Do you think it's worth reading Howards End before seeing this show? Will my appreciation of the play be enhanced if I read it?
Capeguy said: "A question: Anyone have a theory why all but the 2 older actors are barefoot throughout the play?"I was wondering the same thing. I loved every minute of Part One. Having been on this site for many years, I guess it shouldn’t surprise me how much vitriol is being spewed at something that was almost universally praised in London, but this is always the way on here. I would not listen to the haters. It’s a great night of theatre. But yeah. I don’t get the bare feet thing and found it to be very odd.
The two actors who wear shoes are Morgan and Henry, the two older characters who are not considered part of "the lads." The play is written as being put on by a group of young men numbered 1-8 telling the story AS it's being written by the actor that becomes Adam/Leo. Morgan and Henry are purposefully outside of that group. I don't think the shoes have some deep meaning or symbolism but I think they're mean to other them in some way.
RE: SouthernCakes — Part 1 feels like a complete story, somewhat. (The two brothers burning the note felt very cheesy.) You may want to read the book "Howards End" or see the film. There's a lot more to come in Part 2. The play doesn't follow the book exactly, but the "burning of the note" is in the book and has a lot to do with the rest of the story.
KingGeorgeIII said: "Do you think it's worth reading Howards End before seeing this show? Will my appreciation of the play be enhanced if I read it?"I’d think so. There’s an article on playbill.com about the playwright Matthew Lopez:http://www.playbill.com/article/how-howards-end-led-matthew-lopez-to-write-his-unapologetically-gay-magnum-opus-the-inheritanceand in it he states how the movie adaptation and the novel affected him. He read the novel 5-6 times and it influenced/inspired his play The Inheritance.
I would also recommend the recent miniseries, which was adapted by Kenneth Lonergan and aired on Starz. It's four one-hour episodes and, because of the luxury of time, was able to hew a little more closely to the novel than the Merchant-Ivory film did. I also think that the film missed some of the humor in the book, although both Emma Thompson and Helena Bonham-Carter are spectacular. (The cast of the miniseries is also excellent. I think it was especially effective to have a slightly younger actor play Henry Wilcox, despite how great Anthony Hopkins was.)
Capeguy said: "RE: SouthernCakes—Part 1 feels like a complete story, somewhat. (The two brothers burning the note felt very cheesy.)You may want to read the book "Howards End" or see the film. There's a lot more to come in Part 2. The playdoesn't follow the book exactly, butthe "burning of the note" is in the book and has a lot to do with the rest of the story."The burning of the note is indeed rather cheesy -- which it most definitely is not in the novel or in the James Ivory film adaptation. Check out the scene where Anthony Hopkins is holding that note, trying to figure out what the hell to do, basically silently begging somebody to take the damn thing away from him, and the moment where one of his children finally takes him up on it.... Far more interesting than what goes on in the play.
Has anyone sat in the rear balcony for this show yet? Or the balcony in general? I am seated in the last row of the rear balcony, however most of the seat in the front rear balcony are still available. Anyone think the ushers would mind if I ask to move forward a few rows?
There are 2 intermissions, just move down at one of those. The rear orchestra was empty on Monday.
Roscoe: ...The burning of the note is indeed rather cheesy -- which it most definitely is not in the novel...It's been many years since I have seen the film but I did read the book last month. The note was not burned exactly as in the play since that would require a fireplace but it WAS most definitely burned. See below:Excerpt From: Edward Morgan Forster. “Howards End.”— Chapter 11:...“The problem is too terrific, and they could not even perceive a problem. No; it is natural and fitting that after due debate they should tear the note up and throw it on to their dining-room fire. The practical moralist may acquit them absolutely. He who strives to look deeper may acquit them—almost. For one hard fact remains. They did neglect a personal appeal. The woman who had died did say to them, “Do this,” and they answered, “We will not.”
Capeguy said: "It's been many years since I have seen the film but I did read the book last month. The note was not burned exactly as in the play since that would require a fireplace but it WAS most definitelyburned.I can see that I wasn't being clear -- I meant to refer to the perceived cheesiness of the letter being burned rather than the actual burning of the letter as not being part of the novel or the film. Of course the letter, or more accurately note, is burned in the novel and in the film, far more interestingly than in THE INHERITANCE to my mind at least.
Roscoe said: "Capeguy said: "It's been many years since I have seen the film but I did read the book last month. The note was not burned exactly as in the play since that would require a fireplace but it WAS most definitelyburned.I can see that I wasn't being clear -- I meant to referto the perceivedcheesiness of the letter being burned rather than the actual burning of the letter as not being part of the novel or the film. Of course the letter, or more accurately note, is burned in the novel and in the film, far more interestingly than in THE INHERITANCE to my mind at least."Different strokes. I thought it was a great theatrical moment and I got chills. It’s also basically the play’s logo - a cherry blossom burning, symbolizing the burning of the letter.
