Question of the Day

A friend of mine sent me a link to this. What are your thoughts on this new feature?

Comments

[jaime]

In order:

1. Why are they telling people Top Girls needs untangling, reinforcing the (false, in this production) idea that it's a hard play?

2. Did they really steal this feature from Broadway.com?

3. I don't want to listen to any of these.

[Steve On Broadway (SOB)]

How were they able to find the first guy if he walked out of the production??

[Malachy Walsh]

Jaime - My guess is the people interviewed had no idea the play would be described with the word "untangle". The headline above it was most likely written after the reportage was done.

Steve - They stood in the lobby and waited for people to come out. (duh)

I think what these people say is sort of interesting. For several reasons: 1) It smacks of honesty (and I'd be interested to know how much the snippets were or weren't edited - I can't hear cuts, but these days you can do quite a lot with Soundtrack Pro). 2) It's a depth charge reading of how much film and tv have changed the way audiences see theatre. The feelings of these folks to the work springs from what they expected to see and how they expected it to unfold before them and how they expected it to tell them a story. Good or bad, it helps make clearer some of the obstacles writers, actors and directors have to overcome to get and keep attention.

Finally, I'd say (Jaime) if you do listen to these "interviews" the word "Untangle" seems like a charitable description of how someone might approach this play as it seems to have been produced at MTC. I mean, these people pretty much hated the play and did not find that it spoke to them in any way.

Which I personally find quite sad.

[Elizabeth]

1. I thought BB's review was well-written.
2. The added audience reaction was articulate and fairly charitable to the production.
3. It's difficult for me to think of this play as "hard," so it's interesting to hear that perspective. It also makes me wonder what's going on in this production to make it so inaccessible - is the overlapping dialog taken to some extreme or is that just the audience's perception of it?
4. I agree with Malachy that it's sad that there's such a barrier here. I performed in the play (I was Marlene) many years ago in a city where the audience can be much less sophisticated and tolerant than you'd expect in NYC and they loved it and connected to it.
5. My concern here is what does it mean to bring all these critical elements together under the name of The New York Times?

[jaime]

To Elizabeth's 3rd point I just have to say that as someone who had never read the play (except the straight-up realistic 3rd act), I found this production 100% lucid, cohesive, and incredibly winning. I have a lot of trouble understanding how anyone didn't find the first act delightful and the whole thing completely compelling.

[BC-NYC]

I like it.

I think it's audience and not critic.
I think this is a great way of getting more than just a bad critics view. I'm sorry did I say bad when referring to Ben Brantley. Ok strike that word Bad. Just leave critic.

You get everybody from the StarF''rs who see shows so they can say they saw their favorite movie star in person.

You get the intellectuals.
You get snobs.
You get in betweens.

Hey why not. NYTimes is simply making a play for the new generation of folks out there.
That's biz guys.

BC-NYC