Barefoot in the Park

by Neil Simon, Eric Stoltz (Narrator), Laura Linney (Narrator)

A brand-new lawyer and his bride have returned from their honeymoon and are moving into their new apartment. Once there, they find the place is bare of furniture, the paint job is wrong, the skylight leaks and wacky neighbors keep popping up! A classic!

Genres: Plays, Theatre, Drama, Fiction, Humor, Audiobook, Comedy

Audiobook

First published January 1, 1963

About the author

Marvin Neil Simon was an American playwright and screenwriter. He wrote more than 30 plays and he received more combined Oscar and Tony nominations than any other writer. He was one of the most reliable hitmakers in Broadway history, as well as one of the most performed playwrights in the world. Though primarily a comic writer, some of his plays, particularly the Eugene Trilogy and The Sunshine Boys, reflect on the twentieth century Jewish-American experience.

Reviews

[سـارا · Rating 4 out of 5]

کارای نیل سایمون رو دوست دارم، طنزش شیرینه و با دیالوگ‌های ساده‌اش همیشه کلی حرف برا زدن داره.

[Sara Kamjou · Rating 5 out of 5]

این کتاب عاااااااالی بود! طنز ظریف و موقعیتی بسیار به جا، شخصیت‌پردازی فوق‌العاده و بیان مفهومی مسائلی متداول در زندگی با قلم طنز به نحوی واقعا عمیق...
توصیه می‌کنم اگر اهل خواندن نمایشنامه هستید این کتاب را از دست ندهید.
---------------------
بخش ماندگار کتاب:
شاید عشق کافی نباشه. شاید لازم باشه دو نفر که می‌خوان با هم ازدواج کنن غیر از آزمایش خون، کمی با همدیگه صحبت کنن. شاید لازم باشه احساسات مشترک، درک متقابل و بلوغ عاطفی‌شونم آزمایش کنن.

[Pourahmadi · Rating 5 out of 5]

این نمایشنامه
یه نمایشنامه اجتماعیه از یه زوج در اوایل زندگی با فقری که گریبانگیرش هستن و در سه پرده اجرا میشه که پرده دوم شامل دو صحنه هست
در پرده اول
جلوه خوش زندگی با عشق با وجود فقر ارائه میشه و مختصری سوء درک زن و مرد از مشکلات همدیگه ادامه پیدا می کنه و با وعده ای که نویسنده برای پرده دوم میده
"دیدار همسایه طبقه بالایی ولاسکو با مادر شخصیت زن داستان ماری"

پرده دوم
بازگشت زن و شوهر و مادر ماری و ولاسکو از رستوران عجیب و غزیب در حالی که مست هستند و با خروج مادر و ولاسکو پرده به پایان می رسه

پرده سوم
با درگیری زن و مرد در عدم درک متقابل و ناپدید شدن مادر شروع میشه
و با افزایش تنش به خروج مرد از خانه منتهی میشه و پایان پرده هذیان گویی مرد سرماخورده و پشیمانی زن از رفتارش با مرد رو نشون میده.

قدرت عمده نمایشنامه در دیالوگ های طنز فوق العاده است که گاه طعنه های تلخی هستند و الا فراز و فرود داستان معمولی است.
شروع با عشق
ناراحتی و میل به جدایی و طلاق
پشیمانی و بازگشت
میشه گفت کل نمایشنامه همینه با دو شخصیت اصلی پل و ماری و دو شخصیت فرعی ولاسکو و مادر و دو تیپ کارگر تعمیرکار تلفن و باربر

نمایشنامه با قدرت دیالوگ های طنز به پیش میره و بیان خاطرات و وقایعی که قبلا اتفاق افتاده اما نتیجه ش و عواطف ناشی از اون تا به حال ادامه پیدا کرده، وارد اوج و فرود میشه.
زیرا در نمایشنامه امکان اکت قوی وجود ندارد و فقط دیالوگ شامل خشم طعنه خوشحالی عشق طنز و خارطرات و گفته ها داستان رو جلو می بره.
و اینم یادم نره که بگم عنصر تلفن در نمایشنامه نقش بسیار مهمی داره. زیرا ابهام ایجاد می کنه و ماجراها رو عمق و پیچش میده و برای چرخش داستان هم وسیله خوبیه که ناگهان جهت داستان رو عوض کنه یا دیالوگ ها رو از حالت ملالت بار خارج کنه.

