the invited dress last night, and before passing any judgement on the play itself, it really was an absolutely electric audience. There were about (I believe) 600 high school and college-aged students in the audience, and the energy was absurdlysupportive without being disrespectful at any point. O'Harris also took the time to speak to numerous students in the Mezzanine, including a young man who I'd sat near, whohad been sobbing through almost the entire latter quarter show. It was genuinely touching to see him interact with those students. I think it was really magical in that sense.
"
Well, obviously, that's the ideal audience for the material. It's "sexy" and "transgressive" and I guess they feel very up to the minute watching it. But...that is the response of what are basically kids."
This really sounds like a knock at younger people who attend theatre and are told they won’t truly understand or can’t have an opinion or reaction. By the time I was 17 (I’m 25 now), I had seen more Broadway musicals and play than most will see in a lifetime, and theatre was the avenue about the world and other worlds. I have not seen the play, but if droves of young people are coming out to the theatre to experience something “transgressive” and daring (as opposed to most teenagers I knew ten years ago whose theatrical literacy extended to Wicked and Legally Blonde), why crap on that?
100% in agreement! This play will have its lovers and haters just like any play! I’ve just seen enough of this narrative, and I know this is just a product of the times we are in and everyone screaming for more diversity, which is totally justified and I support. But I saw “Sugar In Our Wounds,” and thought it was one of the worst things I’ve seen in awhile. Terrible writing. But because of the subject matter it is hailed as amazing. I just miss the August: Osage County type plays where you are on the edge of your seat and wrapped up in the world.
quizking101 said: "joevitus said: "leighmiserables said: "I was at the invited dress last night, and before passing any judgement on the play itself, it really was an absolutely electric audience. There were about (I believe) 600 high school and college-aged students in the audience, and the energy was absurdlysupportive without being disrespectful at any point. O'Harris also took the time to speak to numerous students in the Mezzanine, including a young man who I'd sat near, whohad been sobbing through almost the entire latter quarter show. It was genuinely touching to see him interact with those students. I think it was really magical in that sense.
"
Well, obviously, that's the ideal audience for the material. It's "sexy" and "transgressive" and I guess they feel very up to the minute watching it. But...that is the response of what are basically kids."
This really sounds like a knock at youngerpeople who attend theatre and are told they won’t truly understand or can’t have an opinion or reaction. By the time I was 17 (I’m 25 now), I had seen more Broadway musicals and play than most will see in a lifetime, and theatre was the avenue about the world and other worlds. I have not seen the play, but if droves of young people are coming out to the theatre to experience something “transgressive” and daring (as opposed to most teenagers I knew ten years ago whose theatrical literacy extended to Wicked and Legally Blonde), why crap on that?
"
Up to you to take it personally (don't know you and won't assume your maturity level), but the play was inspired by the playwright, thinking it was a far out "thought experiment," to ask a guy at a party, who was talking about a kinky sex experience he'd had, if 1) he was a feminist, 2) what if the girl were black, 3) what if she wanted to be called the N-word? That's just a very juvenile series of questions. That the captivated audience was very young isn't surprising under the circumstances.
Valentina3 said: "joevitus said: "leighmiserables said: "I was at the invited dress last night, and before passing any judgement on the play itself, it really was an absolutely electric audience. There were about (I believe) 600 high school and college-aged students in the audience, and the energy was absurdlysupportive without being disrespectful at any point. O'Harris also took the time to speak to numerous students in the Mezzanine, including a young man who I'd sat near, whohad been sobbing through almost the entire latter quarter show. It was genuinely touching to see him interact with those students. I think it was really magical in that sense."
Well, obviously, that's the ideal audience for the material. It's "sexy" and "transgressive" and I guess they feel very up to the minute watching it. But...that is the response of what are basically kids."
And what's wrong with that? Those kids are not idiots, you know? Their intake of the play and reactions are just as valid as yours.
"
Well, they might well have been idiots. Or just young and easily excited by the nature of the material. Actually, their take might be less valid than mine or more, but it fits with their age to be so overwhelmed by a play with a sexually charged storyline.
joevitus said: "Valentina3 said: "joevitus said: "leighmiserables said: "I was at the invited dress last night, and before passing any judgement on the play itself, it really was an absolutely electric audience. There were about (I believe) 600 high school and college-aged students in the audience, and the energy was absurdlysupportive without being disrespectful at any point. O'Harris also took the time to speak to numerous students in the Mezzanine, including a young man who I'd sat near, whohad been sobbing through almost the entire latter quarter show. It was genuinely touching to see him interact with those students. I think it was really magical in that sense."
Well, obviously, that's the ideal audience for the material. It's "sexy" and "transgressive" and I guess they feel very up to the minute watching it. But...that is the response of what are basically kids."
