I thought people on here were being harsh about it, so I reached out to non-theater people that saw the show and they all said the same thing. Which is a bummer because the subject matter alone had a lot of potential.
My husband and I have been in a similar situation as the one portrayed in the play and we thought the whole thing was very illuminating. It allowed us to have some very hard conversations that ultimately made us stronger.
Yes some of the dialogue was flat and the acting wasn’t great, but we still got a lot out of it.
Also too many people on this board made a big deal of the nudity. It was fine. It was sexy. It was about a highly sexual relationship that then becomes romantic, so I thought it was appropriate.
My husband and I saw it, and while certainly not a great production, we didn't think it as bad as some here have suggested. It's somewhat amateurish and the nudity comes off as a gimmick (relevance to the story notwithstanding), but it brings up some interesting issues. Unfortunately, it doesn't deal with those issues all that well. In the end it felt a bit judgmental and sanctimonious, as stories that deal with polyamory often do.
==> this board is a nest of vipers <==
"Michael Riedel...The Perez Hilton of the New York Theatre scene" - Craig Hepworth, What's On Stage
It's a poorly written play about dull,self-involved men trying to navigate in waters far above their emotional and situational inte!ligence, collectively and individually. The only thing remotely interesting about it was the nudity. The guys were very attractive. I suspect that, rather than content, is why it enjoyed an extended run and will be mounted in the provinces.