I watched Inheritance this past Sunday. I saw one play in two parts, not two plays as others claim, with a narrative arc of the gradual healing of homophobia- external and internal- through the generations. Starting with Forster, whose internalization of society's homophobia kept him closeted; and propelled him to write a novel to help heal himself from this internalized homophobia. Inheritance vividly shows him handing off the writing chore to a new generation. I am grateful Lopez took up the challenge. Within this narrative arc, Lopez shows how the Aids epidemic became a catalyst; galvanizing a whole community to say "Attention must be paid. We cannot be hated." As Walter's heartfelt care of strangers moves Peter's mother to healing, by extension, this historical moment galvanized political action leading directly in the next generation to the legalization of same-sex marriage. Many characters travel the journey from internalized societal homophobia- to self healing. Some don't. The timeliness of this play reflects the crossroad we now face. Will our collective movement towards healing world hatred take a U-turn? Or lead us to a conclusion that Lopez can imagine? It brings me joy to know that he- and hopefully others of his generation- can see and continue to work towards this end. Of course Inheritance is flawed. Visually stunning, directorially magnificent, with several award-worthy performances, it is a flawed masterpiece that moved me in more ways than I can articulate.
11
@Doug so heartbreaking to realize that i, at 58, missed a play which captures exactly what I have wanted to see for so long : our recent history
1
This play pales in comparison to Angels in America. It is earnest and didactic. Angels in America was stunningly innovative and moving and original and took one's breath away. From the reviews, I expected the same experience. This feels like a movie on the Lifetime Channel and is derivative to say the least.(Clever narrative device notwithstanding). I do think the play serves the purpose of teaching younger people about the horrific toll of AIDS. But it is not great theatre and not great writing. Over hyped. I applaud the effort. It is well-meaning.
11
Part I of The Inheritance is serious, important, and informative storytelling of the highest quality. Bravo to all those involved with this very moving, riveting and memorable production.
4
Other than the meandering ending which could have been shortened and focused more, I thought the play was engaging and the pacing was excellent. But most of the credit goes to the director (Daldry) who prevented this from becoming just a long expository experience. The way the characters moved and the way the dialog jumped around kept my attention level high. The performances were all first rate. This is what theater should be about.
2
I’ve only seen part 1. This well acted drama has many memorable moments. There is abundant humor and also some tearful moments as well. It’s quite long, but holds one’s interest. It’s a bit like committing to a Wagner opera.
I would recommend watching the film of Howard’s End before attending the play. The parallels between the two are many and obvious
5
I have not been able to find a link to communicate with the show's writers, so will try here. There is a short medical communication in the play which is in slight error. It indicates that the player is in Europe, has a sexual overdose and then finds out that he has a low level of HIV detected, he starts on PEP and after 30 days is negative. BUT the problem is that the initial test cannot be detecting HIV RNA in such a short time frame. It takes normally 6 days after exposure to have a postive viral load test. And it is questionable if this is actually medically confirmed anywhere in which a patient is found ot be viral positive then negative after PeP. Needs revision to be less misleading please
9
@Dr Jim Lee
Thanks! I wondered about that.
1
I thought the same, but the story of that encounter ended with a wink and a nod that questioned its truth. So adam could have made it up for dramatic effect with questionable medical facts since he's obviously not a doctor. And maybe that tells us it's not true. Or I'm over thinking it.
But your point is spot on.
1
Viewing the photos of the very pretty cast assembled for this piece I am reminded of a line once ubiquitous in gay dating ads: no fems, no fats, no Asians. Having not seen the play I can't attest to the fem part but the other two elements of the triad seem to have been applied. As probably every gay Asian male knows, in the looks-ist gay male world, Asians are almost always considered not sexy enough, not handsome enough, not hot enough. That this gets reinforced in the enlightened world of Broadway just hurts. Not one Asian could be considered capable of being in this cast, not even as blatant tokenism. I challenge the producers or casting agents to claim that they seriously considered an Asian actor for any one of these parts. Not a single one. Again.
27
@Mike
Dear Mike, I agree wholeheartedly, and how wrong they are! How terrifically sexy and wonderful Asian men AND women are!
Americans inhabit a landlocked imagination that keeps them from ever exploring anything outside their narrow training, even gay men, and sadly, as you commented, gay writers, and theatre producers.
In every other arena of entertainment, film, television, etc. it's about the same, only Black and White need apply for leading roles, and occasionally the token Hispanic and Asian. It's primarily and White and Black world.
The Black minority gets all the racial victimhood in America and has made huge guilt gains in being cast in leading roles or major supporting roles - even in period pieces and social environments where they simply never existed. They are accommodated to a degree we aren't unless we make our own films, shows like fabulous John Leguizamo!
A Hispanic actor I threw in the towel years ago; the effort required to be accepted as an American who knows how to speak English without a Scarface accent, or as anything besides a criminal just got to be a drag. There have been breakthroughs: PARASITE, CRAZY RICH ASIANS, and Hollywood has begun to awaken to the fact that a huge $$$ market has been ignored. But it will take the tenacity of our youth to continue to break the glass ceiling of CLUELESS WHITE SYNDROME.
