Jo 8302

See it if sitting in a chair opposite a performer directly addressing you won't make you uncomfortable; you're open to new theatrical experiences.

Don't see it if sitting opposite a performer directly addressing you might make you uncomfortable; show's concept strikes you as indulgent or pretentious.

Also Was that 10 minutes, as advertised? It seemed closer to 5 minutes to me...and anything's tolerable for 5 minutes! Which is not to say this is otherwise intolerable, but whaddaya got to lose? This piece is performed by different actors on different days. I saw Melissa Rakiro, and was amazed how spontaneous and natural she was -- you would NOT think she was following a script, but just talking on her own. Also, she has a charming demeanor, so that certainly added to it. The performer just does a sort of stream-of-consciousness monologue. It was over too fast for me to really grasp anything profound from it, although the person who saw it before me found it extremely moving (to the point of tears!).... Read more Read less

See it if You're a big jazz fan. You have a lot of patience. You're curious about a "demimonde" & willing to put up with a dearth of dramatic momentum

Don't see it if You bore easily. You need to be wowed (or just engaged) by a show right from the outset. You're not into jazz or tales of lost men.

Also This play needs a new first 10 minutes -- they are deadly. Two men on different sides of stage move about in dim light...no dialogue, almost no action. It feels like you're waiting for them to work out a technical glitch. The bad opening is a problem because the first act is VERY long, and it can lose people right then & there (as happened with my companion). The male actors are good, there are some nicely played scenes, it's all well-staged re design & live music. But it just didn't seem to come together, and I think that's because it gets off to SUCH a slow start. It needs cutting as well. The first act is an hour an a half long! (Possibly eliminate the scenes/storyline set in present day?) It also comes off a little disjointed and rambling. This was clearly a passion project, but as is (stereo)typical with jazz fans' passion, they don't know when to rein it in!... Read more Read less

See it if you'd like a slice of African-Americana; you appreciate the artistry & creativity involved in puppetry and animation.

Don't see it if you only want to see a "real" play rather than a puppet show, though it's not the traditional type of puppet show.

Also "Slow" may be too harsh for this show that runs under an hour, but the pacing wasn't ideal. That's the main criticism of what is a rather charming, certainly creative production. Five actors perform a story about African-American life in 1920s Harlem. The "stage" is a dollhouse-like representation of a block in Harlem. There is shadow puppetry as well as puppetry using puppets that are more like cut-outs. The only "traditional" puppet is a narrator character, and the puppeteer is ON the stage (like in Avenue Q). Sometimes the actors are behind the set, as in traditional puppetry, and sometimes they come out in front of it to act. There is period & original music. Be sure to go up and examine the set -- audience is invited to after the show -- to really appreciate the artistry. Show overall is personal & heartfelt.... Read more Read less

See it if you're a sucker for striving artists' stories, even if they're very poorly dramatized.

Don't see it if you like your plays to be well-written and well-directed.

Also This is the 2nd play in a row at Cherry Lane (after "Actually We're F***ed") that purports to be very contemporary - in the types of characters, their issues, etc. - but is actually an extremely inauthentic, out-of-it depiction of contemporary people, issues, etc. For heaven's sake, somebody actually got out a cassette tape recorder! (The tapes he was playing would have been made 10-15 years ago...you know, after people stopped using cassette tape recorders.) This was an outdated representation of the music industry in many ways: how somebody gets discovered; the power of record labels, etc. Staging and direction is terribly clunky, with respect to the way people enter & exit, move in relation to the other people on stage, etc. Most of the characters had no inner life or much of a backstory, and when backstories were provided, they didn't seem convincing or relevant. Dialogue related to being an artist and dealing w/industry execs sounded either cliched, from 40 yrs ago, or both.... Read more Read less

See it if you've ever had to get over a huge betrayal or rebuild your life in some way, or are open-minded/sympathetic to stories about those who have

Don't see it if you're highly sensitive to issues of privilege; you're not a fan of autobiographical solo shows.

Also As stated in the header, you could end up with one of two divergent reactions to this show. I generally found it engaging and moving, but I understand those who have criticized it for coming from a place of privilege (and not acknowledging that). Although she mentions potential financial hardships caused by "the incident" - such as the cost of transferring her children from public to private school - she does in fact transfer them. And take a couple of trips. And when they (supposedly) have to sell their Westchester home to pay legal bills, etc., the block in Harlem to which they move - as show in a slide projection - does not exactly look like cheap living! (It's well-maintained brownstones.) Another criticism is that the show is just self-centered; I guess so, although she doesn't claim to be doing anything than telling her side of the story. NY theater fans and people familiar with her and/or her husband's work would probably be interested.... Read more Read less

See it if you enjoy interpretive dance, or you have a loved one with memory loss/dementia and would appreciate art sympathetic to the situation.

Don't see it if you are looking for a cohesive, profound depiction of dementia. It's too diffuse & choppy and didn't make me feel like I was in his mind.

