Miles2Go2 said: "I do think that productions that have shuttered (and performers who were in those productions) long before Tony nominations are made are less likely to be nominated, and ultimately win, than shows/performers that are still performing."
I agree. Rannells would've had a much better chance of being nominated if the show had been nominated for the tonys during which it'd be running. That was the point I was trying to make.
That may be true, although there have been many performers and shows nominated long after their closing date. In any event, I am skeptical that Rannells would have superseded any of this seasons featured actor nominees.
I saw this, and thought it was just fantastic. I won't parrot what all the other good reviews have said, except to say that I agree with pretty much all of them, the good ones, that is.
The one negative comment I will make about this production is that I think it was a seriously boneheaded decision to cut the intermission.
Setting aside the fact that the original play has one of the best Act One enders around (the fight, followed by Harold's entrance), this production is clocking in at two hours. The box office can say an hour forty all they want. It's not an hour forty, it's not an hour fifty. It is two hours. Kudos to all you big bladder people out there who are fine with this, but my dinner drinks started wanting to make an exit around the one hour mark, and by the time they were doing the phone call game, I was having an all out pee-mergency.
It's really stupid. Think of all the bar sales they are losing out on. My gay brothers and sisters can DRINK.
Anyway, I would advise everyone to take it easy on liquids before this production and make sure you give yourself adequate bathroom time before the show, or you're going to be counting the minutes until final curtain instead of enjoying what is on stage.
Interesting to note that Mantello has cut the intermissons for both his plays this year, and both run about two hours. Has he developed an antipathy to them?
SonofRobbieJ said: "Dancingthrulife2 said: "In Angels, if the actor playing Joe does not take off all of his clothes in a certain scene, he is not doing his job right--the scene requires nudity to make sense and work. In Boys, however, I don't see what Mantello is trying to achievethat scene by having Bomber go half nude other than some eye candy gimmicks. It takes the audience right out of the world of the play without a legit reason to do with."
I have yet to see BOYS...but I disagree with everything in this post.
David Marshall Grant did not fully disrobe in the 'winter Atlantic' scene in the original Broadway prodcution (nor did his replacement Jay Geode). I've since seen the scene played with the full nudity and I don't think anything was lost in the original production by not revealing Joe's genitals.
And I disagree that nudity at that moment of Boys in the Band is a gimmick. It established the comfort Donald has with Michael and with his surroundings.
"
And I also politely disagree. In that scene, Joe screams "Anything. Whatever you want. I can give up anything. My skin." And Joe specially referred his undergarment as his skin in a previous scene. The actor playing Joe doesn't have to show his genital to the audience, which can be done with meticulous staging, but the "skin" has to be off. If not, it would suggest that Joe is not really willing to give up "anything" for Louis, and would defeat the whole purpose of the scene. The scene is also where Joe is being truthful to himself, relishing in the temporary freedom void of any human pretense. To keep anything on just does not make any sense under scrutiny.
The problem I have with the nudity in Boys is not the nudity itself, but rather the way it is staged. Sure, with close friends it is normal to do things that one wouldn't do in front of strangers. However, the way it is staged feels like they are trying to evoke a certain response from the audience than just telling the story.
RippedMan said: "I never really think nudity is required in anything."
Untrue. Afterglow without nudity would be closed by now.
RippedMan said: "???????Also, the new Avengers movie is 2hrs 45mins. People are sitting through that just fine. So why can't people sit through a 2hour play? I don't get it?"
Because there is no RunPee mobile app for Broadway.
RippedMan said: "In Angels it's just his backside, no? At least it was in London. In the movie he gets naked. I never really think nudity is required in anything.
Also, the new Avengers movie is 2hrs 45mins. People are sitting through that just fine. So why can't people sit through a 2hour play? I don't get it?"
The proshot is different from the physical production in London, at least from what I remember. I think for obvious reasons they can’t show the front in a movie theater, but I don’t think the way they changed it for ntlive works as well. Joe is tasting real freedom for the first time although not without desperation, and I think that kind of limited Russel Tovey’s performance a bit and the sense of freedom doesn’t come across as powerful as being played out without any concern of “propriety.”
I was bored to death by the new Avengers movie. Too much fluff can really choke a person to death. I was clapping, although quietly, when the ending happened. Too bad it won’t last given what we’ve known about their plans for the franchise.
The script for Angels (at least the script published prior to the Broadway opening) specifies that Joe strips everything off. And that wasn't a stage manager's note, it was Kushner's physical action (I've heard this from the horse's mouth, in a public talk). David Marshall Grant refused to do full nudity, which is why the original Broadway staging didn't have it.
RippedMan said: "In Angels it's just his backside, no? At least it was in London. In the movie he gets naked. I never really think nudity is required in anything.
Also, the new Avengers movie is 2hrs 45mins. People are sitting through that just fine. So why can't people sit through a 2hour play? I don't get it?"
In this Broadway production Joe runs around the stage so all sides are clearly visible.
RippedMan said: "In Angels it's just his backside, no? At least it was in London. In the movie he gets naked. I never really think nudity is required in anything.
Also, the new Avengers movie is 2hrs 45mins. People are sitting through that just fine. So why can't people sit through a 2hour play? I don't get it?"
You can get up and go to the bathroom anytime you want during a movie. In theatre, it is more disruptive and in this production specifically, there is a big note in the program that says if you leave your seat for any reason during the show, you will not be readmitted.
Just rewatched the HBO "Angels in America" after seeing the production a few weeks ago. (Jeffery Wright's Belize is reason enough to rewatch it because he's stunning). Joe is only show from the backside when he strips off his clothes. Meanwhile, HBO's production had Prior fully naked both in the Dr's office while being checked by the nurse and both he and the Angel are naked while having "sex". Also, Joe's wife (the name escapes me at the minute) drops her cover at the end and is completely naked with full on.
I also recall the touring company of Angels as having Joe strip everything off back in the 90's.
(sorry for continuing this tangent, I forgot it was a Boys in the Band thread)
I haven't seen the movie (Boys in the Band) in a few decades but i do still remember the glimpse of Don's butt in the beginning. The movie and play was both horrifying and exciting especially being closeted. With that internalized homophobia gone I'm looking forward to seeing it with different eyes.
Also, Joe's wife (the name escapes me at the minute) drops her cover at the end and is completely naked with full on.
That was Mary-Louise Parker (as Harper Pitt). And technically she was not fully nude on camera as she is actually wearing a merkin which is a crotch wig.
joined:8/8/17
joined:
8/8/17
Posted: 5/9/18 at 3:19pm