What can you expect from a country that elected Trump as an anti-dote to their first black president? Precious little, for now.
4
At the performance I attended of Part 1, an actor licked a Q tip and then used it on his ear while delivering a line and then flung it into the audience. Was this an anomaly or does this happen at every performance? If so, what on earth is the directorial reasoning behind this gross moment? It certainly does not add to the story and I would not want to be the audience member in whose lap it landed. Can anyone shed any light on this?
2
@Thomas Green My husband and I attended the play on
Dec. 23 and the Q tip moment has survived exactly as described! We, too, found it strange, but many in the audience laughed.
3
I liked the play, didn't love it. Dangling plots here and there. Yes, I was thinking as the end of part 1 was unfolding, this is Longtime Companion. Some character motivations were implausible. Some parts were unnecessarily maudlin. I really disliked the neat and tidy happy ending. And I wish that Lopez hadn't tried to tackle so many characters and themes in one play. He's obviously a gifted writer.
All that said, I did enjoy much of the piece. I appreciated the attempt to wrestle with what it means to be gay today.
5
Pompous, vapid, elitist... That’s the lazy and unfortunately far too common way to describe urban, well educated and attractive young gay men. As well as anyone who happens to be on the opposite side of the economic divide from you. That lives in a condo vs your stabilized apartment. That eats out. That buys full priced theater tickets.
Get over it. It was your career choices that put you there, not mine.
6
@GC The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
11
How can anyone even mention this stuff in the same written breath as Angels in America, which is first of all an actual play, and second of all about something. Clarification, I saw only part one and was moved by its conclusion. That said, unlike The Inheritance, Angels in America was about something: complex and substantial human beings, history, politics, wonderful writing. Ethel Rosenberg at the bedside of Roy Cohn saying Kaddish—how many other theatrical scenes can similarly resonate? By contrast, The Inheritance presents vapid and for me undifferentiated characters without any substance. What a waste of so many words! I think I’ll take a pass on part two.
9
@Lenore
I agree to a certain extent. Had they not compared the play to Angels in America, I would have see it less critically.
I think that should be the new way to ruin any play. Compare it to Angels in America in the review.
6
@Lenor
I have lived in NYC for 40 years. Gone to many plays. Angels in America was a once in a lifetime experience.
This is TV stuff, much like To Kil a Mockingbird. The right politcis does not a great play make.
3
Sample reader comment on THE INHERITANCE: "I will go to my grave bitter about the time and money I spent on this superficial tripe."
Comments like this one merely serve to reinforce stereotypes about gay men.
Perhaps it would be more productive for gays either to support the artistic (and other) work of hard-working fellow gays...or at least to tone down the negatives.
But perhaps productiveness isn't the goal...
6
@Charlie
Comments like this serve to support great writing and high standards. Let's aim higher.
I believe this play is a pompous, elitist, superficial mess. It's also magnetically entertaining. It isn't a very good play, but its soap operatic crescendos are fun. Nevermind all the central characters are white, political debates have all the depth of checking boxes, and the legacy gay men have inherited from those who fought and died before us is directly addressed maybe three times (?) during those seven hours. This play disguises its preposterous melodrama with a fine marketing team's promise of a communion with that legacy.
One wonders (or at least I do) if Lopez simply wanted to write a sweeping gay adaptation of HOWARDS END and the AIDS connection was shoehorned in to satisfy requests from prominent voices for "political relevance" over "storytelling" (And the prominent voices mutter, "No one's going to pay $200 to watch E.M. Forster.")
Some reviews seem to be very nice to this play because the end of Part One makes people cry. I sat there and predicted what happens at the end of Part One, so it was weird when it actually happened.
"This is the moment everyone will talk about," I thought. "This will manipulate many people into believing this play is far, far better than it is. And has anyone else in this room see LONGTIME COMPANION?"
Thankfully, plenty of people have, and they bring their knowledge of it to the ongoing debate that challenges THE INHERITANCE's relevance as a work that purports to represent an entire community when it singles out so few of us.
11
@theboyintheredshirt That's what I thought about the end of Part One when I saw it in London. Some friends had told me they were devastated by the scene but when it arrived, I was sufficiently moved but more of an observer because of my relationship with the previous work, Longtime Companion. Thing is, that film never found much of an audience in the UK so there wasn't any comparison to be made. In NYC, I suspect it's a different story.
6
I'm a 73 year old gay man who lived in the Village in the 70's and 80's. I witnessed, first hand, the horrors of AIDS and lost numerous friends to its ravages. I saw the play in London last year and found it to be totally spellbinding. I urge everyone to ignore Brantley's padded nitpicking and all those expected "clever" negative comments to see this wonderful play.
28
@Oliver Well said. I am 72 and lived this life, And I am an AIDS specialist who really LIVED this life. The play is fantastic, precisely on mark and brilliant. I know. I was there. It is a masterpiece of performances.
14
When I heard about this play, I eagerly bought tickets, especially due to the comparison to "Angels in America" ( I saw it twice on Broadway!)
BTW, I live in Florida
I then read the book/play over the summer.
My thought was, "not Angels"
I saw play a month ago in previews over two days.
The first part left me feeling a little odd. I found the scene were the older gay man tries to instruct the young gay man about gay history a repeat of Will Truman's (Will and Grace) gay history for Ben Platt (who know all about Stonehenge) a copy. I wonder if Mr Lopez saw this. The final scene felt like I was watching the final scene of "Longtime Companion".
The older straight couple behind me complained they could not hear the play and the older gay couple sobbed at the end.
The next day part 2: I was engaged, but found the end a little long and maybe trite, like the then movie credits roll and they show how the characters end up (think 9 to 5 the Movie)
Anyhow .. . .I like the play. I wanted to love the play. But like is the best I can do.
I'll try to see it in the Winter/Spring. But not because I think it is great, but because I want to try to love it.
6
Sorry folks
I bought tickets for mid April and the play will close early on March 15.
Ah well.
But, I’m not surprised.
So I saw this in previews over two nights. I had only gotten through half of the novel and had a not very good memory of the film. I had heard that the first part was finished while the second part was giving the team trouble because of length. The first part worked beautifully for me. I do not remember ever feeling so much communion with such a large audience and performers as I did during those three hours plus. The strongest moments blew me away while the less successful things did not turn me off from the overall power of my experience of what was pulled off on that stage. I highly suggest seeing the first part of this show! I do think anybody will not want to see the second part if they can, I did want to know where it would end up, though what was strong that second night was as engaging as night one there was a lot more that drifted into the question mark category for me. There were things I did not think added to my experience of the piece. To be clear I could have lived with out the second part, night two. I hope they were able to adjust that second part into its potential I felt it could attain. A final note, reading the novel did pay off to my enjoyment of this experience. The way it is woven into the story is always fascinating and surprising. Having knowledge of that definitely intensifies the material! Read the novel before seeing this if you can, you will not regret it!
9
@Kevin Correction! The line, "I do think anybody will not want to see the second part..." should read, "I do think anybody will want to see the second part..." Sorry for the error!
@Kevin Just to say I finally finished Howards End. It really helped to answer questions I had about the second evening of the theatrical experience. I can not stress enough how much better it would have been to have finished reading it before seeing it. But, also, I appreciate that there was this on going interplay between the two that led to pay off even after seeing this play. It is so worth the investment, now I want watch the movie...
3
@Kevin Correction # 2: the last line should read "... now I want to watch the movie..."
I have a heart but was rolling my eyes during the scene that ends Part 1...as I was during too many cringe-worthy moments of the play. I appreciated the subtler moments of the play. Mr. Levine’s and Mr. Hilton’s performances were stellar. Too much navel-gazing for my tastes and this group of friends were not interesting enough for this gay man to spend such a long period of time with them. Must have been a dismal year for plays for this to have won the Olivier.
12
@Bill Leach
Just saw Part 1 and I agree with you.
Not too curious about Part 2, and everyone seems to feel it's inferior.
Inserting AIDS is like inserting the Holocaust -- it jerks tears when the play isn't about the thing at all.
I did like the two monologues -- Walter's about meeting Henry, and Adam's about Prague. Good writing! Good acting!
The rest of the story left me cold.
2
I read this play in eager antiiciatiopn of the stage. What drivel! I tore it up lest if fall into someone else's hands. Seriously, theses tired gay tropes, when will they die? Most of these characters are petty, vapid, emotionally damaged, hedonistic, back-stabbing addicts. Queer identify has moved on. This is not my Inheritance.
16
I don't know that it's fair to compare The New Yorker with the NYT, the former benefits from what are generally lengthier articles that go far more in-depth than the format of the latter allows. Even though the weekly magazine structure of The New Yorker is pushing out ever more daily content online.
But for those that are interested, The New Yorker's recent article on 'The Inheritance' is vastly superior. "In a bravura aria in Part 2, Tristan, who is H.I.V.-positive, characterizes President Trump’s effect on the American body politic, declaring, “You could say that he is H.I.V., and that he’s attached himself to American democracy and is now destroying the American immune system. . . . He’s replicating his genetic material from tweet to tweet, from person to person.” In London, the tirade elicited applause; on Broadway, it should bring the house down."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/09/how-matthew-lopez-transformed-howards-end-into-an-epic-play-about-gay-life
10
@telemachus sneezed
Your comment is the first thing to make me at all eager to see Part 2. (I just saw Part 1, and shrugged.)
1
I am a gay man. I read the celebratory reviews. I walked out.
Second guessing myself I bought the script. I realized it was even worse than I thought.
It is manipulative, trite drivel.
13
@Brian Could not agree with you more! This is not a play for queer people. This is a play that panders to those that like their gay stereotypes reinforced for easy consumption.
