It's the opening night of on Broadway, and the wealthy producer (Julia Budder) is throwing a lavish party in her lavish Manhattan townhouse. Downstairs the celebrities are pouring in, but the real action is upstairs where a group of insiders have staked themselves out in the producer's bedroom, waiting for the reviews to come in. Included are the excitable young author; the brilliant but unstable director (who courts failure and is devastated when his work is well received); the pill-popping leading lady (who is hoping to revive her career after a series of flop movies); and the playwright's best friend, an egotistical but insecure comic actor who passed up a chance to star in the play for a television series which has since been cancelled. Also present are a fawning, hypocritical drama critic (who is a closet playwright); a would-be singer working as a part-time servant; and a hard-boiled lady taxi driver who has seen it all, many times over. The good natured bonhommie with which the evening begins grows steadily bitchier and funnier as the reviews (all bad) come in, and those assembled seek desperately to pin the blame on each other. But, as euphoria slides into despair, the narcissism, ambition, childishness and just plain irrationality that infuse the theatre and its denizens take over, and as the curtain falls plans are eagerly afoot for their next venture this one sure to be the hit they have all been hoping for.
Terrence McNally was an American playwright, librettist, and screenwriter. Described as "the bard of American theater" and "one of the greatest contemporary playwrights the theater world has yet produced," McNally was the recipient of five Tony Awards. He won the Tony Award for Best Play for Love! Valour!
Talk about not sticking the landing. Act 1 of this show is so strong and so funny, but wow does act 2 completely fall off. I don't know if they just didn't know what they wanted to do with this premise or what, but it basically loses all its stakes on that back half. 5/10
Interesting how references can be updated again and again over time, but the central premise-gathering after opening night to wait for the NYT review-has sort of fallen by the wayside. There'd be 30 more producers waiting around, and if any movie star was in the lead part the review wouldn't matter nearly as much.
That being said-the laughs come so fast and so quick, and they could truly be enhanced by a great director. Amazed at the variety in McNally's work, and how solid his output was over the course of his time writing.
Witty repartee and plenty of celebrity name-dropping, inside jokes about Broadway, puns, and pokes at theatre people, but I grew weary of it after a while. What billboards are for advertising, this not-so-subtle jest at Broadway didn't draw me to care for any of the characters. I'm glad I read it before actually paying for a ticket.
I worked on this play in the sound department and overall it is entertaining. Boring at times and lacks some comedy. There are plenty of plot holes that we discovered throughout the show but overall if you're a devout theatre fan it might make sense to you.
Delightfully meta. Very of its time with all the name-dropping. I feel like it might work better condensed as a One Act since it's the same situation and themes drawn out over two, but still humorous and entertaining. 3.5 stars.
I’m always a little tepid on plays about doing plays and this one does a lot of pop culture name dropping from 20 years ago. Good dialogue but missing that McNally sparkle and message.
Lively; lots of ringing phones. Rapid-fire dialogue. Songs need permissions; celebrities need updating. Very "in-crowd." A possibility but we just did one about playwrights and show biz.
This play is currently on Broadway with an all-star cast. It's clever, as is most of McNally's work. But it's meant, I think, to be a big blockbuster, which it has shrewdly pulled off. It's a comedy that plays with Hollywood cliches, skewers stars and starlets, who include producers, directors, and critics. People hoist themselves on their own petards - with the help of McNally's sharp eye and impeccable aim. The play requires seasoned comic actors to succeed; an amateur group may not entertain with this vehicle. In other words, the play does not entirely stand on its own. But the stereotypes are handily honed and amusingly caricatured.
It is fascinating to me to see how varied McNally's plays are. He has a number of plays ("Master Class," among others) that feature his love of opera. He has others that demonstrate his capacity to home in on the intricacies of intimacy ("Frankie & Johnny in the Claire de Lune"). He understands how to take the measure of an audience and cater to it accordingly. More power to him!
After i saw the show on broadway this past year, I went to the library and bought it this book/ script, I wanted to know the differences between the broadway version and the original script. This plays definitely it's very funny to read (also,it's more funny live ) every character make you feel like you had knew them before, they are very varied, all of them have some mental craze, that was a funny way to aboard the topic, also you feel bad for some of them to...
But i have to say: this is not a good idea to introduce to a newcomer on broadway, if want to read it you have to know about the old 90's Broadway season. The 2014-2015 broadway version of this plays have a very clever adaptation, with contemporary references and jokes, if you have the chance to see it, do it but fist read this script.
I read this book to fulfill the goal "read a humorous book." i also wanted to see how reading a play was different since i had read "how to read a play" for another reading challenge. That book must be good because I really enjoyed this play. I have never actually read through an entire play before. despite the swearing which i could have done without. it was entertaining, and i would like to read another play, though not necessarily from this author