The Inheritance - Previews- Page 9

[clever2]

Posted: 10/30/19 at 2:36pm

Saw part two last night. It’s still indulgent and there are a couple plot points that are simply unbelievable, but I sucked it up and went with it. Overall, I feel this half is significantly more successful. It can certainly be two dimensional and I could go on and on picking it apart. However, it does have some heart and very much feels like a different play altogether.

It’s also significantly more subdued in every way. The frenetic, breathless direction of part one is gone and the staging is more organic. I think Daldry may trust the text of part two far more as he doesn’t hijack the play here, no longer directing it within an inch of its life down to each second as we saw before.

Most relieving was the absence of the emotionally manipulative triggers that peppered part one. I will admit the play probably could have ended three times before it actually ended, and the way it does end is mortifyingly precious, once again echoing tropes we’ve seen in a million other shows, right down to INTO THE WOODS. Come to think of it, FOLLIES is echoed throughout part two as well.

Kyle Soller is indeed excellent but the saintliness of Eric Glass is painted on so thickly, it's difficult to buy into him. The standout moment of the play in its entirety, from my point of view, is a monologue in the final act, performed with such raw beauty by Andrew Burnap, who really does emerge from this odyssey as the actor deserving of sincerest praise. Paul Hilton’s early monologue in part one is delivered exquisitely but that moment does become one of those emotionally manipulative triggers, whereas Burnap’s moment comes from a much purer place. It does lead to something predictably tragic but whatever.

There is some sensational acting. The lesser performances stand out because of this. Is it worth seven hours of your life? I will admit the whole thing could be cut down to a potentially phenomenal three-hour piece. It is relieving that part two actually does bother to touch a bit more on the legacy and passing the torch, albeit in a most fantastical way, presenting us with coincidences that lead to events that would probably never happen.

The Inheritance wants so much to be authentic and revelatory, but its unrealistic circumstances connected by a long, long search for communion results in something very much like Toby Darling’s phony little book. Which kind of makes the whole thing a gay fairytale. Don’t mistake that for gay fantasia. We’re worlds away from that here. But there are moments of goodness, sometimes surpassing good into extraordinary. But then there's rest of it, which is fun if not shallow. I wonder if an intimate Off-Broadway setting would allow the production to overcome the problems in the text by allowing us all to be close to the performances. There are glimmers here and there that strongly suggest Matthew Lopez's voice is evolving into something to be heard. He just hasn’t learned how to use it yet.

Updated On: 11/23/19 at 02:36 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 10/30/19 at 3:09pm

I will say that when I read the UK script when it was published last year, I liked it a lot more. It reads much better than it plays. 

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 10/30/19 at 3:51pm

It’ll be interesting to see next month if the critics find this play as problematic as many here seem to.

[clever2]

Posted: 10/30/19 at 4:02pm

I just don’t understand this excessively long preview period. The part one I saw on Monday was identical to the part one I saw a month ago. I only saw part two once and that was last night.

Updated On: 11/23/19 at 04:02 PM

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 10/30/19 at 5:20pm

The whole experience just made me wish Matthew Lopez had written a novel instead. It would have given him the space to explore the underwritten side characters and all the excessive exposition would’ve translated much better. It also would’ve been a lot less obnoxious to get to the end of it and realize I’d only spent $20 on a totally derivative, navel-gazing melodrama instead of almost $200.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/1/19 at 1:58pm

Seeing Part One tonight. Eight years ago, I was very impressed by Matthew Lopez's (first?) play "The Whipping Man" at Manhattan Theatre Club. I'm curious to see if this holds up to my memories of that play and the hype surrounding this one.

[haterobics]

Posted: 11/1/19 at 2:08pm

clever2 said: "I just don’t understand this excessively long preview period. The part one I saw on Monday was identical to the part one I saw a month ago. I only saw part two once and that was last night, but it makes me wonder if they’re trying to squeeze as much money out of it as possible before opening. If that’s the case, does it mean the producers are doubtful it will run?"