Also Well-meaning but ultimately not that moving and doesn't create enough of a through-line story wise to completely engage viewer. You may find your attention lagging.... Read more Read less

See it if you're willing to give four promising, appealing actors a chance even though their material is terrible.

Don't see it if you desire a plot that makes sense, character development that's consistent and plausible, a comedy that's genuinely funny.

Also This poorly written play is not as advertised. "Millennials" is a key word in the publicity, but (1) it doesn't make a difference what generation these characters are, (2) the play is obviously written by somebody much older. Also, a few lines of dialogue in 1st & last scenes relate to the tile, that's all. So many things in the play, large and small, are not believable, starting with why these couples would be married in the first place. Ex. of something small: what 30-yr-old man today WRITES a thank you note (not even for an actual gift or favor). Ex. of something large: A woman has only a passing reaction to learning that her spouse -- who she's been with for 7 years -- had never bothered to tell her he can only father a child via in vitro. Is Molly an earth mother or a woman superficially obsessed w/fashion labels? They're contradictory, yet she's both! She is also a baby-boomer version of earth mother (like Lily Tomlin on Grace & Frankie); her clothing & references seem very 1970s... Read more Read less

See it if You want to see a solid production of a classic (by classic, I mean work by a classic canonical dramatist).

Don't see it if You do not like brutal depictions of marriage.

See it if You're a musical theater completist -- i.e., you want to see flop or forgotten shows by greats like Alan Jay Lerner.

Don't see it if You have no tolerance for shows that are not thoroughly well-structured and well-acted. This one has flaws!

Also A great performance by Anne Nathan (as the maid). Some genuinely funny dialogue...I'm guessing those lines were by Joseph Stein. A heartfelt effort as usual by the York. There is some nice singing. But the portrayal of the daughter is weak, and the 2nd act has a practically nonexistent plot -- all of a sudden the conflict's resolved basically by a shrug. And this premise is, how shall I put this, icky. An underage girl had sex with 3 men within a matter of weeks and got pregnant; for years she's taken money from all of them, including the two who are not the child's father (and lied to everyone she knows); the question of paternity is never resolved. This premise was icky back when it was just a 1960s sex farce, even if you were entertained by it (the source material, movie "Buona Sera Mrs. Campbell"), but we've gotten more sensitive & enlightened year by year -- the musical was already problematic when it originated in 1979, but now in the 21st century, fuhgeddaboudit... Read more Read less

See it if you're into plays about "hot-button" issues (race, sexuality, e.g.), even if the treatment of them isn't particularly insightful or engaging

Don't see it if you're looking for a truly thought-provoking and interesting play touching on "hot-button" issues (race, sexuality, e.g.).

Also There's a lot of yelling in this play, especially at the beginning...just a warning if you're sensitive to that. The story and character development are just not that deep or involving to really make this a meaningfully timely play. It's okay -- short enough that you're not sitting there dying for it to end. But not entertaining in any way.... Read more Read less

See it if You're willing to tolerate a tedious history lesson because of excellent design and production values.

Don't see it if You're not. Uberfans of Wagner and/or German history might be interested, but it's really not an engaging story as presented.

Also The costumes and scenic, lighting & sound design are all impressive. Earnest and generally fine performances by the actors, although (sorry) the leading lady is not very charismatic. But the storytelling never really grabs you, and by middle of 2nd act, you just want it to end already. I think the playwright wanted to show off his knowledge!... Read more Read less

See it if You're into immersive, site-specific theater. You're into NYC history and theater that illuminates under-covered aspects of it.

Don't see it if You like to sit still to watch a play. You only enjoy linear narratives.

Also Absolutely terrific design: the props, set decor, how it's all laid out, etc. Shows an amazing amount of ingenuity and artistry. As for the play itself, this is another ambitious and thoughtful effort by this company (which has done immersive site-specific productions on Governors Island in the past). I can't say it really grabs you, though some scenes are more interesting and/or entertaining than others. Not at all bad, just not super-engaging. But commendable work by all involved, including the performers.... Read more Read less

See it if you are up for a wild time!

Don't see it if you don't like bare butts or (except for pasties) breasts and the things they do--shimmying, twerking, etc.--or are otherwise prudish.

Also This is like an R-rated cirus retelling of "Alice in Wonderland." Fabulous costumes, clever staging, hard bodies galore (though too many tattoos for my tastes). There's no dialogue but lots of music (including pop songs you'll recognize) and near-nudity. The performers are dressed as in burlesque: G-strings, pasties, codpieces, thongs, etc. There is some terrific dancing (including ballet) and aerial work. Just have an open mind and you'll be dazzled by something in this show!... Read more Read less

See it if you are open to depictions of contemporary relationships, for good or bad. You've ever been hung up on somebody you know isn't good for you.

Don't see it if you only like love stories that are sentimental and very romantic; you can't enjoy a play if you disagree with characters' actions.

