Curious to see the response to this- I thought it was dreadfully unfunny, but I feel like I might be in the minority there.
I am a firm believer in serendipity- all the random pieces coming together in one wonderful moment, when suddenly you see what their purpose was all along.
I feel like this gets asked pretty often, but the NYT review lists the show as closing on September 3 at the bottom of the piece. Is this true, or is that just the latest they're selling tickets until?
BroadwayConcierge said: "I feel like this gets asked pretty often, but the NYT review lists the show as closing on September 3 at the bottom of the piece. Is this true, or is that just the latest they're selling tickets until?
"
I suppose it depends on how well the show sells during the summer. If they keep packing the house, I would assume they'll extend it.
On the other hand, it could also be due to the cast themselves, all from the London version. Did they only sign on till Sept? Will they extend? Do they intend to replace the cast if/when they move on?
Brantley's review felt like it was damning the show with faint praise- especially that closing line. Surprising, since he gave it a very good review in London and I expected his remarks here to echo those.
I am a firm believer in serendipity- all the random pieces coming together in one wonderful moment, when suddenly you see what their purpose was all along.
Am I the only one who read Joe Dziemianowicz's review and think that.....he kinda missed the point of the show? As in, the point of why the actors did what they did on stage?
Dane F said: "Am I the only one who read Joe Dziemianowicz's review and think that.....he kinda missed the point of the show? As in, the point of why the actors did what they did on stage?"
Totally agreed, Dane. He talked about a certain scene "straining" as if this was gripping drama. Moreover, he was straight-up wrong about that particular scene being "illogical." The reason they're holding the painting on the wall (and all the other props) is because they're desperately trying to maintain that they can keep the show together in front of the audience. That's...what the entire show is about.
BroadwayConcierge said: "Dane F said: "Am I the only one who read Joe Dziemianowicz's review and think that.....he kinda missed the point of the show? As in, the point of why the actors did what they did on stage?"
Totally agreed, Dane. He talked about a certain scene "straining" as if this was gripping drama. Moreover, he was straight-up wrong about that particular scene being "illogical." The reason they're holding the painting on the wall (and all the other props) is because they're desperately trying to maintain that they can keep the show together in front of the audience. That's...what the entire show is about.
"
Couldn't have said it better. Literally, the cast is portraying stuffy, pompous, serious actors who are trying desperately to keep their "serious show" together. Hence why they try to hold up the painting rather then put it down to answer the phone.
I get that critics are entitled to their opinions, but here, ole Joe kinda missed the mark.
I saw the show in London and had a good time, but whenever I read the reviews and articles, I always feel so bad for David McGillivray and Walter Zerlin Jr., authors of The Farndale Avenue Housing Estate Townswomen's Guild Dramatic Society Murder Mystery and subsequent Farnsdale shows. I'll never understand how this company got away with so blatantly ripping off not only the concept and setting of the first Farnsdale show (even the same use of curtain speech), but nearly all of its gags are from the Farnsdale franchise. I went in not knowing what The Play That Goes Wrong would be like and unfortunately, I'd seen several Farnsdale shows before, so it really tainted my experience. I wish one of the papers would write an article on that.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian