The Inheritance - Previews- Page 11

[RunningThatRoad]

Posted: 11/9/19 at 11:23am

clever2 said: "
<snip>

Come to think of it....and please let me know if I’m misremembering this....isn’t Adam the only character who ever directly involvesthe audience?

<snip>
Are there any other moments like that in the play? From Adam or anyone? It seems very odd to have an actor essentially break character for two bits in one scene and another actor break character for one bit much much much later in the play. Should a choice like that be more reoccurring, as in should it be a committed part of the vision rather than just a couple larks?

Again, if there are more and I’m not remembering, please let me know
"

One such moment that I remember comes from Toby on his first appearance in Part 2. I can’t remember the exact line, but he says something along the lines of, “And now back to Toby, whom I know you’ve all been waiting for”. That’s not the even close to the exact line, but I do remember that Toby implicitly acknowledges the audience and that they are watching him.

However, I think that in some way, it makes the most dramatic sense for Adam/Leo to be the only one to acknowledge the audience, as he is

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

revealed at the end of Part 2 to be the author of the fictionalized novel we have just seen. 

I’m a little surprised that we haven’t seen more discussion of the end of Part 2, as it re-frames the whole show in a different light and, I thought, tied up some of its themes about story, history, and community rather interestingly. At the same time, I think the way its written and directed may obscure what actually is happening, as the folks I saw it with did not have the same read that I did. My understanding is

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

that the entire play, up to and including the point where Eric and Leo’s deaths are described, is the novel “The Inheritance” that Adam/Leo has been writing. It’s based on Adam/Leo’s life, but it has been fictionalized and mapped on to Howards End. This is why there is so much third person narration and why, as someone said above, it feels at times like we are watching a novel rather than a play. Once Eric & Leo’s deaths are described, the play breaks out into “real” life and Adam/Leo is arriving at Eric’s 40th birthday with a draft of the novel, which we have just seen. (Note that from this moment forward, there is no more third person narration; we are now in the “real world”.) We are told that Toby’s name hasn’t been changed, but “Henry”’s name has been left out of the book, and Adam/Leo has substituted “Henry Wilcox” from Howards End instead. Henry and Eric are in real life still married, so we are not to believe all of what we have been told up to that point in the novel part of the show. Rather, the theme of the show all along has been how stories that are passed down or inherited are what create and sustain a community, and how difficult it is to be the author of your own story when that chain is disrupted (through the closet in Forster’s case and the toll of AIDS in the case of the Boomer generation). Through the novel we have just watched Adam/Leo has tried to merge his contemporary world with Forster’s and continue the chain.

I found this ending super interesting, and dramatically satisfying, but it left me with many questions about the story itself. How much was “real” and how much was fictionalized? Who was the author of the novel in the end, Adam or Leo, or are Adam and Leo a fictionalized splitting of the same person in the “real” world? (Unfortunately I wasn’t paying close enough attention to the dialogue to hear if the author is referred to by name. I suspect he’s Leo, but I find it much more interesting if he’s both Adam and Leo.)

I would love to hear other folks’ thoughts about the ending; I think there’s a lot to dig up there. 

[KingGeorgeIII]

Posted: 11/9/19 at 1:10pm

Auggie27, 

This is, arguably, the most important passage in Howards End:

"[Margaret] would only point out the salvation that was latent in [Henry's] own soul, and in the soul of every man. Only connect! That was the whole of her sermon. Only connect the prose and the passion, and both will be exalted, and human love will be seen at its height. Live in fragments no longer. Only connect and the beast and the monk, robbed of the isolation that is life to either, will die.

"Nor was the message difficult to give. It need not take the form of a good "talking." By quiet indications the bridge would be built and span their lives with beauty.

"But she failed. For there was one quality in Henry for which she was never prepared, however much she reminded herself of it: his obtuseness. He simply did not notice things, and there was no more to be said."

Forster's gorgeous writing helps readers understand why Margaret is so taken with Henry, and why their romance is destined to be short-lived. It also illuminates the inherent conflict in a modern, industrialized society between the need to prosaically keep the economy churning, while also offering more opportunity than ever before to engage in leisure, art, and culture. And Leonard and Jackie are there to remind readers that Margaret and Henry's fabulous lives only exist because of the suffering underclass. Margaret's well-intentioned, though failed efforts to help Leonard are another reason why she's so interesting.

There is nothing in Eric's characterization that comes close to this. Eric's interest in the art and culture of New York City is turned into a joke (New York City is a great place to waste your time and still maintain your dignity, he says to Henry in Part 1, Act 3) For Margaret, her love of the "poetry" of life is what makes her such a compelling character, especially in contrast to Henry. 

We are told, not shown, that Eric has a special ability to connect generations of gay men. But he seems to do this in the least interesting, most basic of ways. Like, just because you can identify tragic figures of gay history, does not give you this special, almost mystical ability to commune with older gay men.

I should probably see part 2 before I say anything more (I also read the script), but one of the reasons this play was less compelling for me than it could have been is because Eric falls so flat compared to his counterpart in Howards End (and compared to Toby and Walter).

Updated On: 11/9/19 at 01:10 PM

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 11/9/19 at 5:53pm

Finished part one and I'm understanding the polarized opinions on this board.

Pros
I like the ideas it wants to discuss.
The fact that younger LGBTQ+ aren't being taught the plays, films, shows and stories that folks have mentioned on this board. That they aren't being taught their history, and in fact many are encouraged to forget it.

I really like two of the cast members. Andrew Burnap's Toby Darling and Paul Hilton's dual roles.

And yes, part one's finale got me as much as it did when I saw it in Longtime Companion. That is not a snub.

Cons

I'm not invested in the romances. It's not a deal breaker, but the plays this is being compared to had relationships I cared about as much as the ideas.

Samuel Levine's deadpan isn't working for me. He's got juicy monologues and a chance to flaunt his bod but he's just, kind of, there. There's nothing there for Burnap's character to hold on to which makes that romance hard to invest in.

I'm a fan of John Benjamin Hickey's other work, and I know his role here is an important figure in Forster's novel. But part one gives him absolutely nothing to work with. He has no relationship to play with his love interests or one note sons.

I'm fine with the cast stopping each act to debate philosophy and culture. But the comedy isn't landing. The ensemble players are green and tend to shout their lines. The "camp" one is excruciatingly unpleasant. Burnap's is acting circles around him with a surer grasp of camp style.

Seeing part two shortly.
 

Updated On: 11/9/19 at 05:53 PM

[clever2]

Posted: 11/9/19 at 6:41pm

MrsSallyAdams said: "Finished part one and I'm understanding the polarized opinions on this board.

Samuel Levine's deadpan isn't working for me. He's got juicy monologues and a chance to flaunt his bod but he's just, kind of there. 

Seeing part two shortly."

Samuel Levine’s Adam is a weird, weak performance. Maybe there's something stylized about it that I'm not in on. His Leo is pretty good though. Nothing extraordinary but a definite improvement. You’ll see much more of that character in part two. This isn’t much of a spoiler but Adam disappears from The Inheritance after part one. Save for a couple cameos, he just goes away and that character amounts to nothing. Smart dramaturgy could remove him from the play entirely.

John Benjamin Hickey isn't give much to work with. He shines in a brunch scene that turns into another political debate.

Andrew Burnap is coming for you in part two. That is his show and he is magnificent. whatever you end up thinking of the play, this guy is a bloody Phoenix.

 

 

 

 

Updated On: 11/23/19 at 06:41 PM

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 11/9/19 at 10:51pm

Thank you clever2.

Finished part two and I guess now I know where all the emotional content was hiding.

I think the length of the play sets unfair expectations. The new Tales of the City dissapointed me, but I could watch it on Netflix at my own pace. When you make something this long about an important subject it sets the expectation that it will be an important work.

I can forgive it for not being the next great gay play some of us are waiting for. There's a lot to like and a lot that hurts.

I'd type more thoughts in a spoiler tag but i don't know how on my phone. I may try when I'm back at a computer tomorrow.

[clever2]

Posted: 11/9/19 at 10:54pm

MrsSallyAdams said: "I'd type more thoughts in a spoiler tag but i don't know how on my phone. I may try when I'm back at a computer tomorrow.
"

Honestly have no idea how people are doing that lol

[JPeterman]

Posted: 11/10/19 at 2:48am

For those of you who have seen The Inheritance 1 and/or 2, do you think straight theatregoers will enjoy the show as much as gay patrons .... meaning will it resonate with straight people?