9
I have not seen this play, but in reading this review, the play that leaps to mind is The Normal Heart. That play centers around a group of queer men discussing their lives, past and future, with dramatic presentations of overwhelming life events and philosophical asides. There the focus was the clash between the freedom of gay liberation and the AIDS epidemic.
1
@Julius Boda The Normal Heart is nothing like this play. The Normal Heart is a classic, rising out of its time and driven by the immediate urgency of life and death; it is ultimately a play about love, told with great passion. The Inheritance is of epic length, without any real substance other than the faint literary pretension of relating itself to Howard's End, while its roots lie more in the work of Jackie Susann. These are not the same plays at all.
5
Brilliant, compelling, intensely moving. We saw THE INHERITANCE in previews a few weeks ago and it blew us away. Don’t be scared by the length - it keeps you hanging on every word. A worthy addition to the Canon.
5
I saw this show in London last year. I will state at the outset I am a huge fan of epic length theater. However, I will go to my grave bitter about the time and money I spent on this superficial tripe. Shamelessly emotionally manipulative and shallow. Tries way too hard. There are some very good performances (particularly Hickey and Soller), but my god this show is frustrating.
13
But isn’t it saying that the new generation has the luxury of being shallow and shame on them for it. But in the end some of them realize this. They receive their inheritance.
1
I couldn't even follow the review.No way I am going to the play!
5
Sounds great! I lived it all (from a 19yo off the boat boat in 1978 from Cleveland to San Francisco). Can't wait to see the play. To all fans out there, love Mary Ann Singleton, but call me Mary (or Michael). I'll see you at Safeway, but alas have it delivered now (Safeway). SHUT UP and laugh.
2
I saw this in London and thoroughly enjoyed it. See it if you can, and be prepared for the act 1 finale, there won't be a dry in the house.
6
That E.M. Forster never met a gay Anglo-Asian person is entirely possible.
That Larry Kramer never had a gay Asian-American friend is entirely possible.
That Tony Kushner never had a gay Asian-American friend that could inspire a character in their plays is, I too will grant, albeit reluctantly, entirely possible
But that Matthew Lopez, born in 1977, a Xennial (between GenX and Millennials), never had a gay Asian-American friend that could simply serve to open up his consciousness just enough to, maybe, include an Asian character in this supposedly sweeping cross generational, cross socio-economic, cross-cultural panorama of gay life in America, is unforgivable.
I am not bemoaning the absence of gay Asian-American characters or playwrights on Broadway, (there are a brilliant couple), I am bemoaning that 6 hour plays that aspire to be speaking of the universal American gay experience simply do not bother including one token Asian character.
Do we have to wait for a truly woke, culture-cancelling Millennial playwright to finally include a gay Asian-American character in his new world view?
38
@Ego
The Inheritance is like the Broadway version of a certain slice of demographic of Grindr that writes "no fats, no fems, no Asians"
Only connect? or connect only with people "like us"?
18
@Ego Just read your comment after I wrote mine, above. I had the exact same feeling. It's 2019, for god's sake.
I'm sure the casting agents and producers went through their check list: no geeks, no characters with buck teeth and coke bottle glasses; no laundry workers; no delivery boys; no martial arts - so of course, no Asians. Sheesh!
2
Hey theater directors: Give us RUSSELL TOVEY and wrap it up in two hours! Thanks.
10
With all of Brantley's trips to London, its hard to imagine that he did not see the play there. If that is indeed true,
he owes it to tell his readers. And then why review it twice,
when the Times has the luxury of two critics on hand. This wonderful play deserved a better reception. It was highly praised by other critics. Here's hoping that audiences will long cheer some of the most wonderful actors to appear on Broadway in a long time!
7
@R S Matt Wolf reviewed the London production. It was published on May 11, 2018.
1
Well congratulations, you’ve just deflated the outrage.
@Robert I did not write that he reviewed the show, just that he may have seen it. "if that is indeed true" etc. Did Matt Wolf's review appear in any American Edition of the Times?
Just reading the whole cross-section of reviews, and the phots they released have so many barefoot people. (My reference for this is Bea Arthur kicking off her shoes for her one-woman show and never putting them on, which IIRC represented that she felt comfortable with us, and we were guests in her living room and Billy Goldenberg just happened to be there to play piano.) I don't see this dwelled on in the reviews, but it's really very clear in the photos the show chose to give the press.
And the pretty-classic date between "Will" and Ben Platt as a young gay man whose lack of suffering annoys Will has been circulating in emails yet again, with the young gay man assuring Will he knows all about Stonehenge.
"I'm not a history puff"- feat. Ben Platt. with no Evan Hansen tics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mznlJjS993U
It felt startlingly frank in 2017, just sweet and funny now. Maybe it was just because who knew Ben Platt was really late 20s.
2
Spoiler alert: Henry and Forster always wear shoes. Eric puts them on at the point in the play when he connects seriously with the older generation. My interpretation is that the shoes / no shoes divide is the delineator between the generations. Consistent with the theme of the play, which is that the youngsters inherit from the older guys.
5
@GC - thank you so much for that explanation, and that it actually figures in the play or staging.
Maybe it' just semantics but my Playbill for The Inheritance reads "inspired by" NOT "based on" HOWARD'S END.
Yet Mr. Brantey's review seems misguided for not having noticed that distinction.
E.M. Forster is a character in Mr. Lopez play but he is only the device used to draw us into the real time lives of Gays evolving
right here/right now.
The Inheritance is written like a great page-turner. Flawed and fabulous once started you cannot put it down.
9
I am a gay man who lived through the epidemic in NYC, and I found this play, which I think of an “AIDS bodice-ripper,” to be pretty clueless. I am also an avid theatregoer (heart intact) and I go to the theatre to be moved, but I did not shed a tear at the Act One ending. I just wanted the false fantasy to end. I am surprised and pleased the Times is not piling on the praise on this one.
34
@Avery - We have for decades had laugh-out-loud comedy about the Titanic with no concern for the survivors who were still living or the families. Comedians just in effect said to them "live with it, there are no boundaries events comedy." They made people laugh AT the subject, with no resonance.
The well-done Holocaust bodice ripper equivalents (I thought some TV mini-series in the late 1970s,"Holocaust" and "QB VII" were just that) actually made people of all ages talk about what had happened. Draw them in with a good yarn, many will remember the reality behind it if handled right. Tv shows got massive ratings then, everyone watching the same time pre-VCRs and On demand. (TV really can't do that now.). I'll embrace the well-written bodice rippers because for earlier horrors of that scale, they made people know when they might not. Pence & co. make us need that.
I worry we're not far from a laugh-out-loud slapstick AIDS smash hit comedy, even while the memories are alive, with the red state folks enjoying those wacky gay people, how funny as they're dying. It happened with the Holocaust with survivors very much aware and many mystified - Larry David made it a joke with zero resonance, in the name of anything being Ok if it's funny.
1
@Avery Thank YOU. When I saw it in London I was outright angry about the ending of Part 1. So cheap.
8
@Avery
Like you Avery, I lived through the epidemic in downtown New York. I thought the play was lame. Unknowing and immature.
6
I loved the show! Both parts! I feel that this is the best play I’ve ever seen on Broadway, and I’ve seen more than 70 shows. I actually found it was more relatable than Angels in America. The Inheritance seemed much more grounded in reality than Angels. I could have watched these characters even longer. I hope they do make a mini-series with this play one day. I would love to see it on TV, but seeing it live with an audience of older and younger gay men, live, is something that a theater gore must not miss! Even straight people will love this play as well, because after all it’s about people and the older persons passing along their courage strength and hope, love and compassion to the next generation.
10
“Theater gore”? Like Grand Guignol?
1
@Larry D. - on "theater gore" -
After Spellcheck kept renaming "Notting Hill" as "Nothing Hill," my friend Debby had in a post: " having spellcheck was like having a little elf in your phone who really, really wants to be helpful, but who is also drunk."
This is in the Early Christmas spirit, even as I'm making reservations to fly to Florida to see a friend who's done heavy drama but never sung solo in an Equity show before play Santa in "Elf" - It's 80 degrees there. Tis the season.
2
As a straight woman I wondered whether I would be able to relate to The Inheritance. But after reading about Lopez and the reception the play had in London I felt I couldn't miss it. I was not disappointed. I thought Part 1, especially, was brilliant -- the way Lopez connected the lives of the disparate characters, the weaving of the narrator's voice throughout, and the interjection of humor in a devastating story. Although inspired by Howard's End, Lopez has written a play whose characters stand on their own. I read the book in college; I don't remember them.
Not being a gay man, I'm sure I missed some references, but that didn't detract from the play for me. Lopez has created a beautiful, incredibly moving play about a part of our collective history that should not be forgotten. And like all good theater, the story at its heart is a universal one -- about people and how they struggle to find themselves and love.
22
A must-see, emotionally engaging performance filled with amazing talent. Eye-opening on so many levels complete with spectacular talent. Highly recommend purchasing tickets to BOTH parts. Saw both parts back-to-back and couldn’t be happier. This is binge theater at its finest.
3
There’s a moment in The Inheritance, Part One, when a character asks E.M. Forster why he didn’t come out and join the gay rights movement after the Stonewall uprising in 1969. Forster was 90 years old at the time, and lived another year, until 1970. In Forster’s England homosexuality was illegal, and gay men were jailed and made pariahs. Forster was a teenager when, in a sensational trial, popular playwright and wit Oscar Wilde was found guilty of “homosexual acts”, and was given the maximum jail sentence. The semi-closet was Forster’s home of a lifetime.
I figured this character’s criticism of Forster was an immature assertion by a 21st century young man, who has no understanding of the world that formed a gay man born in 1879, a world he lived nine decades in. But then the Forster character in the play agrees with the young man! So apparently the playwright himself holds this view, that 90 year olds should spend their last days discarding habits and associations of a lifetime and join the revolution.