And what's wrong with that? Those kids are not idiots, you know? Their intake of the play and reactions are just as valid as yours.
"
Well, they might well have been idiots. Or just young and easily excited by the nature of the material. Actually, their take might be less valid than mine or more, but it fits with their age to be so overwhelmed by a play with asexually charged storyline."
Didn't want to comment again but this comment confuses me.
My point was simply that 600 16-22 year olds (many of whom can't afford to see professional theatre) were having the time of their life at a Broadway show last night, for free, and that the playwright (who likely wanted to go backstage and talk with his team) was nice enough to talk to many of them and likely inspire some of them to create theatre. Also, from what I gathered the entire Mezz was almost entirely theatre majors from NYC theatre programs, meaning that...you know...they're literally being trained in theatre analysis and likely have a more "adult" opinion on the piece than most casual "adult" (I put the quotations because young adults are still adults) theatre-goers. Obviously they're enthusiastic because they're young. But why is enthusiasm a bad thing?
Secondly, not a single person I talked to was "excited" by the sexual elements of the show in the sense of that's where their enjoyment came from. The biggest audience reactions came during the second half of the show, which (without spoiling) actually had quite little to do with sex in the grand scheme of things.
Also...this play was written by a black, gay man in his late twenties. Wouldn't you think, then, that the (young, diverse, and LGBT+) audience was excited to finally hear someone who represented them have a show on a Broadway stage? I'm not saying this show was perfect, I think it was far from it, but you can't invalidate a young audience's opinions because they're young anymore than I can invalidate an older audience member's opinion because they're old and therefore "didn't get it."
Not trying to attack, but I think you really made an uninformed generalization with your comments.
joevitus said: "Valentina3 said: "joevitus said: "leighmiserables said: "I was at the invited dress last night, and before passing any judgement on the play itself, it really was an absolutely electric audience. There were about (I believe) 600 high school and college-aged students in the audience, and the energy was absurdlysupportive without being disrespectful at any point. O'Harris also took the time to speak to numerous students in the Mezzanine, including a young man who I'd sat near, whohad been sobbing through almost the entire latter quarter show. It was genuinely touching to see him interact with those students. I think it was really magical in that sense."
Well, obviously, that's the ideal audience for the material. It's "sexy" and "transgressive" and I guess they feel very up to the minute watching it. But...that is the response of what are basically kids."
And what's wrong with that? Those kids are not idiots, you know? Their intake of the play and reactions are just as valid as yours."
Well, they might well have been idiots. Or just young and easily excited by the nature of the material. Actually, their take might be less valid than mine or more, but it fits with their age to be so overwhelmed by a play with asexually charged storyline."
And plays like August:Osage County (which to be clear I absolutely love) would be considered a complete snoozefest by most young people who wouldn't find the dynamics of a dysfunctional family with a drug-addled matriarch to be the best use of their time. To them, it would likely come off as a warning tale of "here's what happens to people like that". It doesn't make August a bad play, and it doesn't make the young audience member an idiot. Their individual experiences make them either handle or not handle that particular play in the way it is "supposed" to be.
I don't mean to pick a fight or even argue about this. I am just saying that writing off a young person's reaction to Slave Play is elitist at best, and possibly naive/ignorant. Heidi Shreck said it very well (paraphrasing) - "to the young people in my audience, I really truly look to you to usher in the new age of progressiveness and bring us all along for a ride in that wave of positive change you will bring. You are empathetic to the times you grew up in, and a lot more capable of seeing the disparities - disparities I have lived with so long that I think they're normal. So please help me."
leighmiserables said: "joevitus said: "Valentina3 said: "joevitus said: "leighmiserables said: "I was at the invited dress last night, and before passing any judgement on the play itself, it really was an absolutely electric audience. There were about (I believe) 600 high school and college-aged students in the audience, and the energy was absurdlysupportive without being disrespectful at any point. O'Harris also took the time to speak to numerous students in the Mezzanine, including a young man who I'd sat near, whohad been sobbing through almost the entire latter quarter show. It was genuinely touching to see him interact with those students. I think it was really magical in that sense."
Well, obviously, that's the ideal audience for the material. It's "sexy" and "transgressive" and I guess they feel very up to the minute watching it. But...that is the response of what are basically kids."
And what's wrong with that? Those kids are not idiots, you know? Their intake of the play and reactions are just as valid as yours.
"
Well, they might well have been idiots. Or just young and easily excited by the nature of the material. Actually, their take might be less valid than mine or more, but it fits with their age to be so overwhelmed by a play with asexually charged storyline."
Didn't want to comment again but this comment confuses me.
My point was simply that 600 16-22 year olds (many of whom can't afford to see professionaltheatre) were having the time of their life at a Broadway show last night,for free, and that the playwright (who likely wanted to go backstage and talk with his team) was nice enough to talk to many of them and likely inspire some of them to create theatre. Also, from what I gathered the entire Mezz was almost entirely theatre majors from NYC theatre programs, meaning that...you know...they're literally beingtrainedin theatre analysis and likely have a more "adult" opinion on the piece than most casual "adult" (I put the quotations because young adults are still adults) theatre-goers. Obviously they're enthusiastic because they're young. But why is enthusiasm a bad thing?
Secondly, not a single person I talked to was "excited" by the sexual elements of the show in the sense of that's where their enjoyment came from. The biggest audience reactions came during the second half of the show, which (without spoiling) actually had quite little to do with sex in the grand scheme of things.
Also...this play was written by a black, gay man in his late twenties. Wouldn't you think, then, that the (young, diverse, and LGBT+) audience was excited to finally hear someone who representedthemhave a show on a Broadway stage? I'm not saying this show was perfect, I think it was far from it, but you can't invalidate a young audience's opinions because they're young anymore than I can invalidate an older audience member's opinion because they're old and therefore "didn't get it."
Not trying to attack, but I think you really made an uninformed generalization with your comments."
What I think is that the play sounds immature and simplistic and the audience that has responded to it demonstrates this. I think it's great young people go to plays. I don't think young people liking a play offers it any validity as a good work. I remember very well how exciting the title of Mamet's Sexual Perversity in Chicago sounded to a group of us teenage theatergoers at about age 17.
Valentina3 said: "joevitus said: "Valentina3 said: "joevitus said: "leighmiserables said: "I was at the invited dress last night, and before passing any judgement on the play itself, it really was an absolutely electric audience. There were about (I believe) 600 high school and college-aged students in the audience, and the energy was absurdlysupportive without being disrespectful at any point. O'Harris also took the time to speak to numerous students in the Mezzanine, including a young man who I'd sat near, whohad been sobbing through almost the entire latter quarter show. It was genuinely touching to see him interact with those students. I think it was really magical in that sense."
Well, obviously, that's the ideal audience for the material. It's "sexy" and "transgressive" and I guess they feel very up to the minute watching it. But...that is the response of what are basically kids."
And what's wrong with that? Those kids are not idiots, you know? Their intake of the play and reactions are just as valid as yours."
Well, they might well have been idiots. Or just young and easily excited by the nature of the material. Actually, their take might be less valid than mine or more, but it fits with their age to be so overwhelmed by a play with asexually charged storyline."
And plays like August:Osage County (which to be clear I absolutely love) would be considered a complete snoozefest by most young people who wouldn't find the dynamics of a dysfunctional family with a drug-addled matriarch to be the best use of their time. To them, it would likely come off as a warning tale of "here's what happens to people like that". It doesn't make August a bad play, and it doesn't make the young audience member an idiot. Their individual experiences make them either handle or not handle that particular play in the way it is "supposed" to be.
I don't mean to pick a fight or even argue about this. I am just saying that writing off a young person's reaction to Slave Play is elitist at best, and possibly naive/ignorant. Heidi Shreck said it very well (paraphrasing) - "to the young people in my audience, I really truly look to you to usher in thenew age of progressiveness and bring us all along for a ride in that wave of positive change you will bring. You are empathetic to the times you grew up in,and a lot more capable of seeing the disparities - disparities I have lived with so long that I think they're normal. So please help me.""
I mean, I'm not going up to teenagers exiting the theater and saying "You loved it? Well who cares what you think? You're young, you're nothing!" It's great if they had a good time. Certainly they have their right to their entertainment and their opinion. But, of course, so do I. As an adult commenting on a chat board for adults about drama, I am going to say that this audience being really into this show suggests to me the play is as simplistic/sensationalist as I suspected.
What I think is that the play sounds immature and simplistic and the audience that has responded to it demonstrates this.
You haven't seen the play? Dear lordy. Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, you might be using audience's reaction to further strengthen your bias of what the play is about? To reiterate on leighmiserables' point, my really young nephew (19) who saw the dress rehearsal yesterday specifically talked only about the 2nd half of the play and how he had not yet seen something quite like that on a Broadway stage yet and he was glad that he did.
Oh I think we got mixed up because I’ve no issue with younger people enjoying a show, but I will say my critical assessments for things I’ve seen for free tend to be positive.
I’m just saying there’s an onslaught of race places and that seems to be the buzzy thing right now - White Noise, Fairview, etc - nut is it what audiences want or is it what a bunch of old rich white peoples think we want to make themselves look edgy? I thought White Noise was maybe the worst thing I’ve seen in ages.
joevitus said: "I am just saying that writing off a young person's reaction to Slave Play is elitist at best, and possibly naive/ignorant."
I think it is more fair to write off the allure of being at an invited dress rehearsal, for free, regardless of age... I trust people who put their money down to see things, as that will be the boat in which I find myself?
Valentina3 said: "What I think is that the play sounds immature and simplistic and the audience that has responded to it demonstrates this.
You haven't seen the play? Dear lordy. Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, you might be using audience's reaction to further strengthen your bias of what the play is about? To reiterate on leighmiserables' point, my really young nephew (19) who saw the dress rehearsal yesterday specifically talked only about the 2nd half of the play and how he had not yet seen something quite like that on a Broadway stage yet and he was glad that he did."
Dear lordy, right back at you. A 19 year old has "never seen anything like" this. Stop the presses.
I get why you, as a relative who loves him and is pleased for him, cares about his opinion, but can you be objective for a moment and see why this does not translate into a recommendation for the average adult?
I'm glad he encountered something new for him. That doesn't give me any indication that it is particularly new or original (there's a whole history of off-Broadway in the 1960's he likely knows nothing about--would he be as wowed if he knew about productions like Che! or Dracula Sabat?) That there were no adults raving about that performance and few (if any) adults present says it won't likely have much to say to many grown ups. And the days when theater was exciting to me because it was "startling" are long since past.
Again--great that this is exciting to teens. That it was is no helpful indication it's anything other than the silly "shocking" play all the press has made it sound like.
jjoevitus said: "Valentina3 said: "What I think is that the play sounds immature and simplistic and the audience that has responded to it demonstrates this.
You haven't seen the play? Dear lordy. Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, you might be using audience's reaction to further strengthen your bias of what the play is about? To reiterate on leighmiserables' point, my really young nephew (19) who saw the dress rehearsal yesterday specifically talked only about the 2nd half of the play and how he had not yet seen something quite like that on a Broadway stage yet and he was glad that he did."
Dear lordy, right back at you. A 19 year old has "never seen anything like" this. Stop the presses.
I get why you as a relative who loves him cares about his opinion, but can you be objective for a moment and see why this would mean nothing to most adults?
I'm glad it spoketo him. That it did means nothing to me. That there were no adults raving about that performanceand few (if any)adults present says it won't likely have much to say to many grown ups."
You realize the reason there were so many young people was because they purposefully invited students in the NYC area, yes?
Sorry I'd edited my post, but to answer your question: is that supposed to make me think it will probably wow an adult audience? Much as you might bus a bunch of nuns in to see a revival of The Sound of Music, I'm sure they know their target audience, but that doesn't demonstrate the show is any more intellectually interesting that I suspected. In fact, it tends to confirm in my suspicions that it isn't.
I’m an adult who saw it tonight. Went in blind, thought it was phenomenal and the best show I’ve seen in quite some time. Sure I can see why teens in the audience last night may enjoy it— it’s funny, it’s complex but not complicated to follow, it trusts its audience to connect the dots and doesn’t talk down. But that’s what makes it appealing to me as well. I’m not sure why kids liking something makes it less than and, aside from that, the audience tonight was full of adults who enjoyed the show immensely.
elephantseye said: "I’m not sure why kids liking something makes it less than"
It doesn't. But the show already sounded too simplistic and gimmicky to begin with, and a large audience of teens appreciating it confirms that impression (because, newsflash, kids aren't as mature and aren't as capable of perceiving depth as people twenty or so years older).
Oh good grief, how old are you? What on earth does it matter.
There are plenty of things kids like that adults do as well, even if they’re not engaging with the work in the same way at different stages of life. I teach Shakespeare to children (small children, as young as five years old). Do they get it completely? Obviously not. But they love it. They find it funny, they pick up on emotional resonances, they identify with characters, etc. Do kids enjoying Shakespeare, or Hamilton, or Monet, or The Beatles, or [insert popular art here] make works any less resonant to adults? No, it just means the piece works on multiple levels and can strike a chord with a variety of audiences. That’s a strength, not a weakness.
joevitus said: "elephantseye said: "I’m not sure why kids liking something makes it less than"
It doesn't. But the show already sounded too simplistic and gimmicky to begin with, and a large audience of teens appreciating it confirms thatimpression (because, newsflash, kids aren't as mature and aren't as capable of perceiving depth as people twenty or so years older).
Out of curiosity, how old are you?
"
You have quite the strong opinion on a show you have never seen. Theatre isn’t always supposed to be super campy, some works challange the audience and makes them super uncomfortable. If this show really bugs you that much, why put so much effort into telling other people they couldn't enjoy or truly get a show because of their age? The point is, a bunch of NYC students saw something last night that hopefully sparked conversation between them, and inspired them to pursue a career in theatre. What gives you the right to dictate the impact theatre makes for anyone else? Theatre is subjetive. Art is subjective. Take several seats.
joined:12/25/09
joined:
12/25/09
Posted: 9/10/19 at 4:26pm