"It's Only a Play" Preview Thread- Page 3

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/31/14 at 11:10pm

Welcome to the boards, Jotebry. When you saw the show, did people run to the box office right after the standing ovation to buy tickets to see it again and again?

Then happened when I saw it!!!

[inception]

Posted: 9/1/14 at 2:16am

For serious Namo? Or are you saying he's a shill?

I have two slots still open for my October trip, & I'm starting to think this won't be one of them.

[Jotebry]

Posted: 9/1/14 at 5:32pm

Didn't stick around after the show to check box office activity, Namo, but I can tell you, the buzz I heard leaving the theatre was very positive. Think most of the audience enjoyed the show as much as I did. What's not to like ? Okay, maybe it does run a tad long, and it will be interesting to see later in the run what, if anything gets cut. But I'm not seeing it again till early December, so I may not recognize if anything is cut. Just have to go by the running time.

[Sauja]

Posted: 9/3/14 at 11:52pm

I just got home from this and found it so dreary and so, so long. Channing and Mullally terribly miscast. Only Lane and newcomer Stock made positive impressions. There are some real laughs in there, but it goes nowhere and tries too hard. Meh. Not worth the money.

[qafgenius122]

Posted: 9/4/14 at 1:10am

Student rushed this, got there at almost 11 and still hit a ticket for this past evenings show. G partial view orchestra, though the view ended up being pretty great. I think unfortunately for me, this play suffered from me seeing you can't take it with you this afternoon, which proved to be a much funnier and better crafted show, so I had high expectations for laughs and the cast. The show was enjoyable and at parts, yes, hysterical especially some of Megan Mullallys characters lines, which she definitely delivers in a Karenesque voice. (I nearly pissed myself at one of her act 2 lines where she misquotes a famous song, dead.). In fact I found stockard Channing to be more miscast, though she did grow on me as the play progressed. The other cast members, including a very good unknown til now, Micah stock were good, and I think everyone will get more comfortable as the weeks go on, especially Mr. Broderick who definitely had the most flubs of the night. I appreciated all the insider theatre stuff, almost all if which I got minus a Faye Dunaway line, but that's due in part to my age, being a bit younger. Lane was great, really himself, so he should play it well, but he's a total pro. At times tho all the in stuff was a bit much, too much, like trying really hard to include laundry lists of theatre ppl and jokes. The show was overall very enjoyable, and will sell just fine it's 4 month run, but you can't take it with you takes the American comedy cake IMHO. P.s. For ppl who plan to rush, I hear it's only during previews....

[Jotebry]

Posted: 9/4/14 at 2:45am

Sauja...Just curious...if you think Stockard Channing and Megan Mullally were "terribly miscast" , who do you think would have been better in those roles ? Do agree that the first act could and perhaps should have been shorter.

[mc1227]

Posted: 9/4/14 at 7:09am

I feel Stockard and Megan are perfectly cast and do a wonderful job. I actually feel that the casting for every character is spot on. I saw the play last weekend and really enjoyed it. A bit long, but a bit of tweaking during this preview period will take care of that.

I think the best approach to seeing this play is just take in the performances and enjoy them. The play itself is entertaining but nothing that will stay with you long after you've seen it. I don't think that was McNally's goal with this one. it's always hard to live up to the hype, but I did enjoy it and will see it again after previews.

[Sauja]

Posted: 9/4/14 at 8:49am

Jotebry, that's a good question. I actually think that if Channing and Mullally simply switched roles, they could have had a much better chance of success.

But the problem remains the play. It ran about 2 hours, 40 minutes, and there were about 45 funny minutes and 15 hysterical minutes. But the humor isn't consistent enough, and when it falls away, you're left with material that just doesn't go anywhere.

There's a snarky line in there about audiences only wanting 90 minute plays with no intermissions these days. And I just thought, "Well...THIS would have been much better in that format."

[JBroadway]

Posted: 9/4/14 at 10:05am

I'm surprised people aren't talking much about Rupert Grint's performance! He was the biggest surprise of the night, for me. I thought he did an incredible job in the role, and I had no idea he could do anything like that.

[RoyiG]

Posted: 9/4/14 at 2:24pm

Saw it last night, with no real background knowledge beyond of course familiarity with Terrence McNally's oeuvre and the star-studded cast.

It was certainly an enjoyable evening- there's no way you can watch Nathan Lane pontificate on the state of the American Theater (specifically Broadway) without cracking many a smile. That said, the play itself didn't carry much weight. At it's best moments it was a critique of the nature of Broadway business today and the careful balancing act between creating Good Solid Theater and selling seats, and at worst it was over-packed with many (often meta) jokes that only people QUITE privy to the theater scene world would get. Some of those in-jokes were solid gold, especially when delivered by the very capable actors, but not necessarily enough to distract from the fact that the book didn't seem to have anything consequential to say.

