Yasmina Reza's ART at the Royale Theater:NYC
daniel kessler
This very French three character one act play has recently had a
reasonable success in London and is to open at the Royale Theater on
B'way on March lst.
In my opinion, this play does not resonate in an American context. What
would bond three men in their 30's that they would meet periodically in
each other's abodes without female companions as a routine unless they
were 阻ocks' or gay men? These men are reasonably successful in their
chosen endeavors and are not jocks. They are not homosexuals. In fact,
one of the decidedly false notes is that the character Marc is played by
Alan Alda who has always struck me as a jock and this play has nothing to
do with men gathering to watch or attend sporting events at Madison
Square Garden.
So how are we to accept that Alan Alda [Marc] as a mentor to Serge
[Victor Garber] exercising a somewhat baleful influence in matters
esthetic with Serge bolting to buy an abstract painting of which Marc
does not approve and ridicules since Serge, has, in the meantime, moved
on in the fast company of a more hip esthetic circle? Is it possible
that Alan Alda could have a baleful influence in suggesting the Knicks
over the Lakers? I'll buy that! But in matters esthetic concerning the
collection or purchase of art--no way!
Further friction occurs in the relationship between Marc and Serge with
each seeking to influence the other member of this improbable trio, Yvan
as played by British actor Alfred Molina. However, Yvan is non-committal
and finds himself resisting the pull of gravity as excercised by both
Marc and Serge.
That Serge finally allows Marc, at the conclusion of the play, to deface
his newly acquired abstract painting is a sign that Serge values his
relationship with Marc over 疎rt' or any esthetic disagreements and this
allows the piece to resolve more humanistically in favor of the restored
bond between men.
Victor Garber, wonderful actor that he is, is too calculating as Serge
and the role of Serge should be given over to an actor who could make
more credible that Serge was someone under the orbit or influence of Marc
and attempting to break away. This can never happen since Alan Alda is
too freewheeling in gesture and body language to suggest that overriding
influence over Serge.
However, in a European or French context, a clever French actor with a
few wiles up his sleeve would better convince us that he was such a
formidable type as to have this kind of overriding influence and make
more credible the character of Marc.
Christopher Hampton, who translated the play from French has infused it
with enough profane language to try to atune it to an Anglophone or
perhaps American audience but I do not think he has succeeded in that
endeavor.
Also, there is unnecessary confusion at the outset, when we are told that
the painting cost $200,000 in dollars and then told it cost 200,000 in
francs, which, as we know, would make its sale price to be one sixth of
the dollar amount.
This play is now on the boards in Paris and having just returned from
there last week, it would have made far better sense to have caught it
there where it surely would have resonated in a French or European
context.
Gerda Grice
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, daniel kessler wrote:
> This very French three character one act play has recently had a
> reasonable success in London and is to open at the Royale Theater on
> B'way on March lst.
I wouldn't say that _Art_ had "a resonable success" in London. It has
been a critical and box-office smash. In fact, as far as I know, it's
still running. It was one of the hottest tickets in town when I saw it
there last spring, and I could understand why. I loved it.
Yes, I agree that the play is very French in feel. Despite that, I think
that Hampton's translation, as performed by the London cast I saw (it was
the 2nd of the 5 or 6 casts the show has now had, I think) worked very
well. How the play and the translation would work with an American cast
including Alda is another matter. My suspicion is that it wouldn't work
awfully well, but I'd have to actually see the production before I could
actually say that it did or didn't work.
Gerda Grice.
> In my opinion, this play does not resonate in an American context. What
> would bond three men in their 30's that they would meet periodically in
> each other's abodes without female companions as a routine unless they
> were jocks' or gay men? These men are reasonably successful in their
> chosen endeavors and are not jocks. They are not homosexuals. In fact,
> one of the decidedly false notes is that the character Marc is played by
> Alan Alda who has always struck me as a jock and this play has nothing to
> do with men gathering to watch or attend sporting events at Madison
> Square Garden.