The Inheritance is (are) wonderful plays. I encourage everyone to see them. (There’s no line for the women’s room!) But the playwright needs to meet more 90 year olds, and learn how it feels to be very old, and to appreciate that the world he enjoys was nudged, pushed and prodded into being by his predecessors.
38
@JadeG - I'm only 59, and a few years ago, things are happening that would have had me - whatever, walking, sitting in, even just stiffing envelopes,with the energy in my 20s, when we saw that in groups, lots can happen.
I was on a bus headed west on 42nd Street just a few years back, and a large group headed east made the bus have to stop until the whole group went by, and there were people in business suits or outrageous clothes, and we all tarted getting off the bus. Some of the folks on the bus just instinctively joined the people peacefully walking in protest. It was everyone, all of New York, saying black lives matter, but really mostly a white group by percentage. I started for maybe half a block, but as strange as it sounds, this is not a metaphor - literally, my briefcase was too heavy to go farther. I walked home, made a donation, and wrote something in the New York Today comments. I couldn't do what I wanted to do with all my heart, especially with some Dems (even former Pres. Clinton) even trying to turn it into "all lives matter" on TV.
I haven't seen or read the play - but maybe (?) that's what's meant, that the 90-year-old legend wished so much that he were able to. Sometimes you can only send a check, send vibes on the net; and no one stuffs envelopes anymore.
1
@JadeG I believe homosexuality in Britain was no longer illegal as of 1968. But otherwise, agreed.
1
@JackC It was decriminalized in 1967.
2
This is a strangely regressive play, though coated with a thin surface layer of all the usual earnest progressive feeling. Essentially the one value here is the timeless American one: “I wanna be rich.” No doubt this is the playwright’s motivating credo as well. It’s a fantasy tale where everyone lives in 10 room apartments or is a billionaire. Pretty thin stuff.
11
I didn’t see that. There’s a really rich guy, who isn’t a particularly sympathetic character. And lots of younger, poorer but clever and striving ones. It felt like NYC.
9
@W - regarding "a fantasy tale where everyone lives in 10 room apartments or is a billionaire"
Isn't that the whole foundation of premium seating? :)
6
There’s a quick but hilarious scene where Eric joins Henry and his two sons for their annual holiday season dinner at Peter Luger. One of many NY insider riffs buried in the script. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the trigger for the recent NYT restaurant review there.
6
We should superannuate the phrase ‘a death sentence’ when referring to HIV infection and it’s consequence if untreated - AIDS and death. After all death sentences - barbaric as they are - are meted our as punishments. People living with HIV should not be due any punishment for a virus in their bodies.
4
@Colin Batrouney - seriously, when I heard the laughing at the press conferences and lack of concern over GRID by the Reagan administration and for any funding going towards figuring this out, I certainly never thought there were favorable odds that as many of my friends would still be around in 2019 as are still here.
(To find a lighter side, who knows - it may have helped our odds that none of us were ever as beautiful as the actors in the photos.)
3
I saw both parts in previews and found them very painful to watch from a dramatic point of view — too much telling and not enough showing. The whole 6+ hours could have been condensed into a single two-hour performance with no loss. But as it stands, prepare yourself for the seats at the Barrymore. They're hard and butt-numbing.
32
I had been hearing great things about Matthew Lopez’s “The Inheritance” from theater friends in London for over a year. Fortunately, a friend and I caught a performance of Part 1 in preview when I was visiting NYC. Both of us, gay men in our 60’s, were shattered by the play and the performances. Matthew Lopez has found a way of telling three generations of gay men our stories back to us. The writing is sometimes unwieldy but so to is life, so to is love, so to is losing all of your closest friends when you are in your 20’s and have just barely become an adult. The greatest gift “The Inheritance” gave to me was bringing back for even a moment the glorious, gorgeous, fierce, intelligent, hungry gay friends of my youth. These friends are gone from view but never forgotten.
60
I agree that Inheritance is ambitious and worth seeing. I agree also that it is a teeny tiny bit long. I agree also that it is terrific. More than terrific but less than wow what a gall dern alsofrigginrightly amazing. It is not perfect. But, during the performances I saw, the writer, the actors and the audience took a journey together and connected and bonded and went to all those places all those dreams all those bad acting schools.
3
Saw both plays while in previews and was riveted by both parts. Can the plays use some "Trimming" yes especially Part 2. I found them to be insightful and meaningful especially in today's culture which currently seems to be stepping back two paces for every forward step it takes. There has been a dearth of plays recently about the Gay community so this was a welcome addition. I can't fault Lopez for some of the short comings of the plays because when dealing with such a big canvas it's sometimes not easy to step away and view the work with a more critical eye as your senses are caught up in the grandeur of the whole. The audiences for both performances I attended were enthusiastic and seem to have embarrassed both of them wholeheartedly despite what ever their flaws might be.
8
@gljm99 - I assume you meant "seem to have embraced both of them wholeheartedly" rather than "seem to have embarrassed both of them wholeheartedly," which Spell Check left it as.