Also Excellent performances by Feiffer and Linklater. A great first scene - if you're a woman who's ever been undeniably attracted to a man despite certain things about him pissing you off, you will appreciate how on-the-nose it is. The second scene is good too - also realistic. However, if you have never been in a relationship like this (where you WANT to want to leave it, but don't actually want to) or are judgmental about them, you might find the whole thing exasperating/off-putting. What doesn't work in the play is: (1) the third scene - not particularly satisfying dramatically or emotionally; (2) the political/Trump references - basically because they're irrelevant (there's only 1 or 2 of them anyway). I understand the point she's trying to make, about men who think they're woke and such good guys but aren't always, but the point is made without the allusions to the 2016 election (and that the first & last scenes also take place on Election Day is either unclear or unnecessary).... Read more Read less

See it if You'd like to see expert ensemble work. You enjoy unconventional storytelling. You're not yet familiar with the Mad Ones & what they do.

Don't see it if You're a strict traditionalist in terms of plot structure for plays.

Also Amazing performances: These actors REALLY become their characters (including the 2 who play the research co. employees) -- absolutely seamless portrayals. It's a fun idea: recreating a focus group, in this case about a popular kids' TV show. And very impressive how you discern a lot about the (parent) characters' lives and personalities without ever seeing them interact w/their kids or spouses or do anything but participate in this focus group. Same with how you discern a lot about the TV show and its characters without seeing any of it. While I totally enjoyed this play, I would not dismiss the criticism that (1) it can start to feel a bit repetitive in places, (2) it could go deeper regarding issues of race, class, gender, family dynamics. I was expecting more to be articulated later in the play - like, maybe, an actual argument between participants, or an explicit critique of certain attitudes - but the potential conflict kind of petered out or ultimately seemed underdeveloped.... Read more Read less

See it if you enjoy experimental theater; you have terrible memories of school; you're open-minded about entertainment.

Don't see it if you like traditional, linear storytelling; you prefer plays that emphasize plot & character over style & presentation.

Also Well-constructed, designed, performed but not for everyone -- see distinctions in "See it/Don't see it."... Read more Read less

See it if You enjoy interactive theater or surreal/absurdist comedy, or are looking for lighthearted fare.

Don't see it if You're a stickler for solidly written, thoroughly plausible drama (it's neither)...or you dislike interacting with performers.

Also I had fun at the show and came out feeling "definite thumbs-up!" Thinking about the show later, however, I realized it's not that good--unless you are just up for fun, with some clever staging. But a number of things in the script (Mark Twain, the titular dog, etc.) actually didn't "work"; i.e., ultimately they were kind of pointless plot- or emotion-wise and thus just gags. I went in expecting this to be Jan's story, and that's how the play starts out, but it diffuses into the whole crew's stories. I think this lack of focus hurts it dramatically. And while I enjoyed how they recreated the layout, furnishings and experience of an airplane flight, some things were too inaccurate to overlook: Since when, for example, do they put oversize luggage in the cockpit? (It gets checked!) And since when do crew members go into passenger luggage, like the copilot does with the harp? I'm guessing the playwright was inspired by Christopher Durang's works; it resembles some of them.... Read more Read less

See it if You like stand-up comedy or Colin Quinn.

Don't see it if You give much thought to the ideas expressed in jokes...some in this show are dubious.

Also Yes, I laughed - although not as much as my fellow audience members. While there are funny lines and delivery, Quinn's material doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Some of his statements are just wrong. "The right sees only positive and the left sees only negative” (Trump's campaign was predicated on the belief that everything in America was horrible); "The right can be a little bit racist and the left can be a little bit fascist" (anti-racist does not equal fascist; I think the word he was looking for is sanctimonious); it is a gross mischaracterization to say the left is the side that suppresses free speech (they don't "overrreact" any more frequently or vociferously than the right). Does he really believe vigilantism is preferable to our criminal justice system, that dating/marriage was better in the 1950s, etc.? And he made too many fat jokes. But if you don't nitpick -- i.e., think about it too much -- you can have a good enough time, I guess.... Read more Read less

See it if you want an ORIGINAL adaptation of this familiar tale. Uses the basic concept & characters but changes enough so it's not the same old story

Don't see it if you're not sympathetic to issues related to social & economic justice, gentrification, community building, etc.

Also This is a completely up-to-date version, with Scrooge a greedy landlord who's "ruining" the neighborhood by kicking out longstanding tenants who pay less in favor of more lucrative short-term rentals, leaving storefronts unleased for the tax writeoff, etc. So it is a clever adaptation of this OLD story to contemporary times. Excellent stagecraft -- the way light & sound effects are used for Scrooge's being haunted. Some fun musical interludes. Overall, heartfelt, well-performed & -designed, feels both informal and professional.... Read more Read less

See it if You're curious about the filmmaker's theater debut (or a big fan of his), or you can't get enough of satires of overentitled affluent whites

Don't see it if You don't like plays that consist more of monologues than dialogue. You've had enough of satires of overentitled affluent whites.

Also I wish the story were told with more "back & forth" (dialogue, interaction between characters) rather than a monologue by the white woman, then a monologue by the white man, then a monologue by the black woman. It made for unsatisfying storytelling, and I got confused in the last scene about how much was true or just surreal.... Read more Read less