Love's Labour's Lost (Gene Frankel Theatre)

See it if you want to support cast members, who try hard. Two are truly talented. I like when music is integrated w WS's words, but this didn't gel.

Don't see it if you have reasonable standards for NYC WS prodns. Director's work is not worthy. Story isn't well told. But Berowne and Maria have futures.

See it if you’d like to see a passably clear, engaging version of an infrequently performed Shakespeare comedy.

Don't see it if you have an aversion to pop music ca. 1964-69.

Also This production does not fully solve what is always the foremost problem with contemporary stagings of “Love's Labour's Lost.” This is Shakespeare’s most language-bound comedy, & the English language has changed lots since Elizabeth I was on the throne. This production gets clearer as it progresses, & the action involving the 4 male & 4 female lovers, both among themselves & when they interact with the opposite sex, is fairly comprehensible in its broad strokes. This production is set circa 1967, the Summer of Love. Does this sound diversionary? In fact I found it charming. Because the young cast performs the era’s pop songs & dances so idiomatically, the device actually works & delivers some of the evening’s most winning moments.... Read more Read less

See it if you relate to music of the mid-late 1960's so wonderfully woven into this Shakespeare tale to make it wildly accessible to new audiences.

Don't see it if you expect a traditional production of the Bard's work or do not appreciate small productions with young talent.

See it if You want to support a company performing Shakespeare at a developmental, elementary level. You know someone involved in the production.

Don't see it if You prefer a more classically trained Shakespeare company. You want Shakespeare acted, not just recited. You want choices that make sense.

Also I'm in favor of supporting developmental Shakespeare, since the only way to learn it, is to do it. However, most of them have made the effort to understand the text. This cast spoke it as if they leaned it syllable by syllable. Instead of context, we got funny voices, nonsenisal song & dance breaks that had nothing to do w/the previous or next scene. To add to the misery, the director wrote this in the program notes: "You may wonder why Woodstock and Shakespeare? I have no idea." It's the job of the director to have an idea!! Shakespeare has been set in many times, there should always be a reason. Also, telling your audience you have no idea: what were you thinking?! At least pretend as if!! This production was clueless, unprofessional & should have no place in a theatre city like NYC. Unless you know someone w/the production, skip it.... Read more Read less

See it if you love Shakespearean comedy and Woodstock era rock and the combination makes your spirits soar, even if some dialog is unintelligible.

Don't see it if You can’t sit for 2 hrs. of difficult to comprehend Elizabethan English and sophomoric romantic and sexual actions, jokes, and references

Also The singing talent of a couple of the young actors is extraordinary.

See it if You’d like to support and encourage a very young, game and eager cast, a mixed bag with lots of theatre & Shakespeare debuts.

Don't see it if You’re expecting a solid pro and experienced production. This is very much an amateur deal, in the best sense of the word: loving the work.

Also To be fair and kind, this is for the most part student work, and should be judged as such. The cast is young and willing, not a line was dropped and, mirabile dictu—in a current theatrical universe where even miked actors can often be inaudible—every actor actually projected easily; you could actually hear them, in fact at times too much so. How rare is that?

That said, this cast brought to mind Mark Twain’s line about his wife attempting to swear, that though she had the lyrics, she hadn’t the music. Just so these actors: though the moves were right, the dialogue was for the most part incomprehensible, the music not there. Or like listening to students learning French...not hopeless for this cast though—if they can slow down and just talk with each other, but that’ll take time and experience.

The Woodstock angle is a fair conceit but, as AKA suggested would’ve worked better had the men gone from khakis or ROTC to hippie gear. But the songs wove in well enough. Good luck to all.... Read more Read less

See it if you want to support fine efforts by acting school students giving their all; enjoy quirky adaptations & sets (Woodstock & music elements).

Don't see it if you're not ready to focus 100% to absorb the text in verse—I wasn't & left at break. You want a polished production, sets, venue & ensemble.

See it if you want to support director Thomas G. Waites' TGW Acting Studio, whose students perform in this 1960s-set LLL w/ pros. Stars slow, but fun.

Don't see it if You want your Shakespeare pure & unadulterated. Here, the lovers court dressed as The Beetles, & WS text is amusingly altered to match.

Also I'd not heard of Gene Frankel Theatre, Thomas G. Waites, or the Jeff Hunter Charitable Trust that funded this show, but I'll see Shakespeare pretty much anywhere, & took a flyer.

I'm not sorry. Singer & songwriter Joshua Lazarus cut a decent king & can sing Rock N Roll, which strangely worked in this Woodstock-era setting.

TGW student Steven Smith (Berowne) has real promise; the more experienced Julie Spina (Michaela) sparkled; Brandon Hynum (Armado), with a show-stopping, classically trained voice, gives a pretty commanding performance too.

I hadn't seen LLL in some time and this one, while imperfect, was not chopped liver.

It started out uneven w/ some dud jokes & weak acting (Hynum's early appearance excepted), yet the 1st 40-minute act breezed by. Despite the spottiness, it was fun.

The 2nd act improved markedly. The actors warmed up, & delivered some fine humour.

The audience (packed with friends) raved. The show also attracted at least one who'd never seen WS. Great.... Read more Read less

See it if you are curious about the love-child of Shakespeare and Hair. You enjoy covers of songs of the 60's, you like "adaptations".

Don't see it if You like your Shakespeare untampered with, you want the Bard's words well-spoken, you hate 60's music

Also Most of the actors used gesture and expression appropriately and got the meaning across, but only a few spoke Shakespeare's words well.... Read more Read less

See it if you want an experimental take on a lesser performed play, like word play and adding singing to Shakespeare.

Don't see it if mind a weak plot and while the performances are okay none are powerful and the humor doesn't always land.

Also I had a good time at the show, the crowd was very enthusiastic and there was a nice feel in the room which may help compared to some showings. I thought the hippy idea was interesting basically the play is about a set of idyllic rules that come into conflict with human needs, I think you can see a connection there. Singing was a mixed bag but worked more than didn't. this is not one of Shakespeare's best plays so unless you really love Shakespeare and want to see all his plays this is not a necessary stop.... Read more Read less

See it if Shakespeare deserves better. Blame the director for garbled deliveries, bad acoustics and genereally getting in the way of clarity.

Don't see it if Mostly unintelligible hint of what LLL is about, while some sadly rendered pop tunes further confused. Large, mostly unnecessary, cast.

See it if curious what else can be done to poor Shakespeare

Don't see it if seeking cohesivness

Also "I have no idea" confessed the director as to why Woodstock and Shakespeare. And, indeed, it takes that level of scarcity to place a group of men vowing chastity in free-love clothing. If only he placed them in conservative khakis and allow an outfit change when transformed... but alas, this production is not about a cohesive interpretation.

There are some lovely, well-acted Shakespeare-worthy scenes that deliver what I came for. And then there are the gratuitous over-sexualized and over-homosexualized moments, the wannabe acting and the ill-timed, awkwardly-staged songs for the trainwreck seekers.

In the end, I clapped warmly for the huge well-meaning cast. I felt like we all went through a weird experience together.... Read more Read less

See it if you enjoy different takes on Shakespeare plays and the incorporation of 60's music and dance.

Don't see it if you prefer more traditional productions of classics.

See it if Best seen if you're familiar with the play; it's wordy and somewhat complicated. The integration of love-themed 60's music worked for me

Don't see it if You are bored by wordy repartee with little action.

See it if You appreciate that Shakespeare is meant to be living and continously rethought, and you love music of the sixties.

Don't see it if You are looking to see a staid, traditional Shakespearean performance.

See it if You love Shakespeare, no matter what, or like cool costumes, 60's tunes and general nice feeling.

Don't see it if You want to understand every word since was rather incomprehensible as a whole.

See it if you want to hear some late 60s hits mixed into a chopped up adaptation of Shakespeare

Don't see it if you want to avoid a chopped up, chaotic rendition of a Shakespeare comedy, where the continuity of the story is often lost

Also At least it ends with the Fifth Dimension singing Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In... Read more Read less

See it if you want to see a less frequently done Shakespeare play and are a fan of 60s music.

Don't see it if you have a high standard of how you like to see the Bard performed.

See it if You are curious to see a mashed up performance of Shakespeare and Woodstock with exuberant performers.

Don't see it if you don't like Woodstock & 60s music, are a Shakespeare play purist.

Also The Woodstock element doesn't really work as compiled in this production. The mashup just doesn't flow together at all. You become engrossed in Shakespeare's words, then all these extra unnecessary 60s songs and references written in the play distract and confuse as you try to figure out the connection that doesn't truly exist. On a positive note, the performers are quite talented where the direction and script are lacking.... Read more Read less

See it if You know the play by heart. Almost unintelligible which makes the other flaws glaring. Actors are competent so must be direction.

Don't see it if Cannot recommend. When I went, appeared only friends and me left in the audience at the end.

See it if You enjoy seeing unpolished productions in an intimate setting and you already know the Shakespeare. (Some lines cannot be understood.

Don't see it if You are hard of hearing or want a plot line that makes sense. The 60s setting provides great costumes and music, but isn't well though out.

See it if You want to see a reworking of Shakespeare using sixties pop music.

Don't see it if You don't want to see basically what is a student production of actors at different levels of development and don't like Elizabethan English

See it if Interesting effort to combine "60s music with Shakespeare. Enthusiastic cast.

Don't see it if Unlike Fiasco and others, language and intent not made clear. Most 60 s ideas didn't have clear intent or purpose, thus didn't work.

See it if you like modern, experimental re-works of Shakespeare and the music of the 60s-70s.

Don't see it if you are a Shakespeare purist, or you dislike the popular music of the 60s-70s.

Also Amusing and very well done with some good singing and fine acting.

See it if You like entry level Shakespeare and don’t mind poorly delivered Shakespeare performances amongst a few good ones

Don't see it if you mind some of performers singing off key and speaking the Bard’s words mechanically.