I've always suspected Spell Check had a few issues about gay theater, but I thought his dating both Siri and Alexa was a cover. Maybe not.
4
I agree that Inheritance is ambitious and worth seeing. It is not perfect. But, during the performances I saw, the writer, the actors and the audience took a journey together and connected.
7
It’s brilliant in every way. And actually two slightly different plays that don’t necessarily need to be seen within one day. Think of it that way if you find seven hours daunting.
5
Saw this last weekend, both parts in one day. I wonder what American audiences will make of it (it sold out in London, partly, I suspect, because Forster is much more familiar to British audiences). I do love Forster—for his prose, for his stories, for his inclusion of references to classical music. Having him portrayed on stage may elude a lot of Americans.
At all events, Lopez writes well and very cleverly. I was riveted throughout part one. As a gay man who lived through the 80s and 90s when tragedy unfolded in slow motion, the contemporary recasting struck a chord. And communicating those years to my younger friends, most in their late 30s or early 40s, is something I feel crucial to their heritage and, perhaps, to my sanity. I continually caution them: in the age of PREP and awareness, some still die of AIDS out of inattention or carelessness. So the hustler, Leo, really does send an important message.
My one reservation has to do with part 2. It's just too long and too contrived. The monologue by Lois Smith could be cut by a half or three quarters and still communicate its message. Editing of other segments in part 2 would also help.
But go to both: the review touches on the pathos and drama of the piece, but not its humor, which lightens the mood throughout in the way that Shakespeare does by inserting comic moments in his tragedies. Oh, and the cast: I dislike standing ovations. But these players certainly deserved the accolade.
11
There's an excellent three hour play lurking in the nearly seven hours presented. Perhaps a truncated version will be presented as a revival in the future. Less is always more
15
@person of interest, regarding "Less is always more" -
Remembering that when "Torch Song Trilogy" first appeared in the 1980s, its length actually added to its status as an event. Likewise with "Les Miz," when it was 3-1/4 hours, back then, made it feel special, that it couldn't be shorter and they were paying for the extra time - which meant overtime pay for the union members but worked on us that the producers agreed every minute counted. (it's theater, I bought that hype; but then, some folks bought that the Miss Saigon helicopter made the mezzanine worth $100, then unheard of for a one-part show.)
I can't figure out if the modern 70-minute or less trend is what writers are writing more and still getting their whole story out, or if it's what theaters are selecting somehow. (It's like fewer small theaters this century care about the income from those $15 scotches or legendary $8 orange drinks these days - or maybe audiences prefer their evening out be shorter unless it's a really huge event?)
3
@Freddie I stand by my statement there's a compelling story that can be told in 3 hours. "Less is more" does not equate to 70 minutes.
It's a shame that a "more is more" philosophy was taken by the playwright, he even includes a line regarding the wisdom of a 400 page play in Part Two, the audience laughed. Ticket sales in London were stronger for Part One vs Part Two, Part One can be seen as a stand alone production and IMHO is the stronger of the two pieces. Others' mileage may vary.
Re: drinks revenue and the 70 minute format. The arrival of the sippy cup insures that revenue stream continues.
6
@person of interest, as I said, I can't figure out that 70-minute evenings seem to be around so much - not suggesting that this show should be that. Are audiences less patient now unless it's an Event?
(And "Far Away' at NYTW felt complete, at least looking back, and was 40 minutes, though at the time it felt like I just settled in and there were those folks with those hats being, as intended, the stuff of nightmares. Maybe that's why British theater has more "great plays" than US in those eras, with Caryl Churchill or Harold Pinter seeming to do well with under an hour.)
1
I don’t always agree with the NYT, but in my opinion this is the perfect and most accurate review one could write about this play. I think Mr. Brantley is generous with his praise (for good reasons) but doesn’t fail to point out that, at the end of the day, “The Inheritance” is more an exercise in playwriting ambition than a fully realized epic (which it tries so hard to be).
41
@Matei Varga Yes
"One may as well begin with" the fact that THE INHERITANCE by Matthew Lopez is one of the most thrilling American plays written in the early 21st century. It will, no doubt, become part of theatrical history. If you don't know the basic story of HOWARD'S END, from which so many narrative strands of the play are derived, the play nonetheless stands solidly on its own merits. But if you know the Forster novel ( or the 1992 Merchant-Ivory film), then Lopez's accomplishment will clearly be all the more formidable to you.
Lopez transposes certain characters ( even changing their sexuality and gender) from Forster's Edwardian England into their 21st century counterparts in NYC and environs. He presents a grand panorama of men navigating the various hectic realms of life ( social, political, and sexual), while they search for meaning, purpose and love. The play finally asks how do we grieve for, honor and learn from the lives of those valiant gay men of earlier eras who never lived full, rich lives due to the harsh societal restraints against them. Regardless of sexuality, we learn from all the characters--past and present-- that it is never easy making one's way in the world.
This is a tremendous production with sterling performances that will be remembered at the 2020 Tony awards. You will never forget this play; it takes the guts out of you.