I haven’t seen it yet, and having read all the comments on here, it is obviously a gay-centric play ... but do you think that it will be understood and/or appreciated by straight people?

I’d love to hear what both gay and straight people who have seen the show think.

[clever2]

Posted: 11/10/19 at 3:15am

JPeterman said: "For those of you who have seen The Inheritance 1 and/or 2, do you think straight theatregoers will enjoy the show as much as gay patrons .... meaning will it resonate with straight people?

I haven’t seen it yet, and having read all the comments on here, it is obviously a gay-centric play ... but do you think that it will be understood and/or appreciated by straight people?

I’d love to hear what both gay and straight people who have seen the show think."

That’s a really good question. I hope a few people answer it. Straight people will certainly be able to understand it. As far as becoming invested in it, it depends on what kind of things hook you in general.

I don’t feel the play is very successful at portraying relationships of any kind. There’s a relationship we see fall apart during part one but whether you care about it depends on if the relationship has had any impact on you.

Friendships are almost always showcased in group scenes or collages, so there isn’t much of a feel for the intimacy that would exist between two or three people.

Gay politics are discussed but only ever on a surface level. None of those moments delve deeply into anything. More like mentioning topics to check boxes. 

The set is a square platform and nothing else. A couple nice visual tricks happen, but there’s no spectacle at all if that’s your thing. Just a platform, lights, and actors. 

Hmmm..... I mean, it’s a soap opera. Improbable plot twists, melodrama, intrigue. Characters that could only exist in fiction so it might be difficult to relate to them, but they’re fun to watch. The play throws a lot of people and situations at the audience, one after the other, often in short scenes and often at a breakneck pace.

If you’re looking for a story with lots of drama that might make you emotional a couple times, this one could do it. Big time commitment though. And I really recommend seeing the whole thing. Part two is better but you need part one to understand it. 

The marketing and the length make it seem like if you miss it, you’ll regret it for the rest of your life. Not at all. It’s a very simple story and quite entertaining but don’t pressure yourself because of FOMO. 

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/10/19 at 8:16am

I much appreciate KingGeorgeIII's explication of the Forster material's translation into Eric-Henry. It makes sense that the iteration we see in this play is shorthanded. But my, it takes a lot of work to summon the allusions and parallels. And a large percentage of the audience will know "Howard's End' only from the beautiful film. The expectation that one can access the ways the novel has been re-imagined as these folks on another continent in another era is quite a profound leap of faith. Maybe I'm being unfair.  

As I posted pages early in this thread, I found the second half more rewarding on the page, but fully understand the role that the groundwork plays in setting up the stakes and resolution.  I'd like to see only part 2, and am disappointed zero matinees have been given over to it. (Wouldn't it be wise marketing to allow us to see the whole play on a weekend of matinees? One on Saturday, Two on Sunday? It's not like Sunday nights are terribly popular, or tried and true unless with big hits.) 

[demondelaplace]

Posted: 11/10/19 at 10:12am

I’d say I agree with clever2.
Inheritance is a good play and I do enjoyed myself, but the discussion in this play is superficial and sounds like some conversation happens among college students everyday. The book itself is just a mid-class romantic drama that looks like some old slash fan fiction, and you can even find something better than it on AO3.


BTW, I’m straight and I’ve cried my eyes out for AiA & Torch Song revival.

Updated On: 11/10/19 at 10:12 AM

[LuminousBeing]

Posted: 11/10/19 at 12:41pm

JPeterman said: "For those of you who have seen The Inheritance 1 and/or 2, do you think straight theatregoers will enjoy the show as much as gay patrons .... meaning will it resonate with straight people?

I planned to stay in my lane re: this thread, but since you asked:

I'm straight (cis, female, mid-30s), and it seems like this play resonated far more with me than with the out-gay posters on this thread. As a straight woman who identifies as an ally (not just for virtue-signalling) this play felt like a window for me to a contemporary gay male experience. I have friends of all gender identities, but even so, there are certain experiences, perspectives, and conversations to which I am not privy in-person and must experience via art, literature, and theater. For me, some of the political/social discourse did feel a bit long and broad, but much of it felt new to me because I haven't had those same conversations ad nauseam with my own social circle. They made me feel closer to the characters because they provided me with context I lack as someone outside the community.

My favorite play by an American is "Angels in America." As we all know, AiA is focused on the era of "The Great Work Begins." For me, "The Inheritance" speaks to, "The Great Work Continues." What happens when the "epic" is over, but life still goes on? When our heroes and role models have passed on or have aged to the point where they require care and nurturing, who is left to carry on? How will the new generation tackle the ongoing issues? Will they be able to balance honoring the past while learning from the mistakes of those who came before them? Will they doom themselves to repeat history by refusing to look back? Or will they think of their ancestors as having left them an inheritance, with both good and bad elements, and be empowered to forge ahead to create a stronger inheritance for those who will come after them?

I loved it and felt riveted for both parts (I did the marathon 8 days ago).

Anyway, that's the reaction of this straight poster. I'm happy to answer follow-ups if anyone has any.

[clever2]

Posted: 11/10/19 at 5:18pm

It’s so interesting to me because I felt the grand premise of honoring the generations of gay men who came before us and how we must employ what we inherited from them.....is a footnote to this play at most. Yes, a couple moments directly address this idea, but they are buried inside a play far more concerned with its melodramatic narrative than reflecting a spiritual bond between the living and the dead.

The end of part one offers an illusion and a promise that Lopez is cracking the premise wide open. But part two reveals that climactic moment may as well have not even happened. Kind of like the character of Adam, presented to us as a person we should invest in, only to vanish from the play completely, showing us there was never any reason to pay attention to him in the first place.

Maybe the play was launched too soon, This doesn't feel like a final draft.

Updated On: 11/23/19 at 05:18 PM

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 11/10/19 at 6:47pm

Spoiler filled thoughts on the end of Part Two.

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

So, what do we think of Toby's arc?

Toby is told in part one that he will die soon and that his "fatal flaw" is a refusal to face his past. In part two he goes full "Party Monster," pimping out Leo to be gang raped and then vanishing. Upon return he's, again, force fed his "past" by Eric and kills himself.

In a script that states its themes so clearly it seems we're supposed to see Eric as the hero who learned empathy while Toby was the tragic villain with the "fatal flaw." However I saw Eric condescend to him and throw his trauma in his face throughout the play. Not just in their big wedding scene clash.

We're meant to like Eric because he's saved Leo. Leo has no agency and has suffered like "Little Nell" so it's a relief that he survives. But Leo tells us that Toby is "the reason we're telling this story."

Toby's story strays the farthest of anyone from his counterpart in Forster's novel. One audience member claimed that the playwright has called him semi-autobiographical. Which is funny since Toby himself is unfairly chided for writing a semi-autobiographical play. Is Toby a dramatic device or a cautionary tale we're meant to learn from? Or both?

Folks who've seen part two, I'd love to read your spoiler tagged thoughts on Toby's arc.

To create a spoiler tag click "Reply to Message", then the "+" logo to create a "spoiler window." You can type your spoiler comments within said window and they will hidden until you click the window open. I can do this on a desktop computer but not on my iphone.

Updated On: 11/10/19 at 06:47 PM

[Braniff Forever]

Posted: 11/11/19 at 5:36am

Ok...so I must tell you about THE INHERITANCE in more detail! It’s brilliant!! Run don’t walk to The Inheritance! If you are a gay man or you love gay men or have gay family members, I would say you need to see this masterpiece. It is the best play I’ve ever seen on Broadway. It’s as good as my favorite play, THE AUDIENCE and it’s as good as my favorite musicals FUN HOME and HAMILTON. It’s in the league with the very best of shows. Where to to begin with describing this show? Hmmm. Let’s see, all of it?? I was completely absorbed in it even though it lasted for 7 plus hours in two parts? It’s like watching a whole season of a Netflix show in one day. 6, 1 hour episodes. The music was haunting the way it was choreographed with the lighting when the back of the stage would open for special emphasis, that was very cool and moving. Otherwise the action all just took place on a blank stage with lot of imagining for props and what was going on. It was left up to the actors to show you the action, and they did an outstanding job with everything they were given. I’ll never look at Cherry trees again in the same way. The beautiful orange glow that would periodically surround the tree was beautiful and haunting. Each character, I could identify with. The longing, the selfishness, the sadness, the sexiness, the longing, the depression, disappointment and angst. Each character took turns with these emotions and actions, and I could identify with all of it. Been there done that and somehow, I’ve survived, just like most of the characters in the play. No matter how hard life gets, we have to do our part to survive. That’s our mission, that’s our goal. That is the message I get from this show. Survive as long as you can. Some of the characters don’t survive, and their death also teaches us how to live and not live. This play, to me, seems more accessible than a play which it is often compared to, Angels in America. Angels has some weird, freaky, non-reality stuff that goes in and out of the play, whereas this play stays grounded in reality. I mean some characters who are dead, pass in and out of the stage, but it’s very clear who they are and what they represent, whereas, in Angels, I didn’t always know what was going on. Angels probably has a lot more symbolism and meaning, but who cares? In this play, you can identify much more, with the characters. Since I’m a middle-aged guy who has survived the AIDS crisis, I think it’s wonderful that this play does a great job with educating the future generations on what those plague years were like. The generations of today owe their INHERITANCE to those who died and lived before them. That is the premise of the play. The survivors and the young people of today rest on those of the past!! I’m sure there is more that I could say, and maybe I will add more later. But this play should not be missed. You owe it to yourself. It will win the Tony next year for Best New Play. I hope it runs on Broadway for a long, long time!! (How long did the original Angels run for?)

[Braniff Forever]

Posted: 11/11/19 at 5:43am

What are “the gay play tropes”? If you feel these familiar themes are tired, what should a “gay play” talk about?

[Braniff Forever]

Posted: 11/11/19 at 5:48am

Can you write something better?? Then do it! Let us know about it!

[clever2]

Posted: 11/11/19 at 6:21am

Braniff Forever said: "Since I’m a middle-aged guy who has survived the AIDS crisis, I think it’s wonderful that this play does a great job with educating the future generations on what those plague years were like. The generations of today owe their INHERITANCE to those who died and lived before them. That is the premise of the play. The survivors and the young people of today rest on those of the past!! I’m sure there is more that I could say, and maybe I will add more later. But this play should not be missed. You owe it to yourself. It will win the Tony next year for Best New Play. I hope it runs on Broadway for a long, long time!! (How long did the original Angels run for?)"

The original Millennium Approaches had 367 performances. 
The original Perestroika had 217 performances. 

Comparing The Inheritance to Angels in America leads to murky debate as the differences between the two regarding wisdom, character development, political relevance, commitment to theme, allegorical storytelling craft, and profound impact on what theatre is capable of doing on an international scale (meaning the literal world) are extraordinarily, vastly different. In other words, Lopez’s play and Kushner’s play have little in common except both have gay characters, a light connection through the AIDS epidemic, and are presented in six acts. The comparison seems to end there.

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for The Inheritance, Angels in America deserves more respect than you seem to have for it. Without the groundbreaking explosion that was Angels in America, The Inheritance would have never found its way to the Broadway stage. You say you may not have understood Angels, but that doesn’t erase the reality that it was the last major turning point in commercial theatre any of us have seen, paving the way for possibilities of shows like Rent, Fun Home, and even Hamilton to make their way to Broadway. Angels in America not only punched a hole in the gut of the performing arts, it changed the rules of the kind of work that should be welcomed and celebrated in arenas such as Broadway, the West End, and beyond. Far beyond.

Before you "but who cares?" Angels in America, maybe reconsider your thoughts and acknowledge what it has done for you, whether you realize it or not. I promise, regardless of if they loved, hated or fell somewhere in between, everyone cares about the walls Angels in America sent crashing to the ground. 

Now, I have a question for you. Aside from Paul Hilton’s Part One, Act One monologue, the moment that closes Part One, and Lois Smith’s monologue during Part Two, Act Three, how do you believe The Inheritance educates future generations about the AIDS epidemic and teaches them what to do with all they’ve inherited from those who died before them?

You seem very adamant that is what this play does. I’m very interested in why you believe that. 

Updated On: 11/23/19 at 06:21 AM

[clever2]

Posted: 11/11/19 at 6:38am

Braniff Forever said: "What are “the gay play tropes”? If you feel these familiar themes are tired, what should a “gay play” talk about? "

Personally, I think it’s time to move away from the genre of the “gay play” and allow characters who are gay to exist in narratives that don’t focus on being gay.

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 11/11/19 at 6:49am

Re: Gay Plays. I've always enjoyed gay plays and films where a group of disparate gay men spend a period of time together talking about their lives. I've never had that "group." Even a brief stint in a Gay Men's Chorus quickly split off into small cliques without the sort of intermingling you'd find in The Boys in the Band, Love Valour Compassion, The Last Sunday in June (remember that one?), or the dinner parties in The Inheritance.

Re: Education about HIV and AIDS. I like the artist's scene in part one where:
 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

The HIV positive man educates the oblivious young artist about how AIDS behaves in the body. The artist is played for camp, and the lesson seems like common sense, until you remember that many public schools still aren't teaching these things. The information is on the internet but so is everything else.

I also appreciated the debate in part two between the activist and the conservative about:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

The role capitalism played in pushing drug companies to provide treatment for the AIDS epidemic. It's also the reason so many of the drugs remain affordably. He claims that 20 years is the fastest man kind has successfully slowed down a new disease. I don't know whether that's true but I wanted the conversation to dig even deeper. It was cut short by a fight. I like the fact that Eric and the Activist never reconcile after that debate.

Re remember the past, I think this is one of the plays weaker themes. It's stated outright multiple times but the characters who ignore it are ignoring their childhoods, not their LGBT+ history. This is another case where Lopez's desire to adapt Howard's End interferes with his desire to discuss the state of LGBT+ politics and culture.

[After Eight]

Posted: 11/11/19 at 7:17am

Clever2 wrote: “everyone cares about the walls Angels in America sent crashing to the ground. “

Perhaps, but perhaps not everyone cares in the same way.

[clever2]

Posted: 11/11/19 at 7:20am

After Eight said: "Clever2 wrote: “everyone cares about the wallsAngels in America sent crashing to the ground. “

Perhaps, but perhaps not everyone cares in the same way."

And this is the part of the movie when I ask you to elaborate because vague. 

[After Eight]

Posted: 11/11/19 at 7:41am

^

Perhaps not everyone believes that a bloated self-important soap opera broke walls in the first place.

Perhaps not everyone believes that we would not have had musicals like Fun Home or Hamilton without Angels in America.

Perhaps not everyone believes that having musicals like Fun Home or Hamilton, or plays like Angels in America is a good thing.

The term “everyone” covers a lot of people. I think it's best to avoid sweeping generalizations.

[clever2]

Posted: 11/11/19 at 8:19am

After Eight said: "^

Perhaps not everyone believes that a bloated self-important soap operabroke walls in the first place.

Perhaps not everyone believes that we would not have had musicalslike Fun Home or Hamilton without Angels in America.


Perhaps not everyone believes that having musicals like Fun Home or Hamilton, or plays likeAngels in America isa good thing.

The term “everyone” covers a lot of people. I think it's best to avoid sweeping generalizations."

wow. Angels in America, Fun Home, and Hamilton cover a lot of ground. I daresay I shall rephrase to “everyone but you.“ If these are shows you dislike, as you strongly indicate in your post, what is it you do like and why are you here? Would you be happier if every theater on Broadway was filled with Hello Dolly! and Mame?

[After Eight]

Posted: 11/11/19 at 8:37am

^

“Would you be happier if every theater on Broadway was filled with Hello Dolly! and Mame?”

Absolutely!

Wouldn't “everyone?”

[ren598]

Posted: 11/11/19 at 9:15am

Dolly80 said: "Totally agree. The Inheritance is far superior to Angels. And especially the recent ugly Broadway revival."

I saw both parts yesterday and I have to agree The Inheritance is far superior to Angels in America and I saw the recent revival with Andrew Garfield and Nathan Lane 3 times.  For me, this play was more relatable and as a result more impactful.  I think with Angels I was more in awe of the stars on stage.  With this, it was all about great storytelling.  I will definitely be back to see it a second and third time.