This is a terrific, thought-provoking, and wildly-entertaining play. The cast is excellent, and the performances are specific, emotionally-connected, and often surprising. I thought the choice to stage it in the round only heightened the intimacy, and really implicated the audience in the proceedings on stage–which makes a lot of sense, as it raised questions all of us need to be asking and answering.
3
At the Table is gripping, engaging and inclusive. I laughed continuously, loved it, and wanted to jump in and join the relevant, witty discussions of our times. A well-written play and excellently portrayed by the accomplished actors. An absolute must see! Not to be missed!
1
I read this review before seeing the show. I talked to people who had seen it and everyone loved it, so I figured I would go regardless of the review. I am so glad I did. It was one of the best shows I've ever seen. It had substance, it grabbed me at times to the degree I physically moved my body to be closer. I laughed, I cried, I wanted to participate (which is not my nature at all). It moved me. The writing was brilliant. How does such a young playwright understand human thoughts and emotions to this degree? I highly reccommend seeing this show and bring along your friends. You will want to talk about it for days.
1
It's hard to imagine a stranger review of this show; The cast of characters includes a gay Trinidadian, a jewish bisexual man, a half-asian, half-jewish woman, and a black American woman. And yet the article barely mentions anyone other than the two straight, white men, who are frankly the two least important characters. In doing so, this review does theatre-goers (and this young troupe) a huge disservice, leaving us with the impression that we're going to see several 'privileged' young men argue about race. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Even stranger is Ms. Collins-Hughes complaints about theater-in-the-round and overlapping dialogue, as if she's never experienced these before. It is true that I couldn't always see faces in certain moments, and this was unfortunate, only because the performances were universally strong, and I hated to miss some of the acting. However, this 'naturalistic' blocking created something incredibly intimate - I frequently found myself wanting to jump into conversation, or even console one character who finds herself cracking as she confronts deep conflicts within her identity.
But the most beautiful thing about this play is how big ideas about race, gender, sexuality, parenthood and relationships are writ small into specific character-driven conflicts. Without bombast, polemic or pedantry, Perlman's play carefully peels away layers of each character to get at the personal truths and questions surrounding these timely topics.
Even stranger is Ms. Collins-Hughes complaints about theater-in-the-round and overlapping dialogue, as if she's never experienced these before. It is true that I couldn't always see faces in certain moments, and this was unfortunate, only because the performances were universally strong, and I hated to miss some of the acting. However, this 'naturalistic' blocking created something incredibly intimate - I frequently found myself wanting to jump into conversation, or even console one character who finds herself cracking as she confronts deep conflicts within her identity.
But the most beautiful thing about this play is how big ideas about race, gender, sexuality, parenthood and relationships are writ small into specific character-driven conflicts. Without bombast, polemic or pedantry, Perlman's play carefully peels away layers of each character to get at the personal truths and questions surrounding these timely topics.
1
I saw this play again the other night and brought friends. We all loved it (I think it just keeps getting better) and we had a lively discussion about the major topics that are brought up in this show. It allowed me to connect with my friends in a deeper way, this is what theater is meant to do; Start discussion. I urge you (whoever you are) to see this play and bring a friend or several, because it will open doors to connect more deeply with those you share this experience with.
2
Go see this play. Not because it's the best or worst play in the world. Go see it as a vote for theatre that questions, provokes and invites you to face yourself & the world in a way that you might not otherwise. Go see it to demand that the NYT & Ms. Collins-Hughes hold themselves to a higher standard and recognize the role they play in the life of small theatre companies. Fault Line Theatre has the courage to create a piece of theatre. They deserve a genuine response to it.
3
I absolutely loved this play. It was my first time seeing work by FAULT LINE THEATER and I found AT THE TABLE to be provocative and pertinent to so many struggles of our country today. Yet this review fails to mention many of the numerous items of discussion that this play brought to light. The reviewer chose instead to focus on her own discomfort than to provide the reader with an understanding of what this play can provide, which is change, human connectivity, and conversation. In a play that highlights diversity visually as well as verbally, the reviewer chose instead to focus on the straight, white, male characters. This review does not at all give AT THE TABLE the perspective that it deserves. To conclude, GO SEE THIS PLAY!
1
I haven't seen many productions performed in the round, but I thought it worked perfectly for AT THE TABLE. As an audience member, I felt very involved and included. I didn't lose any of the dialogue or action.
The cast is supremely talented. The characters and relationships are very fleshed out. The work is specific and impressive.
The script is funny, intelligent, and relevant. The conversations and arguments develop organically.
This is a wonderful piece of theater that shouldn't be missed.
The cast is supremely talented. The characters and relationships are very fleshed out. The work is specific and impressive.
The script is funny, intelligent, and relevant. The conversations and arguments develop organically.
This is a wonderful piece of theater that shouldn't be missed.
2
I saw AT THE TABLE last night and feel compelled to talk about the review that appeared in the New York Times. The reviewer chose to focus her remarks almost exclusively to the impact of her seat. I found it baffling that, out of all the numerous elements that could have been applauded, encouraged, or constructively criticized, seating was what the review was about. This provided neither the reader nor the artists involved with information that was useful.
This makes me think about the larger issue; what is the role of our critics? While I am a new audience member of Fault Line Theatre, it took me very little time and energy to learn that their work has consistently been of a high caliber (One of their shows, FROM WHITE PLAINS, was even a New York Times Critic pick). I argue that it is the job of the reviewer to understand the history and mission statement of any production they review, and most importantly encourage what is working and constructively critique the areas that are not. Are you supporting the next round of theater makers, or are you cutting them off at the root? Because, like it or not the critic holds power to either help or hurt a company’s ability to get butts in the seats, and to gather future financial support. I urge you to consider the role you play in the growth of theater artists, and to reevaluate whose hands you place that future in.
This makes me think about the larger issue; what is the role of our critics? While I am a new audience member of Fault Line Theatre, it took me very little time and energy to learn that their work has consistently been of a high caliber (One of their shows, FROM WHITE PLAINS, was even a New York Times Critic pick). I argue that it is the job of the reviewer to understand the history and mission statement of any production they review, and most importantly encourage what is working and constructively critique the areas that are not. Are you supporting the next round of theater makers, or are you cutting them off at the root? Because, like it or not the critic holds power to either help or hurt a company’s ability to get butts in the seats, and to gather future financial support. I urge you to consider the role you play in the growth of theater artists, and to reevaluate whose hands you place that future in.
3
i saw AT THE TABLE this weekend and found it thoughtful, absorbing, and beautifully acted--and *loved* that it was in the round. i wouldn't have wished for any other lens through which to experience a story about how where we come from colors what we see.
1
Upon reading Ms. Collins-Hughes' review, I was curious to see the play she was so pointedly not addressing.
The writing is funny, uncomfortable, and deeply relevant. Each actor gives a standout performance. The direction is sharp and beautifully staged. The design is elegant and evocative. SEE THIS PLAY.
In refusing to have conversation about the ACTUAL PLAY, Ms. C.H. is disinviting the diverse, young theatergoers the art so desperately needs to attract from the table.
I can't help but point out that ms. C.H. only mentions the 3 white, straightcharacters in a play discussing diversity. The picture is of 3 white men. This play has a large and diverse cast. She has effectivelyerased any voice not representing the white, heteronormative perspective.
Rachel Christopher (giving a jaw-dropping performance as Lauren, an African American woman who is the center of this play) is completely overlooked. At best, this is unforgivably careless.
The saving grace of this "review" is that it provides the opportunity to continue the conversation started in Michael Perlman's remarkable play. Who determines who is invited to the table? Because the NYTimes is often the only point of contact a potential theatergoer has with a play before deciding where to spend hard earned cash, this one reviewer's uninformed opinion will not only starkly affect the play's ticket sales, but could singlehandedly bankrupt and silence a young, promising theatre company.
Can we talk about THAT???
The writing is funny, uncomfortable, and deeply relevant. Each actor gives a standout performance. The direction is sharp and beautifully staged. The design is elegant and evocative. SEE THIS PLAY.
In refusing to have conversation about the ACTUAL PLAY, Ms. C.H. is disinviting the diverse, young theatergoers the art so desperately needs to attract from the table.
I can't help but point out that ms. C.H. only mentions the 3 white, straightcharacters in a play discussing diversity. The picture is of 3 white men. This play has a large and diverse cast. She has effectivelyerased any voice not representing the white, heteronormative perspective.
Rachel Christopher (giving a jaw-dropping performance as Lauren, an African American woman who is the center of this play) is completely overlooked. At best, this is unforgivably careless.
The saving grace of this "review" is that it provides the opportunity to continue the conversation started in Michael Perlman's remarkable play. Who determines who is invited to the table? Because the NYTimes is often the only point of contact a potential theatergoer has with a play before deciding where to spend hard earned cash, this one reviewer's uninformed opinion will not only starkly affect the play's ticket sales, but could singlehandedly bankrupt and silence a young, promising theatre company.
Can we talk about THAT???
5
It's a shame this review does so poor a job of actually taking this wonderful play's merits into account. Yes, it's in the round, but that is far from being the center of this genuinely funny, moving and at times uncomfortable play. Michael Perlman has taken a host of what could feel like topical issues and woven them together so deftly that somehow the swings between abortion rights, gay marriage, black identity (which in the hands of a lesser playwright might feel contrived and "issuey"), come across as natural and real. This is a play about people with opinions, and at least in the first act they are not afraid to share them. Doing so however has consequences and in my estimation this lovely intimate play is really about how friends struggle with finding the balance between maintaining the "good old days" of naivete and youthful friendship and a more complex adult friendship that take into account a deeper sense of personal identity and politics. The acting is superb. Truthful, honest, and full of nuance, it is easy to believe that the people standing 10 feet away from you (it is a small intimate space) are real-life representations of your own friends, family, or even yourself.
All in all, a thoroughly enjoyable, funny, thoughtful and worthwhile night at the theater, and if you're concerned about it being in the round, sit where I sat (at the far end opposite the door to the theater), because I had no problems understanding, or enjoying the play whatsoever.
All in all, a thoroughly enjoyable, funny, thoughtful and worthwhile night at the theater, and if you're concerned about it being in the round, sit where I sat (at the far end opposite the door to the theater), because I had no problems understanding, or enjoying the play whatsoever.
3
This review missed the point of this production. The staging in the round was a fantastic choice and literally put the audience around the table. It forced us to look at each other and observe the others in the audience and made us a major player in the discussion. The show is beautifully acted and staged and the writing is brave and incredibly worthy of further development.
3
Please ignore this idiotic "review" and GO SEE THIS PLAY. It is wonderfully written, directed, and acted. I am a new york actor - I act in and see A LOT of theatre, and this play is an example of some of this city's finest. Since the reviewer seemed so supremely obsessed with not being able to see everyone's faces at all times, I'd like to quickly voice my own experience of the blocking/in the round choices.
As an audience member, I generally find myself watching the character I most relate to more closely then any of the others on stage. Because of the staging of the play (as Collins-Hughes astutely points out) I simply was not given that option. As a result I was forced to pay more attention to characters that I otherwise would have glossed over in some key moments. Because of the nature of staging, I walked away that evening having experienced a powerful version of the play that I would otherwise never have had. Characters that I would've otherwise slightly ignored because of my connection with the character Chris, were put sharp relief - they challenged me and my assumptions of who they were. It was an invigorating theater experience and I plan to return soon!
As an audience member, I generally find myself watching the character I most relate to more closely then any of the others on stage. Because of the staging of the play (as Collins-Hughes astutely points out) I simply was not given that option. As a result I was forced to pay more attention to characters that I otherwise would have glossed over in some key moments. Because of the nature of staging, I walked away that evening having experienced a powerful version of the play that I would otherwise never have had. Characters that I would've otherwise slightly ignored because of my connection with the character Chris, were put sharp relief - they challenged me and my assumptions of who they were. It was an invigorating theater experience and I plan to return soon!
6
I saw the show. Collins-Hughes spent the vast majority of her review criticizing Perlman's choice of staging the play in the round. While C-H was clearly frustrated by occasionally seeing the backs of heads and feeling removed from the action (in an extremely intimate off-Broadway space), I found the positives of the staging to vastly outweigh the negatives. A more naturalistic relationship to the performance space made me feel that much more entangled and implicated in the discussion. My point is Ms. Collins-Hughes biggest complaint with the show (so big, she refused to discuss much else) was, in my opinion, one of the strengths. So... What is the role of the critic? Currently it seems a critic can make one overarching subjective complaint about a production, voice that complaint to their readers, and, thus, deprive those artists an audience. A friend of mine suggested to me that reviews should be the edited transcript of a discussion between an anonymous writer, director, actor, and civilian (for lack of a better term) after the show. A few educated voices, hashing out their experience. This might give a reader a better sense of whether they should invest their money on a ticket than the narrow perspective of one lone voice. I don't know if this is the best alternative to the status quo or even possible in practical terms, but I suppose all I'm asking is can we do better? Thoughts?
4
Do yourself a favor and ignore this review. The poignancy, subtlety, and heart of this play far outweighs any sight-line logistics you may encounter. What an amazing and modern insight into race, feminism, and sex. Michael Perlman's careful character structure, combined with some of the finest acting I have seen all year, make for a night of intriguing theater that you don't want to miss.
5
I think I would say that I'm a fairly picky theater-goer. I've become skeptical of shows that boast that their new play is the "must see" piece of the season. But I hold out hope and am constantly on the lookout for pieces that are relevant to me and to the lives of the people I love. Sadly, more and more I find that I come home from an evening of theater disappointed and frustrated by the frivolous and largely irrelevant content of so much of the work that gets produced in our fair city.
I'm so very happy to say that my experience of "At The Table" was a breath of fresh air. It was a thought-provoking and relevant piece of work. After the opening moments, I found myself thinking that I was in great hands and that the story was really going to take us somewhere that is challenging and real. And it did. To me, it reflected the challenging, often painful, conversations I have been finding myself engaged in with family and friends recently. I found myself identifying with many of the characters and nodding my head in agreement to shared experiences and conversations that I recognized in my own life. The piece is a bright spot among the theater I've seen recently, and I'm very grateful to the production and creative teams for brining it to us.
I'm so very happy to say that my experience of "At The Table" was a breath of fresh air. It was a thought-provoking and relevant piece of work. After the opening moments, I found myself thinking that I was in great hands and that the story was really going to take us somewhere that is challenging and real. And it did. To me, it reflected the challenging, often painful, conversations I have been finding myself engaged in with family and friends recently. I found myself identifying with many of the characters and nodding my head in agreement to shared experiences and conversations that I recognized in my own life. The piece is a bright spot among the theater I've seen recently, and I'm very grateful to the production and creative teams for brining it to us.
7
This play ironically shares deep karmic connection with that review. If a reviewer is so shortsighted as to focus exclusively on the staging of a play, does she even have the right to sit At The Table... of reviewers for The New York Times?
7
I agree with the many other commenters that this review is woefully unconsidered. If the author doesn't like "theater in the round," that is a personal preference, not a legitimate reason to slight a thoughtful and thought-provoking work. I encourage readers to see the play for themselves and not let one person's grouchiness about their seat prevent them from seeing this wonderful piece of theater.
5
Thank God for this review. Without it, I wouldn't have gotten to read these comments. This play must be asking the right questions and asking them well to invoke such opposition to a one track review. I look forward to seeing it and joining the conversation.
6
If only the NY Times review of "At the Table" were as well written, well conceived and, well, more thoughtful, if would be a different review. Hmmmm, have I ever been to a dinner party or in someone's living room when only one person talked at a time and no one, ever, even if the subject were controversial ever interrupted anyone else? If that had happened onstage it would not have made the play better. It would have detracted from its truthfulness. This play hits you with one big subject after another - a rarity still rarer when the dialog rings true and escapes cliche. The review does nothing to reveal how nuanced the dialog is, how strong the acting of an ensemble she mistakenly calls overloaded. I don't know which Balkan I was in and there is something wonderful about surround sound laughter. Had I been the critic, my only quibble would have been running time and pacing. The fast-paced first act became, in my opinion, somewhat drawn out after intermission, a feeling amplified, perhaps, by the show's 8:30 start time. It is inconceivable to me that anyone could leave that show w/o remarking about the unmistakable talent that is Michael Perlman and the strength of his actors and collaborators.
4
Saw this show last night, thought it was a wonderful piece of theatre...was moved by a lot of the performances. This review does not do this play justice and is infuriating and incredibly insulting to all of the hard work this company has put into this production. Go see "At The Table".