They spent the first chunk of previews solely on getting part one up and running, and then switched gears to part two, so dependent on when you saw part one, that may have been close to when they locked it and switched gears to part two?

Also, is there a reason to expect massive changes, given it already played in the UK?

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 11/1/19 at 2:28pm

As I recall, someone on here reported Lopez pretty much totally rewrote Pt. 2 prior to Broadway previews. Don’t know if there’s any truth to that.

[BwayGeek2]

Posted: 11/1/19 at 5:09pm

Miles2Go2 said: "As I recall, someone on here reported Lopez pretty much totally rewrote Pt. 2 prior to Broadway previews. Don’t know if there’s any truth to that."

Yes, I heard this too, actually! I'm seeing Parts 1 & 2 tomorrow. Really looking forward to it. 

[Kad]

Posted: 11/1/19 at 6:36pm

"Totally rewritten" is an overstatement. I would say more like... "lightly revised."

[Sauja]

Posted: 11/1/19 at 6:54pm

I can hear and understand the critiques of this—that it’s melodramatic (yup), that it isn’t at great as Angels or Howard’s End (few things are), or that it’s overhyped (expectations are so, so tricky)—but purely based on my own emotional reaction, how thought-provoking the piece was, and how utterly invested I was, I can’t think of a more dazzling show in the past year or two. Lopez’s play is so ambitious, and it’s hard to imagine a more triumphant directorial vision than that of Daldry here or a design as stunningly simple and perfect as Bob Crowley’s. The seven hours charged by, and I feel so grateful to have had the chance to experience this lovely, tender work.

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 11/1/19 at 7:16pm

nasty_khakis discusses the changes to Part 2 on Page 6:

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=1119226&page=6#5185533

[clever2]

Posted: 11/1/19 at 8:22pm

Sauja said: "The seven hours charged by, and I feel so grateful to have had the chance to experience this lovely, tender work."

I have a very strange relationship with this play. If you look at my posts here, I'm very critical of it. I still am. I have a million problems with it, all I've mentioned. But I've still seen part one twice. Why? After seeing both parts Monday and Tuesday this week, I'm already wondering if I want to go back again.

I can say I'm grateful I saw the whole thing just for Toby's monologue in part two, act three alone. In that moment, I saw in Andrew Burnap what I saw in Alex Sharp throughout CURIOUS INCIDENT, another production I felt the direction overcame and hid an incredibly flawed play. But what I saw during Andrew's monologue that brought me back to Alex (and this is the second time I've ever said this) was God's child doing what God intended him to do. With purest vulnerability and total absence of ego. And to see that happen in the final moments of a play I have many objections to is ultimately very confusing.

The whole thing feels like a limited series on HBO or Netflix. The soap opera elements do pull me in because I was raised on ALL MY CHILDREN. There are ridiculous plot points in this that align perfectly with the shows that once aired from 11am to 3pm on network television. As do the problems of elitist white people. But at least on soaps other ethnicities were given wholly formed storylines and weren't present so the black doctor/best friend could have a moment in a lobby about his rejection of America during the overture of SWAN LAKE. That is the only moment in the play that belongs to this character and we've waited six hours for someone who isn't white to have an individual moment that isn't part of a group scene. That's a big problem. It just is.

But....then....I have more than enough Audience Reward points to see both parts again, and I'm seriously considering it. Why? With the many issues I have with THE INHERITANCE, issues I believe are valid and agreed with by many, something about the goddamn thing is pulling at me. Pulling at me hard. On Monday and Tuesday, I sat in the front row. I was as close to being in that play as I could humanly be without sitting on the edge of the stage. Andrew Burnap's monologue happened two feet away from me. What more could I possibly take away from it?

So, Sauja, I'm glad your feelings about the play are so committed. Others who have and do proclaim it to be transformative, I don't understand why. I also don't understand why my mind at my heart are in a full out wrestling match. Because if someone directly asked me how I feel about this play, my answer would be, "I have no idea. But I'm probably going back."

I've never disliked a play this much and felt the need to see it again. To prove myself right? To prove myself wrong? It has totally confused me so it must have some sort of power. If not in the text, in the production? I have more questions than answers.

Updated On: 11/1/19 at 08:22 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/2/19 at 9:45am

Your reaction makes perfect sense to me, clever2. Most of the greatest theatrical experiences of my life have occurred in plays and productions that were not perfect but problematic--or even highly problematic. The greatest theatrical experience of my life was the original production of Follies, which i saw when I was 15 and in high school and went back to five times. (Plus the concert, Roundabout, Paper Mill, Encores and Kennedy Center productions.) 

I saw Part One last night and was irritated by the pettiness of the young gay men and the melodrama of Henry's sons. Yet the monologue that ended the first act and the coup de théâtre that ends the third act left me sobbing and shaken. I will count them among the deepest experiences I have had in the theater, despite my cavils about the melodrama.

I will go back and see Part One a second time with my husband, and then we will see Part Two together. 

[Sauja]

Posted: 11/2/19 at 10:44am

Clever2, I admire the way you’ve engaged with the play. So often, it seems like responses to work are encouraged to be binary. I liked it. I hated it. When a much more interesting response is: It’s complicated.

And I think the issue that is most complicated for me that you bring up is how the play handles (and doesn’t) race and ethnicity. It’s true that characters of color are left mostly off the canvas, or at the very least relegated to the sidelines. So what to make of the fact that the playwright is Latinx? Is he falling prey to the general cultural attitude to ignore the stories of POC? Did he not find better ways in to those stories using Howard’s End as a way in since it is so much a story of privilege? Is it an oversight or is it a choice? And whatever the case, is it acceptable?

Having baldly stayed my love for the show, it’s predictable that I find myself making allowances in this regard, yet I really do believe it’s an important piece of the work to have a dialogue about. And I would be deeply interested in hearing Lopez address it.

In the end, I think that what happens for me is that I achieve a remove from intellectual questions as the play taps straight into emotion. Does it have problems? Absolutely. But I find myself not focusing on them through my abundant tears. I do, however, sincerely appreciate the rigor of your thinking on the play. If nothing else, it provides a lot of talking points!

[clever2]

Posted: 11/2/19 at 11:07am

Sauja said: "I do, however, sincerely appreciate the rigor of your thinking on the play. If nothing else, it provides a lot of talking points!"

It damn well does. And thank you.

 

[Anita Balan]

Posted: 11/3/19 at 4:29pm

Kad said: ""Totally rewritten" is an overstatement. I would say more like... "lightly revised.""

So does this mean the American play's script will be available just like the script from the London run is available for sale? 

Went from DC so watched both parts yesterday. I have already seen Angels in American HBO film, The Normal Heart, And the Band Plays On HBO Films. I havent yet read Howard's End. 

I thought it was funny and charming but at times its also preachy/pedantic (which is funny because I usually like Aaron Sorkin stuff which is heavy on stand-in-the-soap-box preach) ...I agree with a lot of what people stated above... it feels long at times... At the very least, they can cut it down by 30-40 minutes in each play and make each play two acts. 

LOVED Kyle Soller (Eric Glass), Andrew Burnap (Toby) and Samuel Levine's performances. I also love the performances of Walter and JBH as Henry. Lois Smith's performance is memorable though may be unnecessary. Yesterday the entire audience sang her Happy Birthday. 

Ultimately, I am glad I saw the play but bought both tickets (Rear Mezzanine center) back in June through telecharge. The bus tickets to NYC and back was affordable so it all came within my budget... 

The seats were fine. No audience interruptions but you could hear people cry during certain scenes, which I actually found touching. I bawled at the end of the first act and was touched at the end of the second act. 