>
> So how are we to accept that Alan Alda [Marc] as a mentor to Serge
> [Victor Garber] exercising a somewhat baleful influence in matters
> esthetic with Serge bolting to buy an abstract painting of which Marc
> does not approve and ridicules since Serge, has, in the meantime, moved
> on in the fast company of a more hip esthetic circle? Is it possible
> that Alan Alda could have a baleful influence in suggesting the Knicks
> over the Lakers? I'll buy that! But in matters esthetic concerning the
> collection or purchase of art--no way!
>
> Further friction occurs in the relationship between Marc and Serge with
> each seeking to influence the other member of this improbable trio, Yvan
> as played by British actor Alfred Molina. However, Yvan is non-committal
> and finds himself resisting the pull of gravity as excercised by both
> Marc and Serge.
>
> That Serge finally allows Marc, at the conclusion of the play, to deface
> his newly acquired abstract painting is a sign that Serge values his
> relationship with Marc over art' or any esthetic disagreements and this
> allows the piece to resolve more humanistically in favor of the restored
> bond between men.
>
> Victor Garber, wonderful actor that he is, is too calculating as Serge
> and the role of Serge should be given over to an actor who could make
> more credible that Serge was someone under the orbit or influence of Marc
> and attempting to break away. This can never happen since Alan Alda is
> too freewheeling in gesture and body language to suggest that overriding
> influence over Serge.
>
> However, in a European or French context, a clever French actor with a
> few wiles up his sleeve would better convince us that he was such a
> formidable type as to have this kind of overriding influence and make
> more credible the character of Marc.
>
> Christopher Hampton, who translated the play from French has infused it
> with enough profane language to try to atune it to an Anglophone or
> perhaps American audience but I do not think he has succeeded in that
> endeavor.
>
> Also, there is unnecessary confusion at the outset, when we are told that
> the painting cost $200,000 in dollars and then told it cost 200,000 in
> francs, which, as we know, would make its sale price to be one sixth of
> the dollar amount.
>
> This play is now on the boards in Paris and having just returned from
> there last week, it would have made far better sense to have caught it
> there where it surely would have resonated in a French or European
> context.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> To leave this mailing list, send mail to majo...@world.std.com
> with the message UNSUBSCRIBE PLAYS
>
James Forsythe
What would bond 3 men to meet without female companionship if they
weren't jocks or gay? Business? Friendship? A Service Club?
Hobbies? The Army? A shared interest in getting away from whoever
for a night once in awhile?
Art is perhaps not great 'art" but its commercial success was far
more than 'reasonable' in London at the Wyndham's Theatre. It has
transcended cast changes to remain very popular.
The play deals to a large extent with the nature and boundaries of
friendship. It may not resonate with one particular American but it
did with this Canadian.
daniel kessler <dkessl...@bc.cybernex.net> wrote:
>This very French three character one act play has recently had a
>reasonable success in London and is to open at the Royale Theater on
>B'way on March lst.
>In my opinion, this play does not resonate in an American context. What
>would bond three men in their 30's that they would meet periodically in
>each other's abodes without female companions as a routine unless they
>were 阻ocks' or gay men? These men are reasonably successful in their
>chosen endeavors and are not jocks. They are not homosexuals. In fact,
>one of the decidedly false notes is that the character Marc is played by
>Alan Alda who has always struck me as a jock and this play has nothing to
>do with men gathering to watch or attend sporting events at Madison
>Square Garden.
>So how are we to accept that Alan Alda [Marc] as a mentor to Serge
>[Victor Garber] exercising a somewhat baleful influence in matters
>esthetic with Serge bolting to buy an abstract painting of which Marc
>does not approve and ridicules since Serge, has, in the meantime, moved
>on in the fast company of a more hip esthetic circle? Is it possible
>that Alan Alda could have a baleful influence in suggesting the Knicks
>over the Lakers? I'll buy that! But in matters esthetic concerning the
>collection or purchase of art--no way!
>Further friction occurs in the relationship between Marc and Serge with
>each seeking to influence the other member of this improbable trio, Yvan
>as played by British actor Alfred Molina. However, Yvan is non-committal
>and finds himself resisting the pull of gravity as excercised by both
>Marc and Serge.