8
I saw this play in previews and I am disappointed that The Times did not give it more considered and enlightened review. The play covers a lot of ground, but it does so in a way that is engaging, humorous and, at many times touching. Rather than alienating, the staging was welcoming, so much so that you felt a part of the action, rather than being a mere onlooker. There were times I wanted to almost reach out and console the characters. It is sad to me that a play that takes chances and tackles difficult themes will not be seen by more people because a reviewer for our most prestigious newspaper seemed to be more focused on where she was sitting, as opposed to what was actually taking place on the stage. It is probably too much to ask The Times to send another reviewer to see the play and at least give it the consideration it deserves, but IMHO, that would be an appropriate remedy.
6
I ADORED this play. I was riveted by how the piece wrestles with the fraught territory of anointing a single voice for a generation. Even when we try to fit everyone at the table in terms of equity, diversity, etc., someone is left out. Further, it is too easy to forget that contentious political discussions are about individuals with complicated identities. AT THE TABLE reminds us of this with grace, humor, and unpretentious earnestness. And for the first time in a long time, I saw a play that spoke to not only my generation's experience in the world, but to the moral questions and growing pains of our time, in our time.
Then there is this perplexing review. The amount of space Ms. Collins-Hughes takes up in chastising arena staging and overlapping lines must come off as bizarre to even the most causal of theater-goers. Either she has never seen a play staged in-the-round, or she has seen a play staged in-the-round and decided that it is just too hard for her watch. Either way, it makes her position as a theater reviewer for the NYT seem dubious. And while I can only conjecture as to why she was unable to see past a blocking and staging design that dates back to THE GREEKS, it is clear to me that her treatment of AT THE TABLE was cursory at best and woefully uneducated at worst. The NYT, its readers and this production deserve more care than Ms. Collins-Hughes seems able to offer. The play has my HIGHEST RECOMMENDATION and Ms. Collins-Hughes has earned my least confidence.
Then there is this perplexing review. The amount of space Ms. Collins-Hughes takes up in chastising arena staging and overlapping lines must come off as bizarre to even the most causal of theater-goers. Either she has never seen a play staged in-the-round, or she has seen a play staged in-the-round and decided that it is just too hard for her watch. Either way, it makes her position as a theater reviewer for the NYT seem dubious. And while I can only conjecture as to why she was unable to see past a blocking and staging design that dates back to THE GREEKS, it is clear to me that her treatment of AT THE TABLE was cursory at best and woefully uneducated at worst. The NYT, its readers and this production deserve more care than Ms. Collins-Hughes seems able to offer. The play has my HIGHEST RECOMMENDATION and Ms. Collins-Hughes has earned my least confidence.
6
I can not disagree more with this review. I am not a family member, friend or in any way connected with the cast of this show. However, I enjoyed "At the Table" so much when I saw it in previews that I was looking forward to the review. This production would not have nearly the same effect if it were staged on a traditional stage with a standard living room set. My wife and I sat directly behind the couch. The natural style banter between the characters, even sometimes speaking over each other, had the effect of making it all seem so real. Not the standard - my line, your line, punch line, laugh. They were speaking the same way that we all do when hanging out with friends. The laughs came naturally that way and were not forced. The best thing, though, about the staging was the ability it had to create the empathy to the characters. At one point, Lauren (Rachel Christopher) was lying on the couch inches from me and, at a very emotional point, was actually shedding real tears as she cried. I wanted to reach out and hug her and tell her everything would be alright! As an aside, while I thought all the performances were very good, Ms. Christopher's stood out to my wife and I. She had the "meatiest" role and played it flawlessly. I made a point to note her name as she was so good that I fully expect to see her on film or Broadway some day. I have told all of my friends to go see it. Kudos to the Writer/Director Michael Perlman for producing such an incredible, heartfelt play.
4
More than a week after experiencing it, my mind is still buzzing with poignant/powerful/provocative flashes from the preview performance of AT THE TABLE by Michael Perlman that I saw. Deftly directed, with richly layered performances from a charismatic ensemble, AT THE TABLE offers a captivating portrait of adult friendship, and especially the complicated ways our "old" friends stand as peculiar barometers of our sense of community and our definition of commitment. Perlman's play is also a searching exploration of how confounding abstractions like "identity politics" and "privilege" can confuse our intimate lives as well. In short (well, not "short" exactly, as it's 2.5 well-played hours), AT THE TABLE -- which runs for another few weeks in downtown Manhattan -- is well worth seeing. Catch it if you can.
4
I saw this production in previews and it is a funny, engaging and thought provoking piece of theater. I believe that this review does a disservice to theater goers by not focusing on the substance of the play and might discourage people from experiencing a unique and special piece of work. I encourage you listen to the comments as opposed to the review because it is clear that the people commenting have spent more time thinking about the play than the reviewer did.
3
The activity in this comment section is a testament to the brilliance of this play. It is a play about engaging in conversations that make us uncomfortable. Hillary Clinton got it right when she said about racial issues "We have to name them, own them, and ultimately change them." Perlman and his extremely brave and talented cast are doing precisely that. I think it's unfortunate that this reviewer abstained from engaging in the many conversations that At The Table brings to the table. There is nothing "alienating" about this play or its staging. It is wholly engaging and welcoming, and I hope as many people as possible get the opportunity to engage with it!
