So this review *almost* persuaded me not to see this play. All I can say is I'm glad I ignored the snark ("tear beat",
truffling for tragedy" -- really?) because this was the best thing I've seen in a long time.
I was totally absorbed and did not think it was too long, and was happy to have two intermissions. The performances by the two leads are incredible and it's a powerful story that brings together the personal toll of deindustrialization with the destruction of community. The playwright's version of that latter theme -- the literal dissolution of a town as an entity by a vote of the town's citizens -- reminded me a lot of Radiolab's episode on this topic about Seneca, Nebraska in 2016. I wonder if he was inspired by that story as I heard echoes of the conflict there about town regulations.
Anyway, my point is, if you're thinking about whether or not to see this play, I say go see it! And keep in mind the Washington Post's review of the same play was headlined "'Greater Clements' is the best new play of the year."
4
The story is simple, the characters likeable and the acting was excellent. While the ending may have been a bit drawn out with the play almost three hours running, I found myself listening to every word and the evening passed quickly and enjoyably.
This play is well worth seeing.
2
*Spoilers ahead*
I love Samuel D Hunter. The Whale. A Bright New Boise. Lewiston. Clarkston. All of them.
This play, however, is so wholly hopeless and morbid. I found it predictable and with an unmistakable undercurrent of, “Oh, you haven’t killed yourself yet? What are you waiting for?”
And this is not because Joe kills himself. I love suicide as a story component just as much as the next sad person. But that particular storytelling device just didn’t work here.
I don’t need hope in my theater (though, it’s nice to have around.) I don’t need joy in my theater (though, it’s also nice to have around.) I do need a reason to believe that life (maybe) matters. I certainly didn’t find that here.
1
Way too long. Too clunky. Acting was less than needed for Broadway. All four of us agreed: boring.
2
I see a play just once every six weeks or so, but I respectfully disagree with this review. The characters - all of them - were fully sketched out, including that of the Japanese former boyfriend who did not get to marry Judith Ivey's character because of prejudice. Ivey's son was utterly convincing in how he showed his disease, and how he was able to fight back and do a good thing. The small town police chief/sheriff also rang true to those I have encountered.
By coincidence, before seeing the show about a town closing down, I had read a NYT piece about an Ohio town which was dissolved because residents did not want to pay a 1% income tax and did not trust their officials to spend their tax money wisely. So that theme ran true, all of this making the show worth the almost three hours in length.
5
@Joseph Hanania
Yes, I agree completely! I’m in the theater several times a month, and I thought the play was terrific. Ivey and Donovan were especially good, as Green notes — though his review otherwise, like most of his reviews, was more self-serving snark than intelligent or insightful critique.
5
Donovan and Ivey were excellent but the staging and set design were clunky and frustrating. And the play needed some cutting.
2
Mr. Green mentions, "In that sense, perhaps “Greater Clements” isn’t too long but too short: It might be better off as a mini-series, where its net of ideas could unwind more naturally."
There was another play earlier this year that I physically could not do the walking around for right now, "Novenas for a Lost Hospital," which, while sad, possibly would have thrilled me to experience even a few years ago. (I assume that must have allowed people to video since I've seen postings that do not seem at all surreptitious.) the Times noticed that felt like it was only 2-1/2 hours for likely no other reason than they must have figured that was all the time an audience probably would be willing (or able) to give it, but it felt like a subject that would have been better appreciated with more detail. And it was also about a closing down.
No one counts how much they're paying per minute any more. Maybe that stopped once $500 for 120 minutes was just the new normal for a big hit. There are all these 45 to 75 minute plays now that audiences seem to be leaving feeling satisfied that they've had a full evening. (Someone made a 55-minute family edition of a 110-minute show I wrote. I saw that it works, but I don't know how he did it.)
1
I saw this play in previews 11/29 and I was hoping it would be shortened so that there would be only one intermission. No such luck. Way too long. Any emotion or resonance is mitigated by this.
2
It's amazing how polar opposite my opinions are from Mr Green's. While I agree that the play is overwrought -- especially the drawn out ending where the playwright was almost torturing Ms. Ivey's character -- is was thoroughly worthwhile. I would eagerly spend three hours here than almost any other play this critic has recommended.
9
...maybe if it had Alanis Morisette songs, it would’ve been better received.
8
@Austin R I really can't believe he recommended that musical. It was horrible.
2
About crying - I actually did cry for real at the story I read just before this one, about Hugh Jackman kicking out the little engine that could, "Beetlejuice," even though I realized at some point in the article that the underdog I was crying for was a $21-million underdog. And I'm praying that "The Music Man" won't cost anywhere near that. (It can't possibly, can it?)
PS Those busybodies can be for real. At my mom's 90th, while my dad and I were setting up, one of the neighbors who came early was killing time, and instead of taking a book off a shelf had found a brokerage statement and was reading it like it was a magazine! I've never seen anything like that happen in New York.
1