GRACE: Preview Thread- Page 3

[queerbec]

Posted: 9/19/12 at 1:28am

Since there have been so many SPOILERS already on this thread, I figured I might as well share of my reactions to specific occurrences in the play. I found the production to be well-directed and the cast to be superb, notably Mr. Shannon and Mr. Asner. Paul Rudd's role is not necessarily likable, but he does a great job, especially when he ultimately reveals the actual nature of his conversion experience which explains a lot of his behavior. The suspense of the play, I think, lies in the possibility of second chances that people pray for at several times during the play. As a result, the various "rewinds" that the playwright includes offer some hope that perhaps--because of moments of grace in people's lives--the pre-determined outcome may have changed. There are really only two genuine moments of grace in the play--one between the Arrington and Shannon characters and the second is revealed toward the end of the play in a story that Asner's character reveals. He (Asner) holds out a possibility of grace to one of the other characters who-we are hoping-will accept it, but.... The play questions some of the motivations and expectations of those who call themselves born again Christians but have denied themselves a spiritual experience or accepted God's grace. Yet, at the same time, the evening leaves you questioning the actual existence of a God at all.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/20/12 at 11:00pm

Im going to use spoilers, FYI

I saw the show tonight and I'm a bit perplexed by it. I don't think it's the worst play on ever put on stage but it's also not going to be remembered as a great work of art, either.

Just a few random thoughts, though -

The first scene is very powerful. But the problem is that It sets up a play that doesn't happen for another 90 minutes and by that point that first scene's impact is all but forgotten and the tension thats being built comes so late in the game that it feels extremely out of place from what we've just seen.

While watching the play I felt like there had to be a deeper meaning to everything I was watching (given the subject matter especially) but thinking about it there was none. I don't know what the point was. You don't take anything away from the story or the characters. The Wife isn't a real "Jesus Freak" like her husband is and connects with the damaged next door neighbor. That's a good play right there. But everything with Rudd's character (the money, the hotel, even the religion mostly) honestly isn't needed. He's only there to kill everyone in the end.

And as for that ending, I think it was a big mistake to repeat the killing. Is the point of the play redemption? Is it second chances? Getting a "do over", as seen when everything goes backwards? If so, what was the point of that scene if he's still going to kill them all in the end?

And poor Ed Asner. Someone like him only being onstage for 15 minutes is a crime.

Updated On: 9/20/12 at 11:00 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/21/12 at 1:50am

It's interesting reading people's reactions.

Someone asked what attracted the actors to the script--I do know that Craigh Wright has a long time association with the Steppenwolf Theatre, as does Michael Shannon, so that may be part of it. (I did love Wright's play The Pavillion and he was one of the better episode writers on Six Feet Under--and I admit, as awful as it often was, his show Dirty Sexy Money was a guilty pleasure, though apparently he found writing for ABC a nightmare the same wait John Robin Baitz did when he created, and left, Brothers and Sisters--playwrites probably should avoid network tv).

As for Growler asking about Michael Shannon making a bad movie--he's the villain, Zod no less, in the new Superman which given who directed it could end up being awful...

[After Eight]

Posted: 9/21/12 at 7:06am

"I did love Wright's play The Pavillion."

Another talky bore, though better than this dud.

As for Shannon, he also appeared in a one-man excruciatingly boring horror by Wright called Mistakes Were Made. This was even worse than Grace. Much worse. I've seen so many horrible off-Broadway plays that I couldn't choose the worst for the thread on that subject, but certainly Mistakes Were Made would be high on that list.

Maybe Wright, and Baitz as well, should just stick to tv.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/22/12 at 12:38am

Thanks to this show, I've had this damn song in my head for TWO DAYS.

[GoshGeeGolly]

Posted: 9/23/12 at 12:33pm

Saw Grace yesterday. Thought the play was smart and current. Liked the set, it moved around quite a bit, even though it was the same apartment and not too many props, money was clearly put into the rotation of the set Though, not sure why it rotated at a slow pace.

