BETRAYAL Begins Previews Tonight- Page 4

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 10/4/13 at 5:01pm

So anyway, how's the play? I love Pinter and Betrayal in particular. It's not for everyone though, so I'm curious to hear more reactions.

BTW, I saw the last Broadway revival with Juliette Binoche, who I think did about three different accents throughout her performance.

[suestorm]

Posted: 10/4/13 at 5:08pm

""All you need (or needed) to do is use the ignore feature.

One doesn't need a doctorate to figure that out.""

AFTEREIGHT. the ignore button is myth, those who cried and whined for it dont even use it.

[curtain_call]

Posted: 10/4/13 at 5:08pm

Yes, that's what I'm looking for....some more reactions to the play. Anyone else seen it?

[After Eight]

Posted: 10/5/13 at 12:16am

Curtain call,

My response to you is also addressed to other posters in other threads who behave just as you have here.

Two people have provided you and BWW with their opinions of Betrayal. This is apparently not enough for you, so you keep asking for more.

Did it never occur to you that perhaps no one else here has yet seen the play, which makes the possibility of any more opinions at this time impossible? An impossibility that will not change whether you ask ten times, eleven times, or 111 times.

If others go to future performances of the play, and they feel inclined to post their opinions, they will. In the meantime, please stop pestering people for opinions that they are unable to give.

Suestorm,

I have used the ignore feature from the day it was implemented, with 16 going on 17 names on it as of now... and it's wonderful! I can't recommend it enough to the members of BWW.


Updated On: 10/5/13 at 12:16 AM

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/5/13 at 2:08am

Yes! Keep blocking everyone who calls you out when you're being a pompous ass, until the only person you haven't blocked is yourself! Wonderful!

[PlayItAgain]

Posted: 10/5/13 at 2:29am

ANYWAYS!

saw it tonight, kind of a mess, certainly didnt help that they had a scene change malfunction RIGHT after the Italy scene but it just felt middle of the road, Rafe is the star hands down and sadly Mr Nichols wont be taking home another directing TONY, I've always hated reverse plays or shows that show you the end first and while this had sparks of genius the show ultimate is like, well who cares, has anyone ever attempted to do this show chronologically?. Also, no merch, and the stagedoor situation, Rafe & Daniel only sign a few on either side and Rachel almost b-lined for the car but at the last second came over and signed a few playbills, also I guess we caught Mike on a good night as i got a photo with him (crazy)

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 10/5/13 at 8:38am

Curtain Call, you go right ahead prompting for new reviews. Maybe it'll remind people what this thread's actual intent. You know, instead of the usual mind-numbing back and forth which inevitably ends in personal barbs which might cause people not to even bother posting in fear it might be lost in the rubbish.

[After Eight]

Posted: 10/5/13 at 8:51am

^

Thank you so much for this review. It's gven us so much further insight into Betrayal, this thread's actual intent.

[dave1606]

Posted: 10/6/13 at 12:21am

Going to join one of the few people in this crazy thread who has actually SEEN this play. the bottom line is SAVE your money folks.

The play just doesn't seem to have much there. Maybe I am not a Pinter person, but I did enjoy the No Man's Land Revival I saw in London 5 years ago but this seemed so one note and simplistic. They had an affair, everyone knows they had an affair, and the play ends.

What's more, this play would run barely an hour if they cut all the unnecessarily long scene changes. I couldn't help but feel cheated given the ticket prices.

Rafe Spall certainly comes out the best of the bunch and Rachel Weiz certainly does a decent job with her part (and looks AMAZING in some of her dresses) but nothing here is Tony worthy or even worth mentioning. Craig as others have said has very little to do.

I kept thinking the entire time, where is the spark I saw onstage with the Virgina Woolf revival last year?

There is no fire here. There was/is an affair, and no one cares, not the least of the two people actually having the affair, and neither do the audience. By the end of the first scene the audience was so put to sleep they even failed to realize that Daniel Craig had made his entrance. A dud on all accounts.