3
At The Table is not perfect, but it is a highly thought-provoking, carefully crafted, well-acted, moving piece of theater. At the very least, it deserves a much more nuanced review from a much more knowledgable critic. Fundamentally, this review shows a complete lack of insight, investment or knowledge about theater as an art form. The reviewer's ignorance of theater in the round, her lack of appreciation or even acknowledgement of the actors in the show (aside from Mr. Divino and Mr. Rossini) and her failure to recognize the courageous and highly relevant questions being asked by this play suggest that she neither knows nor cares very much about the theater. I am an avid reader of the New York Times but reviews like this make me doubt whether I am right to put my trust in this publication. So I address this to the NYTimes: I urge you to send another more knowledgable and more perceptive critic to review new, intelligent and thoughtful works of theater that take risks. Good or bad, a well-crafted, insightful review is a hundred times more worthy of the NYTimes than this disappointingly shallow and ignorant dismissal of a piece that is exciting, provocative, and worthy of a far more insightful review.
4
Alas, I have no opportunity to see this play. I was in the US recently but had no time to stop in NY (where I grew up). So I am basically "reviewing the review, and the responses to the review". Note that most of the comments (which are overwhelmingly positive) come from New Yorkers. We are used to theater that is experimental in one way or another. Theater in the round? No problem. It seems that the dialog is accessible to the entire audience, from every seat. Interrupting and talking over each other? The characters are probably New Yorkers.
According tp the critic, she misses the eye contact with the actors, and it bothers her that people talk over each other and interrupt. Welcome to New York! At least she appreciates the humor. Where does she come from?
At a time when tourists are dominating Broadway and demanding blockbusters, it is comforting to know that some people are writing literate, grownup plays that appeal to New Yorkers.
According tp the critic, she misses the eye contact with the actors, and it bothers her that people talk over each other and interrupt. Welcome to New York! At least she appreciates the humor. Where does she come from?
At a time when tourists are dominating Broadway and demanding blockbusters, it is comforting to know that some people are writing literate, grownup plays that appeal to New Yorkers.
I think it's a bit unfair and frankly, quite ignorant, to ignore the positive aspects of the work, as well as the characterization and plot points, simply because the critic "had a bad seat." Regardless of seating and inconvenient blocking for the critic, it is important to highlight and "give the nod" to the contributions of the play. Not only did it supply the audience with intriguing, timely characterization, but did so in an inviting, but also questioning manner. This allowed for the performance to do quite an important thing that is often overlooked: the ability of a play to allow the members of the audience to look inside themselves as well as analyze the performance, simultaneously. The play not only grabs the attention of the audience quickly, but throws them into the many social issues brought up by the characters. Assisted by strong acting, the strong points of the play were driven home with a stern deliberation. That is what the stage needs; a boldness. And overlooking that simply due to unfortunate seating is unacceptable for any kind of critic.
5
I thoroughly enjoyed this play and would recommend it to anyone interested in spending an evening with talented storytellers.
This article only mentions the straight, white characters in the play. At The Table, to me, is a play about the representation of several different races, stories, and backgrounds, it explores how we fit in and how we don't. I'm saddened to see that a publication as prestigious as the New York Times did not take the time to recognize the diverse storytelling in this play and it's importance.
I was particularly fascinated by the unique struggle of one of the lead characters, who is a African American woman. I am very disappointed that this article may limit the reach this play can make. It has the power cut off many young black women from seeing this show, who need to see their struggle represented, and stories told. Go and see this play and share it with those of different races, genders, and sexual orientations. It's too important not to.
This article only mentions the straight, white characters in the play. At The Table, to me, is a play about the representation of several different races, stories, and backgrounds, it explores how we fit in and how we don't. I'm saddened to see that a publication as prestigious as the New York Times did not take the time to recognize the diverse storytelling in this play and it's importance.
I was particularly fascinated by the unique struggle of one of the lead characters, who is a African American woman. I am very disappointed that this article may limit the reach this play can make. It has the power cut off many young black women from seeing this show, who need to see their struggle represented, and stories told. Go and see this play and share it with those of different races, genders, and sexual orientations. It's too important not to.
4
I saw this production during previews, and found the question of how we create a cultural identity to be a very timely one. One that the play does not try to answer, but rather examines how important it is to continue to engage in the conversation. While I was periodically looking at the back of an actor's head, due to the staging, it was not enough of a detractor to alienate me from the story. The performances are strong across the board. The design and direction are likewise thoughtful and well tailored to the story. I would recommend this production highly.
5
I loved this play. It's unfortunate that this review says nothing about the beautiful struggle these characters go through, the love they share, and humor they find. The more I think about this play the more I discover about myself. This is a gift, I can't remember the last time I was in a theater where I laughed the whole time and also left changed, and inspired. It made me want to learn about the struggles of those around me, and connect deeper within my relationships in my life. When we engage and listen to each other's stories that is how we progress as a species. I believe with my whole heart that this play promotes us to engage with each other, find connection and talk about our differences. this is not only an entraining evening in the theater it is an extremely important one. GO SEE THIS PLAY.
3
Although I have not seen the play yet, but have tickets in July, I am looking very forward to seeing the show as it addresses issues that are relevant, are avoided by many people and will encourage further discussion. Could it be Laura's discomfort in her seat was really a discomfort in facing some of the topics addressed in the show? Sometimes a viewer is "faced" with something they would rather not "face", even when art imitates life. So, Laura, maybe this play did exactly what it was supposed to do.
3
At The Table is a fantastic new play. I saw it during previews and sent other friends to see it as well. We all agree it is interesting, engaging, and contrary to what is printed here, well-staged. The fact that it is in the round serves the larger purpose of including us at the table with the actors. We participate by seeing not only the performers, but the other audience members across from us. We engage in a silent conversation with the play as it unfolds, which truly delighted me. I think the play was particularly gripping BECAUSE of the staging, rather than in spite of it.