I liked that it ran straight through, no intermission, a story is told so much better like that in my opinion.

Perhaps some small tweak could push it to Great status, but it was good and I enjoyed it.
I give it an A-

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/23/12 at 12:41pm

Corine?

[defyingravity11]

Posted: 9/25/12 at 12:22pm

I feel like I might be a little crazy. I saw last night's performance and really didn't care for it, but there was an instant standing ovation after the final blackout. The play is marketed as a thrilling dark comedy, but there is nothing thrilling about learning the ending int he first five minutes and this was certainly not a comedy of any sort.

The rewinding effect and constantly rotating set were unnecessary and distracting. Moreover, the play actually said very little about some very interesting issues. This was the most frustrating aspect of the evening. It's such a shame because of the immensely talented cast. I enjoyed the discourse during the middle half hour, but it did not make up for all of the other shortcomings.

Normally, I don't post negative responses (especially during previews). But I really don't understand how it's come this far.

Updated On: 9/25/12 at 12:22 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 9/25/12 at 11:04pm

Saw it tonight. Loved it. 90 minutes with no intermission and that was just long enough as this show really isn't "eventful" but leaves you with something to think about. I read here about the final scene being played out at the top of the show and I thought it was a bad idea as was watching the show but by the end, I was fine with it. Rudd has the Jesus freak thing down pat and Shannon was just fantastic. There is a very long scene near the end that could put you to sleep if you were not already invested in the show. For me, the final line spoke volumes. So very glad I saw this play.

[Cape Twirl of Doom]

Posted: 9/27/12 at 12:46am

I saw the show tonight and I am really surprised at the negative thoughts in this thread! I knew absolutely nothing about the play beforehand and I really loved it! It did take a short while to figure out the concept of the doubled apartment, but once I got what was going on I was completely captivated the entire time. I found all of the monologues to be thrilling, and I thought the show because very taut as it moved towards the conclusion.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/27/12 at 12:48am

But what was the point of the show? I've thought about it for a week since I've seen it and just don't see what the point of the entire thing was.

[grumpyoptimist]

Posted: 9/27/12 at 3:45am

Jordan, thank you for saying that. Saw it Saturday night as the capper of a three show trip. Gawd I wish this one woulda been first because it's stayed in my head ever since, not in a good way. Agree with many of the criticisms already stated here. I found it laborious (I may or may not have dozed sometime in the first 20min, not sure), hard to follow and just not particularly interesting until the last 20min or so. And by then, it had really lost me. More of the audience around me was interested whether what we were hearing was rain outside or a sound effect (it was rain) than following the story line during the beginning of the last third of the show. At first I thought I just didn't get it because I'm not a religious person, the farther I get away from seeing it the more I realize it wasn't my cup of ramen, or maybe it just outright sucked...

[uncageg]

Posted: 9/27/12 at 1:41pm

**possible spoiler**

Jordon, what I got from it is that you can't depend on a God or other entity to solve your problems or make everything right. He, or she, or it, leaves some of the decision making up to us and some people can't handle or don't realize that and some react in the way this character did. I got the feeling that he was let down but possibly came to the realization that he had to think for himself, too late, and felt that he failed in some way.

I want to know what people thought of the scene that played forwards, backwards and forwards. Was this to represent him having second thoughts?

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 10/2/12 at 1:55pm

After having high hopes for this show and hearing so much negativity early on, I went in with very tempered expectations. My tempered expectations were well exceeded. Whoo!

I won't make an argument for GRACE as a great play, but I do think it's a very good one, and for 100 intermissionless minutes I was totally engaged. Paul Rudd employs his so-sincere-you-can't-believe-you're-believing-him persona to great effect and gets genuine laughs from joke lines and non-joke lines alike. Michael Shannon's character -- on whom the story ultimately hinges -- mirrors the play, first eliciting laughs with his barely contained rage before revealing that rage a direct symptom of his shattered heart and increasingly withering soul.

