The impressive and highly regarded trio of actors in "Lifespan" perform their roles marvelously and do their best to elevate what is really light fare into a serious, meaningful debate about the nature of journalistic truth. There are enough funny moments in this rather short drama that make for a pleasant theatrical experience.
@John J. Munk I liked the performances, especially Daniel Radcliffe's; but I had the sense the writer/director didn't have a clear take on the material. If anything, the writing could have benefitted from the journalist character's literary passion and the fact-checker character's commitment to reason. But, it was certainly engaging and the performances were very good. Which is crucially important for theatrical storytelling in my book.
I thought Jesse Green's review refreshingly clever. Like Pete Well's restaurant reviews the piece expressed an opinion in an imaginative and amusing manner while providing all the information I need to decide whether to see it (I will.)
I wouldn't have thought the conceit of a review mirroring the work it considers could possibly be so discombobulating. Apparently NY Times readers are even stodgier than the Gray Lady herself.
2
@Laurence Bachmann, re "NY Times readers are even stodgier..."
I don't know that we can do a snapshot of "NY Times readers" by who comments on reviews, and I still know lots of regular theatergoers who much prefer the print edition for choosing shows. (Placement in the paper seems to have impact; a friend said that online, on its own page, almost every article can read like a lead story.). I know in periods when I'm working and really earning, I comment and use the net much less, and that would be exactly the period when I'm feeling like I have money to spend on seeing shows.
After I went through my busy (tax return work) time to Oct. 15, I saw three shows night after night last week, and I didn't submit a single online comment anywhere during any of those shows but also on the way there and back. (I was tempted to type a quick "Yup" right after "High Noon" on another chat area, but they didn't use the line in the play version, so I didn't!). I've kidded this can mean actually going out to see shows encroaches on valuable commenting time chatting and sharing in the conversation about the shows.
1
As a copyeditor and, by extension, a sometime fact checker, I can't wait to see this. It might be the first time someone in my position is a character in a Broadway play. (No, I didn't check to see if that's really the case. ;-) I'm off duty now.)
4
I understand neither this review nor comments by those who love the play. I was infuriated: 1) couldn’t hear or understand half of what Radcliffe said, an actor betraying a lack of faith in the script by throwing out lines like a train coming at you with half the wheels (word endings) coming off; 2) much, much, much ado about nearly nothing – a pretentious writer’s claim to artistry and arrogant disregard of facts; 3) set in the wholly unbelievable context of a fake deadline; 4) with no resolution at all, setting up a fake equivalence between two sides of a ludicrous argument and pretending that viewers have a great moral decision to weigh.
There is no drama here. NO. Writers do not have the right to invent facts and dialogue and settings and call it reporting. It is fiction, which has great value, but not as a substitute for journalism, however literary.
Further, overacting all around, played for laughs when the stakes for serious discussion about truth in media are so enormous that the squandered opportunity seems criminal. In this age of infotainment, no issue, not even the value of truth itself, is too important to trivialize and exploit ($125 balcony seats for a 90 minute performance with 3 actors and minimal sets).
We further corrupt media when this play, which pretends to explicate journalistic license, passes for public discourse. As the reviewer noted, it is itself fiction.
2
This a fact. A review of a play should be a review of a play. The reviewer of this play is simply showing off. There is no need to compete with the play. A revised review would be helpful. The reviewer should take time off to write a new play.
13
Wonderful cast to support a satisfying play.
Don’t overthink the review or the turgid comments. Just go and enjoy.
90 minutes and no intermission. You won’t be sorry.
5
AVTNYC said: "Just go and enjoy."
Interesting! Roma Torre on NY1 just called the play "highly provocative" and "entertaining and important."
(Fact check: not literally "just called" it that, but her review just aired.)
Several comments here about the author’s misunderstanding, or at least misapplication, of the Bechdel Test. Fair enough, but hardly worth going on about, in this context. I personally have always found the “test” to be rather dubious and arbitrary - more of a party game than an intellectual critique - but if a male critic isn’t even allowed to discuss it, as one comment suggested, then what, really, is the point of it?
