Shows for Days Previews @ LCT

[RippedMan]

Posted: 6/6/15 at 11:10pm

Saw the show tonight from the sides, front row. Not a bad seat, but not a great seat. A lot of it is directed very proscenium. I'm not sure if Zaks is use to a thrust, but it all felt very front and center with the cast trying to cheat out a little bit. I thought the space could have be used better, and better direction all around. 

First off, the set is really beautiful. It's basically the back wall of a theatre, but it's got some great details. I just wish the designers had been given more room to show off their skills. The lights rarely change into anything different and the set is beautiful, but barely used. The sound effects were great though. 

The show is written in a kind of Our Town-esque mode. Urie acts as our Stage Manager. Setting the scenes, explaining what the tape on the floor represents, moving the tables/chairs around. I don't think that idea totally worked. Most of the time he was giving us random facts about the place - what the decor looked like, that obviously wasn't there - and between lines would move tables and chairs into place. It got a little tedious after awhile. There's no dramatic tension or resolve to these monologues, so it just felt like filler. 

The story is basically that of a small town community theatre and their evolution. And it's Beane's personal story, which is why it felt very masterbatory. Where as Act One last season really had a driving plot and interesting characters, this felt very slow. There was little to no momentum. We weren't sure what each scene was building upon. The characters are all fairly one note: The dumb actress, the lesbian standhand, the aging actress, the over-the-top queen actor. Only Lupone's character was really given any sort of context. There might be a really engaging story in there somewhere, and Beane writes some really hilarious quips, but Lupone has a little passage near the end where she talks about Beane's first play that he wrote for their theatre company. She said it was laugh after laugh without any heart. And I suppose this was his attempt at giving it some heart, but the "dramatic" moments felt forced and awkward. You'd be laughing at some insidery theatre joke and then the next breath he tells you how his mother died. It was very rocky, and maybe it'll take some shape during previews. 

Urie is fine. He's very likeable, but he's not so great at the more dramatic moments. Lupone is given the best material and hits it out of the park. She's truly great to watch act on stage. Maybe due to her star power, but the show felt more like her story than Beane's. The rest of the cast is fine with Soules being the highlight of the rest. 

I'm glad I saw it, but I keep waiting to see a Beane play where I'm really, truly laughing. There were some giggles here and there, but the real gut punchers were few and far between. There were a good bit of empty seats left after intermission. 

[dave1606]

Posted: 6/6/15 at 11:49pm

I was there tonight and for the most part quite enjoyed it. The cast is the show's bigest asset. I thought Patti and Michael Urie were both giving excellent performances. 

The show is not perfect, and I do agree with Ripped Man...the conceit of Urie being the stage manager didn't quite work. His monologues are the least interesting part of the show, but I think Urie does his best to sell them. Beane gives us random facts about his later life but the majority of the play is confined to his time in the 70s. I'm not sure how useful all of the later infomation pans out to be. 

I remember seeing Douglas Carter Beane at the Lysistrata Jones reunion concert a few years ago and finding him a hysterical and a very likable person. I think casting Urie (There's a very funny line in the play, "Oh, I cast myself much thinner") as Beane is actually quite brilliant as Urie's personality and mannerisms work really well for the part.

Patti Lupone of course is the most interesting thing in the play. (How could she not be!) She is given a character that is perfect for her, and she nails it. Dale Soules is excellent as well. 

I disagree with Ripped Man on the humor. Beane is the king of the one liner, and I have always found him to be very funny. There are some fantastic zingers here and I found myself laughing quite a bit. Yes, it is very insidery, very much a long the lines of It's Only a Play. 

I'm not sure it's totally sucessful, but I'm very glad I saw it.  You can feel how personal it is, and yes, it may be a vanity piece, but I was moved by the end. 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 6/7/15 at 12:02am

Dave, I think I may have been misleading. I too found the play to be quite funny and laughing a good bit, but what I was trying to say was that there was just a bit too much drama/darker moments or moments of trying to teach the audience something. I think there can be quite profound things said in comedies, but here it felt like he was hitting us over the head with THIS IS A MEANINGFUL LINE or something. But that said, I laugh quite a bit, and agree that Urie was selling the interludes. I just wish the direction had helped him out a little bit. Maybe some different lighting/music? Just something.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 6/7/15 at 7:53am

>I'm not sure if Zaks is use to a thrust<

Strange to read that.  He directed The House of Blue Leaves and Six Degrees of Separation at the Newhouse (with both shows later moving upstairs to the Vivian Beaumont) and also The Front Page and Anything Goes at the Beaumont.  Lincoln Center Theater, as we know it now, really launched with those Zaks successes.  Before then, the theatres were not well regarded, and the Beaumont was considered especially inhospitable.  

