2,859 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Jun 7, 2019 16:10:42 GMT
I think in London they did find part 2 a harder sell. Oh really? I somehow had the impression that towards the end of the run part 2 tended to sell out/sell better, mainly because it was the Vanessa Redgrave part |
|
|
|
Post by sph on Jun 8, 2019 15:12:57 GMT
I'm so excited for this to come to NY after seeing it twice in London. I did have a question about the ending of part 1 though. I remember reading something somewhere (maybe even here but this thread is too long to read through) about all the men who appear at the end of part one. I recall they were understudies as well as some unpaid and volunteers and it changed out every so often. Does anyone have information on this? I ask because American Equity will likely not allow this (at least in my mind). They're very strict about people on stages being paid equity minimum for a one minute part or a 7 hour play. The ghosts at the end of Part One were all paid actors. Some were understudies for the production but the majority were paid actors who came in specifically for that scene, at least for the West End run anyway. I don't know about the Young Vic. There were no volunteers so presumably the same thing will happen on Broadway. |
|
|
|
Post by firefingers on Jun 8, 2019 22:02:10 GMT
I'm so excited for this to come to NY after seeing it twice in London. I did have a question about the ending of part 1 though. I remember reading something somewhere (maybe even here but this thread is too long to read through) about all the men who appear at the end of part one. I recall they were understudies as well as some unpaid and volunteers and it changed out every so often. Does anyone have information on this? I ask because American Equity will likely not allow this (at least in my mind). They're very strict about people on stages being paid equity minimum for a one minute part or a 7 hour play. The ghosts at the end of Part One were all paid actors. Some were understudies for the production but the majority were paid actors who came in specifically for that scene, at least for the West End run anyway. I don't know about the Young Vic. There were no volunteers so presumably the same thing will happen on Broadway. On the Young Vic run they were all unpaid volunteers. Well, they were paid travel expenses but that's it. |
|
374 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Jun 8, 2019 22:45:11 GMT
On the Young Vic run they were all unpaid volunteers. Well, they were paid travel expenses but that's it. Same as with People, Places & Things. At the NT, all the other "Emma" performers were supernumeraries, but when it transferred, that all changed. That Broadway schedule is weird. Three two show days, but only a five day performance week? So it's Harry Potter style Monday & Tuesday no shows, then Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday matinees? One of the main reasons, at the start of the run in the West End, that part 2 was a trickier sell was that it didn't have any matinee performances, which ruled out a fair chunk of people from being able to see it. They haven't scheduled any matinees of part 2 for Broadway either. |
|
1,089 posts
|
Post by andrew on Jun 11, 2019 22:18:19 GMT
Does anyone else really not like the new promotional designs for Broadway? The trailer was alright, but I hate the poster. I'm not convinced they'd totally nailed it with the yellow stuff we had here for the Noel Coward run but it was still better than the flower and the sort of multi-screen thing in the background.
|
|
3,582 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Rory on Jun 11, 2019 22:26:14 GMT
Does anyone else really not like the new promotional designs for Broadway? The trailer was alright, but I hate the poster. I'm not convinced they'd totally nailed it with the yellow stuff we had here for the Noel Coward run but it was still better than the flower and the sort of multi-screen thing in the background. Really? I thought the original West End poster design with the tree and the book was stunning. The Broadway artwork is ok but not as good as the WE design. |
|
639 posts
|
Post by andrew on Aug 15, 2019 12:09:09 GMT
Cast announcement happening right now on their instagram. No Redgrave for Broadway.
The main 5 leads are the same, all the others are new.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2019 12:33:54 GMT
Here's the cast ...
Good to see all the main leads transferring. Interesting they haven't gone for a big name cameo in the Redgrave role.
|
|
|
|
Post by yokollama on Aug 15, 2019 13:15:23 GMT
Andrew Burnap had posted on his Instagram stories last week a photo of rehearsals - there was no mention of it, but you can certainly recognise the corner of the stage.
I was initially worried that he wouldn't, but I'm glad to see Paul Hilton transferring as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by missthelma on Aug 15, 2019 17:53:01 GMT
Lois Smith will absolutely knock this out of the park. Remembering the role she is beyond perfect for it.
How very dare it be suggested she is not a big name!!! It's the talent wot counts don't cha know!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Fleance on Aug 15, 2019 18:06:23 GMT
Lois Smith will absolutely knock this out of the park. Remembering the role she is beyond perfect for it. How very dare it be suggested she is not a big name!!! It's the talent wot counts don't cha know!! What a great choice she is. I worked with her a few times. In addition to her great talent, she's a very special person. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2019 18:29:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ruby88 on Aug 18, 2019 15:37:30 GMT
I may be going to New York for the weekend with family in November and I’d love to see this on Broadway. I missed it in London, unfortunately. I’m wondering whether to go alone or not. I’ve read the play and I know there is some explicit dialogue but are the sex scenes/ nudity graphic enough to make viewing this with parents uncomfortable?
