Reasons to Be Pretty

Reasons to Be... #1

by Neil LaBute

Greg is overheard admitting that his girlfriend Steph is no beauty, but that he wouldn't change her for the world. She is devastated; he can't see what he's done wrong. Meanwhile, Greg's friend Kent alternates between boasting about how gorgeous his wife Carlyis and chasing after a hot new colleague.The final part of Neil LaBute's 'beauty trilogy' (following The Shape of Things and Fat Pig ) about society's obsession with looks, Reasons to Be Pretty premiered in the UK at the Almeida Theatre, London, in November 2011.'[ The Shape of Things ] is LaBute's thesis on extreme feminine wiles, as well as a disquisition on how far an artist can go in the name of art . . . Like a chiropractor for the soul, LaBute is looking for realignment, listening for the crack.' Elle'A heart-warming tale from America's master misanthrope.' Independent on Fat Pig

Genres: Plays, Theatre, Drama, Fiction, Contemporary, Comedy, American

112 pages, Paperback

First published June 24, 2008

About the author

Neil LaBute is an American film director, screenwriter and playwright.

Born in Detroit, Michigan, LaBute was raised in Spokane, Washington. He studied theater at Brigham Young University (BYU), where he joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. At BYU he also met actor Aaron Eckhart, who would later play leading roles in several of his films. He produced a number of plays that pushed the envelope of what was acceptable at the conservative religious university, some of which were shut down after their premieres. LaBute also did graduate work at the University of Kansas, New York University, and the Royal Academy of London.

In 1993 he returned to Brigham Young University to premier his play In the Company of Men, for which he received an award from the Association for Mormon Letters. He taught drama and film at IPFW in Fort Wayne, Indiana in the early 1990s where he adapted and filmed the play, shot over two weeks and costing $25,000, beginning his career as a film director. The film won the Filmmakers Trophy at the Sundance Film Festival, and major awards and nominations at the Deauville Film Festival, the Independent Spirit Awards, the Thessaloniki Film Festival, the Society of Texas Film Critics Awards and the New York Film Critics Circle.

LaBute has received high praise from critics for his edgy and unsettling portrayals of human relationships. In the Company of Men portrays two misogynist businessmen (one played by Eckhart) cruelly plotting to romance and emotionally destroy a deaf woman. His next film Your Friends & Neighbors (1998), with an ensemble cast including Eckhart and Ben Stiller, was a shockingly honest portrayal of the sex lives of three suburban couples. In 2000 he wrote an off-Broadway play entitled Bash: Latter-Day Plays, a set of three short plays (Iphigenia in orem, A gaggle of saints, and Medea redux) depicting essentially good Latter-day Saints doing disturbing and violent things. One of the plays was a much-talked-about one-person performance by Calista Flockhart. This play resulted in his being disfellowshipped from the LDS Church. He has since formally left the LDS Church.

LaBute's 2002 play The Mercy Seat was one of the first major theatrical responses to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Set on September 12, it concerns a man who worked at the World Trade Center but was away from the office during the attack — with his mistress. Expecting that his family believes that he was killed in the towers' collapse, he contemplates using the tragedy to run away and start a new life with his lover. Starring Liev Schreiber and Sigourney Weaver, the play was a commercial and critical success.

LaBute's latest film is The Wicker Man, an American version of a British cult classic. His first horror film, it starred Nicolas Cage and Ellen Burstyn and was released on September 1, 2006 by Warner Bros. Pictures to scathing critical reviews and mediocre box office.

He is working with producer Gail Mutrux on the screen adaptation of The Danish Girl by David Ebershoff.

Reviews

[Dave Schaafsma · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really didn't want to read a play by Neil LaBute. I knew of his play In the Company of Men, which I understand was intended to be a black comedy about two guys who are jerks, unhappy with their bad luck with women, who try to torment a deaf co-worker. Deliberate cruelty to someone who is disabled. It apparently backfires on them, but I had heard about the play and seen excerpts from a movie version of it and it made me uncomfortable to have this mirror held up to certain aspects of male-ness, of patriarchy. I knew these things about many guys already, and even if LaBute was dead-on in his characterization of "male privilege," I just didn't want to go there. I feel a little guilty about that, actually, in the me-too moment, because he has been writing about guys for some time in brutally honest ways and we need to have these representatins to talk about these issues.