[Auggie27]

Posted: 6/7/15 at 8:25am

Are the monologues part of an overall paean to community theater?  It sounds like the show is an attempt to get at the art form anew, from the standpoint that amateurs are as impassioned and invested as professionals, that the art created is still art.  That was how someone described it to me. I'm wondering if the digressive material (and I'm certainly not defending it, having not seen the play) is designed to illustrate and illuminate that passion among amateurs, the impetus to work as diligently as pros.  That doesn't mean it should take up valuable stage time. I'm reminded that Beane was discursive at times in THE NANCE, seeing the play as a teachable moment about that era and its repressive tactics and joys. Sometimes, it was all explained a bit too much.  Maybe that's one of his issues as a dramatist, that need to explicate as much as dramatize.  Just an open question.

Updated On: 6/7/15 at 08:25 AM

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 6/7/15 at 8:28am

I was there last night too, eager to see what Douglas Carter Beane would offer up as a follow up to the brilliant THE NANCE, which I found one of the most gorgeously goose bump-ly nights of theater I had enjoyed in the last decade.

Bluntly put, I wish SHOWS FOR DAYS were in that class. It is a chamber piece with a cast of 6 telling a very small story in a very traditional way, that of a year in Beane's early adolescence spent in the company of a struggling community theater troupe in Reading PA in 1973. Set is basic -- I wanted something on par with John Lee beauty's brilliant NANCE set. Lights do the job but not much more. Costumes sell each punchline, which you'd expect since it's William Ivy Long taking a crack at the ugliest decade ever. Folks reveal secrets, fortunes go up and down, life lessons are learned, and characters are propelled into the next phase of their lives with the regularity of a metronome. There are great swaths of humor here, and a few truly touching quiet beats in the later scenes. But the goosebumps stayed away.

What made the night more than worthwhile were the performances of 3 actors who sold every line and nuance, Dale Soules, Patty LuPone (of course), and the brilliant Michael Urie. God knows bull-dyke stage managers are a cliche (it's that kind of night), but Soules was magnificent and touching. LuPone was a joy, giving a precise and generous performance, though I gotta say she never struck me as genuinely Jewish despite all the Yiddishisms. (In Act II they address the disconnect, but still.) Michael Urie, I just loved to death. His was the only character I frankly cared about, even when he only had a line or two in scene after scene of Act I. (Also he's hot in those underpants.) He's the goddamned reason for the play-- so give that man more to do already!

In the last scene I was amused to see Beane struggle to solve virtually the same finale moment that eluded him in THE NANCE, that of the lone actor peering up at the spotlight while the wrecking ball threatens his beloved theater. The day he finally nails that effect, we'll all stand up and applaud.  

[RippedMan]

Posted: 6/7/15 at 10:03am

So true, Someone. The ending felt much like the Nance Part 2. The play also had a few different endings. The ending needs to be tightened or reworked. I think having him say thank to everyone is... I don't know, not needed.

I think my real issue is that I just was expecting another show. It's called "Shows for Days" and stars Patti Luponed has a community theatre diva. I just was expecting a zany comedy on par with Little Dog Laughed, but it's more of a drama than outright comedy. There's definite humor, but the last 30mins was just all drama. 

 

And Smaxie, I was on the front row on the side, and we had an extended scene where all 5 are at a dinner table

 and facing away. It was hard to hear and we couldn't see faces. Then in Act 2 Irene and Sid are giving a speech at a gala and are standing side by side and turned into each other therefore the people on the sides couldn't see facial expressions. So while the rest of the audience is laughing at some deadpan Lupone just gave, the people on the sides are just trying to figure out what's happening. Again, all this can be easily fixed. Was just surprised at how much of it felt front and center. 