[Mahshid D · Rating 5 out of 5]

بعضی‌ لحظات هست که انگار اتفاقات جاری از کف کتاب‌های قصه به رگ‌های زندگی‌ات تزریق شده‌‌اند. خشمگین است و در عین همان حال بهم زنی فراوانش به غایت خنده‌دار. حبس شدن هفده ساعته وسط یک دعوای نسبتا خانوادگی -بله عزیزانم طلاقی که مانع از نبش قبر گذشته نشود به درد جرز دیوار هم نمی‌خورد- در کمد دیواری خالی کنج اتاق خواب بی‌شک خود به تنهایی می‌تواند یکی از همان لحظات ننگین آشنا باشد که فقط هرچه فکر می‌کنی و سرت را به دیواره‌های محبوس‌گاه می‌کوبی نام نویسنده‌ی نمایشنامه‌ی معروفی که مشغول اجرا کردنش هستی را به خاطر نمی‌آوری. حالا فکرش را بکن که در ان جهنم مینیاتوری وسط ننه‌ام گفت، ننه‌ات گفت‌های فراوانی که در کمانه‌ی نفرت این طرف و آن طرف پرتاب می‌شود، ‌ بزند و برق بالای ده بار هی برود و بیاید. کلکسیون کاملی از جذاب‌ترین میزانسن‌های یک اجرای گروتسکِ ابزورد خانگی که تنها بختی که با تو یار می‌شود آن است که متصدیان اجرای چنین نمایشی از قبل چند شمع و یک بطری خالی آب معدنی خانواده توی کمد دیواری تعبیه کرده‌اند. بله؛ حالا مفتخرم بنویسم بازیگر نمایش تک پرسوناژی که تمام دیروز را‌ به مطالعه‌ زیر نور شمع گذراند شخص خودم بود. سال‌های خیلی قبل از حالا دوستی در دوره‌ی دبیرستان داشتم که چهره‌اش جلوه‌ای از اوصیکم بالخواندن نیل سایمون” شده بود بس که راه می‌رفت همه‌ی خود هنردوست نمایان پیشِ انسانی دبیرستان را به خواندن نمایشنامه‌های مقدس نیل‌سایمون اعظم دعوت می‌کرد. اگر آن‌وقت‌ها که رفیق مثل فرفره هی دور خودش چرخ می‌خورد سایمون از همان کریزی‌های مورد پسند دلت است، باورش نمی‌کردم و در نهایت بی‌اهمیتی، شانه بالا می‌انداختم که «باشه بابا می‌خونم حالا! » اما الان می‌گویم چقدر پشیمانم و حقیقتا خاک بر سرم که تا به این سن پابرهنه زندگی را بالا آمده بودم و هیچ از سایمون نخوانده بودم. این همه مزخرف سر هم کردم تا بگویم کتابی که دیروز ته و تویش را در آن وضعیت عجیب درآوردم نمایشنامه‌ی ”پابرهنه در پارک” نیل سایمون بود. یک قصه‌ی کاملا معمول و کلیشه‌ای از زندگی یک زوج که با نبوغ سایمون تبدیل به یک شاهکار شده بود. طنزهای موقعیت درست بکار گرفته شده، بهره‌گیری از دیالوگ‌نویسی پینگ‌پونگی، طعنه‌هایی که صد و یازده صفحه را خنده‌های پیوسته‌ی روی لب پُر کرده بود. پرداخت‌های ملموس کارکترها، فضاسازی‌های تجسمی‌. چهارنفر آدم‌ را انداخته بود توی رینگ زندگی و نان‌استاپ اتفاق طرفشان پرتاب می‌کرد. همه‌چیزش آنقدر در عالی‌ترین سطح خودش بود که پایان شاد و هپی‌اندش توی صورت ذوق مُشت می‌کوفت. پایان به خودی خود نه تنها بد نبود که بسیار زیر زبان خواننده طعم شیرین به جا می‌گذاشت اما آن‌طورها هم نبود که انتظارهای مخاطب کریزی‌طلب را برآورده کند. فریبش بدهد، باعث بشود سه بار با کف دست راستش وسط پیشانی بزند و نویسنده را به رگبار فحش ببندد.


پس‌نوشت: ترجمه‌ی متن آنقدر عالی بود که شگفت‌زده شدم. کار شاخصی از رامین‌ناصرنصیر بعنوان بازیگر تلوزیونی به خاطر ندارم ولی موقع خواندن متن آرزو می‌کردم که کاش تالیف و ترجمه آنقدر پول داشت که هنرمند تئاتری مجبور نباشد تن به بازی در نقش‌های سخیف مدیوم تلوزیون بدهد.