As odd as it seems, I came upon this play through a conversation with a Goodreads friend about Herman Hesse's Narcissus and Goldmund, which in part features a "beautiful" Goldmund for a time sleeping with a lot of "beautiful" women. Male predator? I don't think so, he's as much approached as approaching women, but you have to consider the source here (me: guy). Anyway, I was casting about for a play about beauty, and this one, that was nominated for and won Tony awards, is.

The play focuses on a woman whose friend overhears the woman's boyfriend talk about a new "hot" co-worker, and says of her that she is basically "ugly" in comparison. The woman drops the guy for the insult; how can they go on with her thinking he thinks she is ugly? The woman's friend is more conventionally "pretty" but suffers from being stalked by guys, being the victim of jealousy, and other problems. All four of these twenty-something folks in this play talk about beauty; they are all working class, they're young, immature, they fail to fully appreciate other qualities in the opposite sex, they are shallow and mostly unlikable, especially the guys, as is LaBute's usual approach, it seems.

But I like all the talk in this play about beauty obsession, especially among the young, maybe especially among men but among women, too, and all the damage it causes. The dialogue is crackling, fast-paced, profane, and ultimately provocative. I liked the play, and may read the other two plays in his trilogy.

[Kristy · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's weird, because as I was reading this, I had the impression that Neil LaBute may be getting script inspiration from Maury Povich, but then I also saw the germs of actual interesting good ideas in the play and thought that maybe a (sorry Neil) better playwright would read this and craft something really tragic and amazing. So it's like a trickle up theory with him.

I just never like how his characters are so obviously bad or good. Kent is RIDICULOUS. Who acts like this? Let me rephrase, I've known people who act like this, but they don't SAY it. They may not even KNOW they are that guy. But they are, and that's what is makes them interesting in the way that train wrecks and fires and general human misery can be interesting. You can ask why forever and there are no answers, some people are just really not in touch with any kind of moral core, and they are making decisions based on total selfishness and narcissism, but they don't think that that's what they're doing! They have eight million rationalizations for why what they are doing is perfectly fine and they people they are hurting somehow deserve the agony they are putting them through, etc. The closest LaBute gets Kent to seeing what a fuck he is is when Greg says he's not going to cover for him anymore and we can see through his oh, so subtle writing that the real reason he's fighting Greg is because he is wanting to cling to a brutish "ethos" as opposed to actually seeing how awful his behavior is. And seriously? A fist fight? I'm watching the Bad News Bears all of a sudden? Is this My Bodyguard? Little Darlings?

I am realizing as I write this that his work is adding up to a series of after school specials that have swears in them.

[Si Squires-Kasten · Rating 2 out of 5]

Neil LaBute character: "Umm... shit, man, I dunno / Fuck, all I'm trying to... uh... she's a bitch, okay?"

New York Times: "LaBute raises the bar for all playwrights, thoughtfully probing the shadowiest corners of American masculinity."

[Verba Non Res · Rating 2 out of 5]

La obra empieza con una escena que no vemos. En una charla entre amigos, Kent le comenta a Greg que cierta nueva compañera de trabajo es hermosa. Greg, sin entrar en el juego, dice que no le importa; que quizás su novia, Steph, tenga una cara “regular”, pero que aún así no la cambiaría ni por un millón de dólares. Carly, la esposa de Kent, los escucha y, como también es amiga de Steph, la llama para contarle lo que su novio acaba de decir sobre ella. Cuando el telón se levanta, vemos a Steph ya furiosa con Greg; a este tratando de explicarle, sin mucha suerte, lo que de verdad quiso decir, y esta secuencia reiterada sin progresos termina, al cabo de un par de escenas, en la ruptura. Lo que a Steph le molesta es que su novio la considere apenas “regular”; él insiste en que la belleza física no le importa mucho, que lo importante es la segunda parte de la frase. Chica enojada con chico, chico que intenta ser razonable. La otra pareja también está compuesta por un par arquetípico. Carly es físicamente atractiva, y lo vive como una especie de carga; Kent, obsesionado con la belleza femenina, ve su relación con Carly como una marca de estatus, pero también persigue activamente relaciones con otras mujeres. Kent es un misógino exagerado casi hasta lo inverosímil. En el clímax de la obra, Greg se cansa de él y se van a las manos. “Frankly, Kent proceeds to get his ass kicked”, es la expresiva didascalia. Una resolución un tanto burda para un conflicto dramático. Tendría que haber una salida más elegante. Con la discusión de Steph y Greg pasa algo parecido; más allá de la reacción inclaudicable de ella, que también podría ser un poco inverosímil, los vemos nada más que discutir y tratarse mal a lo largo de escenas larguísimas, sin llegar a ninguna conclusión interesante. La conclusión, el monólogo de Greg, viene a decirnos precisamente eso. Incluso, aunque reitera el lugar más bien absurdo que ocupa la belleza en nuestra cultura, también termina asumiendo que su relación con Steph en realidad no estaba yendo a ninguna parte, con lo que también está dándole la razón.