Updated On: 6/7/15 at 10:03 AM

[AC126748]

Posted: 6/7/15 at 10:32am

I found it a rather boring evening. Beane relies on broad stereotypes -- the "bulldyke" stagehand, the highly-strung diva, the flamboyant leading man -- rather than character development, and the performances rarely rise above that level. I'm a huge Patti LuPone fan, but she felt ill at ease in the role of Irene, which, like the rest of the roles, isn't particularly well-drawn. I thought Dale Soules was awful, barking her lines and clodhopping around the stage. Michael Urie gives a nice, nuanced performance, easily transitioning between present-day Douglas Carter Beane and teenage Car. But that wasn't enough to enliven the evening, and I thought the play entirely fell apart in the last 30-45 minutes. This is the kind of play where the playwright thinks he's given the audience something profound, but it's really just underdeveloped, convoluted, and -- as I said already, but there is no better word to describe it -- boring.

[promisespromises2]

Posted: 6/8/15 at 3:47pm

Really interesting reviews from you guys, please keep them coming! I bought linctix for the end of July

[ncgator]

Posted: 6/8/15 at 3:57pm

With The Visit ending this Sunday, I now have the evening of July 4th open and this is really the only show playing that night that I haven't seen (or don't already have tickets for).  Coming from out of town, I think I am going to take a chance as it's something we won't get on tour.  That being said, the only seats available are all the way to the sides.  Should I risk better seats opening up, or just grab them (both the Fri eve and Sat mat are sold out).  If going far to the side, am I better off being up toward the back (can get 2 seats off the aisle there) versus closer?

[RippedMan]

Posted: 6/8/15 at 4:49pm

I was front row on the side and while I had my qualms with the view, it wasn't bad by any means. The whole set is basically just a big wall and they play most all of the action in the thrust. I'd say the closer you the better though. 

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 6/9/15 at 11:23pm

I was at the preview performance tonight and the actors are like ducks- calm on the surface, but furiously paddling below- to keep this thing afloat. There are some great jokes, but it's all about Lupone (simply wonderful), Urie and Soules.

The play reminded me a bit of The Grand Manner, which played The Newhouse several seasons ago. The Bobby Steggert/Kate Burton dynamic was similar to that of Urie and LuPone. There's also a bit of Act One in there (and countless other plays about the theater, playwriting, actors), except the difference is that these plays were biographical rather than so gratuitously autobiographical. I found Urie's (Beane's) asides borderline obnoxious, especially when discussing the business of show. Lots of feeling sorry for himself and begging the audience to feel sorry for him too. Not Urie's character, but him. 

I think it would be more effective if they fictionalized Urie's character completely. Tennessee Williams may have written some (thinly) veiled versions of himself in his plays, but he didn't have the gall to actually name them Tennessee! Keep the Our Town asides to maintain the memory play aspect of the piece, but stop getting in the way of the storytelling and pulling us out of the moment by taking about yourself so much. Congratulations on adopting a Guatemalan child. Moving on!

Urie really has grown into a fine stage actor. I wasn't wild about The Temperamentals, but I loved him in Buyer & Cellar and How to Succeed. He has a lovable presence; very charming and affable. Soules is very funny and has a nice, more serious scene with Urie in act two.

LuPone really killed it for me, though. She nails the whole part, but I especially enjoyed her in the final 30 minutes or so. That wig she has on her head! And some of those orange outfits. Well she makes it all work somehow. Admittedly I'm a devotee and she didn't disappoint in the least.

Despite some complaints there have been far worse ways to spend a few hours in theater. It's slight, but sometimes light fare is just what you need on a warm, almost-summer evening.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 6/10/15 at 12:31am

@whizzer-

Haven't seen the show so can't comment on it but I just wanted to mention that Urie was a fine stage actor before anyone knew who he was. I saw him twice at Juilliard, and he blew everyone else off the stage (and he was in pretty fine company).

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 6/10/15 at 8:07am

Hogan, I stand happily corrected then! My first exposure to him was in Ugly Betty (his scenes with Williams and Newton were always the highlight), so I categorized him as tv actor in my mind. 

Explains why he is so good both on screen and on stage. 

[bjh2114]

Posted: 6/10/15 at 8:48am

Whizzer, where were you sitting?  I was there last night as well, and definitely overheard some people talking about The Grand Manner.  Perhaps you were in my section.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 6/10/15 at 8:54am

Perhaps I was sitting right by you!

I don't remember the seat numbers, but I entered through aisle 4 on the left side of the theater, about halfway back.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 6/10/15 at 8:56am

That must have been you then! I was in the same area.  How funny.