[wonkit]

Posted: 10/6/13 at 11:08am

Sorry to hear that you didn't like it, dave1606. Pinter cannot be compared to Albee, though. Albee is a master of the extended suffering school of playwriting. WHO's AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF is about an hour too long, and I always wonder why someone doesn't just leave the damn house to get away from the interpersonal terror. And this from me, someone who thinks the play can be a devastating experience in the right hands (like last year's revival on Broadway). But Pinter requires you to pay attention to what people don't say, and how they lie to each other and to themselves. The plot is almost secondary to him because he is interested in how people avoid or cover up their mistakes. You have to believe that the three characters in BETRAYAL actually care deeply about each other as friends/spouses/lovers, and then see why they speak to each other as they do. I am seeing this at the end of the month, and if it has the same effect on me that HOMECOMING did, I will get a second mortgage and try to see it more than once.

[jaxandmci]

Posted: 10/7/13 at 11:48am

I saw the matinee on Saturday and backwards, forwards and sideways, I felt more betrayed than any of the characters in this slight and incredibly dull show. Not since Orphans have I seen anything this disappointing. From my front row seat, the painfully slow and repetitive set changes were the most interesting aspect of the afternoon and the waiter, with his four or five lines, was the warmest and most sympathetic character. The others were a trio of narcissists void of any shame, regret, or concern for what they were doing to those they professed to love. We were not provided any motivation for any of their actions, nor any reason for their complete lack of conscience. They weren’t bothered by the fact they were cheating on their spouses and being cheated on, and they seemed amused by the fact their friends all knew and didn’t care. So why should we, as the audience, care about any of them and their cheating either?

I went into this not knowing anything other than the synopsis but was expecting an emotional rollercoaster about friendships and marriages in chaos. By twenty minutes in, I swore it was supposed to be a comedy given the audience’s frequent outbursts of laughter—primarily at Spall’s bombastic delivery of his lines. Yes, he had the showiest part and was on stage far longer than Craig or Weisz, but I found his character to be the most pathetic of the three. With Jerry’s repeated nose picking (in the restaurant scene nevertheless) and his Most Disgusting Use of A Table Linen (quickly jamming a linen napkin down his pants to clean himself off following Weisz’s dismount in the fully clothed sex scene), I almost wondered what someone like Emma saw in an immature jerk like him—until I realized I didn’t really care. Didn’t care about any of them or what was going to happen to them (or more accurately, what had happened to them). And, in the end, nothing happened anyway.

When the ninth and final scene abruptly ended (by the third scene I had begun counting them down), I wondered what the point of all of it was. Seemed like an easy way for a couple of names to sell out a house for 14 weeks and make a ton of money (prior to any reviews being posted) while only having to work an hour or so a day (two on two show days). Good for them. Winger and LuPone should have been so lucky. The cast received a mostly standing ovation—which made me think about a previous poster’s comment concerning what he would pay to watch Rachel Weisz do onstage.

On a positive note, I saw A Time To Kill that evening and felt it superior--maybe because of what was fresh in my mind to compare it to.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/14/13 at 11:23pm

So I saw the show tonight and was pretty much entirely unenthused by it. Can we finally get a production with these big stars that's not an uninspired, earthbound, forgettable one? I mean, Spall, Weisz, and Craig are each very talented performers with highly-respectable careers and this was the play and production they decided to make a splash on Broadway with...? The whole thing is a 90-minute shoulder-shrug of a production that didn't make much of an impression on me at all.

To be entirely fair, I'm not a fan of this play. These characters act so non-chalantly about a situation that is so full of drama, tension, and fireworks that you'd think they were discussing where to go for dinner. It just all seems so superficial and untrue to me. I also don't really understand the gimmick of telling the story in reverse. We don't really learn much about these characters or their relationships that way and it doesn't reveal any layers to the story that telling it chronologically wouldn't.

Issues with the play aside, this is a pretty bland production. Each actor is fine, but I never really cared about any of their relationships or even their motivations. Their chemistry is all off even though they each give perfectly respectable individual portrayals. The sets and lighting are lovely. Nichols seems to be playing this production for a lot of laughs; a bit too much so. The whole thing is surprisingly short on passion.

