I saw this on Friday and thought Stockard was outstanding. I'm mad she isn't on Broadway to garner a Tony Nomination for her performance!
The play itself is a bit of the run of the mill family drama, but it is very funny, especially the dinner in Act 1. I loved the layered dialogue with the older man talking about mushy peas!
I thought Hugh Dancy did a nice job with his two characters, and the overall ensemble was solid. But again, its a juicy part for Stockard and she digs right in!
If you're seeing this for Stockard Channing, you won't be disappointed but the play itself isn't too great. It is a run of the mill "family gathers, secrets revealed" play that really amounts to nothing. Nothing is very surprising, and at the end, all of the drama felt unearned. It could be 90 minutes but it runs 2:20.
The set and lighting are great.
A little swash, a bit of buckle - you'll love it more than bread.
Channing is the reason to see the show -- she's commanding and captivating, as usual. Dancy also turns in a good performance. I found the play itself questionable, particularly in that it seems to suggest that the main character's dedication to her career and her activism was a vice. It seemed kind of dated and misogynist, since I can't imagine the same set of situations being written as a play about a male protagonist.
LarryD2 said: "Channing is the reason to see the show -- she's commanding and captivating, as usual. Dancy also turns in a good performance. I found the play itself questionable, particularly in that it seems to suggest that the main character's dedication to her career and her activism was a vice. It seemed kind of dated and misogynist, since I can't imagine the same set of situations being written as a play about a male protagonist."
Great point. The whole thing seems to say that you have to sacrifice your family and children to be successful as a woman. You cannot have it all.
A little swash, a bit of buckle - you'll love it more than bread.
I’m not sure that’s 100% true. I think it’s a choice she made, or rather it’s who she is. She just preferred her work life to family life. It could have been about a man, but then it wouldn’t exactly be newsworthy.
jbird5 said: "I’m not sure that’s 100% true. I think it’s a choice she made, or rather it’s who she is. She just preferred her work life to family life. It could have been about a man, but then it wouldn’t exactly be newsworthy."
I don't know
Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content
when Trudi says that the reason the sons weren't mention in the memoir is that it was too tough for Kristin to write about them, that makes me think that she felt she had to choose career or family.
A little swash, a bit of buckle - you'll love it more than bread.
"You can not have it all. You can not have it all. And this notion that you can have it all, you can't have it all. I've had a wonderful life, I've had a wonderful time, but I haven't had it all. Do what you do best. People say I've had it all but they don't see that they have 5 children while I haven't. I knew at an early age that it I was going to devote myself to the theatre, to a business, I had to be one tract. Most people don't see that. They think they can have both. I don't think you can. I don't think you can. At least I can't. I haven't got it by nature- at all. I mean if I had an opening night and the children had the measles, I would want to strangle the children, I would." Katharine Hepburn
joined:6/13/04
joined:
6/13/04
Posted: 9/28/18 at 1:57pm