[ncgator]

Posted: 6/10/15 at 10:03am

Just got my tickets for July 4th, in the far right section but 1 seat off the more central aisle.  Looking forward to seeing it!

[Kad]

Posted: 6/26/15 at 9:58am

Saw this last night. It's a fine summer diversion, with some very funny one-liners and a great performance from Patti (in some wonderfully tacky 70s outfits). But, unfortunately, it just feels like a ball of one-liners. The larger themes of the show- the development and collapse of manufacturing towns seems to take the focus, inexplicably- don't cohere and the issues of town politics don't really make sense. The play should be a paean to, or at least examination of!, community theatre, but aside from some early knowing nods, it doesn't really follow that track sufficiently until the last beats of the story.

The supporting charcters of the show really are woefully undeveloped- the leading lady character especially has nothing to play but needy actress hysteria. Dale Soules is able to elevate her tired stock lesbian character above that truly dated trope (she's in work clothes! she has so many cats!), but the three other ensemble actors cannot really make it work. Whenever the focus shifts away from Patti, the seams truly show.

Urie is extremely charming and charismatic, but is mostly an observer. His role as stage manager is not very well-conceived and, honestly, keeping track of the colored marking tape indicating locations is more confusing than theatrical. Unfortunately, Douglas Carter Beane isn't a terribly interesting character to play, especially not in the shadow of LuPone's ruthless theatre owner.

The climactic final scene veers into some preachy stuff from LuPone's character, leading to a shockingly easy resolution in which some grievous sins are easily forgiven by... well, everyone. There's also a monologue from LuPone to Urie about how his writing needs heartbreak and if he settles for laughs, he'd fail. But that's so much of what this play does: settles for one liners. The dialogue is often like comic strips: two panels of setup, a third panel for the punchline- often detached entirely from what's going on.

Updated On: 6/26/15 at 09:58 AM

[Dollypop]

Posted: 6/26/15 at 12:28pm

My 10 year old granddaughter has become quite a sophisticated theater-goer and a Patti LuPone fan (she's seen her in concert).  She enjoyed THE ELEPHANT MAN and has been to supper clubs with me.  I'm wondering if there's anything really inappropriate for an elementary school girl in SHOWS FOR DAYS.

 

Your comments would be appreciated.

[LarryD2]

Posted: 6/26/15 at 12:32pm

*potential spoiler alert*

 

There's some language and a sexual encounter (heard, but not seen) involving an underage character.

[smidge]

Posted: 6/26/15 at 12:41pm

Has anyone tried the stage door for this. I was wondering about the location and if Miss LuPone and Mr. Urie come out after matinees

[RippedMan]

Posted: 6/26/15 at 12:50pm

I agree Whizzer! I think Beane needs to stop the Beane references and it would make it more compelling and engaging. Which is maybe why Soules and Lupone's characters became more engaging as character. 

[Dollypop]

Posted: 6/26/15 at 1:43pm

Thanks for the input. Larry.

[GilmoreGirlO2]

Posted: 6/26/15 at 2:42pm

I saw this last week and, overall enjoyed it, although it could absolutely use some rewrites.

My main qualm with the show is the tonal difference between the first and second acts. The first act felt like light comedy, definitely relying on stereotypes. However, the second act felt much more rooted in reality. The characters that felt somewhat two dimensional in the first act became complex humans in the second. I think the second act landed much better. I only wish the deeper character development had started blooming from the beginning. How the sequence of events unfold throughout the show feels spot on, but if we were allowed to begin to understand these characters on a deeper emotional level from the beginning, the second act would feel much more supported. I would have liked to have a better clue into why some of the characters acted (and reacted) in the way they did.

As stated by others, LuPone is absolutely the star in this. Her performance is wonderful. It’s one of those performances that you feel safe as audience member in; you know she is in control of what she is doing onstage and you can sit back and happily enjoy the ride. Urie was very endearing as well (although I thought his turn in “Buyer and Cellar” was so fantastic that, with that performance in mind. this character was a bit of a letdown knowing what Urie is capable of).

I was quite moved leaving the theatre. In fact, I left feeling a bit melancholy and somber, despite there being many funny moments throughout.

I’d love Beane to rework the show. It certainly is a little masturbatory, but I do think there is something special in there. His ability to relay the passion, education, tension, understanding, and everything else that comes along with a group of artists trying to do what they love rings true and is certainly relatable.