[Taylor Hudson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Human cruelty is a specialty of Neil LaBute - He finds the cruelty in the smallest gesture or off-hand phrase and amplifies it. This common thread of his work fascinated me a few years ago and his play "The Shape of Things" is one of the first plays that made me fall in love with theatre. Unfortunately, though, his formula and has grown stale and predictable for me.

This script follows a familiar LaBute narrative but doesn't quite captivate me like some of his other work. My biggest issue is that I didn't care enough about Greg, our protagonist. Even when compared to his best friend Kent (a horrible human), does he only sort of resemble a character that we should get behind and root for. We have some good, juicy arguments throughout but not enough action to back them up. The ending had a little bit of redemption for Greg, which will hopefully lead us to a more fulfilling part two in "Reasons to be Happy".

[Caroline Henry · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is by far my favorite play. Well, the most realistic play I’ve read. Maybe this is because he main characters are all so real and the things that they go through can happen to anyone.

The person you love can hurt you.
The person you love can cheat on you.
The person you love can cheat on you.
The person you love can move on without you.
The person you love can find happiness with someone else.
The person you love can turn out to be a trashy friend.

It was interesting to see how all these characters reacted to the situations in life they were going through.

I loved all the characters and grew to love Carly the pregnant police officer.

Greg was such a sweetie and represented the common man-who though has his flaws is lovable and willing to own up for his mistakes.

I want to see this play acted out now because WOWZA it’s just such a good play to read and it would be easy for the audience to follow.

[Sophie Bloor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Witty and important but, and even though I know it was partly the point, I just couldn’t get past some of the blatant sexism. Also, concerning Steph was always hitting her boyfriend and that was never addressed or held accountable.

[Sookie · Rating 3 out of 5]

What the man thinks is an innocuous comment sparks a fight that leads to his break up with his long time girlfriend. He considers her plain in comparison to a coworker and this is relayed back to his girlfriend via mutual friend. The play explores the idea of beauty, of love, of acceptance, of what we have come to believe as security and acceptance of affection and the mutual compatibility under the guise of societal norms.

I read a lot of plays and its not very often you come across a play where we encounter plays that account for human awkwardness. To be honest, that's refreshing and its not just the performance that warrants it but its blatant in its writing as well. when the characters meet after breakup, they stammer and stumble around the break-up and the hurt and the pain, and its just glorious.

[isa · Rating 2 out of 5]

“Love is blind, shithead.”

LaBute’s attempt at making commentary on how beauty standards play into relationships and bring out the worst in us, showing gradations of two unhealthy relationships toppling over each other, creates an ok landing — though the usage of curse words is a little abrasive and unnecessary. It kind of gives off a fuck-shit-please-laugh vibe that I can’t take seriously. Maybe all those obscenities add to the texture of the piece. I don’t want to completely dismiss this play because there is a decent message in it, but the application of said message is not really my thing: it’s a little too off-kilter. I do not like the way the women in this play are presented at all.

[Jonas Bækkevold · Rating 4 out of 5]

Leste på skolen. Først var jeg sånn «naah», det er ofte et red flag hvis dialogen er skrevet sånn sykt «naturlig» med masse pauser, halve setninger og masse banning. Men merket etter hvert at den var utrolig morsom og dialogen var godt skrevet med mye spillerom. Godt eksempel på god og naturlig bruk av den skrivestilen. Blir spennende å jobbe mer med denne teksten.

[Natasha · Rating 4 out of 5]

The characters were truthful. And the relationships were heartbreaking. Sometimes I feel it lacked a through line of direct action ? Maybe bc I read it tho

[Tung · Rating 3 out of 5]

This play by LaBute consists only of four characters: Greg (a young good-looking guy), Greg’s girlfriend Steph (who is plain-looking), Greg’s friend and co-worker Kent (good-lucking), and Kent’s wife Carly who is Steph’s good friend (and also very good-looking). One day Greg and Kent are chatting about another good-looking co-worker when Greg offhandedly compares Steph to the good-looking co-worker and calls her “regular” looking. Carly overhears this and tells Steph about Greg’s comment, and the fireworks begin. What then progresses over the rest of the play is the interaction between all four of these characters as they wrestle with relationships and the emotions within relationships that are tied to how we feel about ourselves – especially with how we feel about how we look, and how we perceive our friends and significant others think we look. The dialogue throughout is sharp and packed full of anger and hurt. I especially like that LaBute structures a good portion of the dialogue to be overlapping, so the fights come off as more natural and realistic since in real life we don’t often wait for the other to finish speaking before we retort. My first criticism is that I think the play doesn’t succeed as much as it wants to in conveying how important looks are to people in relationships. It uses the issue to frame the whole play, but for me, the play is more successful in highlighting how quickly relationships can unravel over small issues. Looks are certainly an issue in the play; just not the primary issue in my mind. My second criticism is somewhat related: there are four monologues in the play, one for each character. In each monologue, the character discusses the issue of looks in relationships and in self-esteem. I think these monologues try to force LaBute’s main message, but they are heavy-handed. To me, successful plays don’t need overt monologues to carry out their message; the points are made more subtly and more powerfully when embedded within the scenes and dialogues. Overall, a good drama about relationships, slightly tarnished by the bluntness with which the author tries to convey his message. Recommended nonetheless.

[Ziying · Rating 4 out of 5]

My favourite character is Greg. He's just so good-natured and humorous. He gets confused by women, especially Steph sometimes but you can't blame him. Despite the things he said, he's still a good guy and he still loves Steph. I love the final scene with his monologue. So much character development has shown in this character it's impressive. Steph is an awesome character too. I think Neil LaBute got the female perspective very well in this play. Two different female characters, one plain-looking and one attractive, both have their own struggle. But they are both strong, and well-rounded. Some of the fight scene are especially well done - every scene between Steph and Greg is interesting and hilarious, also the fight between Greg and Kent is also well-written. Kent is a jerk. He cheats on his wife with someone more physically attractive and justifies himself shamelessly. He also doesn't regard his wife as a worthy individual, he thinks she is his possession and the fact that she's beautiful makes him look good. Such a snob. A good play, very genuine, and the topic (how much does being pretty worth) is something I can relate to as well.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

I got introduced to this play when a couple of friends performed the first scene as part of an acting class. It was amazing how captivating Labute's work can be with actors who know how to utilize the timing, punctuation and interjections. Labute, like Pinter, has a gift for infusing an otherwise ambiguous line with layers or meaning.
I found one of the key conflicts in this play to be the characters inability to adequately communicate, to fully articulate what was meant. It is easier for Greg to deflect the conversation using a joke or a flippant "Whatever" than to actually say what he means. It's not even a matter of cowardice; it's more like he doesn't have the self-knowledge or vocabulary to respond to Steph. Steph can never find the right words, which leaves her with only profanity or violence.
While this play does deal with similar themes as The Shape of Things and Fat Pig, I don't feel as though Labute is repeating himself so much as continuing to explore similar issues from different angles.

[Ian Hrabe · Rating 4 out of 5]

I can't stress enough how great these LA Theatre Works performances are. LaBute directs this one himself and the whole cast is great (notably Thomas Sadoski, who originated the role of Greg on Broadway, and Jenna Fischer, playing delightfully against type as Steph) and really drives home the fact that his snappy dialogue is meant to be heard. Though the play's two couples + relationship conflict = drama formula is a tried and true one, Reasons to Be Pretty excels by having the aforementioned awesome (and often brutal) dialogue and by hosting a cast of blue collar characters. This isn't the cast of Friends. These people work in factories or as hair dressers or security guards. There's no intellectual grandstanding, just people trying to get by, and trying to be happy with what they have, and their issues and concerns are no less important than the sort of upper middle class Woody Allen type romances that seem to dominate the genre.

[McLennan · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is my first review on Goodreads. It will be short. I dislike this play because it makes me feel like the author might not respect women at all. Various situations, word choices, and even stage directions give me the unsettling feeling that the women in this play are seen through a lens of intense disregard, while the men are complex and active in the story. And, although it is possible that this is an intentional choice in the writing intended to point out some larger societal problem, I think that's kind of a stretch.