4
At the Table entertained me during and has made me think about it days after; that is a good marker for a successful show. One layer that resonated with me is the fact that friendship dynamics change when new people are introduced. I have dear friends 3000 miles away and when I do see them it is often with spouses in tow (who are all lovely, especially mine). I never feel like we are able to be as close as we used to be, but I wonder if we did find ourselves alone, just us, would we choose to get really deep into something or would I just want to relish in the quiet warmth of it? On another level I feel dissatisfaction. Act 1 felt like argument potpourri with different topics of contention sprinkled in depending on what combination of characters were in the room. Act 2 called that out and deeper, more personal thoughts were laid out. The criticisms laid out in Act 2 could be turned onto a theater audience. We love to go to a safe, dark space, be ‘challenged’ with a heavy story and then pat ourselves on the backs and enjoy the rest of our night. The play ended up following traditional structure and everything felt wrapped up a bit too neatly. I wanted the play to go further and for something to break that couldn’t be fixed. But maybe that dissatisfaction is the point and I feel that way because the play rang true. Characters will go off to face the week thinking “got heavy there for a moment, but I got a good run in, had some wine, relaxed, overall…nice weekend.”
2
Ummmm....Laura, did you listen to the play? If anyone feels alientated, it's their own fault. I found the show so provoking I saw it twice and I brought my 14 year old niece, who loved it! We talked for the rest of the night about the play and idenity. For both performances, the audience was very engaged and reactive. One would think, that as a New York Times reviewer, you would know that listening to a play is as important (if not more important) than visual sight lines. If you can't see someone's face for a minute or two (though the director gives plenty of movement) then what a great opportunity to listen to what's being said, instead of just engaging with it visually. The fact that this review hardly mentions what the play is exploring makes me question why people give reviews so much power. They can't be worth very much if what is critiqued is a personal sight line issue rather than anything meaningful about the work. This play is fantastic! Go! If you didn't like where you sat, then go again and sit somewhere else.
3
Re: "At the Table," a play by Michael Perlman, reviewed by Laura Collins-Hughes, June 22, 2013.
Collins-Hughes' frustration with the Off Off-Broadway play, "At the Table"
is evident in nearly every paragraph of her "I Can't Hear You" review. How can she hear characters if they are talking over one another and blocking on the stage is naturalistic? Much is spoken in "At the Table," but mighty little of it is clearly heard. It's safe to say playwright Michael Perlman's interest in writing the play is not to treat the audience to a discussion play, in which his characters engage in lively conversations about race, gender, sexual orientation, and income levels. Actually, he is not even concerned about centering the play on Chris, the only woman at the party. Does he want to communicate anything at all to the audience?
To be charitable to the playwright, one might say yes.
Michael Perlman , it seems to me, is deconstructing our age-old idea of a
realistic play, so as to show the audience, with supporting evidence, that
a realistic play is an impossibility, because every character in it is a puppet in the hands of the director and the words he/she utters the playwright's.
The opposite happens at a real party: people eat, talk, and move about
freely; they are not performing for an audience. No one holds center-stage.
"At the Table" demonstrates that a realistic play is a supremely artificial
thing; in that sense, it's a piece of metatheater.
Collins-Hughes' frustration with the Off Off-Broadway play, "At the Table"
is evident in nearly every paragraph of her "I Can't Hear You" review. How can she hear characters if they are talking over one another and blocking on the stage is naturalistic? Much is spoken in "At the Table," but mighty little of it is clearly heard. It's safe to say playwright Michael Perlman's interest in writing the play is not to treat the audience to a discussion play, in which his characters engage in lively conversations about race, gender, sexual orientation, and income levels. Actually, he is not even concerned about centering the play on Chris, the only woman at the party. Does he want to communicate anything at all to the audience?
To be charitable to the playwright, one might say yes.
Michael Perlman , it seems to me, is deconstructing our age-old idea of a
realistic play, so as to show the audience, with supporting evidence, that
a realistic play is an impossibility, because every character in it is a puppet in the hands of the director and the words he/she utters the playwright's.
The opposite happens at a real party: people eat, talk, and move about
freely; they are not performing for an audience. No one holds center-stage.
"At the Table" demonstrates that a realistic play is a supremely artificial
thing; in that sense, it's a piece of metatheater.
There are three women in the play.
1
Did you even see this play? It seems clear you did not. There are 3 women at the party. All have integral, unforgetable roles.
The only woman at the party? I'm so confused how you could have left this play thinking there was only one woman onstage? There are three incredible actresses in this show that deserve recognition.
Wow. Is Laura Collins-Hughes 12 years old? Wait. I'm sorry. That's an insult. To 12 year olds. And to Mr. Hughes. Who, it seems, is unlucky in marriage.
1
I loved this fast paced, multi person show (very youthful troupe), in which the acting was exceptional when discussing these timely themes. At the Table touches on many issues and I'm glad, because if its not our writers revisiting these issue, then who will? The overall umbrella theme is of self determination. These characters are fighting hard to give voice to their feelings, thoughts and actions, without someone else misinterpreting them or speaking on behalf of them. I was thrilled to see a color/orientation diverse cast speak to the other characters about what it is like to be so, now, in this present age. I go to the theatre to truly, be submerged in the subject matter, and I was. The dialogue of each character was well crafted, delivered with thought, intention, and emotion, and it was coming quick, from all directions, and I loved it. It was a pleasure to see it presented in a theatre of the round fashion. It allowed my imagination to truly recreate what was happening to characters off stage, with well placed banter in one of the four hidden corners. I don't have to see your actor face in order to understand what you are trying to convey. It's was nice to have all my synapses firing for a change. Ha! As a person of color that I am, its clear that ignorance and hatred will be the death of this country. 'At the Table' asks the question, without violence, am I your token Brown friend, and if you love me, will you listen to what it is I want in this lifetime? Go see it.
