I saw this show about a week ago and found it mostly boring, the play has a lot of nudity in the very beginning but not really for the rest of the show (I don't think there was any after intermission). There is a bed in the middle of the space that pulls apart and transforms into a working shower. As mentioned above, It is a really tiny space and you feel very close to the performance so if you get uncomfortable with nudity this is not the show for you. The evening felt quite long and there was one scene on top of a roof that felt endless. It isn't one of the worst shows I have seen lately so if you can get a ticket then sure go ahead but don't go in with high expectations.
Luscious said: "I'm seeing it Friday night. I'll let you know."
Please do share your thoughts after. I've read several relatively obscure reviews and they weren't particularly flattering, but I often disagree with critics.
=========> this board is a nest of vipers <=========
"Michael Riedel...The Perez Hilton of the New York Theatre scene" - Craig Hepworth, What's On Stage
Endless. Idiotic. Some of the most clichéd writing and acting I've seen in years. The naked guys look OK naked, but, contrary to the marketing, only about 1% of the show is nude. We found the simulated semi-sex (really nothing more than some naked crotch-to-crotch smooching) to be ridiculous and unintentionally slightly comic (as most simulated stage sex is).
The actors are all three lily-white, slim, and relatively smooth. None of them behave or talk like an actual human being (probably more the fault of the writer who is also the director, and, I suspect, possessing much more in the way of family funds than talent or ability). They all mistake long pauses, exaggerated facial expressions, and gesticulation for acting (all three, according to bios, seem to have much more musical theatre experience than straight plays). The entire affair is solemn, plodding, humorless, and with a surprisingly bourgeois/suburban attitude towards polyandry.
It's strictly Davenport fare - that is to say, it feels like an amateur showcase funded by the artists' families (which it may be - the producer is one "Midnight Theatricals," an anonymous organization that seems to have sprung up just to mount this thing.
My boyfriend and I saw this last night. Yes, the acting is bad. Sometimes terrible. Yes, the writing can get very cliché. However we walked away really enjoying it.
It was a relatable story for both of us. We’re in a somewhat similar situation in our lives and it was surreal to watch it play out on stage. It lead to a three hour post-show discussion between the two of us that became quite heated.
We didn’t go in for the nudity, but rather the subject matter, so that may be why we enjoyed it more than others.
A fair amount of dick and ass, and lots of talk about relationships, none of it very revealing, and an omnipresent shower, used to little purpose dramatically. Reminded me of the early 70s, when there was a spate of gay-related plays off-Broadway, where the main event was getting some guy's pants off (best, or worst example was AND PUPPY DOGS TAILS with porn star Casey Donovan).
The highlight (?) arrived late in act two when one one of the actors, in the throes of anger (not sexual passion, which is sadly missing) smashed a box against the theatre wall, and broke a lightbulb, whose pieces went flying into the audience. A lawsuit waiting to happen...
I saw it on Sat and rather enjoyed it. I went in expecting the worst and was pleasantly surprised.
No, it's not going to be winning a Pulitzer Prize anytime soon, and no the actors aren't going to be the next George C Scott, but it held my interest and moved along at a nice clip. I loved the set design and how they used the space. It really made for a fluid evening.
If you can get a discount ticket I would say "Go for it."
Alfie6 said: "I saw this show about a week ago and found it mostly boring, the play has a lot of nudity in the very beginning but not really for the rest of the show (I don't think there was any after intermission). There is a bed in the middle of the space that pulls apart and transforms into a working shower. As mentioned above,It is a really tiny space and you feel very close to the performance so if you get uncomfortable with nudity this is not the show for you.The evening felt quite long and there was one scene on top of a roof that felt endless. It isn't one of the worst shows I have seen lately so if you can get a ticket then sure go ahead but don't go in with high expectations."
(Afterglow plays at The Loft at the Davenport Theatre, 354 West 45th Street, through November 19, 2017. Running time was originally 2 hours 15 minutes, with one intermission. Running time is now 90 minutes, no intermission. Performances are Mondays through Wednesdays at 7:30; Thursdays and Fridays at 8; Saturdays at 2 and 8. Tickets are $66.50; $86.50 premium, and are available on telecharge.com. For more information visit afterglowtheplay.com.)
It's certainly not a great show, but I didn't think it dreadful either. My primary complaint was that the actor playing the interloper lacked the magnetism necessary to believe he could endanger the relationship of the other two. The story would've been more plausible to me if he had played the one left behind.
=========> this board is a nest of vipers <=========
"Michael Riedel...The Perez Hilton of the New York Theatre scene" - Craig Hepworth, What's On Stage
joined:5/27/03
joined:
5/27/03
Posted: 6/21/17 at 2:58pm