If you don't like Brechtian theater, it's probably a good idea not to dismiss it as such. I saw one of the last performances and loved it all, found it making me put myself in the shoes of the Levelers and Diggers, etc., intellectually, not emotionally, just as intended. I loved the supertitles, too. And then go home and read much more. Thanks, Caryl.
We're going tomorrow. I found the comments here thoughtful and intelligent, and now I'm prepared to cope with boredom and repetition. The Putney Debates are a classic text in "Western Civ" and political science courses and we've taught them to students, so I'm hopeful that our group will find the play at least a little more interesting than those who walked out halfway.
Unlike everyone else commenting here, I really enjoyed both the play and the production. I think you have to be interested in the subject matter, which I am. This play asks more of you than your average off-broadway production, and is an intellectual exercise as much as anything but I am glad I saw it.
When I saw the NYC premiere many years ago and had no idea what was going on. Glad I gave it a second try.
I found the astonishing performance of Matthew Jeffers spellbinding. The play itself is an overly long mess involving a lot of repetitive religious gobbledygook. But go see Mr. Jeffers; he is the revelation.
There is much to like in this play but it is buried in dreary, tedious and dramatically inert stretches of dialogue. The play could have worked as a political commentary with contemporary relevance (as I imagine the playwright intended) if it had been edited and staged so as to be drama rather than polemic. As it stands, even the effective parts (and there were several) are blunted by long winded, repetitive scenes. Hard to believe that a Caryl Churchill/Rachel Chavkin production could be so heavy handed and boring.
1
"Characters pull hand mics from their doublets and scream accusations of gluttony at the audience;"
Hey! that's JUST how I want to spend an evening at the theater!
2
I REALLY wanted to like this play. I've loved every Churchill play I've seen (Cloud Nine, A Number, Escaped Alone, Love and Information, Vinegar Tom). The post-Civil War idealism tempered by the factionalism of Cromwell and the Levellers, Diggers, and Ranters should resonate in this moment.
But the play seemed endless. The episodes only occasionally seemed to be linked to each other or to any unifying theme(s). Some of the acting was excellent, but not all of it. Vinie Burrows was not even "off book" when I saw this 2-days before it opened, as she was reading from the script during the "Putney Debates" scene and seemed to be receiving lines from an earpiece in another scene.
Since this 40+ year old play has had many lauded productions, I will consider this a rare misfire from NYTW and Rachel Chavkin.
2
Saw it tonight and she’s still not off book.
1
I was shocked and surprised at how many people left at intermission: The two people sitting in front on me. The person sitting to my right. And several others scattered throughout the audience.
1
Why were u shocked? Despite being beautifully acted it was painfully boring. Two and three quarters hours of nonsense.
1
A wonderful production of a super-boring play. I left after intermission.
1
As if anyone cares what a senile old bat does at the theater.
1
Meow. I’m not senile or old and didn’t leave at intermission. But only because I had nothing better to do. I can report tho that about 20% of the audience did.
The play was beautifully acted but pretentious, self indulgent and oh so boring. Churchill has been beyond her sell date for a long time. What was NYTW thinking in bringing back this mess.
1
On the contrary--she's gotten better over time; the recent Escaped Alone is my favorite of all her work I've seen. This is a work from the 70s (and I agree that it isn't her best).
I appreciate the detail and thoughtfulness Green brings to a review. Even when he pans a show, the reader learns about the production, its intentions, and some of its merits.
9