9
I find it strange and beside the point that the reviewer chose to focus on the position of the actors. It was almost as though she needed to find something to criticize and then picked the least substantial element. I found the play to be not only well-written and played, but also entertaining. The play didn't provide easy answers to the many questions it raised which encouraged debate and thought long after the players took their bows. The fact that I sometimes saw the back of an actors head, or that they spoke over one another added to the feeling of realness in the portrayal of complex relationships.
6
I saw "AT THE TABLE" when it was still in previews. I thought it was remarkable, enlivening, edifying and engrossing.
When I entered the theater, they told me any seat was a good seat, and they were right! I sat in one seat the first act and a totally different seat the second act and had a wonderful experience in both.
I have never felt so much a part of the experience. I felt like I was in the room with them. The dynamic staging and rapid-fire dialogue pulled me in completely and I almost wanted to get up and join them on the couch, it was that real and welcoming.
Every actor gives a stellar performance. These characters are so painfully familiar and endearing. You know these people, and yet you're always learning something new about them.
When a production has so much to offer, it's quite shocking to hear them criticized for having overlapping dialogue and staging it in the round. Every playwright of note for the past 60 years has written characters who talk over one another, and plays have been staged in the round or in a thrust for centuries at least. Seeing someone's back from time to time is hardly new.
Fault Line is a remarkable company. These innovative artists have a fierce commitment to developing new voices in the American theater. They have come so far so fast and they're just going to keep going. They are artists of supreme integrity, and the critical community should rise to meet them with similar integrity.
When I entered the theater, they told me any seat was a good seat, and they were right! I sat in one seat the first act and a totally different seat the second act and had a wonderful experience in both.
I have never felt so much a part of the experience. I felt like I was in the room with them. The dynamic staging and rapid-fire dialogue pulled me in completely and I almost wanted to get up and join them on the couch, it was that real and welcoming.
Every actor gives a stellar performance. These characters are so painfully familiar and endearing. You know these people, and yet you're always learning something new about them.
When a production has so much to offer, it's quite shocking to hear them criticized for having overlapping dialogue and staging it in the round. Every playwright of note for the past 60 years has written characters who talk over one another, and plays have been staged in the round or in a thrust for centuries at least. Seeing someone's back from time to time is hardly new.
Fault Line is a remarkable company. These innovative artists have a fierce commitment to developing new voices in the American theater. They have come so far so fast and they're just going to keep going. They are artists of supreme integrity, and the critical community should rise to meet them with similar integrity.
5
Well said. I couldn't agree more.
I'd like to commend the production for its tender moments by moonlight in which the characters' politics and personal lives are not only inextricable, but deeply consequential in their mixing. There are also finely observed and delivered moments of existential turmoil that feel at once personal and universal. And then there's the moment in which the lens zooms out so that it feels like we're watching a character watching a contemporary American play - and she offers a shattering, troubling confrontation with its representations.
I for one saw a living piece of theatre in At the Table - and spent most of the morning talking about its resonances - and will continue to do so for a while.
I for one saw a living piece of theatre in At the Table - and spent most of the morning talking about its resonances - and will continue to do so for a while.
5
You're comment, actually most of the comments are more spot on and better written than this review.
3
1. Did the Times really just publish a review about how you can't always see faces IN THE ROUND? Skip Fun Home, Laura, it will drive you crazy not seeing all faces, all the time. Which makes Fun Home badly directed, right? Good theater means always seeing faces.
2. Does anyone know what "largely naturalistic" blocking is? Is there ever a time when the blocking isn't naturalistic? Did they "largely" refrain from randomly breaking into interpretive dance?
3. Balkanization. I do not think it means what you think it means. Were the various sections of the audience really fighting with each other? (In fairness, maybe Laura was distracted by...you know...no faces.)
4. It's a small theater with no obstructed views. Laura, your seat could not possibly have been that bad. Also the play is two acts, right? Move during intermission! Ah, but it's in the round. No matter where you're sitting you'd still miss...you know...faces.
5. A professional critic at the Times can't handle seating in the round and occasional overlapping dialogue? Please.
6. This play is marvelous, and received a rousing ovation the night I saw it. The performances are beautiful, nuanced, and expertly executed. The script does what people want from theater: it makes us consider old topics in new ways, and entertains us while doing it. No mention of the humor? This one of the funniest plays in recent memory, and it deserves a fair review that isn't about faces and blocking.
2. Does anyone know what "largely naturalistic" blocking is? Is there ever a time when the blocking isn't naturalistic? Did they "largely" refrain from randomly breaking into interpretive dance?
3. Balkanization. I do not think it means what you think it means. Were the various sections of the audience really fighting with each other? (In fairness, maybe Laura was distracted by...you know...no faces.)
4. It's a small theater with no obstructed views. Laura, your seat could not possibly have been that bad. Also the play is two acts, right? Move during intermission! Ah, but it's in the round. No matter where you're sitting you'd still miss...you know...faces.
5. A professional critic at the Times can't handle seating in the round and occasional overlapping dialogue? Please.
6. This play is marvelous, and received a rousing ovation the night I saw it. The performances are beautiful, nuanced, and expertly executed. The script does what people want from theater: it makes us consider old topics in new ways, and entertains us while doing it. No mention of the humor? This one of the funniest plays in recent memory, and it deserves a fair review that isn't about faces and blocking.
