Already closed

Yours Unfaithfully

Members say: Intelligent, Thought-provoking, Great acting, Entertaining, Relevant
78
Critics
76
25 reviews
Members
79
72 reviews
 

Mint Theater Company presents the very belated world premiere of Miles Malleson's 1933 "un-romantic comedy" about life in an open marriage, and the price of free love.

... Read more

Stephen and Anne, blissfully happy for eight years, are committed to living up to their ideals. When Stephen, a writer who isn’t writing, begins to sink into a funk of unproductive moodiness, Anne encourages him to seek out a fresh spark. Can their marriage survive uncompromising generosity, sacrifice, and love? 'Yours Unfaithfully' was published in 1933 but never produced...until now.

 


Reviews (97)

See: Critics' Reviews | Members' Reviews

60
Theatermania

"Max von Essen and Elisabeth Gray do an admirable job portraying the seesaw emotions of the convention-bending pair, but Malleson's uneven script makes us wait until the final act for a dramatic payoff...The earnest plot, unfortunately, begs for a more comedic treatment. Director Jonathan Bank squeezes in a few chuckles now and then, but this is far from the smart comedy it could have been...Still, 'Yours Unfaithfully' offers keen insights into the destructiveness of jealousy." Full Review

60
Time Out New York

"Malleson’s bio suggests a life story considerably more colorful than the tidy marital drama that unfolds onstage...The script offers a scrupulous examination of two warring impulses: the urge to explore versus the instinct to nurture and protect. Happily, we’re spared the wink-wink prompts of farce, though Malleson does allude to an extremely vulgar adage of the day, sanitized here as 'Fresh kiss, fresh courage.' If only he had applied that tenet to his rather dry disquisition." Full Review

60
Broadway Blog

"It examines with intelligence and sensitivity, but few emotional fireworks, the ramifications of the once scandalous idea of open marriage...The script's appealing promise dissipates into talky artificiality, largely, I believe, because of its otherwise capable actors being out of their depth; instead of true Malleson we get faux-Coward. Malleson's play should only receive another staging if it can find a cast...that can carry off its English savoir-faire and, most particularly, its accents." Full Review

60
TheaterScene.net

"One problem is that the play (unlike Noel Coward's 'Design for Living' or Somerset Maugham's 'The Constant Wife' which cover similar territory) is neither witty not clever, and none of the lines are particularly sparkling or original. While the play may delineate liberated sexual behavior, its drawing room comedy format is too conventional and refined. All five performers always seem to be acting as their style is too arch to be truly believable." Full Review

60
TheaterScene.com

“A mildly diverting play…The first act drags on with verbose dialogue that attempts to be be witty…The mannered performances seem overly stiff and unnatural…The Third Act takes place in a room, out of town…Mr. von Essen and Ms. Gray have been transformed…The performance style is more relaxed and organic...Gone is the overly arch, clipped stiffness of the earlier scenes. These two are now fully formed creatures, with a newly seen gravitas that was sorely lacking earlier in the evening.” Full Review

See: Critics' Reviews | Members' Reviews

60
Boring, Disappointing, Slow

See it if you like plays from the 1920's/1930's and the clothing from that era...

Don't see it if you want stimulating theater as it's very slow moving and quite boring...

60
Banal, Disappointing, Insipid

See it if you don't mind a silly plot (although, it might not be so far fetched).

Don't see it if you've experienced a cheating partner.

69
Intelligent, Thought-provoking, Disappointing, Cliched, Slow

See it if you are interested in the concept of open marriage. Not terrible but not compelling either.

Don't see it if you are not interested in the relationships of the English upper middle class.

65
Clever, Thought-provoking, Disappointing, Insipid

See it if You appreciate some good acting...and an interesting "almost" plot about marriage infidelity

Don't see it if You would prefer more action..more depth of characters

Also The understudy (padre) was not well prepared...and that impacted upon ... Read more Read less

60
Ambitious, Thought-provoking, Quirky, Slow, Dated

See it if you've always wished you could be transported back to the 1930s and see the premiere of a somewhat Cowardesque comedy w/o British accents.

Don't see it if George Bernard Shaw's oh-so-modern exchange of ideas about the sexes makes you yawn because in a way this is just second-rate Shaw.

65
Confusing, Dated

See it if You enjoy a play that explores the idea of an open relarionship with a bit of a dated atmosphere

Don't see it if You dont like long 2 shows because this one actually has 2 intermissions and was a little too boring and slow

66
During previews
Hopelessly dated boring

See it if Written in 1933, but never produced. Now we know why. Two and a half hours of explanations of why a husband and wife might want to cheat.

Don't see it if Thank goodness Max von Essen was on the stage. He supplied needed spark.

60
During previews
Disappointing, Repetitive, Talky, Where are the accents?

See it if you're fascinated by 20th c plays as time capsules. W/ its discussion of open marriage, YU was ahead of its time, hence it was unperformed.

Don't see it if plays that are talk-talk-talk annoy you. I didn't find the acting convincing. These are snazzy Brits (lots of cricket talk) but no accents.

Also The Mint Theater's mission--to revive forgotten plays--is hard. Often ... Read more Read less

65
During previews
Indulgent, Fluffy, Bland

See it if you like the idea of seeing the world premiere of an 80 year old play.

Don't see it if you expect said 80 year old play to be a gem.

65
During previews
Thought-provoking, Resonant, Inconsistent, Unengaging, Fascinating

See it if you want to see a mediocre production of a fascinating play from the 1930s, parts of which feel like they could have been written today.

Don't see it if you're sick of seeing uninspired direction.

68
During previews
Great acting, Disappointing, Cliched, Dated

See it if you really like dated plays that seem to go nowhere, The time period(1933) makes it a little more interesting.

Don't see it if a one-liner with two intermissions is a little too much for you

Also The characters are not very interesting and their problem is overdone