The play is trying to be a lot so while I dont want to and cannot afford to go see it again , I might buy the script. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 11/6/19 at 10:20am

I saw part one last night, almost exactly one year after seeing it on the west end. When part one ended last year, I remember sitting there almost shellshocked and still crying, as people were leaving the theatre. And my reaction last night was virtually the same. So many things I had forgotten that triggered an instantaneous emotional reaction from me. When the chair was brought out for Walter at the end of act one I started crying knowing I was about to see again one of the greatest monologues I’ll ever see live on stage. When the house was first mentioned, when the letter was shown to Henry, when Eric gets out of the car at the end and many more. So many scenes and moments that are written, performed and staged so simply and so beautifully that even though I’d forgotten them they came rushing back to me in the moment.

Is it a perfect play? I don’t know, does it need to be?
Is it a perfect play to me? Yes. Very much so, it is. I feel a lot of dissection of the play is from people (not everyone but a lot) not wanting it to be as good as people say it is, which is a shame. I find it hard to put into words just how much it moves me or even how I feel about it in general. But the somber collective and communal experience I had with everyone else at the Barrymore last night shows me that I’m not alone in my praise and my admiration for it and I hope more people grow to feel the same way.

[Kad]

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

Anita Balan said: "Kad said: ""Totally rewritten" is an overstatement. I would say more like... "lightly revised.""

So does this mean the American play's script will be available just like the script from the London run is available for sale?"

I can't say definitively, but I would be surprised if a US version was not published. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 11/6/19 at 11:45am

The published versions text of the last scene of Part One alone is reason enough for a revised version to be published.

[JSquared2]

Posted: 11/6/19 at 11:50am

Question for those who have seen the plays.  In the NYT feature about The Inheritance last week, the writer mentions a scene with the characters reading a list of gay bars that have closed since the start of the AIDS crisis.  I've seen both parts --- but don't recall hearing that.  Was it cut -- or did I just miss it?

For me, the play was 2 perfect evenings in the theatre -- and I look forward to going back and seeing both parts again.

 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 11/6/19 at 11:57am

Yeah, the gay bar list was in last night, with the mention of Musical Mondays that got a huge reaction.

[clever2]

Posted: 11/6/19 at 1:22pm

Updated On: 11/23/19 at 01:22 PM

[JSquared2]

Posted: 11/6/19 at 1:28pm

clever2 said: "Jordan Catalano said: "Is it a perfect play? I don’t know, does it need to be?Is it a perfect play to me? Yes. Very much so, it is. I feel a lot of dissection of the play is from people (not everyone but a lot) not wanting it to be as good as people say it is, which is a shame.”

What’s a shame is your view of people — peoplespending upwards of $200 for a decent seat for each part and approximately 8 hours (currently 12 hours for me; 28 by March 1st) — is,if they don’t share your rapturous opinion of this monster, they are purposefully in search ofa very expensive bad time and would not wish to prefer leaving the Barrymore with some sort of spiritual awakening. I suggest your pull your head out of your opinion’s ass.

The ONLY moments you cite are the emotionally manipulative triggers inserted into the play to trick people into believing the entire result is amasterpiece. I’mpretty goddamn sick of hearing about Paul Hilton’s monologue and that rip off at the end of part one. Tell me about ANY OTHER MOMENT OF THIS PLAY THAT TRULY MATTERS TO YOU. Other than the generic “everybody” reasons,whydo you find this play perfect?

And the round tablediscussion that includes mention of Splash serves no point (at all whatsoever) and should be cut."

 

Well, you seem pleasant!  Also, if you're spending "upwards of $200 for a decent seat for each part", then you're doing something wrong -- as there are great seats to be had for around $79 (or even $40 if you do rush).  Sorry that your "precious time" was wasted -- and yes, in many people's opinions, it is indeed a masterpiece of theatre. YMMV.

[Kad]

Posted: 11/6/19 at 2:41pm

Clever2's contributed nothing but thoughtful, and complex, critique of the play, and honestly nothing that I don't agree with myself. They're neither a hater or a fawning admirer of it. 

(I also think the ending of Part 1 is manipulative, and went on long enough to become somewhat absurd- and a staging concept that has zero payoff in the second part). 

Everyone's allowed to have a different takeaway. My indifference does not diminish your having been immensely moved.

Updated On: 11/6/19 at 02:41 PM