On another topic, perhaps semi-related, it is curious that the author describes the character of Hildy Johnson as “archetypally male,” when then character was changed to female for “His Girl Friday,” without altering much of the original script.
This may be the worst written review of a play in this paper. The conceit of " six to eight mistakes " that Jesse Green invents and rides to the end is so confusing and uninteresting, I had to give up on this play.
5
I went to the author event for the book when it came out several years ago. I was totally on the side of Fingal. Towards the end of the evening, D'Agata waxed eloquently about why it wasn't the 9 seconds (of the young man's fall from the tower) that mattered but getting the zeitgeist of Las Vegas right. I piped up and said "if we can't believe you about the 9 seconds, how can we believe you about Las Vegas?" and he got very flustered. Proceeds from their book went to scholarships at the martial arts studio the young man had attended. A quibble about the review: passing the Bechdel test is when two women have a conversation without discussing men. The actual editor of the piece was Heidi julavitz.
3
I'd would have appreciated the reviewer writing a clear and straightforward review. I have no idea what he's saying.
9
It’s painful to understand your prose. Is using such rarely seen words and arrangements in describing such a simple play a coercive thing for you to do?
2
@Lorris Pi, sometimes a word you have to look up can be fun, and not like when we had to go to the bookcase for the dictionary.
I remember looking through a music book and we saw the line "And you'll find that you're in the rotogravure" in the song "Easter Parade," which seemed to have been a pop hit in its day. I asked mom if, when she was young, she actually used the word "rotogravure," and she said "Judy Garland sang that in Easter Parade. We used to sing it all the time and figured Irving Berlin just didn't have any other rhyme for you're. But it was fun to hear a new word." I thought it must be like a rotary club, but the dictionary was all the way in the other room and I would have had to put down my clarinet. (I knew it had to rhyme with "you're."). Not as bad as climbing uphill, both ways, like Grandpa Leon did during the Depression, but it's still much easier nowadays.
4
I'm am totally confused after reading this stilted, meandering piece that is supposed to tell me if I should shell out the hundred bucks or so and go see it. I'll rely on the commentators' review of the review. Thanks a lot, Green!
6
It's a play in which Harry Potter plays Daniel Radcliffe , an actor in a decently amusing play. I saw this because the foodie I was biz tripping with in NYC got me tickets.
It was fun, had a philosophical point about true lies and fake truths that it didn't really drive home (did I just do the whole review in one sentance). Daniel and his actor buddies are good actors who could probably pull off any material. So, yeah, if you like plays, you'll continue to like them in general and this one in particular.
Harry Potter stays until he shakes everybody's hand outside at the end. I think he's a decent guy -- but I had just been flown to NYC to be filmed for a technical documentary on the use of some AI I had a hand in creating in the field of healthcare. My film will have way more impact on human history than this play, so I'd be happy to have a beer with Daniel, but I ain't waiting in no line.
1
@BarryG, about waiting in line, about my then-age 11 or 12 cousin Laura (the rest of us were more riveted by Aaron Sorkin and his party, who seemed to be waiting for a normal car, no limo, not even a town car; and despite all we'd read about him, seemed so nice to everyone who recognized him)
Cousin Laura and a whole group of cousins from Scranton went with me to see “How to Succeed.” We raced out after the show to try to get Laura a good position at the stage door to maybe get a photo of her with Daniel Radcliffe; and we were there very quick, but it looked like lots of people who hadn’t seen the show had already gathered to meet him. (The same was happening that weekend for Hugh Jackman and Harry Connick.)
Laura never says never; she got an idea, and looked over all the striking life-size posters of Daniel Radcliffe outside the theater, then brought her brother Ross over to one which looked exactly the star's height in real life. She posed next to it matching his smile while Ross took a few shots, and they saw one that would crop really well. Sure enough, next time I was in Scranton and saw the photo, it really looked like she’d actually met Daniel Radcliffe! (By this past summer, years later, it looked like she’d lost track of the photo, but at 11 or 12, it mattered to get it right and show folks at home back then who she met at his Broadway show.)
