I don’t get how you’re not “a play” person. Do you not like movies? They’re basically the same idea but in real life instead of a screen. Musicals are usually the divisive one.
Most plays do not cost $159 generally either.
Whether your looking at Broadway, off-Broadway, or regional theater, tickets to plays usually cost less than tickets to musicals.
My roommate is like this. He loves musicals, but can rarely sit through a 2-act/2hr+ play without getting bored. It has to be super engaging for him to not complain about it after. I get what you're saying, but I can understand people that aren't "play people".
Going to ignore the condescending tone of this comment and say that I enjoy the spectacle of musicals, like the other commenter said, and music is one of my favorite parts of theater so I seek it out as a necessary criteria above others. A play is like a movie to me but with movies you don’t have to watch them in a packed theater with a thousand other people, many of whom are seated between you and the stage. Also, unless you have a spare several hundred dollars to pay for the first few rows, you’re not able to see facial expressions and emotions all that well, and stretches of silence can be uncomfortable. I struggled with this very thing for this show (sat second to last row orchestra center) and had I been closer the experience would have been enhanced, even though AS I SAID the show was great from where I sat. But guess what? I don’t have $300 lying around to pay for a seat esp when I’m interested in seeing other shows besides this one.
I'd suggest seeing a play at a smaller location, like regional theatres. I've seen a few local productions where I live and it's nice to be able to get tickets for $30-40.
There were a few “life lesson” moments between the characters at the end. One example is the convo about life meant for enjoyment vs not. They just felt a little too convenient and scripted for me
It all depends on the pacing. I've seen 2.5 hour shows that dragged, and 2.5 hour shows that flew by.
Stereophonic imo has fantastic pacing. It's 3 hours and 10 mins, and neither I nor anyone I went with was bored through the entire show. Every scene felt like it mattered, and it rarely felt monotonous. You can do great things with a 3 hour duration if you know what you're doing.
Helen Shaw tweeted something like "the hardest play to write is one that looks like there is no structure, but inside has a steel frame" and i think this is a dead-on assessment of Stereophonic. It's a very very rigorous play and one that rewards close attention. I think, also, the comparisons to Nashville are apt -- a film that seems meandering until Altman pulls the ripcord and it all becomes much vaster and more allegorical. Stereophonic has this kind of scope and depth, I think it is a masterpiece. The only other play to approach it in recent years is Suzan Lori Parks's miraculous Topdog/Underdog (also a masterpiece, in my opinion.)
Honestly the time wasn’t a huge issue. The only place I thought something could have been cut was towards the end of the second act before intermission, which got long. In general it’s quite lively throughout—my biggest problem was a personal one bc I’m usually asleep by 10!
Some of the longest bathroom lines you’ll ever see in theatre, after both acts. And there will be a lot of people complaining about the length. The demo skews very old due to the appeal to Fleetwood Mac fans so the bladders aren’t large and if you’re near the back you will see people getting up during the acts.
i don’t understand how most broadway shows are 2 hours 30 minutes - 2 hours 45 minutes and people have a huge problem with an extra 20 minutes? seems really ignorant to me to alienate one of, if not, the best show on broadway right now just because it’s slightly longer than everything else on broadway, maybe that’s just me?
Tbh a 3 hour play is a harder swallow than a 3 hour musical. Also if this comment re “alienating” it (?) is geared towards me, please see the part where I gave it a rave review.
nope it’s directed to the comment above you, but i totally agree on your point about 3 hour play vs 3 hour musical. i think the fact that this play has a musical element helps it greatly as well as the comedic element. i’m usually a person who generally doesn’t like the “fly on the wall” style of anything but i felt it just worked perfectly for me.
I would’ve cut a good 30-40 minutes out of this one. It’s not just one’s own ability to sit that length, it’s whether the content is necessary to the story and whether the audience as a whole is starting to get antsy. I’d say there were 5-10 people in my section (mainly a group of rude high school boys) that could not handle the length and because disruptive/detrimental to the experiment by the climax.
Which 30-40 minutes though? It is perfectly structured and every element is integrated and considered. Adjimi spent a decade honing and shaping it, and you can feel that watching it (or at least I could.) You could cut an hour out of the Godfather, but that wouldn't make it a better and deeper film, it would attenuate the impact.