The performances were a lot of fun. Nathan Lane was Nathan Lane, and I'd have it no other way. F Murray Abraham was a gas, clearly having a ton of fun with the character from the second he entered the stage. I don't necessarily think that Megan Mullally and Stockard Channing were miscast, though they were IMHO the weaker players in the ensemble. Ms. Channing particularly seemed a little off to me, a little out of it-- I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt and say it may be chalked up to the direction she's getting in how to portray a washed up diva with ALL of the substance abuse problems, and that the kinks may get ironed out by opening night. The real pleasant surprises of the evening? To me, they were the young'ns in the cast: Rupert Grint and Micah Stock as the unhinged wunderkind director and the fresh faced NYC hopeful, respectively. Grint in particular really impressed with comedic chops I wasn't expecting in creating this very dark, very funny, VERY diva-ish character. And he DEFINITELY had the best costume of the cast.

So, do I think this is a masterpiece of theater? Hardly; it doesn't work hard enough to produce any insights into the Broadway world that are particularly salient or new, and many of the laughs are too reliant on the zeitgeist of today to stand the test of time in, say, twenty years (seriously- there was a Kardashian Sister joke). But if you're looking for a love-hate letter to the 'biz' by some great players with some truly hysterical moments, you could do much worse. Up to you. It's only a play

[After Eight]

Posted: 9/5/14 at 1:01am

Appallingly bad. Embarrassingly bad. An endless procession of forced, lame, stupid "jokes," a mind-numbing number of which involve name-dropping or "in" references. Forget about credibility with respect to either plot or characters. Forget about anything in the way of wit or humor either.

Nathan Lane acquits himself honorably in these dire circumstances, but the others sink like stones in the morass.

[Jotebry]

Posted: 9/5/14 at 1:30am

Wow, "After Eight", doesn't sound like you were in the mood for a high octane comedy that borders on farce. Did you not read or hear any of the pre-show publicity about what this updated comedy was about ? Never read such an idiotic, one-sided review that totally missed the boat as yours did. The six actors other than Nathan Lane all "sank like stones in the morass ?" Whew, hope you're feeling better soon.

[mjohnson2]

Posted: 9/5/14 at 2:54am

Jotebry, having read a copy of the script. I can tell you that this play is certainly not farce. BOEING BOEING is a farce. HOTEL PARADISO is a farce. A FLEA IN HER EAR is a farce. LEND ME A TENOR is a farce. ONE MAN, TWO GUVNORS could even be considered a farce, but IT'S ONLY A PLAY is not a farce.

[Jotebry]

Posted: 9/5/14 at 3:00am

And, that's why I called it a high octane comedy that borders on farce. I don't think it's a farce either, but I do think there are moments when it almost crosses the border. lol How ever one classifies it, I think it is Very funny.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 9/5/14 at 5:39am

After Eight hates everything that has opened in the last 30 years.

That being said, how can you tell someone their OPINION is wrong? You can disagree with it, but an opinion can't be wrong.

[After Eight]

Posted: 9/5/14 at 7:35am

"Wow, "After Eight", doesn't sound like you were in the mood for a high octane comedy that borders on farce. "

On the contrary, I'm always in the mood for a high octane comedy that borders on farce.

Unfortunately, this thing had an empty gas tank and moved accordingly.

Aside from the woefully unfunny "jokes," the play's monumental stupidity is what truly appalled.. What an insult to the audience's intelligence.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/5/14 at 8:10am

I was there last night and It's Only a Play reminded me of what Hunter worried about during [tos]: that his play would be doughnuts for dinner. McNally's play is most definitely "doughnuts for dinner," but you couldn't ask for better doughnuts going down.

I was struck by the similarities to [tos], a show I dearly love, but where that piece had a big old heart, loveable characters and a forward-moving plot, It's Only a Play is simply seven people standing around a room, joking and bitching about theater.

That's not to say the jokes aren't funny, because many of them are gut-busting. I would be lying if I didn't say I was laughing almost continuously for the entire 2 hour and 40 minute runtime. Every line Nathan Lane uttered was golden. He truly is one of the funniest actors I've ever had the pleasure of seeing on stage. Stuff like, "I thought the play was lousy, but what do I know? I liked the Addams Family!" had me cracking up.

I also thought Stockard Channing was wonderful, especially in the second act. (It was nice to see the little trio of Good Wife recurring characters in Lane, Channing and F. Murray Abraham; I spotted Graham Phillips in the audience too.)