18
I sounds remarkable, in spite of Bentley's caveats. Now if only the director would direct this cast in a multi-part adaptation comparable to what Mike Nichols did for"Angels in America" for HBO, maybe those of us out in the cultural boondocks could get a chance to see it. As long as it remains just a fixture of the London and New York stages it will be preaching to the choir. Let it expand to embrace and engage and challenge the world!
17
@Jonathan - @Jonathan - @Jonathan - @Jonathan , regarding "I sounds remarkable, in spite of Bentley's caveats." - I am looking all the time for something really good to feel about what's going on in theater in this decade where Broadway prices have gone elitist and only special events can become hits. Chief among the internet-era positive developments is that, certainly since the time of "Wicked," maybe earlier - the critics here have pretty much always, even when not recommending, been giving us enough information to know that while they don't like what this show does, YOU might enjoy it if this (something) appeals to you. (This is what was called in the past: This is the sort of thing you'll like if you like this sort of thing. But this seems like part of what's done, and it's great, IMHO.). It risks spoilers, but it lets you know YOU might like this.
Other terrific things IMHO have been: Theater is relevant - SO much new product. Theater has gotten "anger" onstage within weeks, all written on spec, and so much is so good.
And a third, incredibly, with all the huge financial failures, people with money to burn keep investing and suddenly there are no rules to what could be a hit and how much a hit can make, to encourage other risk-taking.
I found the play and the performances riveting--through a total of 7 hours! The writing is brilliant and so moving--crass, hilarious, political, philosophical, raunchy, and poetic! I too though of "Angels in America," that The Inheritance is easily in the same category of brilliant theater experience. This is definitely "don't miss theater"!
14
I agreed with nearly all the review. (I confess I could have had ten minutes less of Forster's 35 minute speech despite the remarkable stamina of that performance.) I'm just surprised that Brantley doesn't deem it worthy of a critic's pick for its ambition alone and the stellar performances. There are also moments when the writing doesn't merely walk in the shadow of other iconic gay culture (I too felt the echo of Longtime Companion not to mention Love, Valor, Compassion! right down to the miniature model of the house) but the play often has marvelous fun with millennial gay culture and at its best reveals deeply universal truths about the search for identity as it relates or conflicts with the need for community.
19
@Thankful68 - I just read the 35-minute speech. Since there's no way of proving me wrong, I'll venture that this speech with a little context added on can be an evening of theater with the right name. 15-20 years ago, when under-50-minute shows like 'Far Away" and Pinter "Ashes to Ashes" actually became discussed events because they had the power they incredibly had while being so short. "Ashes to Ashes" made it work by having a talk session at every performance, so it was after 8 pm when we got of the theater. (As I said somewhere else, "Far Away" felt expensive by the minute back then, but what a memory when minimal set went to scary spectacle then back to minimal. When I saw the upbeat Bob Mackie Parade in "Cher Show," I thought too bad economically and they couldn't double-use what's that stage during the run to do a PBS "Far Away.")
1
Sorry Ben, you missed the entire dramatic point. The many soliloquy’s were the best in years on Broadway. Glad London appreciated this play. Clearly, you were bored.
18
Worth seeing if you can get a discounted ticket, but be forewarned, both parts are overwritten and overwrought. An editor is desperately needed to trim and better shape what could be a far more powerful work.
54
The ending of Part One also harkens back to the final moments of Stephen Daldry's own production of J. B. Priestley's "An Inspector Calls" in 1994
4
I laughed. I cried. And I saw some superb and moving performances. That's a pretty good accomplishment.
24
Living north of West Hollywood I don't think I can relive parts of the 20th century and I'm too old for the 21st. I just don't think my heart can take it. If I don't come away walking out whistling a Broadway tune it's just not uplifting enough for the cost of the airfare.
6
I saw both parts and found the work to be thoughtful and brilliant throughout. Matthew Lopez will and should be applauded for creating such a magnificent theatrical experience.
22
Even if Lopez merely succeeds in managing to ‘only connect’ diverse generations of audience members to one another in a meaningful way, THE INHERITANCE can be considered a significant theatrical achievement.
39
I loved this play.
24
Excellent review here. Question: why do all the critics cave to what I consider the obviously sentimental finale to Part 1? I find Part 2 more of a play to watch, w "scenes," and fewer monologues.
13
Loved the first half but nearly choked on the second half’s determination to cram as many audience-facing 20 minute direct soliloquies into three hours as it can.
It succeeds because, of course, if you’re not particularly concerned about building nuanced characters and deep relationships you can have your characters declaim as often and for as long as you’d like.
23
The lighter side of that: The rule "Show, don't tell" is broken effectively so often, that you can almost call it some "thing" that never works unless it works. (Reminds me of the "Hairspray" moment where Edna tells her daughter Tracey if you'd only told us you were going to get on the TV show, we never would have told you you were wasting your time auditioning.)
3
Yes. It’s quite an imagining for such a young playwright, but he really needs less is more lessons. There is a play in all of this but throughout you are forced to slog through a great deal of contrived speechifying.
8