2
Hugh Jackman and Harry Connick and Daniel Radcliffe in my earlier comment makes it look like it was a male-star thing that year. At "Follies" at the Marquis, we saw real crowds for Bernadette Peters at the Marquis stage door on 45th Street, and everyone wanted to meet all the main stars and Elaine Paige, but I wonder if the very down conclusion for "Sally" made people waiting for her more subdued and respectful, . [Spoiler, maybe: there was no reasonable doubt that Sally in that performance literally was losing her mind.] At "A Little Night Music" the year before, it had seemed to be very normal loud big-name excitement for Bernadette Peters after the matinee I saw, that she came outside a while and then went back in to much applause and bravos when she was called in. (Elaine Stritch quite sensibly had stayed inside as it felt like 100 degrees.)
2
Agree with those confused by the review. Found the unrelenting 'jokes' about fact checking a real sludge, and they contributed to making this a very difficult review for me to follow or be engaged by--if I wasn't such a fan of Bobby Cannavale I wouldn't have slogged through the whole thing. Instead of the jokes, would have been helpful if the reviewer spent more time articulating his/her ambivalence about the play (which comes through nicely, but in the end I'm not sure what to make of it--the review feels like a soft pan). I guess this must have worked as a review for some people; for me, one joke at the end would have been about right.
9
@J
Did you not see the NYT Critic's Pick symbol and words at the top of the review?
How then is the review a "soft pan"?
In the future, if you see that checked-marked icon, you needn't slog through the review.
I saw the show during previews and very much enjoyed it. I'm someone who sees nearly every Broadway show as part of my job, and I found the performances engaging and this production very worthy.
I take umbrage with the fact that Jesse not only 1) gives the show "Bechdel points" - (which are non-existent; the Bechdel test is pass or fail and, unfortunately, this show fails) - but then proceeds to 2) lament the very reason that he awards the show these made up feminist points in the first place - (I assume he was conflating gender equality with the Bechdel test itself which is why I have renamed this 'point' system). In the same sentence that he lauds Emily Penrose as the rare female character who doesn't function as a love interest, he expresses that this makes her a less engaging character: "I give “The Lifespan of a Fact” big Bechdel points for this but also some engagement demerits. Foreclosing on every attempt Fingal makes to suss out details of her personal life, she forecloses on us as well."
I would argue that we learn next to nothing about Fingal's personal life, either. But of course Green does not seem to find it worthwhile to point that out, nor does he seem to find Fingal a less than engaging character. Male characters are often professional creatures - it is only worth noting when a woman is.
I, for one, found Penrose to be fun, fierce, and utterly refreshing.
16
@Claire
Actually, Green does suggest that Fingal, like Penrose, is somewhat less than three-dimensional. And "Bechdel points" just means that it's nice to see a character who is not defined by a heterosexual romantic entanglement. If you feel the need to take umbrage over this review, you maybe have too much time on your hands.
My mom and I were wondering whether there should be a “Beth-El Test” -though they may need to be adjusted based on which “Beth-El”
Temple Beth-El Borough Park (Observant)
Temple Beth-El Manhattan Beach (Less Observant; we don’t say conservative now)
Temple Beth-El Great Neck (Reform)
“Fiddler” in Yiddish gets a 9 (loses one because Joel Grey changed his name from Katz)
“Falsettos” - gets an 11 because there’s an actual Bar Mitzvah in the show
“Indecent” - special citation for being a Beth-El and Bechdel combo
“13” - gets a 12 - the extra Bar-Mitzvah point, and an extra for discovering Ariana Grande
Terrific play - hilarious and compelling. Acted superbly by theatre lions. I took my tween daughter to see her idol (Radcliffe, of course) and she became an instant fan of Cannavale and Jones. She followed the story, laughed heartily and has spoken of little since. How lucky we are for the opportunity to experience these masters at work and at play - in such a fun way.
14
It's an excellent, and, yes, "terrifically engaging" play. Quite fun as well. Messrs. Kereken, et al., have crafted a quickly-moving and hilarious narrative based upon a one-note premise. The truly top-notch cast makes the material shine even more. The night I saw it, the very reactive audience leaped immediately to their feet at the close of the play. Not a slow, begrudging standing ovation which I've seen too often, but rather an enthusiastic and sincere one. One truly deserved. I loved it--and will see it again.