>That Serge finally allows Marc, at the conclusion of the play, to deface
>his newly acquired abstract painting is a sign that Serge values his
>relationship with Marc over 疎rt' or any esthetic disagreements and this
Gwen A Orel
Much of your review is interesting, but the notion that grown-up
men don't get together with friends is a howler. In big
cities plenty of people who are not gay are also not married--
maybe their career has slowed that down-- unlike the suburbs,
which are primarily populated by families.
Would you have found it strange if it were about three women?
Gwen
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
Bruce Rodgers
Boy, for what it's worth I think you're making some huge generalizations
here. What's a jock? Or who? Someone who likes sports? A lot of people
like sports. While living in NYC I got together with two other male friends
at least on a weekly basis. Two of us are straight, and the third is gay.
I love to play and watch sports, and I'm a produced playwright working in
the Arts. I know plenty of men who see each other on a regular basis and
have no credibility issues with these three guys getting together.
I would just think it's quite amazing to make such sweeping generalizations
out of one experience.
And for what it's worth, I want to produce the play as soon as the rights
are available. I love it.
--Bruce--
Associate Artistic Director
Asolo Theatre Company
www.sarasota-online.com/asolo
daniel kessler wrote in message ...
>gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) wrote:
>
>>Would you have found it strange if it were about three women?
>>
>>Gwen
>No, not at all for three New York women.
>However, I live on the upper East Side of Manhattan. For over 30 years
>I've been in an out of apartments, Fifth and Park Avenue triplexes,
>duplexes, simplexes, etc., and apartments in Greenwich Village and
>elsewhere in Manhattan and have observed many, many people very closely.
> The only guys here who would get together consistently without their
>wives or girlfriends would be jocks or gay men. Maybe things are
>different in Pittsburgh or in Canada where they may have more time to
>develop relationships where there is less competition with competing
>events. I've also spent considerable time in Paris and the scene there
>is more like that in the play in terms of how men would relate and
>probably London as well. Also, American men, particularly New Yorkers
>are probably more competitive in their inter actions with each other and
>therefore less likely to bond as suggested in the play.
>
daniel kessler
Gwen A Orel
I'm originally from New York, and my brother still lives there.
I honestly don't think your assumptions are borne out. The only
thing unusual in _Art_ is that there are three friends, not just
two close friends.
I saw it with my brother (in London), and your objection never
occurred to him. He is single, not gay, and has two close friends
who happen to be women, but they could as easily be men.
Gwen A Orel
p.s. there are you know, some single heterosexual men who don't
*have* wives or girlfriends. Myabe the men you know are particularly
fearful of homosocial friendships? (that does *not* mean homosexual).
daniel kessler
>*have* wives or girlfriends. Myabe the men you know are particularly
>fearful of homosocial friendships? (that does *not* mean homosexual).
>
>Gwen
>
feeding frenzy to earn and spend we leared, like the folks in Brecht's IN
THE JUNGLE OF THE CITIES, to treat each other like commodities.
Gwen A Orel
Martin Hill
daniel kessler wrote:
> In my opinion, this play does not resonate in an American context. What
> would bond three men in their 30's that they would meet periodically in
> each other's abodes without female companions as a routine unless they
> were 阻ocks' or gay men? These men are reasonably successful in their
> chosen endeavors and are not jocks. They are not homosexuals. In fact,
> one of the decidedly false notes is that the character Marc is played by
> Alan Alda who has always struck me as a jock and this play has nothing to
> do with men gathering to watch or attend sporting events at Madison
> Square Garden.
I kept reading this, hoping that it would turn out to be tongue-in-
cheek, . . . alas, no. Men never gather together unless they're
sports fanatics or gay? Alan Alda is . . . a jock?
Where are you from?
> Also, there is unnecessary confusion at the outset, when we are told that
> the painting cost $200,000 in dollars and then told it cost 200,000 in
> francs
They never say it cost $200,000. They say francs every time.
daniel kessler
Martin Hill <mar...@gobo.net> wrote:
>daniel kessler wrote:
>
>> In my opinion, this play does not resonate in an American context. What
>> would bond three men in their 30's that they would meet periodically in
>> each other's abodes without female companions as a routine unless they
>> were 阻ocks' or gay men? These men are reasonably successful in their
>> chosen endeavors and are not jocks. They are not homosexuals. In fact,
>> one of the decidedly false notes is that the character Marc is played by
>> Alan Alda who has always struck me as a jock and this play has nothing to
>> do with men gathering to watch or attend sporting events at Madison
>> Square Garden.
>
>I kept reading this, hoping that it would turn out to be tongue-in-
>cheek, . . . alas, no. Men never gather together unless they're
>sports fanatics or gay? Alan Alda is . . . a jock?
>
>Where are you from?
>
>
>> Also, there is unnecessary confusion at the outset, when we are told that
>> the painting cost $200,000 in dollars and then told it cost 200,000 in
>> francs
>
>They never say it cost $200,000. They say francs every time.
I'm not making this up!
"Bucks" are dollars, aren't they?
daniel kessler
"Bruce Rodgers" <bro...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Boy, for what it's worth I think you're making some huge generalizations
>here. What's a jock? Or who? Someone who likes sports? A lot of people
>like sports. While living in NYC I got together with two other male friends
>at least on a weekly basis. Two of us are straight, and the third is gay.
>I love to play and watch sports, and I'm a produced playwright working in
>the Arts. I know plenty of men who see each other on a regular basis and
>have no credibility issues with these three guys getting together.
>
>I would just think it's quite amazing to make such sweeping generalizations
>out of one experience.
>
>And for what it's worth, I want to produce the play as soon as the rights
>are available. I love it.
>
>
>--Bruce--
referring to as the usual bond you find. Jocks! You're in the arts field
and so your experiences are different from the rest. The play has an odd
feel because there are no women in it, in the context of the way American
interact here in NYC.
You may lose your shirt mounting the piece. You have comm'l theater down
there too, no? I overheard quite a few negative comments as I headed to
and from the men's room afterwards in the lounge and the foyer.
Les
On 28 Feb 1998, Gwen A Orel wrote:
> As for Bruce losing his shirt: I *highly* doubt it, it's been a huge
> success in *commercial* London theater.
>
> Gwen
I quite agree. Although I don't want to comment on Art, which I saw
tonight, until it is open,
there is a simple one word repudiation of Mr. Kessler's idea that "guys"
don't have non-jock relationships and that American sensibilities can't
deal with (and won't pay money to see) men being friends: Seinfeld.
> >
daniel kessler (dkessl...@bc.cybernex.net)
Gwen A Orel
Look, my brother is a lawyer and he regularly gets together with his
friends. Face it: your life, with its assumptions and habits, is not
universal, and you do not speak for New Yorkers. Get over yourself.
Gwen
Gwen A Orel
As for Bruce losing his shirt: I *highly* doubt it, it's been a huge
success in *commercial* London theater.
Gwen
daniel kessler (dkessl...@bc.cybernex.net) wrote:
: "Bruce Rodgers" <bro...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: >Boy, for what it's worth I think you're making some huge generalizations
: >here. What's a jock? Or who? Someone who likes sports? A lot of people
: >like sports. While living in NYC I got together with two other male friends
: >at least on a weekly basis. Two of us are straight, and the third is gay.
: >I love to play and watch sports, and I'm a produced playwright working in
: >the Arts. I know plenty of men who see each other on a regular basis and
: >have no credibility issues with these three guys getting together.
: >
: >I would just think it's quite amazing to make such sweeping generalizations
: >out of one experience.
: >
: >And for what it's worth, I want to produce the play as soon as the rights
: >are available. I love it.
: >
: >
: >--Bruce--
: Oh come on. Yes, but males bonding over sports is exactly what I'm
: referring to as the usual bond you find. Jocks! You're in the arts field
: and so your experiences are different from the rest. The play has an odd
: feel because there are no women in it, in the context of the way American
: interact here in NYC.