However, I have spoken to people who really love this play and feel that it does the opposite, so I could be wrong.

[Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this play knowing a bit of Labute's work, mostly from his movies, In The Company Of men and Nurse Betty which i liked a lot. I loved his play! Four young characters, in their twenties, to couples who hang, work, and it together. Their story is told on a minimal set in a combination dialogue and monologue scenes. I would love to see it and direct it. It is funny and shocking and sad all at the same time. I need to read more Labute!

[Rosanna Threakall · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this for my Acting For Stage module as I will be using a monologue from it.

It was OKAY. I mean, I think you have to SEE a play to really appreciate it but from the outside and on the page it just seems like a bunch of people arguing.

I liked some aspects of it but it seemed rushed but like I said, seeing it would be totally different.

[Molly · Rating 5 out of 5]

A friend recommended this as a play I might want to direct. I loved it. The character of Steph really resonated with me as lately I've been feeling down about my appearance and wondering if I'm at all pretty. The fact that she takes control of her life and doesn't let Greg weigh her down was inspiring. And LaBute's preface also struck quite a chord.

Now I think I'd like to be in this play.

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Neil Labute's play about a young man and woman whose four-year relationship comes to an abrupt end over a comment he makes about her looks is (in true Labute fashion) heartbreaking, brutally honest and painfully funny.

[Sunil · Rating 4 out of 5]

There's something touching about a character struggling to describe the color of a woman's eyes, and coming up with the color of a crayon from "...maybe one of those bigger cartons, like, sixty-four colors, with the sharpener in it."

[Megan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great play and I am so excited to see Reasons to be Happy this week!

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

VERY LaBute. Not as strong as THE SHAPE OF THINGS, which is one of my favorite plays, but still portrays very real characters with real emotions in an honest and uncensored way.

[Bella Reyes · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really liked this one. Comfort in the shared feminine experience. Greg’s friends suck.

[Mary Popoff · Rating 1 out of 5]

Reading this after watching the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial really makes you think differently about it. Like damn bitch why you gotta be throwing pans at someone’s head that’s straight up not okay. Not that i thought it was okay the first time I read it but it’s just so clearly abuse I’m trying to figure out what the playwright was doing with her.

Oh god. A man wrote this. FUCK! I hate this play now. Ok now i get it. UGHHHHHHHH.

Wait im so pissed. Truly. It’s not that men can’t write about women but wait actually no they can’t, not about this stuff. Not about beauty, something that is so fundamental to being a woman, so un-understandable if you haven’t lived through it.

God this is SUUUCH a male apologist thesis, idc if it’s being ironic about it it just is. Men always do this, layer their true feelings, especially about women being psychotic, under layers of “irony”, “absurdity”, and “jokes” just say you hate women………

Like his main character reads HAWTHORNE and SWIFT for fun?! And then has the audacity to say “Women, huh? That about sums it all up…”

No but I’m actually seething you don’t understand honestly i don’t understand why I’m so mad

Actually yes i do in this WHOLE PLAY there’s not ONE scene with just two women. It’s a literal play called reasons to be pretty and you can’t even get in one piece of dialogue with two women?!?!?! WOMEN WHO ACTUALLY HAVE A STAKE IN THIS WHOLE REASON TO BE PRETTY. LIKE GOD YOU CAN WRITE PAGES AND PAGES ABT MEN GOING ON ABOUT THIS 23 YEAR OLD WHAT ABOUT THE WHOLE FUCKING CENTER OF THIS PLAY?! AND ITS BC HES A MAN. HE CANT WRITE A SCENE WITH TWO WOMEN DISCUSSING HOW THEY ACTUALLY FEEL ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THIS BC OBVIOUSLY HE CANT HES A MAN HE WOULDNT KNOW THE FIRST PLACE TO START AND A STORY LIKE THIS ISNT HIS TO TELL!!!

Like i swear this play is literally about oh boo hoo you think it’s bad for a man to not think you’re the most beautiful thing on earth well guess what they can be WORSE than that, you’re dumb for being upset for not being pretty enough when PREGNANT WOMEN are getting CHEATED ON. Like ok chill Neil.

I mean he can do whatever he wants obviously this play is super popular but just know! I can’t stand it and these are the reasons why!

[Vina · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant play on the current obsession with physical appearance, being good-looking, and being recognised as pretty, Neil LaBute’s ‘Reasons to Be Pretty’ revolves around the essential conflict inside and outside people whose self–worth is determined by other people’s perception of them. During a conversation with his friend Kent, about a new girl in office, Greg, the central character, says in passing that his girlfriend Steph is regular looking. Kent relays this to his wife Carly, Steph’s best friend.

Steph’s entire emotional security and confidence collapses at her being ‘just’ a regular girl. No matter how much Greg tries to explain that it was a simple toss off, and that he likes the way she looks, she storms out of the house, hurt and offended.

The entire conflict in the play centres around this near-desperate need to be recognised and re-affirmed as good- looking. The insecurity in today’s world that worships beauty runs deep in women, especially. Wherever you look, you have these ‘perfect looking’ models, social influencers, and make up experts who set people’s perception of beauty. So much so, that even being described as a normal-looking woman can shatter her self- image.

Apart from this, we see the interactions between Kent and Greg, as well as their spouses. During the course of the play, we see characters developing, their attitudes, their thinking and perceptions being modified by the situations they find themselves in. The greatest change comes about in Greg. He confronts the erstwhile school bully, and changes the narrative by being firm. Thus far, Greg has been a relatively mild person, led by anybody close to him. By the end of the play, he understands the importance of articulating his own thoughts, and realises that some relationships demand more than action. They demand verbal affirmation too.

A well-written, crisp play,’Reasons to be Pretty’ is saying that being superficially pretty is not all-important. If you are confident in yourself as you are, you are a strong individual, and others’ perceptions about you really don’t matter. Neil LaBute holds this sense of self-worth as among the most important aspirational goal in life.

[Vel Veeter]

This is a play by Neil LaBute, who I know mostly from films he’s directed but he was a well-established playwright first. Though this and the sequel are more contemporary.

Anyway, the play begins with a fight between a couple that’s not married and have been together for four years. The fight is about an overheard comment from the man who tells his friend that that friend’s wife is really pretty, especially compared to his girlfriend. The comment is heard by the wife, who calls the girlfriend, and the play commences.

The play is primarily told through scenes between the couple, who of course break up, and then between the man and his friend. There’s a lot of context and undercurrent that is brought up throughout the play. For example, in the four year relationship, it’s pretty clear that the boyfriend is not particularly happy with his life, working at a factory with no real hope of a future, and reads a lot of different books. He’s clearly got dreams beyond this life, and feels stuck. It’s not really clear if he meant what he said exactly as he said it, or was being cruel and provocative instead of being direct about what he wanted. We also delve into the friendship, which is based on some kind of toxic masculinity duality, almost a kind of Apollonian and Dionysian back and forth, if we want to elevate it much higher than the play does. But the play, while being funny, is also about looking for ways for characters of emotional immaturity to work out some deeper truths about themselves.

[Gabrielle · Rating 3 out of 5]

When Steph is told by one of her best friends that her boyfriend, Greg, called her face "regular", all hell breaks loose. Through their break-up and those ever eventful post-breakup encounters, Greg is forced to see the ideology of beauty in a new light along with observing how it influences his friend's relationship.

This is my second, LaBute play and he's starting to grow on me. My first, Fat Pig, felt too fast while Reasons to Be Pretty spend along with energy with overlapping dialogue and even the way this play started had the reader thrown into the moment. Along with honesty, heart, and the much needed speed, this play would eventually be a pleasure to witness. Something of note though, I should get into the habit of not reading LaBute's excerpt before the play. It reveals a little bit too much for my liking.

[neha · Rating 2 out of 5]

I haven’t watched the play, so my only impression of Reasons To Be Pretty comes from reading the book itself. And to be honest, I wasn’t impressed at all, which is surprising considering the fact that I discovered this on a list of “must read plays of the 21st century” or something along those lines. I loved the premise and the main message of the book, but I just couldn’t bring myself to empathise with any of the characters because they all seemed so boring. I guess that could be part of the message the playwright was trying to convey, by making the characters seem as real and normal as possible, but I wasn’t a fan of this portrayal.

[Cristiana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read in one sitting. It would obviously be much better staged. Interesting look into a slice of American life. Not really my favorite genre... it felt like gritty American realism but with better dialogue and maybe some humor?? I couldn’t tell how much was funny because a lot of the beginning really wasn’t funny to me, just absurd. But the ending was funny?? There was a defined progression and resolution to the piece which I appreciated. I liked 3/4 characters by the end but found them all irritating in the beginning. I think LaBrute did this on purpose.