Kate Arrington doesn't fare quite as well. I'd like to say it's because her character isn't as multi-dimensional or she bears the brunt of the exposition or something, but I don't think that's the case. She's consistently sharing scenes with actors who are hugely charismatic on their worst days, and she disappears between them sometimes. Her big second-half monologue immediately follows Mr. Shannon's. After he eviscerates with his tragic story, her rebuttal can't help but feel anticlimactic.

I was also worried that Ed Asner was being wasted in a thankless role, but he ends up being a thematic lynchpin and his fate was -- for me -- one of the bigger surprises of the night. He also has a pretty killer first-act monologue about his family hiding Jews during World War II that he knocks out of the park.

As for the play's "point" -- well, it occurs to me that maybe we expect plays -- or any artworks -- that deal directly with religion (specifically, belief versus nonbelief) to have something big to say on that topic. My takeaway from GRACE was much simpler, but no less profound. It's hard to discuss the finer points without going into spoilers, but ultimately what I think we're given is all to do with the title.

All four characters -- at least once and sometimes repeatedly -- strongly express either a desire for, a confusion by, or a condemnation of how we as human beings can achieve a state of grace in THIS world. And I think it raises some pretty potent questions. How valid is a wish for grace from a nonbeliever? Does our spirituality dictate our ability to recognize grace when it's bestowed upon us or -- perhaps more importantly -- when we're given the opportunity to bestow it upon someone else? How does our worldview affect our own ability to accept grace when it's presented to us? And most significantly, can even a nonbeliever recognize grace as manifestation of a kind of divinity?

And I think the play fairly blatantly wants to remind us that we have the opportunity to bestow grace on others even when it seems like the most impossible thing in the world. And recognizing that reminder is easy. But translating it to real-life action is considerably more difficult, and too often, for some people, all but impossible. So, I don't think this play is about belief at all. If anything, it purports that faith -- or a lack thereof -- is abitrary. It's much more concerned with earthbound matters. Religion does not have a monopoly on grace, the play says, and the sooner one recognizes that, the better equipped one is to deal with the hardships of this world and the more prepared they may be not just to bestow love, but to accept it, as well.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/2/12 at 2:00pm

Is Kate Arrington's Prometheus-esque self abortion still in the show or was that scene cut?

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 10/2/12 at 2:09pm

Yeah. Kate Arrington's, you mean, not her character's?

Updated On: 10/2/12 at 02:09 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/2/12 at 2:21pm

Of course. Who would write something like that for a character?

[littlebro2]

Posted: 10/2/12 at 9:47pm

Sounds like the play has improved throughout the previews as the response is now rather positive!

[jbm2]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 1:23am

Would a 15 year old girl enjoy this?
How appropriate is it? A lot of swearing? Any nudity? Sex?

[chrisampm2]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 2:12am

Littlebro, you may be right. But better responses started coming in just a night or two after the first preview. So it's possible, it's a matter of different strokes for different folks. Some shows generate a broad range of opinions.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 7:29am

I don't know if a 15-year-old girl would enjoy it or not enjoy it based strictly on that demographic profile. To me, it was enjoyable. I would have enjoyed at 15, I think, but I'm male.

There's no sex or nudity, but there is a fair amount of swearing.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 7:52am

****MAJOR SPOILER****

Paul Rudd takes his shirt off towards the end.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 7:56am

Oh, ****, I forgot about that. And also --

****MAJOR SPOILER****

Ed Asner has a sex scene with Michael Shannon.

[After Eight]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 9:47am

Ed Asner is wasted on a thankless part that seemed to wander in from some other play.

None of the other three can be considered even faintly charismatic-- at least not here. They all fade into the muddled blur.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 9:55am

Would a 115-year-old man like this play? Are there any lighthearted infidelities, hacky-tacky music, and stale jokes about the gender gap? Thanks in advance.