: You may lose your shirt mounting the piece. You have comm'l theater down
: there too, no? I overheard quite a few negative comments as I headed to
: and from the men's room afterwards in the lounge and the foyer.
--
Bruce Rodgers
We've had people from the theatre see it in London and everyone, EVERYONE
raved about it. And I loved it reading it. On the contrary, it will do
very, very well here. If you really think we'll lose our shirt, we'll take
our chances.
Very interesting point of view you have there.
--Bruce--
Associate Artistic Director
Asolo Theatre Company
www.sarasota-online.com/asolo
daniel kessler wrote in message ...
daniel kessler
Bent Brantley's review in today's NY TIMES which is favorable for the
most part but does comment interestingly...
'[Playwright Reza] fails to establish a solid emotional base for her
character's friendship'
..that troubled me in this production..and perhaps I mis-identified it
with thinking of men who congregate to watch sporting events because the
emotional basis of bonding in this play seemed lacking so was
trying to think of one that would work...also.
Brantley writes...'When, late in the play, Marc laments the loss of
his role as mentor to Serge, it distrupts the hiterto seamless flow of
the evening.' That's something an actor with the right bearing could
suggest earlier in the play in the chemistry and interaction between
Marc and Serge but it never happens in this production
...Brantley says...'The assertion doesn't feel earned by anything
that's come before, and you fall out of the carefully self-contained
world of the play.'
I certainly fell out here!
It doesn't feel earned because Alan Alda is, as I said, too free wheeling
in jesture and bearing to suggest a 'peer' type who exercises influence
or did exercise influence over Serge. We just can't buy into it and this
an important element in the whole piece--the question of relationships
between individuals or the bond that they have...
This play is not necessarily just an excuse to make a few puns about art,
although timely for the 60's as Brantley says but must have a deeper
resonance which is lost by these players.
Daphne Hull
In <Eoynq...@news2.new-york.net> daniel kessler
<dkessl...@bc.cybernex.net> writes:
>
>This very French three character one act play has recently had a
>reasonable success in London and is to open at the Royale Theater on
>B'way on March lst.
>
NEWSWEEK has a review of this play in its current issue, with Bill
Gates on the cover - FYI.
Tucker
daniel kessler
I went by the half price ticket booth yesterday at Duffy Square. ART is
still on TKTS..well, so is TITANNIC.
I spoke to a couple I know yesterday who went to the matinee. She's an
artist, he's an actor.
Both felt that the three actors did a good job.
However, both felt that the play was strange in an American context. As
was pointed out to me...American men, more materalistic than their
British or French counterparts, would be that way about their cars or
stereo but not a painting.
Also, they felt that American men would not openly discuss their
intimacies with each other the way these three do.
Also, they pointed out that Marc should be played by an actor in his 40's
while the other two were meant to be in their 30's.
Gwen A Orel
Oh, Dan, give it up. Yawn.
Gwen
daniel kessler (dkessl...@bc.cybernex.net) wrote:
: I went by the half price ticket booth yesterday at Duffy Square. ART is
hell...@worldnet.att.net
Gwen A Orel wrote:
>
> Oh, and p.s.: I'm not attempting to "suppress discussion" by telling
> you to give it up. I merely find your endless reassertions of opinion
> BORING.
>
Guaranteed the rest of us do...
(Especially when the discussion seems to have deteriorated into a
dispute over whose blanket generalization about human behavior is
correct. It's bad enough that too many people in the world at large are
still mired in "ALL [fill in the blank] ACT THIS & SUCH A WAY; NO [fill
in another blank] WOULD EVER DO THAT" absolutes; I had thought people
involved in the theatre--not to mention Vincent Canby--were a bit more
humanized than that...)