I saw part 1 of The Inheritance on Monday night, and I was completely blown away with the play. It's timely, epic, touching, beautiful, and shattering. All of the actors delivered stellar performances across the board. I am beyond excited to see part 2.
Having not seen the production, and not fully sold on investing in 7 hours, I ordered read the entire script, all 318 pages. Reading comments and some of the London reviews, I sense that my reaction is heresy. But I found Part Two infinitely more emotionally engaging, even if its denouement is attenuated. (Lopez seems to feel every sociopolitical annotation requires repeating; sometimes it feels as if he doesn't trust an audience to grasp a point the first or second time. The chorus/narrative underscores everything a bit too aggressively in places for my taste; subjective, admittedly.) The second half focuses more on Henry Wilcox, a fascinating character who's intricately tied to the thematic elements carried by the title. Maybe the banter-y start of the play, as much "Jeffrey" as "Angels," just feels slight or a tad familiar. These name, locale, and product-dropping Manhattanites are in every LGBTQ script since "Boys..." and as they quip and quip some more, we wait for something fresher. Once the piece reaches the much-discussed first half crescendo (NO SPOILERS), it begins to deepen. In the second half, the stakes are upped for everyone. And the only female character, also much talked about, on the page feels overwritten even if her story is touching and absolutely integral.All of that aside, it's quite an impressive piece of work, by the end in no way disappointing; my comments are subjective quibbles.I may do what few have done: see only Part II. I suspect no one else has anything close to this response -- starting appropriately with the first half is logical -- but if you've read the full text, certainly a single half is an option. I also can imagine Lois Smith almost running away with the play. I'm also intrigued to see what the wonderful, under-sung John Benjamin Hickey does with Wilcox.
Even though I personally prefer Part 2 and it does bare urging people to see it, I still think most casual theater goers (who aren't the type to be on theatre message boards) will be perfectly fine just seeing Part 1. I guarantee in a year or two we'll be asking people about this play and they'll rave and say they loved it but then they'll say they only saw Part 1. It's why they're doing more Part 1 in the schedule.
I saw the first preview of Part 2 last night and while I was still very moved and find it to be beautiful, there were some I think major changes from London that I didn't like.The non-spoilery changes are they basically took out the second intermission with only a brief 5 minute pause between acts 2 and 3. The actors also all appeared to be plowing through and never stopping during the laughs causing many lines to be missed. The only times they seemed to were during Tristan's speech to Henry and during Lois Smith's scene she played the audience like a fiddle. She was a bit shaky and paused a lot, but she was wonderful. I never cared for Redgrave in London who seemed to be fed every single line via an earpiece and a distracting bad southern accent so it was refreshing to listen to the words coming out of Smith's no nonsense mouth. She had the entire audience laughing and based on what I could hear, sobbing all throughout her scene. She will only get more comfortable and sure of her lines.I'll put more plot-spoily changes below--
The major changes are they've changed how Leo comes back into Toby's life. He no longer just shows up at Toby's apartment, but Leo literally runs into Toby, who mistakes him for Adam as he's running out of the Strand, shoplifting books. Then Leo shows up to his apartment to shower and wash his clothes same as before, but this time Toby knows who he is immediately and they do not have sex. They just become friends who see movies and plays. They don't have sex again until they get to Fire Island and there's a new section describing their sex and how it's the first time Leo's had sex with someone else thinking about HIS pleasure and how great it is. They also change a lot of the dialogue around Leo and Toby's fight in the Pines about what they mean to each other and where Toby admits more about his past. I think the purpose of this is to soften Toby a bit and not make Leo just a sex object to him. I'm still running it through my brain and can't decide if I don't like it as much or if I was just thrown by the change. They also have Leo find out how much he looks like Adam much earlier and not just startled by it at the opening of "Loved Boy." Lopez also rewrote most of the opening night of the play having Toby arrive late and leave early causing a scene. They also cut Eric's voicemails trying to connect with Toby and invite him to the wedding and have him invite Toby during the scene where they meet and tells him he's getting married.They also cut Toby immediately saying "Adam?!" the second he sees Leo at Walter's house at the end. He says something like "Leo? I never thought I'd see you again" with Leo immediately hugging him for dear life before punching him, walking off to get the water glass to smash on his head. I do. not. like. this. change. To me, that moment of mistaking him for Adam was so emotionally powerful because he somehow just hurt Leo even more than he ever had in that one moment. I felt Sam Levine's soul and heart escape his body in that moment and his rage and pain and sadness were all just so justified that now I just didn't feel. They seem to be trying to soften Toby's edges but at the sake of Leo, who I also found to be the emotional core of Part 2.
I'll definitely see it again, but I don't see why they've made these changes. Maybe I'll enjoy them and understand them more now that I won't be so distracted by them, but for now I'm hoping things get changed back.
cjmclaughlin10 said: "I want one of those Tote Bags!!!! If anyone is selling one, please PM me"I have a tote for Part 1 and one for Part 2. Check your PMs.
© 2019 Wisdom Digital Media