[Arezu Wishka · Rating 4 out of 5]

منم عاشقشم فقط نمیدونم چی میخواد. نمیدونم چطوری میتونم خوشحالش کنم. وای مامان، چی کار باید بکنم؟
مامان: ... خیلی ساده ست. فقط باید یه بخش کوچیک خودتو به اون اختصاص بدی. همه چی رو بازی فرض نکن. فقط آخرای شب تو اون اتاق کوچیک بالای پله‌ها جای بازیگوشیه. ازش مراقبت کن و بذار حس کن آدم مهمیه. اگه بتونی از پس این کار بربیای زندگی شاد و بی‌نظیری در انتظارته.
***
چالش یه زوج عاشق، دو آدم با دو تیپ شخصیتی متفاوت. یکی دچار کمال گرایی و نداشتن توانایی برای با فراغ بال تفریح کردن و اون یکی ماجراجو و ریسکی و پشنت بودن بیش از حد. کلا یه نفر می خواد توی منطقه ی امنش بمونه و اون یکی آروم و قرار نداره. توی این دیالوگ قضیه از همه بهتر مشخص می شه:
تو خیلی آتیشت تنده، همینجور بی هوا شیرجه میزنی توی زندگی، ولی پل مثل منه، بی گدار به آب نمیزنه، اول نگاه میکنه.
توی این مبحث خرده جنایات زناشویی نمایشنامه ی قوی تری بود اما این نمایشنامه طنز قوی تری نسبت به بقیه نمایشنامه هایی که تابحال خوندم داشته.

[Susan · Rating 5 out of 5]

خیلی قشنگ و لطیف است.از یه ترکیب تکراری نمایشنامه ای-زن جذاب و پرهیاهو و مرد جدی و اخمو- استفاده کرده و شخصیتی "خلق"نکرده و همه تیپ هستند ولی گفتگوها و روند داستان خلاقانه و دلنشین است.شخصیت ماری مثل نسیم خنک در بیابان است، آرامش بخش و دوست داشتنی.اما من پل را بیشتر دوست داشتم.مرد زندگیه واقعا!
دوست دارم اجرایش را ببینم.واقعا دوستش داشتم.

[✨Susan✨ · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was thoroughly enjoyable and far too short. The cast was fantastic and perfect for this Neil Simon's timeless story.

[Sarah Booth · Rating 3 out of 5]

1970s Play about newlyweds and NY life. If you're from that era it'll feel very familiar.

[Brad · Rating 2 out of 5]

I can't believe I hadn't seen this before. Not on stage, not on screen. I am kind of glad I hadn't, however. There is something about reading a play blankly that inspires the imagination, and never having seen this staged allowed me to direct it all in my head with the gentle nudging of Neil Simon.

I did like Barefoot in the Park. I did laugh. I am seriously looking forward to watching it now, but ...

... But, I dunno. It is from the seventies. It is cheesy. It is problematic. But fuck that! It was still fun, and isn't fun what it is all about with a comedy? I think so.

Later ...

Now that was a lame, late night, too much wine review. I think I said the same thing about fun being what comedy is all about when I discussed Last of the Red Hot Lovers, and the repetition of that sentiment doesn't sit well in my head. Sure fun and humour are good, but for a comedy to really hold up (especially forty years and more later) there has to something more to it than mere fun. I am not sure there is much more to Barefoot in the Park.

So yes, I reiterate that it is fun. But beyond that I am struggling to see what it has going for it; in fact, having rewatched episodes of Brady Bunch, Mary Tyler Moore, WKRP, and M*A*S*H* this week, Barefoot in the Park seems to have less going for it than those half-hour sit coms. If anything, Barefoot in the Park is just a long form sit-com. Attractive, newlywed couple in a slightly smaller version of Monica's Friends apartment, dealing with their wacky neighbours and Mother(-in-law) newly returned to the dating game with the suavest of their neighbours. There are the usual husband-wife, overly emotional, let's get divorced hi-jinx, absentee landlord annoyances, silly NYC jokes, and that is about it. Meanwhile, the sitcoms I watched in the same period dealt with issues of relationship age gaps, the conventions around death and funerals, gender roles in the work place, homo and transphobia, medical ethics, anti-war criticism and lots of different takes on sexuality. I'll take the four sit-coms over Barefoot in the Park, I think. So I am dropping my initial three star review to a two star. I think that better suits my sober feelings.

[Sara Kasraee · Rating 5 out of 5]

خیلی عالی بود.

[Amanda]

5 stars for the great mood I'm in right now. This play is just plain silliness, which normally doesn't float my boat. But man, oh, man, today it just hit the spot. We meet this young newlywed couple. She's happy-go-lucky and he's... Well, he's a lawyer. And a real stuffed- shirt. And in the face of a tiny Manhattan apartment with a hole in the skylight and reversed plumbing, their 2 week old marriage falls apart! But not to worry--they get back together. (Don't bitch about spoilers, people. First off, you weren't gonna read this anyway, and second, it's Neil Simon so you have to expect a happy ending.) Ok, anyway, they get back together, but not before lots of whackiness ensues. Their upstirs neighbor (who lives in the attic) is really my kinda guy--eating funky foods, saying funky stuff--I'd fix him up with my grandmother if he existed in real life. And thanks to the funky neighbor, they all sorta get a whole new lease on life and re-learn to love each other and live happily after (and hopefully, have fantastic sex 3-5 times per week for all eternity).

Hey, Jini and Christina, let's do this play in February. It's a technician's nightmare and we can't afford to build a set, but it sure is a cute love story!!!

[W · Rating 4 out of 5]

Delightful comedy,a newlywed couple try to adjust to real life.The movie featuring Jane Fonda and Robert Redford is hilarious.

[Larry Bassett · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a very short production of a classic play that sounds like it has a laugh track but is allegedly a real audience. Us baby boomers maybe might think the one-liners of which there are an incredible number are funny. But I think millennial’s might be scratching their heads. Since I am a baby boomer I thought it was a little bit funny but it got old pretty quickly. Glad it was less than two hours. I’m not quite sure how I came upon this but in case you come upon it I suggest you just keep on going! There is a 10 minute interview at the end of the play which is slightly more interesting than the play itself but also not worth a lot of attention. Is Neal Simon still relevant in the 21st-century. Based just on this one experience I would have to say maybe not.

[Mack · Rating 4 out of 5]

I guess half the sitcoms of the 60s-70s have Neil Simon’s humor. It’s great stuff.

[Elizabeth Day · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lots of physical comedy which isn’t my main interest, but very easy to see from the start how funny it could be staged. The stakes were pretty high and a few moments quite stressful.
(PG rating)

[giselle sanchez wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

SO GOOD OMG

[Diane · Rating 5 out of 5]

Paul and Corie Bratter have been married just six days when they move into their first home together - an apartment five floors up (six, if you count the stoop) with a broken skylight (in winter), no furniture, and no bathtub. About the only thing that works is the phone. Paul is conservative, down to earth, and sensible. Corie is his total opposite - happy, extroverted, and fun loving. She sees the best in everything and everyone.

Oh, the neighbor in the attic (Victor Velasco) has to climb through the Bratters' bedroom window to get to his own apartment because he has been locked out by the landlord due to not paying his rent. Victor befriends Corie, though Paul has serious doubts about him - Victor has been married three times and is referred to as a "Bluebeard." Charming, funny, and totally unconventional, he has more in common with Corie than Paul does. On the other hand, Paul is much more like

Corie sees Victor as a potential match for her widowed mother, Ethel Banks, who is trying to deal with the marriage of her only child. Ethel is not the stereotypical interfering mother/mother-in-law. She's worried about her daughter, but also lonely. It's as if Corie's newfound independence has left Ethel with no purpose in life. Corie sets her mother up on a blind date with Victor - though she doesn't mention this to Ethel. The four of them go to an Albanian restaurant chosen by Victor, and the differences between Corie and Paul become extremely evident. Corie and Paul have to decide - is their marriage worth saving? Are they two different to stay together?

"Barefoot in the Park" has its serious moments, but it's mostly very funny. The last time I laughed this much listening to an audiobook was Cabin Pressure. Laura Linney (as Corie) and Eric Stoltz (as Paul) are hilarious. I loved Paul's descriptions of their neighbors, especially the one in Apartment 4D:

"No one has come in or gone out in three years, except every morning there are nine empty cans of tuna fish outside the door." (Paul)

"Really? Who do you think lives there?" (Corie)

"Well, it sounds like a big cat with a can opener." (Paul)

Very funny and surprisingly still modern for a play that came out in 1963. I also love the sixties music soundtrack, especially "What's New Pussycat?" by Tom Jones as they go to the Albanian restaurant. This audiobook makes me want to watch the 1967 movie with Robert Redford and Jane Fonda, though I'm not really a fan of either actor.

[Kat · Rating 3 out of 5]

Basic Plot: Paul and Corie are two newlyweds trying to figure each other out and make their brand-new marriage work despite their personal differences.

This play was cute, but is getting to be considerably dated. As it was first performed in 1963 (and was written for that time period), I think that marriage is a bit different today. Paul and Corie hardly seem to know what they've gotten into by marrying each other. Paul is shocked by Corie's adventurousness, and she is annoyed by his conservatism. I can't help but think that today, people getting married seem to have a much better idea of what they are getting into when they marry. Why is this an issue? Well, as a theatre person who would theoretically be seeking to put on the show, I would have trouble getting my actors to connect to the character interactions. The cast and I would then have trouble selling it to an audience who doesn't operate this was anymore and doesn't have the benefit of weeks of getting used to the ideas the director bashes into the heads of the actors. Considering my acting pool is a bunch of teenagers, this is doubly hard. Corie is a housewife and happy in that position. The big lesson of the play is that she needs to try to take care of her husband and make him happy. Now, I agree with this, but as one side of a two-sided coin that involves BOTH spouses taking care of each OTHER and making EACH OTHER happy. The funniest moments in the play involve Paul being drunk, and most of the other funny moments relate to other characters drinking/being drunk. This is fine for adults, but at the high school level isn't entirely appropriate. Overall it's not bad, but I don't know that it's a show I'd ever actually seek to put on.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

I fell in love with this play in the first act. I thought it was fast, funny, and smart with some great character moments. The role of Corie is a lot of fun; she's completely in love and naive. Paul couldn't be anymore of a nerd but there's an endearing nature to his stuffiness, as long as you realize he just doesn't get it. The other, smaller roles are nice touches with the telephone repair man really owning his moments.
However, like Corie and her realization of marriage, my honeymoon stage with the play ended and I wasn't as thrilled with the other two acts. It's not that they were bad, but they lost a lot of that charm I liked in the beginning. It gains a lot of the momentum back in the final scene, but never fully recovers. Watching Corie just give up is hilarious, as we watch her just fall apart on the marriage and the fight between the couple is a back and fourth nightmare, but great to read. It ends on a better note than I thought it would, though I would like more closure.
I suppose my biggest problem with the play is that Simon doesn't write these characters as in depth as Jake's Women, even though they're great characters. There's not much in realizations, just reactions to crazy moments.
Still, what we watch is great and the first week of Corie and Paul's marriage is a riot. Good stuff.

[Sheri · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked this better than Arsenic and Old Lace, but it is also quite dated. I disagree with some that the Corie character is a complete airhead. I think she is very self centered, but I think there is some growth to the part. Mother (obviously) develops throughout; Victor is the male counterpoint to Corie (only when faced with a problem does he realize his own limitations) and Paul does not really change much. I have not seen it live, but I think would find it entertaining.

[SetareArani · Rating 4 out of 5]

کوری: منم عاشقشم فقط نمیدونم چی میخواد. نمیدونم چطوری میتونم خوشحالش کنم. وای مامان، چی کار باید بکنم؟
مامان: ... خیلی ساده ست. فقط باید یه بخش کوچیک خودتو به اون اختصاص بدی. همه چی رو بازی فرض نکن. فقط آخرای شب تو اون اتاق کوچیک بالای پله‌ها جای بازیگوشیه. ازش مراقبت کن و بذار حس کن آدم مهمیه. اگه بتونی از پس این کار بربیای زندگی شاد و بی‌نظیری در انتظارته.
#پابرهنهـدرـپارک

[Carolyn Page · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this is the funniest Neil Simon play I've ever read. An exaggerated-but-hilarious slide of what happens when a free-spirit marries a nine-to-fiver, and when newlywed optimism turns into real-life experience.

[Kim Friant · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just maybe the funniest story I've read this year

[Ila Akbari · Rating 3 out of 5]

نمایش درمورد یک زوج جوان است که به تازگی ازدواج کرده‌اند و با مشکلات مالی و اجتماعی متعددی دست و پنجه نرم میکنند.
نکته شایان توجه شخصیت پردازی فوق‌العاده کتاب است.
لحن و رفتار کوری(شخصیتی سرخوش، ریسک پذیر، جوگیر و کم و بیش دمدمی) که به شدت متفاوت از پل، شوهرش(شخصیتی سنگین و محافظه‌کار) است.
به طور مثال در هنگام دعوای بی�� کوری و پل، کوری حرف از طلاق میزند که بعد از واکنش پل مخاطب متوجه می‌شود حرف کوری صرفا برای جلب توجه بوده است و وی خود از طلاق گرفتن واهمه دارد.
و همچنین در انتهای نمایشنامه، مخاطب به نحوی شاهد جایگزینی شخصیت‌های پل و کوری باهم می‌شود.
پل مست کرده و و به حالتی غمبار سرخوش است و کوری از شخصیت جدید شوهرش می‌ترسد.
از متن کتاب:
کوری(خطاب به پل): نه خیر، برای این که یه ذره هم حس ماجراجویی در تو وجود نداره. خودت میدونی چی هستی؟ یه تماشاچی. تو دنیا یه عده فقط تماشاچی ان و یه عده دیگه اهل عمل. تماشاچیا میشینن یه گوشه و اونای دیگه رو تماشا میکنن.
...

[Sophie Bloor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic.

[Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

[Lynnae Andersen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oh, boy, I really do hope I can direct this!

[المیرا · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتاب از یک موقعیت زجرآور یه داستان طنز ساخته که این قسمتش برای ما که تو محرم و عید همیشه یه سریال با چنین مضمونی میبینیم چندان جدید نیست ولی چیزی که متمایزش میکنه طنزهای ریز و به جا هست که از گوشه گوشه صحنه موقعیت هایی برای خندوندن خواننده ایجاد کرده. نشون دادن عشق آتشین یه زن به شوهرش و شوق زیادش برای شروع یه زندگی مشترک طوریکه هیچ کدوم از مشکلات به چشمش نمیاد و اهمیتی بهشون نمیده در برابر عشق منطقی و عصا قورت داده یه مرد که همه چیز رو ایده آل میخواد و تمامی ایرادهای کوچک و بزرگ زندگی رو میبینه و عشق رو سوای شیرجه زدن تو این مشکلات میبینه. عشق برای پل آرامشه و برای کوری هیجان؛ پل زندگی مشترک رو زندگی کنار یه دریاچه آروم میبینه. درواقع اگه عشق رو از این دو نفر بگیری میشن دو غریبه که هیچ جذابیتی برای هم ندارن و تو یه موقعیت دیگه ممکن بود حتی با هم دوست هم نشن. چیزی که در طول داستان برام جالب بود این بود که آیا چنین زندگی ای دوام داره؟ عشق چقدر از تفاوتها رو میتونه تحت پوشش قرار بده؟وقتی پل بخاطر کوری کتش رو درآورد و پابرهنه تو پارک قدم زد احساس کردم عشق اون با اینکه بی سروصداتر بوده ولی عمقش بیشتر بوده درحالیکه کوری با تمام ورجه وورجه کردناش و آتشین بودنش سریع حرف طلاق رو پیش کشید و البته به همون سرعت هم پشیمون شد.آخر داستان وقتی دیدیم مادر هم درگیر یه رابطه مشابه شد و اون کسی بود که از محوطه امنی که برای خودش ساخته بود بیرون اومد و تصمیم گرفت یکم دیوونگی رو تو زندگیش تجربه کنه. درواقع داستان در کل دو شخصیت داشت که پل و مادر کوری یک شخصیت و کوری و آقای ولاسکو شخصیت دیگه اون بودن و تو هر رابطه یکیشون به سمت اون یکی رفت.

[Jennifer · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am a huge fan of the 1967 film adaptation of Neil Simon's play: Barefoot in the Park: A Comedy in Three Acts but I had never actually read the play itself before or seen it performed live. I listened to the audio version of Barefoot in the Park: A Comedy in Three Acts, which was read by Laura Linney and Eric Stoltz, and I just loved it! The audiobook sounded like a recorded performance of some kind as there was applause heard between the three acts. This story is a classic and is a great mood-lifter. I highly recommend it for a good laugh.

[Lindsay · Rating 3 out of 5]

Yeah, okay. I get why people like this play. It's charming and reasonably funny, but it's also gotten very dated, particularly in terms of gender roles. And if we're being honest here, Corie is kind of a huge baby, no? She and Paul have their first and only fight and she's hysterically shrieking about wanting a divorce and then doesn't let up about it til the play is basically over. It's hard to sympathize with her when Paul is being so reasonable and she's losing her shit. I also had a hard time understanding why she cares so much about what her mother thinks of her apartment when she's supposed to be this unencumbered free-spirit. Anyway, the play has a nice ending that will leave audiences smiling, but I think it's lost a lot of the appeal it probably had when it first debuted.