I enjoyed it so much when I read it and don’t want to miss it if I’m in the area.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2019 16:47:39 GMT
There is only one nude scene, which is fairly short - one of the characters drops his towel and stands there naked briefly. There is a lengthy sex scene which is staged in an abstract way with no actual nudity / sex. I think the most explicit sequence is the lengthy description of the experience in the sauna - nothing's shown but the dialogue is very graphic.
|
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 18, 2019 17:26:19 GMT
I wonder if this can pull a ferryman and last from the winter to spring and pass the usual clutter of openings to the Tony Awards, does that it will certainly win best play.
This will get excellent reviews from the liberal press, which includes the big one.
|
|
3,352 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on Aug 19, 2019 8:23:57 GMT
I may be going to New York for the weekend with family in November and I’d love to see this on Broadway. I missed it in London, unfortunately. I’m wondering whether to go alone or not. I’ve read the play and I know there is some explicit dialogue but are the sex scenes/ nudity graphic enough to make viewing this with parents uncomfortable? I enjoyed it so much when I read it and don’t want to miss it if I’m in the area. I wouldn’t want to watch it with my parents in the same room, but you know yours. Just bear in mind it’s two long plays and a very long day. I’d gladly give up a day of my vacation to see it again, but your parents may not feel the same way, especially if you’re only in NYC for a weekend. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2019 9:24:30 GMT
A fair # of posters on Broadway World and ShowScore are finding the play slight and/or trite. Another common criticism is that it really is a mishmash of gay themes that have been covered in many, many plays, movies, or TV shows. And as expected, the stereotypical demographics and looks of the characters has come under some fire. Was this the case in London as well?
|
|
3,582 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Rory on Oct 7, 2019 19:52:45 GMT
How could they not love it!?
|
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Oct 7, 2019 20:36:43 GMT
How could they not love it!?
I saw it at the Young Vic, and - yes - I loved it, but there are some legitimate bones to pick with the writing, some of which may resonate more loudly with a New York audience than they did in London. It almost entirely centres on a privileged, affluent, disproportionately white substrata of New York's gay community, and that may well be more of an issue for a Broadway audience. It's arguably a problem that the play shows a stage full of male characters who only ever seem to speak to people like themselves; given the scope of the social history Lopez is trying to navigate, the lack of (for want of a better word) inclusion might well be an issue for a New York audience. The spread of AIDS was hardly restricted to an upper-middle-class liberal clique who all traded in the same cultural references.
And do none of these New Yorkers ever speak to a woman? Is there nobody trans or genderqueer in this very, very insular social circle? Nobody foreign, no recent immigrants/expats-in-New-York?
There's more, but you get the point. I do think it's a brilliant piece of writing, but brilliant is not the same thing as flawless. And I do think it's interesting that it premiered in London rather than New York, particularly since Lopez was relatively unknown here. Opening it in London first was a definite choice, and I think there was a very obvious strategy behind it - and the fact that it seems to be getting a less, shall we say, uncritical response from early New York audiences bears that out.
|
|
5,197 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Oct 8, 2019 5:46:35 GMT
I’d agree with sf - I had some issues with Part 2 especially (it was unnecessarily long and I felt almost an hour could have come out really) but it doesn’t take away from the play being a moment in theatrical history. Agree with the Monkey that I guess the Americans know these people better than we do (?) and are this reacting as such. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2019 10:35:41 GMT
I do think Monkey nailed why some in NYC have been so critical. I was also reminded recently that here in the States we've seen so many of these gay characterizations in so many other plays, ones that may have not made it to the London stages. All that said, it still is some well-crafted, enjoyable, and moving theatre.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 8, 2019 15:08:58 GMT
A fair # of posters on Broadway World and ShowScore are finding the play slight and/or trite. Another common criticism is that it really is a mishmash of gay themes that have been covered in many, many plays, movies, or TV shows. Well, that is kind of the point though, isn't it? The Inheritance of the title is as much cultural as physical. |
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Oct 8, 2019 18:14:30 GMT
I’d agree with sf - I had some issues with Part 2 especially (it was unnecessarily long and I felt almost an hour could have come out really) but it doesn’t take away from the play being a moment in theatrical history. Agree with the Monkey that I guess the Americans know these people better than we do (?) and are this reacting as such. My biggest issue with the writing, actually, is something that would probably resonate less with a New York audience than it might here. I thought it was churlish in the extreme for Lopez to let the other men accuse Morgan of cowardice in refusing to allow 'Maurice' to be published during his lifetime without allowing Morgan to point out what the consequences of publication would have been: not merely a scandal, but (at least in 1914-15, after the first version of it was completed) very possibly a prison sentence, particularly if he'd allowed the novel to be published with an ending that kept Maurice and Alec together and alive. |
|
3,582 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Rory on Oct 8, 2019 19:09:11 GMT
Enjoyed your analysis sf. I'd say you're probably right. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2019 20:38:42 GMT
A fair # of posters on Broadway World and ShowScore are finding the play slight and/or trite. Another common criticism is that it really is a mishmash of gay themes that have been covered in many, many plays, movies, or TV shows. Well, that is kind of the point though, isn't it? The Inheritance of the title is as much cultural as physical. Yes and no. Yes to the themes, but I doubt the playwright intended some audience members to find his writing trite or his treatment of the themes to be so slight. |
|