9
Saw an early preview when the cast was still understandably struggling with lines. Subsequently read the book. As a longtime editor and copy editor I found that the hardest thing to bear was the editor's willingness to go along with any of it. To make publishable an article already rejected for factual inaccuracies would require a leap of editorial faith and far more than a few days--as Mr. Green notes, it took years, and as he also notes, it wasn't worth the effort. So my professional standards got in the way of enjoying what to many people will be a light-ish comedy. Sorry, but I also did not feel that any of the actors seemed smart enough to have been those actual people. The book was a lot of fun to read, though.
4
The list of comedy plays from years ago that Mr. Green mentions also brought to mind a movie my whole family saw together at Radio City called "The Impossible Years" which starred David Niven spouting out urbane quip after quip about the generations, while the pretty full Radio City audience of many families just howled, though the under-10 set like me didn't get all the jokes, but another joke followed so quickly. While there was a short interval before the stage show with the Rockettes, my parents (who has seen the play on Broadway) were amazed how the exact same avalanche of jokes that Alan King had triumphed with onstage was working just as well for David Niven. (That play happened to have been co-written by Groucho Marx's son, which was in the coverage then.)
If this play's a hit, it will be interesting to see how this modern version of that genre translates with different actors.
I loved this play, was never bored, a lot to think about.
For me it boiled down to the difference between being a statistician or a storyteller. I know which one I would prefer to listen to.
I have often been accused of "jazzing" up my stories, and why not if it makes the point better than a dry recounting of events?
For instance, I am deeply phobic of birds – a trait I have famously attributed to being attacked by a rooster at my uncle's farm when I was very, very little. Now nearing 60, I learned only recently that it could not have been a rooster because my uncle raised guinea fowl.
But telling this tale in the future, I will stick with rooster, willfully ignoring the facts even though my story does not check out. Through a little boy's eyes, whatever set upon me was monstrous, and rooster is a better representation of that than guinea fowl.
I do go on, and that's a fact. But the play, yes, see it by all means. Cherry Jones is always a marvel.
7
Saw this earlier this week. A very small idea that gets beaten to death. But really great acting and comic timing save the show.
What’s not mentioned here - did he really not notice ? - is that the show at its heart is an inter generational conflict. The laughs that Radcliffe draws are often the result of him being echt millennial. See Cannevalle’s attempted choking in the accompanying picture. What boomer has not been exasperated to that degree by one of these righteous, determined and earnest creatures.
4
@GC, regarding that picture here of the attempted choking - Something about it brought immediately to mind the very recent fiery photo of Curly and Laurey in the Brooklyn St. Ann's "Oklahoma!" at the top of this review
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/theater/oklahoma-review.html
and made me idly wonder if the "fight coach" here studied with the "intimacy coach" in Brooklyn for making actors seem very close without really invading each other's privacy. Except for the hands around the neck, the love-hate element (as caught by Sara Krulwich) when the photos are side by side make both what people in the accounting office jokingly call "Fully clothed but still somehow not suitable for our office."
Saw this in previews and loved it! Also love Jesse Green’s audition to write with this team disguised as a very clever review. As an actor, I came at this piece very intrigued by the cast.
I have not seen ANY Harry Potter movies, no, not one, not even by accident flipping channels and, though I knew Daniel Radcliffe by name, was interested in seeing if he was more than a cynically cast ticket seller. I can report that that is NOT the case, the guy has some serious chops.
Bobby Cannavale was a disappointment to me, the last time I saw him on Broadway, in the Al Pacino revival of “GlenGarry GlenRoss.” I remember thinking “Pacino’s no Jack Lemmon, and Cannavale’s no Pacino.” This time around, his surly bravado was compelling, oddly attractive and perfect. Cherry Jones is a regional favorite back home, here in Pittsburgh, and have seen her in many productions and, as per usual, can do no wrong.