Broderick may have been the weakest link, but his performance here was stronger than in Nice Work, The Starry Messenger or The Philanthropist. He has a howler of a line directed to Abraham that I won't spoil, but I was dying.

The set is beautiful and the costumes are nice too.

It's not a masterpiece of great writing, and I would suffer greatly without the talents of Lane, but if its goal was to make me laugh it more than succeeded.

[Jotebry]

Posted: 9/5/14 at 4:37pm

dramamama611...I didn't say anyone's opinion was wrong. After seeing It's Only a Play, I merely gave my opinion of their opinion, pointing out that in my opinion their opinion unfairly trashed and totally dismissed a lot of talented people's excellent work. I'm a firm believer that everyone is entitled to their own ridiculous opinion. Me included. lol.

[Tom5]

Posted: 9/5/14 at 5:38pm

As I posted before the previews began I was very much looking forward to seeing "You Can't Take It With You", (smart) but not "It's Only A Play" because despite its great cast (With Nathan Lane and F. Murray Abraham you're talking the best) I knew from the original the humor was largely based on inside jokes and name droppings and to me that's third class humor. I was also afraid Justin Bieber's name would somehow come up since he's so trendy. According to a prior post it was worse than that. It was Kim Kardashian! (Sorry if I mis-spelled her name. I don't want to look it up because I have have poor virus protection on my laptop.) Anyway, it must have been very inorganic
material (another poster) and not only to the story but to me and my life and I will definitely be missing it. But will shortly be seeing "...Take It With You" with another large great cast which I am very much looking forward to.

[Jotebry]

Posted: 9/5/14 at 9:25pm

Seems a shame to write off an updated revival because someone remembers the original's humor being "largely based on inside jokes and name dropping." Having seen the revival's third preview, I assure you that inside jokes and name dropping are only a small part of the revival's humor. What has gone unmentioned in the thread so far is the wonderful heart and soul of the play, which in my opinion Mr. McNally has strengthened quite a bit from the original. Won't spoil anything by getting into specifics.

[rjm516]

Posted: 9/5/14 at 10:45pm

I saw it Wednesday. It is not a good show! I had a decent time, but that was mostly because of the Gus character. I'm obsessed! He was so funny. I was bored when he wasn't onstage, especially during Broderick's unbelievably long speeches. Oh man. His monologues and Rupert's puppet breakdown were actually embarrassing. I got all the inside jokes but that didn't make the show funny (except for when Gus botched Tovah Feldshuh's name. That was amazing, but I freaking cackled and no one else around me got it).

[mc1227]

Posted: 9/5/14 at 11:16pm

Disappointed to hear that the puppet schtick is still in there. I felt that would have been the first thing to get cut. I was also hoping the monologues by Broderick's character would also be shortened. It affects the pacing of the show. A writer of the caliber of McNally should be able to recognize that if the audience can.

I don't feel these moments are embarrassing (well, maybe the puppet thing is) but I don't feel they help the overall play. The main character of Peter can provide the underlying message without a long winded speech especially when every character around him is being given one liner jokes. just doesn't flow but I did enjoy the play overall.

[LightsOut90]

Posted: 9/6/14 at 12:12am

dear Jotebry please go shill elsewhere, its sad
-signed everybody here

[mjohnson2]

Posted: 9/6/14 at 12:27am

I was extremely apprehensive about seeing this show because I was disappointed in the original (1980's) script and hate Matthew Broderick with a passion, but I went because I already had tickets, and I can honestly say that I ate my words because this show...was even worse than I imagined it would be. Seeing Nathan Lane is always a treat and he is decent in this play, but I long for the days when he used to appear in good shows. The rest of the cast is entirely flat and miscast, with surprisingly unattractive production values. However, what really made this show so bad was the script. Unimpressive in its original writing, it was badly rewritten to be more "timely", but just ends up being irritating.Terrence McNally has never been a believable playwright, and has gotten worse with time, but I've always considered him at least semi-skilled in writing dialogue. Not in this show; not sure if it was the direction or the script, but every single joke falls flat on its face. I don't think I laughed once during the whole show (knowing the context of the inside jokes did not make them any more funny), and I had to keep reminding myself that this cast is normally very talented, though by the end of the show, I wasn't so sure they were!

Updated On: 9/6/14 at 12:27 AM

[Jotebry]

Posted: 9/6/14 at 12:38am

Okay...I'm done saying good things about this show that I truly enjoyed. Let the hate fest continue. And, for the record, I'm not a shill as I have no connection to the show and certainly received nothing from anyone for expressing my opinions. Can't help but wonder if some of the haters are themselves...shills against the show.