Richard H.
daniel kessler
>
>Gwen
be concerned that the play will flop and David Pugh, Sean Connery and
Joan Collman, the backers will not lose their shirts since it was
reported that the 'show' has a 2 million advance here on B'way! However,
Vincent Canby in his piece in tomorrow's NY TIMES does comment
interestingly about this very French play:
'Friendships have different limits, different modes of expression in
different countries. The kind of friendship depicted in ART reflects a
society in which men feel--rightly or wrongly--far more at ease with
women than men do in either in this country or in the UK. An American
wife might encourage her husband to go to the local pub to watch a
baseball game with his pals. Yet she would probably be suspicious if
instead he said he was going to have dinner with them at a new, "in"
restaurant and then catch a movie.'
Since the theater is still regarded by some as a marketplace for ideas,
there shouldn't be any attempt to suppress discussion as to what works
and what doesn't in a play.
Gwen A Orel
Dan,
you haven't made your case, and don't think you're insulting *me*
by your petty slurs against Pittsburgh-- I'm from New York, lived
in San Francisco and London, too.
Your overvehement assertions merely prove your ignorance, and your
rudeness, too.
Gwen
daniel kessler (dkessl...@bc.cybernex.net) wrote:
Gwen A Orel
Oh, and p.s.: I'm not attempting to "suppress discussion" by telling
you to give it up. I merely find your endless reassertions of opinion
BORING.
Gwen
daniel kessler
Has Richard "H" seen ART or is he too generalizing without having first
hand seen or read the play.
Richard "H" and Gwenn will have to speak for themselves.
If you or others don't like my posts or have nothing to contribute...use
you delete key!
Gwen A Orel
Another attempt at ad hominem.
I've seen it and read it, and there's only one "n" in my response.
And you can use your delete key on me telling you to give up this harangue,
too.
Gwen
daniel kessler (dkessl...@bc.cybernex.net) wrote:
: Has Richard "H" seen ART or is he too generalizing without having first
Gwen A Orel
p.s. The H stands for Hellessen, which you'd know if you merely looked at
the top of his post. You don't even do ad hominem very well.
He doesn't have to have read the play to find your particular argument
empty, since your argument is, indeed, based on an assumption about
people at large, specifically male New Yorkers. I and others have
come forward saying your generalizations bout the male New Yorkers we
know doesn't hold. Yet you keep repeating it as if somehow your and only
your experience is valid and symbolic of Life. This is a bore.
GWen
daniel kessler
>the top of his post. You don't even do ad hominem very well.
>
>He doesn't have to have read the play to find your particular argument
>empty, since your argument is, indeed, based on an assumption about
>people at large, specifically male New Yorkers. I and others have
>come forward saying your generalizations bout the male New Yorkers we
>know doesn't hold. Yet you keep repeating it as if somehow your and only
>your experience is valid and symbolic of Life. This is a bore.
>
>GWen
>
>daniel kessler (dkessl...@bc.cybernex.net) wrote:
>: Has Richard "H" seen ART or is he too generalizing without having first
>: hand seen or read the play.
>: Richard "H" and Gwenn will have to speak for themselves.
>
>: If you or others don't like my posts or have nothing to contribute...use
>: you delete key!
>
Hellesen and anyway, who cares and what is AT&T Services, doesn't
that have something to do with groceries or perhaps commodities..just
like Bertol Brecht said--treating everyone as if they were commodities!
Gwen A Orel
daniel kessler (dkessl...@bc.cybernex.net) wrote:
: How on earth am I supposed to make the connection that Richard "H" is for
: Hellesen and anyway, who cares and what is AT&T Services, doesn't
: that have something to do with groceries or perhaps commodities..just
: like Bertol Brecht said--treating everyone as if they were commodities!
How on earth? How about by reading the address POSTED AN THE TOP OF THE
ARTICLE!!!
With every post you underscore your carelessness and stupidy, daniel
kessler (spelled with small letters since it's done that way in your
posted address).
You made the "H" an issue by putting it in quotation marks, seemingly
insinuating that Richard was afraid to post his name, when he'd already
done it.
Really, Dan-- don't you even know how to read?
Gwen
Jessica A. Browner
Guys:
I think I can safely speak for most of the other subscribers to this
newsgroup when I say GIVE IT A REST ALREADY! Or, at the very least, have
the courtesy to continue your juvenile debate by e-mail and spare us the
details. Puh-lease.