5
There's a danger when people are dissuaded from seeing a work of art because of one opinion. I believe that theater artists (critics included) should create a space that fosters discussion, and AT THE TABLE begins dialogue that is super relevant. I urge people (both theater-makers and non-theater-makers alike) to attend this show and start talking. The fact that Ms. Hughes felt uninvited to the table, and by saying so essentially limits the number of people that will attend this show, makes AT THE TABLE all the more powerful. Theater is not just about spatial relationships and creating satisfying stage pictures...it also has a responsibility to jolt audiences to possibly uncomfortable realizations. To only speak about a loss of humor because of staging is to miss the entire point of this play. I hope potential audience members will attend this show and bring a readiness to engage with the material.
5
Yes I agree!
I am so disheartened by the fact that this review has the possibility of cutting off a wide audience, which this play deserves.
I am so disheartened by the fact that this review has the possibility of cutting off a wide audience, which this play deserves.
2
Amen. Well said.
I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and sharing it, but I am shocked by this review and strongly disagree. Seeing AT THE TABLE was one of the best theatrical experiences I have had. It is poignant, extremely well acted, beautifully written, designed, and executed. I was challenged by new ideas and rarely stopped laughing. This play tells stories that are not usually seen on stage. It is brave, funny and important. I cannot recommend AT THE TABLE highly enough, no matter where you are sitting.
8
Absolutely.
While Ms. Collins-Hughes is correct about the stage configuration (it is, indeed, in the round), I am inclined to add to what is meant to be a theatrical review of a brand new play. After attending Fault Line Theatre's production of Michael Perlman's At The Table on Saturday, I was delighted to finally see a play that engages the audience in discussions about gender, race, and equality in an intriguing and personal way. I did not feel removed at all from the table. Quite the opposite. The ripe conversations were supported by eight phenomenal performances by the actors; each character fully committed to his or her own argument and idea, while each actor worked with the whole to allow the ensemble thrive and the words to pulse. At The Table bravely attacks the very heart of the conversation our society is looking to have right now. In this moment. And it does so with intelligence, precision, and a massive amount of heart from all of the artists involved.
7
I appreciate this review; it may be an example of theatrical arrogance on the part of those who staged this show.
2
Can you explain that? How is making theater in the round arrogant?
6
Charles, in defense of Robert from Oregon: Staging a play in the round in Portland is not only arrogant but it ANGERS THE GODS.
1
I would urge you to GO SEE THE SHOW rather than making a supposition based on what is clearly a controversial review. Please, see it for yourself and then lend your voice to this lovely discussion. I'd love to hear your thoughts afterwards.
1
I disagree nearly point-for-point with Ms. Collins-Hughes' opinion and 1500 characters is woefully too brief a space to articulate fully why. To put it plainly though, At the Table raises fascinating and difficult questions about who gets to be heard and who doesn't. The over-lapping dialogue and in-the-round staging underline and support this central premise by requiring the audience to collectively experience the realistic, chaotic, and vividly entertaining world of the play. If we are willing to actively do our part, we quickly learn that the person speaking the loudest isn't necessarily the focus and that every person in a conversation matters when the subject touches on something we care deeply about. We see how differences in opinion and whether or not we have the opportunity to express them can threaten or strengthen our closest relationships and that time brings inevitable change to our most valued human connections. It's true that this play will demand far more effort and attention from its audience than an episode on Netflix, but the payoff is a deeply rewarding experience that makes us recognize how critically important it is to hear what everyone has to say, even when it feels like we haven't had our chance to do the same.
10
This play was beautifully designed, expertly acted, and deftly, intelligently written. That a budding company produced this play is astounding. It feels like a Manhattan Theatre Club or Playwrights Horizons production, truly. This review in no way reflects my experience of this play.
7
After being thoroughly amazed by this play, I'm so disheartened to read this review!! It feels like a critique of the theater more than a review of the play. It's an extremely well done, nuanced, piece and it deserves a real review. Even if the critic doesn't like the show, at least give the readers enough information to decide whether to see it on the merits, the performances or the topics -- not based on the seating!
7
I thought At the Table was fantastic, and was laughing throughout the entire play. The unique, yet relatable chemistry between the characters really drew me into the story. I highly recommend seeing this production by Fault Line Theater, you will not be disappointed.
7
This is why I depend on the Times' reviews - only here can I get three and a half paragraphs of a critic complaining about her seats and just one sentence of actual analysis. Bravo, madam.
7
Absolutely. Look at the photo that ran with the review/seating complaint. Are we honestly to believe that if we were sitting behind those men, we couldn't tell what was happening in that scene? We'd lose the action? We'd be confused and flummoxed to the point that we couldn't tell what was happening? Those seats are literally three feet from the actors.
-a fellow Charles (apparently those of us called Charles are not pleased with this review)
-a fellow Charles (apparently those of us called Charles are not pleased with this review)
4
Charles- I was, in fact, sitting behind that couch when I saw it, and I had no trouble engaging with that moment.
I saw this play in previews and I have to say that while I respect the writer of this article and believe everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, I really disagree with the points made here and the overall sentiment. Firstly, I was really disappointed to see no remarks about how wonderfully the play was acted, the brilliance of Michael Perlman's writing, the set design, lighting, sound or any of the various other aspects that made this production work so well in my opinion. Secondly, I would like to offer a different point of view to the writer's final sentences, "The audience isn’t invited to the table, even as onlookers. But then what are we doing there?" I would say that the audience is absolutely invited to the table. So much so, that we are not mere onlookers but participants. The "naturalistic" blocking and realistic overlap in conversation brought us to the table. The very things that the writer takes issue with were some of my favorite aspects of this production. I just share this to say that if you are thinking of seeing the show, please don't let one opinion, albeit of a NYT reviewer, stop you.
7