Three-time Obie Award winner Rachel Chavkin ('Hadestown') returns to New York Theatre Workshop with Caryl Churchill's incisive 1647-set drama about the power struggles in England after a brutal civil war. More…
Amid the chaos and confusion, revolutionaries across the country are dreaming of a new future. England stands at a crossroads as food shortages, economic instability and a corrupt political system threaten to plunge the country into darkness and despair. The Parliament men who fought against the tyranny of the king now argue for stability and compromise, but the people are hungry for change. For a brief moment, a group of rebels, preachers, soldiers and dissenters dare to imagine an age of hope, a new Jerusalem in which freedom will be restored to the land.
See it if You have the patience to sit through many short scenes that often feel unrelated until you’ve seen the whole of the work. A lot of metaphor.
Don't see it if You want a plot that is easy to understand or even follow. Even though I often had no idea what I was seeing I was oddly attracted to it.
See it if Reformation drama from 1976 w/ 3 pop vocals feat. grey period costumes and ripped denim on a bare stage. Proprietary debate and The Rapture.
Don't see it if W/o the Churchill imprint, this period drama wouldn't be mounted. Easy parallels drawn to the relevance of today(1976), but @2:45? Slo slog
See it if you enjoy think pieces about the state of God and the existence of heaven and hell.
Don't see it if you’re easily confused. Even after reading the contextual background provided with the program I still had a difficult time following along.
See it if Very low expectations has its pros. I expected to hate this show, but found the acting strong and the history interesting.
Don't see it if Unfortunately, though there are many years to cover, the play is too long with too many monologues. A little action would help.
See it if Caryl Churchill, 70s agit prop, excellent company of players, political discourse, sparseStaging, constant challenge float your theatre boat
Don't see it if can't or don't want 2 listen, hate debate, cannot see parallels with today, need easy, must disparage anything U don't prelike
See it if 17th Century English civil war given the brainy Churchill treatment. Lots of religion and politics talk. I ate it up.
Don't see it if if history, religion and political plays bore you. Nice staging of difficult material. Talented cast -- Jennings and Jeffers stood out.
See it if you're interested in political, religious, and philosophical plays with great production design and acting. Set in 1600s, but relevant now.
Don't see it if Long, slow, and often dull script. Despite its merits in production and acting some scenes are a real bore (debates at end of act 1).
See it if you enjoy good staging and acting even when you can't get involved with the characters or the story.
Don't see it if you fall asleep during long plays that feel more like a lecture or news story than an interaction between characters.
See it if You love a show where the playwright has done her research & connects the past to the present in dramatic truth. What has ever changed? Long
Don't see it if but never windy, serious yet humble, bleak but humane. Not a light or funny piece, it takes political expediency to task. Amazing talent.
See it if your enjoy a show with lots of redundant speeches that were not that interesting the first time. Some brights spots but otherwise blah.
Don't see it if you want a plot to make sense & actually tell a story or it bothers you when actors need to read their lines from a script during the show.
See it if you are interested in debates during the mid 1600s about the rights of the people vs the privileged.
Don't see it if you don't like being preached to about things no longer relevant,
See it if You are a history buff. Especially with an interest in British history. You enjoy highly stylized productions.
Don't see it if You have no interest in history. I honestly couldn't recommend this to someone who wasn't at least passingly interested in history.
See it if You are really interested in the Great Revolution in England and debates about the rights of men (forget about women).
Don't see it if Your idea of drama is something dramatic, not didactic.
See it if I actually cannot imagine why. I happen to love the playwright's work usually but this is baffling. Academic, dry, who cares?
Don't see it if you love theater and see it for its communication and connection. there is none of that here. I have no idea what is the purpose of this
See it if you are really curious about the early works of Churchill and have patience for a rambling piece that becomes ever more inert.
Don't see it if you're looking for something dynamic or dramatic.
See it if You know and love this play; if you’re out there, go see this. Absolutely top cast, staging, lighting, & direction
Don't see it if Or rather, unless, they cut out 15 min from the first half debates and an hour from the second act, mostly from the last scene
See it if You love British history Or, you love Caryl Churchill & Rachel Chavkin.
Don't see it if You want something fresh & absorbing.
See it if you really know the English Civil War and the Putney Debates, you know what the play is about
Don't see it if you expect to be educated, the play is very thorny, the actors are wonderful however
See it if you're a 17th century England history buff, for a passionate cast that tries its best with material that's mostly homework and little play.
Don't see it if you get bored easily, expect theater to have characters, a clear plot or be coherent, or if you're tired of modern touches on old material.
See it if You wish C-Span had existed in 1649. You're ok with a lot of sifting to find bits of good in your theater.
Don't see it if You think 20 minutes of debate about 1649 English politics sounds excruciating (spoiler alert: you're right).
See it if you've got the stamina for Caryl Churchill at her most demanding; it's a uniformly gifted cast under Rachel Chavkin's incisive direction.
Don't see it if you refuse to entertain the thought that it's easier for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven.