Sanctuary City NYTW

[cjmclaughlin10]

Posted: 3/4/20 at 12:27pm

Big fan of Majoks plays so I am curious about this one (if Im not mistaken, this was supposed to be part of LAST season at NYTW but got moved to this one)

DREAMers. Love(r)s. Life-long friends. Negotiating the promise of safety and the weight of responsibility, theyll fight like hell to establish a place for themselves and each other in America. 2018 Pulitzer Prize winner, NYTW Usual Suspect and former 2050 Fellow Martyna Majok brings us an unforgettable story that asks what were willing to sacrifice for someone we love. Rebecca Frecknall, director of the 2019 Olivier Award-winning Summer and Smoke, helms the production

 

update: found an article https://www.newyorktheatreguide.com/news-features/new-york-theatre-workshop-adds-17-border-crossings-to-its-2018-2019-season-and

Updated On: 3/4/20 at 12:27 PM

[Rosette3]

Posted: 3/4/20 at 12:35pm

Curious on this as well. Deciding between seeing Sanctuary City or 72 Miles to Go this weekend since both are based on stories involving immigration and status etc.

[Synecdoche2]

Posted: 3/5/20 at 10:42pm

Saw this tonight and I'd say I liked the first half and disliked the second. Particularly I thought Austin Smith was badly miscast. It's certainly written with skill and the production itself is very nice. If you're a fan of Majok, I'd say go and make up your mind for yourself.

[OffOnBwayHi]

Posted: 3/9/20 at 10:09am

Synecdoche2 said: "Saw this tonight and I'd say I liked the first half and disliked the second. Particularly I thought Austin Smith was badly miscast. It's certainly written with skill and the production itself is very nice. If you're a fan of Majok, I'd say go and make up your mind for yourself."

hmmm... I don't disagree with a lot of this, with a bit of different angle. I thought the first half was more cerebral (from the audience's perspective) than the second half. You had to piece a lot together in the first half, and the second half makes you think about the first half.

Austin Smith is sexy. Those arms, that chest, those lips... Anyway, he felt a bit odd in the role to me too, but it still worked. All the actors were in the pocket and I think the more time the three have together, the more it'll gel and feel right.

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

I want the intimacy between Austin Smith and Jasai Chase-Owens to feel more connected. That was my biggest qualm. I didn't believe those kisses. It just looked like they were smashing lips together...very forced looking.

Also, I wasn't a fan of the set. The lighting was incredible, but the bare, stripped down stage with the, seemingly, "junk" all around it I didn't get. However, I couldn't imagine anything else. It was very similar to 'The Inheritance' in its function, but here I questioned "why?"

Overall, I thought the play was smart and sharp, but not my cup of tea. With that said, I think the critics are gonna eat this up. So congrats to the team. It really is a well done show.

[BJR]

Posted: 3/9/20 at 10:28am

Agree on a lot of these points.

First half is pretty fantastic, definitely more cerebral, where you only see extremely quick fragments of scenes the audience must piece together. Then, it turns into a slightly overwritten melodrama. I also wondered why the play was set in 2003 and 2006, what it gained by that, especially since we know how things turn out politically on at least one set of the issues.

I had less of an issue with Smith than I did with the melodrama aspect of the writing. And the two leads are outstanding, especially in the first half. Both commanding and charismatic.

And I agree they needed an Intimacy Director. The intimacy in the second half looked staged, unspecific, and not how gay men touch each other.

Lots to admire, though. One of the most stunning lighting designs I've ever seen, truly.

 

Updated On: 3/9/20 at 10:28 AM

[OffOnBwayHi]

Posted: 3/9/20 at 11:35am

BJR said: "I also wondered why the play was set in 2003 and 2006, what it gained by that, especially since we know how things turn out politically on at least one set of the issues."

Same, but someone made me see it as necessary.

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

G kept saying she had to marry B because him and Henry would never be able to get married. The audience, now in 2020, knows she wrong. So maybe we could also be wrong that the laws won't change soon for him to be a citizen on his own.

I thought this was a great way to justify the time period.

 

[MadonnaMusical]

Posted: 3/9/20 at 11:57pm

First half is great!

However.... the story telling technique has no pay off which was disappointing. I also feel like she wrote the first half and then was stuck for years, not knowing where the play would go... then the second half... (which needs an intermission) was very disappointing and unrealistic. The [spoiler] relationship was unrealistic...

Also the title was a waste of a great title.

This was a miss for me.

[SouthernCakes]

Posted: 3/10/20 at 12:02am

I hate the notion of “he’s miscast but he’s hot.” Barf.