I didn’t at all like the 2 previous plays by Hnath that I’d seen, but really enjoyed this one. The conceit of a multiverse allowed him to play around with the facts to make the story more intriguing. I especially enjoyed the performance by the actor playing Barack, and Lithgow had a lot of fun with his part. Several people in the comments section are trying to turn it into a debate/discussion about the actual 2008 and 2016 elections, which isn’t the point at all. The Facebook comments about the review are even funnier, since they’re mostly from Clinton haters who fulminate about how they’d never waste money seeing a play about them. I hadn’t realized that earlier productions had an African American Hillary, but it makes sense given that she tussles with 3 men throughout the play but starts and ends alone in the multiverse.
Big fan of A doll's house... Was disappointed by Hillary and Clinton. It is shallow and mondane. Zéro insight on the inner life of those people. Only the obvious was written. I was never bored, but I was never surprised. Of course Laurie Metcalf is a joy to watch. Zak Orth has the only moment in the play that grabs me. Overall, major missed opportunities. Sorry to write this.
3
Sounds like an interesting, introspective play. Particularly worthwhile because of Metcalf's and Lithgow's portrayals. My only comment regarding the review is the statement that we are watching the torment of someone who had all the stuff to be president "yet is never allowed to win."
While this is a common mantra of Clinton and Clinton supporters, the presidency was never taken away from Clinton. No one stopped her. She lost primarily because of her own failings and the mistakes of her campaign.
From the review, it appears that the play supports this view of the facts. It is only the reviewer that slips in this pathetic and self-unaware statement of Hillary's that shows more than anything almost why she did not indeed have the right stuff to be president. It takes more than intelligence and cunning.
6
@RLH Is that why we now have Trump as the President of the United States because he had the right stuff? Your comments exposes much of the bias many people had because they were duped or unaware.
11
Why present a play NOW about the Clintons which takes place in 2008-- NOW, two full years after Mrs. Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election( which she shouldn't have lost). Many Clinton voters, myself included, have still not recovered from Hillary's loss and her misguided campaign which had several strategic flaws which, had they been caught early enough, would have easily put her in the White House.
Given the critical reception, the events described in this play hardly seem all that interesting to warrant a full length play on Broadway. Even with two superb actors in the leads, and written by a gifted, intelligent young playwright ( whose last Broadway play should have won the Tony Award), I just have no interest in seeing Hillary and Bill on stage back in 2008 discussing their respective political futures. We all know what eventually happened, we are still suffering from what happened, and worse--we, as a nation, will be suffering even more because of what eventually happened, for along time to come.
11
@robert
You know, no one is going to force you to see this play. If you don't feel that you are emotionally stable enough to deal with it you should simply give it a pass. No one is going to judge you for that. However, we might judge you for wanting to deny the play to others who are capable of dealing with it and do want to see it.
18
@Robert, just regarding "the events described in this play hardly seem all that interesting to warrant a full length play on Broadway."
What level of content warrants a full-length play on Broadway is what will sell enough seats to pay the weekly bills and potentially return a profit. There has been so much extraordinary work off-Broadway and regionally that was demanding and rewarding, but could never fill a big enough theater eight times a week. Broadway as an imprint of anything but commercial potential must be a Broadway that was gone by the time I started getting to go in 1970. (My parents say I saw some shows before then, but I don't recall coming into Manhattan. Maybe BAM?)
I remember trying to describe the musicals "They're Playing Our Song" and "I Love My Wife," and why they were so worth the price to see them in a theater with 1,000 other people, their reactions fueling our reactions and I hope vice versa, when the plots had nothing that was not available for free on TV. There was an expression that stayed in my mind over the years, though google can't find it for me: "What's the plot? It ain't got. But what you get can only be onstage." When everyone was talking about "Evita," people who also saw Mickey Rooney and Ann Miller I(and the still-unknown Ann Jillian) in "Sugar Babies" couldn't really explain what was so much fun - it just was unusual and fun - "was it Atlantic City or Broadway" didn't matter, and the best seats were $20.
2
@jim
How do you deduce that someone is emotionally unstable if they don't want to see a play. Also, do you always invoke a 'we' as in 'we might judge you' when you are expressing an opinion? The wonderful thing about a comments section Jim is that people are entitled to their opinions.
5
What a charming production. So well acted and directed. And I want to give props to the designers, too. But this is a matinee play. A boulevard comedy.- nothing too serious... too deep... just opportunities for smiles a laugh and a few moments of insight to give it some human weight. It just seemed like the play that Hnath ended up writing rather than the play he wanted to write. Just a feeling.
I was "dragged" to see "Hillary and Clinton" last weekend by my wife. I really wasn't interested in another story about the pair. HOWEVER, I really enjoyed the play, great acting by the cast of four, in particular Metcalf. If you have the opportunity to see the play, you will enjoy it ... wether you like or dislike the Clintons.
7
Why have you stopped listing the designers and stage/companymanagers?
12
@Kiwiline
Hear! Hear! mentioning them parenthetically in the review isn't enough. It takes a village to put on a show (about Hillary, no less), and no one's contribution should be minimized.
I'd also like them to list the graphic designers and backstage crew. And refusing to print the names of every usher working that night is an unconscionable dereliction of duty. The man who sold me a drink the night I attended was named John, I think, or maybe Joe. I blame this careless review for not seeing fit to remind me.
And surely some of the cast took a cab home after the show, or had a late-night repast. The fact that we don't know who the drivers or waiters were is tantamount to censorship of this fine production!
And let's not forget that Lucas Hnath didn't write this play by himself. Every author had teachers, people who provided mentorship and inspiration. And I bet more than a few were women. It's nothing short of misogyny to deny these molders of minds their due credit in this review.
I could go on!
9
Having seen this play in its excellent Philadelphia incarnation, I'm annoyed and a little shocked that this review doesn't dig into the choice to cast Hillary as white this time around. What gives?
3
I was hoping this would make it to New York and plan to, finally, see it soon. Even with Metcalf in the cast, who I love, what has delayed my seeing it is that in the previous productions of the play, Hillary was played by an African American woman and would love to see it as originally cast. I have been wondering why they decided not to cast a black actress for the Broadway production. Have a few ideas why. But I do want to see the show itself and it is kind of hard to resist seeing these two onstage together.
2
@GR, was this just an example of the role in the Philadelphia production being cast on a colorblind basis?
2
@GR
If casting a person of color once means that the producer is locked into always casting a person of color for the role don't you think that might actually discourage non-traditional casting?
15
Hill and Bill are the couple most likely to be condemned to wander amongst us until they die.
8
“Never allowed to win” .... this phrase jumped out at me. What on earth prompted it? I distinctly recall her name appearing on the presidential ballot in November 2016. Was I hallucinating?
21
Saw this and it was more than my lowest expectations had been set to. In fact this is BRILLIANT. It is touching, revealing, sad, and wonderfully funny. Laurie Metcalf nails the Hillary role 110%. John Ligthgow is good and the other supporting characters are spot on. Given this play was written after the 2008 primary loss by Hillary, the play is so much more powerful after Hillary's loss in 2016! A MUST SEE!
17
@Gene, absolutely - and 2008 is huge on then heels of the Lehman show. :) The reviews coming out took Hillary by surprise. She and Bill did a cardio workout after she checked Show Score to decide what to see this weekend!
Tune of “On Broadway”
They say the play turned out real well on Broadway
Guess I don”t sing or dance, and that’s okay!
It’s much more me than politics
They praise the star’s “uncanny mix”
I see we’re in the Critics Picks, hooray!
(On Broadway!)
They say my name is up in lights on Brpadway
On a marquee like Hamilton and Cher
Will we sell out each night like Bette?
Will Laurie score a statuette?
Will love for her and John get you all there?
(On Broadway!)
They say 2008 was hot off-Broadway.
That Lehman Brothers import showed: They’ll all pay..
Though airline pricing makes me blush
And how it works is real hush-hush.
Scott saved front row for student rush - on Broadway
Glad we made the critics gush!
Glad we made the critics gush!
Glad we made the critics gush - on Broadway!!!
4
Didn't agree on all the glory for Hnath's "Doll's House, Part 2." Seemed like a well-done student project in a creative writing class, but not really a finished play. I did enjoy Ms Metcalf's performance. Not sure if I'll see this one, though I am tempted to see Ms Metcalf again and to see Lithgow on stage for the first time.
6
@billy pullen I felt like I was the only one who didn't enjoy Doll's House, Part 2! It was sophomoric and baffled how he didn't get sued.