There was no standing ovation tonight. While walking out, most people seemed to be discussing the same indifference I felt. I see FUN HOME tomorrow and DOMESTICATED on Wednesday, and I'm hoping those put some pep in my theatergoing season, which so far has mostly been a snoozefest. Updated On: 10/15/13 at 11:23 PM

[Addison D.]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 1:41pm

"The others were a trio of narcissists void of any shame, regret, or concern for what they were doing to those they professed to love. We were not provided any motivation for any of their actions, nor any reason for their complete lack of conscience. They weren’t bothered by the fact they were cheating on their spouses and being cheated on, and they seemed amused by the fact their friends all knew and didn’t care. So why should we, as the audience, care about any of them and their cheating either?"

I saw 'Betrayal' last night, and ^^^ this was almost verbatim the verdict of my companion. I am mystified by the premise that characters must behave in a particular--morally upstanding, ethical, conscientious, etc.--manner in order for us to find their actions or their stories to be worthy of our attention.

Isn't it precisely their flawed humanity that makes them compelling? Not to mention the fact that you bought tickets to a show called "Betrayal". Did you not expect that there would be--you know--BETRAYAL involved??? For me, a great deal of the dramatic and narrative interest comes from seeing the many ways that these characters betray each other,their off-stage families and colleagues and--ultimately-- themselves and their own best interests.

As to the reverse chronology of the narrative: I agree that it can be a gimmick. Done well, however, (as I think it is here) I find it adds a powerful poignancy and emotional impact as the show proceeds. It doesn't rip your heart out like it does in 'Merrily We Roll Along', but it does force the audience to see the early, "innocent" scenes in a very different light--our foreknowledge colors the way we interpret the character's early actions, and puts us in the position of knowing more about the characters and situations than they do themselves.

HAVING SAID ALL THAT--I can't say that I found this production as satisfying as others I have seen. I confess that I even found the film more compelling. I wonder if--as was suggested earlier--the physical distance of being in the rear mezzanine contributed to an emotional distance. Or maybe the emotional connection just wasn't there, regardless of proximity.

For the record: I don't think I've ever seen a Daniel Craig film.

Updated On: 10/19/13 at 01:41 PM

[jwsel]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 4:12pm

I just want to thank the posters in the thread. My mom and I had tickets for Betrayal for the final night of our trip to New York. Having seen such great shows -- Pippin, Glass Menagerie, and Norma at the Met -- we did not want our final show to be a let-down. So after reading the unenthusiastic reviews here, we sold our tickets to someone in the cancellation line and went to see Twelfth Night instead. I couldn't be happier with that decision.

[Copperfield2]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 8:32pm

I love the movie of Betrayal and also saw a wonderful production of the play at the Donmar Warehouse with Samuel West and Toby Stephens a few years ago. So I don't think Betrayal has to be boring or dull at all. With these competent actors maybe Mike Nichols is to blame here? He did manage to make The Country Girl one of the most soporific shows I've seen on Broadway.

[Addison D.]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 9:49pm

I just re-read an early article about the show from the NYT, by Maureen Dowd. (I generally like Dowd as an opinion columnist, but she's a hopeless star-f***ker whenever she does this kind of thing, and the piece is only marginally about 'Betrayal'--she's obviously made giddy by the star-power of Craig & Weisz.) Dowd reports that the stated goal of the actors and the director is to "mine the humor and raw emotion, and to be, as Mr. Craig puts it, “more animal.”

Craig says: “If it’s three very privileged, intelligent people standing around talking very cleverly and wittily at each other,” he concludes, “it’s a play I really don’t want to go see.”

Frankly, I thought this was the most blood-less production of the show I've seen. You can see that Craig is kind of trying for "animal" in some of his line delivery, but it just falls flat.

If "animal" was their self-defined goal, I'd have to say the show fails. Director? Actors? I'm going to go ahead and blame them equally.





Link to NYT article

Updated On: 10/19/13 at 09:49 PM