This play is full of very relevant ideas and is very, VERY wordy. One must pay attention, and not be distracted. My only distraction, and, as a card carrying member of the union, I’m almost a tad reluctant to admit, still dazzled and puzzled at how we, and in this case, most admiringly, THEY, can memorize and deliver so magnificently (and so fast) all.that.stuff.
14
@Drels- I, too, am a member of the "Distraction Union."
The best review I’ve ever read—critical and discerning as well as appreciative and supportive—the only problem is that the writer will take credit for what is the inherent creative function of the English language—although I can’t really prove that.
2
@rjon - The way I truly marvel at the creativity of "Personnel" having become "Human resources," or seeing "Dissemination of tips under the new tax act" on someone's LinkedIn for when they stuffed envelopes with a snail mail client mailing - I marvel at the creativity of “lyric essayist” - too bad Allan Sherman or Al Yankovic or Alessandrini didn’t think of such a great expression first.
Was it me? Or did the review make me confused? Am I engaged or am I curious? Do I have to reread this review or should I ask someone to explain it to me?
I have never read a review, a positive one at that, that simply makes me feel sure, I don't want to see this play.
12
@L. Clements
No, not just you, the NYT review of Lifespan of a Fact is confusing (especially if you haven't seen the play, eek). Critic Jesse Green has made the NYT review unnecessarily confusing by writing in the same thematic format of the play, which evaluates the viability of using "alternative facts" in magazine "articles". Luckily, the theme works much better in the play than the review! I saw the play this week and it was thought-provoking, witty and totally fabulous! A standing ovation by all. It's truly a critic's pick. It's perfectly on topic regarding truth in media and builds pace to a great crescendo. I won't give away the ending. Go see the play!
3
Sounds perfect - terrific trio of actors, great director, juicy subject matter-a "just go see it" play it seems....how refreshing....
6
@John
Yes, just go see it. Too much analysis in Green's review. It's a fun and provocative evening of theatre.
12
@John
I say go. I saw it in previews and laughed out loud at Carnavale and Jones, but found Radcliffe irritating from the start. Yes, he's brilliant during the one long, rapid fire speech he accomplished in one breath (but on unfortunately one note.) Reading reviews calling him "charmingly insistent" and saying he portrayed the character "deliciously" make me think Radcliffe built up Jim's obnoxiousness slower later in the run. And hopefully the awkward 48-second pause at the end will clinch it on the night you go.
Saw it earlier this week. My friend and I thoroughly enjoyed ourselves. Great comic timing, with several laughs throughout. Only one overly theatrical, not realistic moment (the 48-second pause). Not as thought-provoking as it thinks it is. But if you can have a few laughs an interesting conversation afterward, why not?
3
Jesse Green may actually have liked this play but his intellectualizing takes the life and spirit and humor out of it. Bechtold reference was both misapplied and condescending. “Lifespan” was terrific theater, performances were top notch, sets perfect, and direction brilliant!
20
@Suzy Quinn
Seriously. The last thing the world needs is a male theatre critic granting Bechdel point.
6
@Heinz, at least in the current America, it's worth considering the possibility that anyone LGBTQ [or ethnic or based-on-numbers minority] has a degree of empathy and understanding and identification. The LGBTQ of any gender, for example, may have to google on their phones when traveling between states or even cities to know what rights we have when in a work situation or stopped on the road. [I was in a car between family gatherings in PA where along the way when the driver got routinely asked some questions, I had to be reminded by my cousin that while my same-gender marriage was 100% respected here, this was not NYC, that my being gay in this town was not going to keep me from being treated poorly for it, so shhh.]
@Suzy Quinn
Who is Bechtold? And the reference doesn't seem misapplied or condescending. It seems sincere and understandable.
Great review, except for the misuse and/or misunderstanding of "big Bechdel points," since a play with a single female character cannot, by definition, earn big (or, in fact, -any) Bechdel points when the Bechdel Test "asks whether a work features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man."
28
@Brian Cremmins
Maybe try being a bit less literal. The reviewer awards "Bechdel points." It's clear that he is saying the play shows a female character whose role isn't confined to a romantic entanglement with a man. That is all he is saying.
5