2
@Lisa I wondered that, too, but I assume since the play was written about 140 years ago, copyrights or literary estates are not relevant now.
3
I’ve always thought of the Clintons as I do the Roosevelts, and I mean that as a compliment.
Bill, the genius, who could’ve achieved miracles if he had exercised more self-control.
And Hillary, the misunderstood and mistreated First Lady who could’ve changed history for the better, if only she hadn’t been such a stick-in-the-mud.
I think history will be kinder to them than we are. Remember, FDR was called “that cripple” by his enemies, and Eleanor was hated by as many people as those who adored her.
30
@David G. Don't agree about the Roosevelts, but do agree about Hillary. Stick-in-the-mud is such an apt characterization. She was so, so careful in 2016, then, on one fateful day, she let loose with the word that, in my mind at least, doomed her--"deplorables." Gave forty-five the opening he needed and the rest is very, very ugly history.
7
@kathleen cairns Not sure about your assessment. Deplorables is an apt description of a certain percentage of Trump supporters, who also cling to their guns and their religion.
13
@kathleen cairns It didn't hurt that over 800 voting stations were closed during the election in Republican governed states...oh and that little Russian helpy thing!
10
As someone who thought "A Doll's House, Part 2" fell very far short of "superb," I'm not inclined to trust this review of "Hillary and Clinton." Maybe this is one time I'll wait to hear what audience members have to say.
13
@Cookin, re "I'll wait to hear what audience members have to say."
Here's what the audience thought, but at 0:20, Donald Trump or the 800-pound gorilla in the room drops in. (He was not in a good mood last night.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZlRWuRr5mk
@Cookin
I went last night: It was disappointing and did not deliver any sort of insight into the inner lives of the Clintons or their marriage. To do this would have relied upon better material than just re-hashed news articles for a source. The dialogue cobbled from this is nothing more than what the average person could extrapolate--far short of what a dramatist should produce when tackling a play about two brilliant minds. Nothing is revealed in this play, in any universe, let alone within the conceit of a 'multiverse' which is the intellectual cop-out Hnath supplies in order to make his weak, uninteresting play seem believable.
Dull.
2
The play is terrific theatre -- engrossing, revealing, surprising, both emotionally and intellectually. This is the 5th play by Lucas Hnath I've seen, and every one is original and exciting theatre. He has integrity and a theatrical imagination. He "holds the glass" up to our world today and reflects it to us. For me, that's the best of what theatre can do.
15
@Iffits
Then you obviously have incredibly low standards.
1
What, precisely, is more emotional and less intelligent than a staged temper tantrum about how only the emotions of the super-elite are valid and interesting?
And it is far past time to dispel the myth that Trump won for any reason other than credibly supporting the legislative issues the voters wanted. I worked both the primary season and general election organizing for Trump, and the extremely dominant view among those who voted for him was that they did not like his personality much but wanted someone who would address the real problems being ignored by both parties.
Very few people who voted for him ever attended a Trump rally. The voters spoke on the issues. It's not about Hillary and Bill, or Barack, or Jeb, or Marco, or Bernie, or Ted. It's about issues.
20
@Tina Trent Trump lost the popular vote. He won the swing states by a 10s of thousands of votes. The only issue that swung the election was Hillary and her emails and Comey's letter in the last two weeks of the election was the nail in the coffin.
The idea that very few people attended his rallies ignores that the regular coverage on TV.
38
Simple arithmetic suggests that the vast majority of those who voted for him did not attend his rallies. Of course, they may have watched the ridiculously over-covered rallies on cable TV.
11
@Tina Trent
May I assume you won't be attending "Hillary and Clinton"?
6
Hill and Bill are yet another illustration of the Enoch Powell‘s quote, “All political lives, unless they are cut off in mid stream at a happy juncture, end in failure."
I would love to see the play and whether it addresses the essential failures of the Clintons; for Hillary, the political failures, and Bill, the manifold personal, moral failures. In this sense, are their failures the secret sauce of their marriage?
10
@D Priest I saw the play wednesday afternoon. Those failures are at the center of the story. Come see it!
This is the top of my list of things to see. My obvious question is will anyone walk out if the theater feeling different about Bill or especially Hillary after seeing the play.
10
@Mal Stone
No, they will not.
2