Thanks for sharing,
Jessica
Gwen A Orel
Gladly, although I don't remember your being elected spokesperson
of a Usenet... In fact, I would happily discuss the merits of
the play itself, but I'm tired of the tired old rant that it doesn't
represent Life.
Gwen
Jessica A. Browner (jabr...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Guys:
: Thanks for sharing,
: Jessica
--
fiveo...@webtv.net
For those of us in the hinterlands posts like those of Mr. Kessler on
plays he sees around the world are much appreciated. If this were done
regularly by others we could have a better knowledge of what is going on
in the world theater.
Mr. Kessler's comment that this play is too European for American
audiences, may be true for him.
Let's hope that others will follow his example and post on the plays
they see.
les
DgSWEET wrote:
>
> Don't want to get into a big wrangle about it, but the audience I sat with at
> ART the other night roared their way through the evening with great gusto and
> appreciation.
You're absolutely right and did you notice what had them roaring? It
wasn't referential humor, it wasn't stereotyping, it wasn't sight gags.
You didn't have to know anything to "get it". No politics. No sex. It
was excellent, clever, altogether legitimate humor (written and acted).
That's the appeal.
> I think it's gonna do fine here and be produced everywhere and
> with good reason. And I think Alfred Molina has the inside track for the Tony
> at the moment.
>
I think you're right on these counts as well.
--
Regards,
Les
Washington DC
l...@his.com
DgSWEET
Don't want to get into a big wrangle about it, but the audience I sat with at
ART the other night roared their way through the evening with great gusto and
with good reason. And I think Alfred Molina has the inside track for the Tony
at the moment.
Jeff Sweet
PS Those of you in New York who haven't seen MAIDEN'S PRAYER, to hell with the
NY Times and use your own intelligence and go so one of the best plays of the
season with an amazing cast.
Gwen A Orel
Welll, well, well, I'm agreeing with Jeff. Twice in one week!
It seems the newsgroup isn't ready for a spokesperson... if you find
the argument boring, well, don't read it-- this is Usenet and not a
mailing list where the articles can't be avoided, after all.
Gwen
DgSWEET (dgs...@aol.com) wrote:
: Don't want to get into a big wrangle about it, but the audience I sat with at
: Jeff Sweet
--
Gwen A Orel
At the risk of seeming a bit too petty, I have to say that kessler's (small
k since thats how it appears on his articles) condescending remarks
about Pittsburgh and misinformtion about the Royal National Theatre make
me question whether he does see plays around the world-- I think his
point on the ART thread shows a certain New York provincialism.
I would, however, really enjoy seeing posts from those of you not
in America.
Gwen
fiveo...@webtv.net wrote:
: For those of us in the hinterlands posts like those of Mr. Kessler on
--
DgSWEET
>You're absolutely right and did you notice what had them roaring? It
>wasn't referential humor, it wasn't stereotyping, it wasn't sight gags.
>You didn't have to know anything to "get it". No politics. No sex. It
>was excellent, clever, altogether legitimate humor (written and acted).
Actually, the show reminded me of nothing so much as an extended Laurel and
Hardy routine. I've never seen more deadpan takes and slow burns in one
evening.
Onward.
s.bat...@nature.com
In article <6e29b1$k...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
> k since thats how it appears on his articles) condescending remarks
> about Pittsburgh and misinformtion about the Royal National Theatre make
> me question whether he does see plays around the world-- I think his
> point on the ART thread shows a certain New York provincialism.
>
> I would, however, really enjoy seeing posts from those of you not
> in America.
Well, I liked it in London. It seemed as if the author had taken about 5% of
the intellectual content of a Stoppard (Travesties, or Artist Descending a
Staircase), and given it a more relaxed treatment, allowing rather more
emotional subtlety. On the whole, I'd still prefer the Stoppard, but Art was
one of the few good plays I've seen in the past 12 months. It might have been
even better with Alfred Molina in.
Still, perhaps I only liked it because I sometimes go to restaurants, and see
films, with male friends. How depravedly continental of me.
Stephen Battersby
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading