After Glow - upcoming Chicago production

[markypoo]

Posted: 12/28/18 at 10:53am

Starting previews in March at Pride Films and Plays.
Seeing it on 3/24 at a preview.
The cast is incredibly gorgeous; IMHO.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 12/28/18 at 3:16pm

I found it to be a mediocre play, poorly written. It sells tickets with nudity. It just played in Buffalo and didn't even get a review.

[WldKingdomHM]

Posted: 12/28/18 at 3:34pm

markypoo said: "Starting previews in March at Pride Films and Plays.
Seeing it on 3/24 at a preview.
The cast is incredibly gorgeous; IMHO."

Good for you

[Kad]

Posted: 12/28/18 at 4:41pm

It's an amateurish play with a surprisingly conservative take on relationships that found mild NY success only in appealing to gay men who really wanted to see gratuitous nudity. 

Updated On: 12/28/18 at 04:41 PM

[l0l]

Posted: 12/28/18 at 6:09pm

markypoo said: "The cast is incredibly gorgeous; IMHO."

I question your taste if this is why you see theatre.

IMHO Afterglow was an embarrassment of gratuitous nudity wrapped in a story that was so ignorant of its own privilege and lack of a coherent message. I was sitting there, hoping it would end as soon as possible. There were no redeeming qualities to it. The recent "Daniel's Husband" wasn't as bad, and it was still atrocious. Why write a play about apolitical good-looking affluent white gay men? What good does it do?

We are in desperate need of a queer theatre experience that would encapsulate the intricacies, intersections, and complexities of being gay, trans, gender non-conforming, asexual, bi, lesbian, trans, etc. in the post-gay marriage world of increasing xenophobia and open hostility. Neither "Afterglow" nor "Daniel's Husband" are even remotely interested in being those plays, which is a shame.

[jpbran]

Posted: 12/29/18 at 3:37am

Reminded me of a 90s Bailiwick, etc. (Chicago) production; the nudity was the only saving grace. (Which isnt exactly high praise.).If Pride Plays... is at the (former?) Theater Building on Belmont, itll fit right in.

[perfectliar]

Posted: 12/29/18 at 10:35am

l0l said: "markypoo said: "The cast is incredibly gorgeous; IMHO."

I question your taste if this is why you see theatre.

IMHO Afterglow was an embarrassment of gratuitous nudity wrapped in a story that was so ignorant of its own privilege and lack of a coherent message. I was sitting there, hoping it would end as soon as possible. There were no redeeming qualities to it. The recent "Daniel's Husband" wasn't as bad, and it was still atrocious. Why write a play about apolitical good-looking affluent white gay men? What good does it do?

We are in desperate need of a queer theatre experience that would encapsulate the intricacies, intersections, and complexities of being gay, trans, gender non-conforming, asexual, bi, lesbian, trans, etc. in the post-gay marriage world of increasing xenophobia andopen hostility. Neither "Afterglow" nor "Daniel's Husband" are even remotely interested in being those plays, which is a shame."

Can we stop being mad at what things aren't? Of course those plays weren't those things. They didn't set out to be. There are plays that ARE about those experiences and lives, so why be mad that these two particular plays aren't? What is the point of holding that against After Gkow? It succeeded because people wanted to see naked men, not an exploration of intersectionality. That's like saying you hate Chinese food because it's not pizza.

[Scott19]

Posted: 12/29/18 at 11:02am

perfectliar said: "l0l said: "markypoo said: "The cast is incredibly gorgeous; IMHO."

I question your taste if this is why you see theatre.

IMHO Afterglow was an embarrassment of gratuitous nudity wrapped in a story that was so ignorant of its own privilege and lack of a coherent message. I was sitting there, hoping it would end as soon as possible. There were no redeeming qualities to it. The recent "Daniel's Husband" wasn't as bad, and it was still atrocious. Why write a play about apolitical good-looking affluent white gay men? What good does it do?

We are in desperate need of a queer theatre experience that would encapsulate the intricacies, intersections, and complexities of being gay, trans, gender non-conforming, asexual, bi, lesbian, trans, etc. in the post-gay marriage world of increasing xenophobia andopen hostility. Neither "Afterglow" nor "Daniel's Husband" are even remotely interested in being those plays, whic

Can we stop being mad at what things aren't? Of course those plays weren't those things. They didn't set out to be. There are plays that ARE about those experiences and lives, so why be mad that these two particular plays aren't? What is the point of holding that against After Gkow? It succeeded because people wanted to see naked men, not an exploration of intersectionality. That's like saying you hate Chinese food because it's not pizza."

 

Well said, @perfectliar.

Updated On: 12/29/18 at 11:02 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 12/29/18 at 11:59am

Except After Glow *aspires* to be a play that says something about modern queer relationships and people. When it was clear that it failed in that, it tacked to the easy thirst trap pandering.

[l0l]

Posted: 12/29/18 at 12:28pm

There are plays that ARE about those experiences and lives, so why be mad that these two particular plays aren't? What is the point of holding that against After Gkow? because people wanted to see naked men, not an exploration of intersectionality. That's like saying you hate Chinese food because it's not pizza"

Those plays are nowhere near Broadway, sadly. My complaint is that Broadway and off-Broadway is all atrocious Chinese food, no pizza at all.

Stop throwing money at stupid plays about apolitical affluent white gays!

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 12/29/18 at 1:55pm

Exactly what Kad is saying.

If Afterglow - or any of the plays of its ilk - actually tried to intelligently explore the idea of non-monogamy in homosexual relationships, Id be more willing to give it a pass for pandering to thirsty audiences who wouldnt ordinarily go to the theatre but are easily enticed by the promise of cute, naked men. As it is, that is not the case. At the end of the day, Afterglow is not-so-secretly pro monogamy; a strangely heteronormative perspective given its targeted marketing. It uses its gratuitous nudity as a marketing ploy to hook audiences and then proceeds to unload the playwrights hangups about a failed open relationship as though it were a lot wiser than it is.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 12/29/18 at 2:12pm

The problem with Afterglow is that it was written by a playwright to reflect upon something that happened to him in life, and he then chose to produce and direct himself, so there was no one to say "no", push him, or provide an alternate perspective.

I don't think it is wrong for anyone to be pro monogamy - but heck, the shaming you receive in the gay community these days if you say you want that is ridiculous - but I think the play is just flat out aggressive in how it colors the characters. Some of the nudity in the show worked, but a lot of it just smacked of a trollish creative who wanted to get pretty fellas naked. I would be rather curious to see the exact same plot explored by a more skilled playwright and a director intent on serving the material and not their own biases and thirsts.

As far as the production goes, I respect what the actors and designers did. They managed to do quite a lot with very little. 2/3 of the cast were strong (I'd have loved to see the understudy as the third), and the scenery and lighting designs were attractive and smart, even if the money was not their to support them.

[rg7759]

Posted: 12/29/18 at 2:18pm

enter choir boy. incredible nudity.. that fits PERFECTLY and enhances the story

[JBC3]

Posted: 12/29/18 at 4:22pm

"The gay community" does not exist and certainly does not as a monolithic entity shaming others for choices about monogamy.

Many communities and sub-cultures always exist within any capital C Community.

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 3/30/19 at 11:16pm

Saw the Chicago premiere. Like folks said there are 10+ minutes of hot bodies and about 70+ minutes of soap opera. The characters have been described as a "throuple" but that's usually applied to people who each try to connect to both of their partners. In this the leading man kept his spouse and his side piece apart, then threw tantrums when he couldn't keep both. I'm not sure why he wanted to. He and his husband didn't seem to like each other. All they talk about is work and a baby neither seems to want.

[getupngo]

Posted: 3/31/19 at 9:37am

This show was TRASHHHHH.
if I wasn’t trapped on the far side of the stage I would have walked out 15 minutes in.
By the end most of the audience was laughing at how cheesy and poorly written it was.

Kad and Color are 100% right. It wanted to be some modern exploration of relationships but fails miserably

[getupngo]

Posted: 3/31/19 at 9:40am

broadwayguy2 said “ I don't think it is wrong for anyone to be pro monogamy - but heck, the shaming you receive in the gay community these days if you say you want that is ridiculous”

as someone who only believes in monogamous relationships, 100% this. Lol it’s so sad to me that open relationships are the norm now.

[markypoo]

Posted: 3/31/19 at 11:13am

So, what I took away from it is that the characters are such cardboard cutouts, that I found myself not caring a tad for the way they eventually ended up.

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 3/31/19 at 3:26pm

I thought that this show was gonna be PRO-open relationships, so hearing that it’s pro-monogamy is really weird to me.

Everyone that I know went to see it because they heard about the nudity and reported back “you didn’t miss anything”, “wish I hadn’t spent money on tickets”, etc. which really deterred me from buying tickets.

[YvanEhtNioj]

Posted: 3/31/19 at 7:59pm

I remember seeing this with a bunch of my friends, Many of whom are in open relationships. I liked the minimalism, but the story was very cheesy and one-sided.