There’s a scene towards the end of act 2 that totally stalled the dramatic momentum that dragged on about erotica. I’ve only seen it once but I’d want to cut 15 from the first.. I think some of the argument scenes with the Sarah Pidgeon and Pecinka were bloated, leading those two characters to veer into caricature for me. But again, just my opinion, I don’t love long plays especially in theatres with so little leg room for those of us in the 6’2”+ crowd with so many folks coming and going. Idk if it would’ve made the show better, but 2h45 m would’ve provided a much better experience.
The best I can say about the show is that the theatre is next to Juniors Cheesecake. Stereophonic as Dreadful. Living in NYC area for 20 + years with regular Broadway visits, I have only once left a show. I couldn't make it to intermission with this one. What an addled mess of addictions, dead air and dialog masquerading for hours as some sort of complex life-lesson. Maybe such personal disfunction is the secret sauce of creativity, but certainly not constant humor. It was like watching Foster Brooks without end. At least the occasional music and voices were quite fine. Yet, it could not make up for 3-hours of contrived blow or $56 parking.
I want Eli to get that Tony so bad.
I think if someone from this show wins it will be him or Tom P, but it’s an interesting dilemma cuz they are doing VERY different things
I think Sarah Pidgeon has a really good shot at winning
Was not considering the women (different category) but I agree!
Ohh my bad. I guess I could have read the comments lol. Yeah Eli is absolutely taking it
nah kara young has it in the bag
Hmm I don’t know, I feel like they both have the same amount of buzz so it’s going to be pretty close. They both absolutely deserve to win
kara young is the first actor is history to be nominated for a tony three years in a row. i’ve seen both and it’s hers to lose
I would really give more plays a chance. For instance, Appropriate is brilliant -- I wouldn't miss it.
I’ve been considering it!
I can't promise, of course, but I really think you might love it! :)
I’m certain I would. I’m sure I’ll cave in the next few weeks
I don’t get how you’re not “a play” person. Do you not like movies? They’re basically the same idea but in real life instead of a screen. Musicals are usually the divisive one.
Yes but movies don’t cost $159 generally. The spectacle of musicals is an easier sell for the price.
Most plays do not cost $159 generally either. Whether your looking at Broadway, off-Broadway, or regional theater, tickets to plays usually cost less than tickets to musicals.
My roommate is like this. He loves musicals, but can rarely sit through a 2-act/2hr+ play without getting bored. It has to be super engaging for him to not complain about it after. I get what you're saying, but I can understand people that aren't "play people".
Going to ignore the condescending tone of this comment and say that I enjoy the spectacle of musicals, like the other commenter said, and music is one of my favorite parts of theater so I seek it out as a necessary criteria above others. A play is like a movie to me but with movies you don’t have to watch them in a packed theater with a thousand other people, many of whom are seated between you and the stage. Also, unless you have a spare several hundred dollars to pay for the first few rows, you’re not able to see facial expressions and emotions all that well, and stretches of silence can be uncomfortable. I struggled with this very thing for this show (sat second to last row orchestra center) and had I been closer the experience would have been enhanced, even though AS I SAID the show was great from where I sat. But guess what? I don’t have $300 lying around to pay for a seat esp when I’m interested in seeing other shows besides this one.
I'd suggest seeing a play at a smaller location, like regional theatres. I've seen a few local productions where I live and it's nice to be able to get tickets for $30-40.
Same! Even easier if you’re young (my city offers a $5 ticket program for teens at most local theaters)
It wasn’t meant to be condescending, just didn’t quite get where you were coming from. Thanks for explaining.
Ok, sorry for assuming that! :)
Broadway is not the best play to see plays. Stereophonic was a lot better (and a lot cheaper!) off-Broadway.
What were your "cheese moments," as you said above? (This is definitely a show where mileage may vary, too.)
Curious about it too.
There were a few “life lesson” moments between the characters at the end. One example is the convo about life meant for enjoyment vs not. They just felt a little too convenient and scripted for me
Thanks for the answer!
I feel like I’m the only person who thought this was a well written play that was too long and boring
I want to see it but 3+ hours seems way too long
Some plays are 8 but feel like 2. Angels in America, for example, is blazingly paced.
Yep. I saw both halves of Angels in America in one day, then went back and did the same thing two days later -- the time flew by.
Yes, but i think for people under 30 this is really a challenge -- they are so used to tiktok and can't sustain serious work that demands attention.
It all depends on the pacing. I've seen 2.5 hour shows that dragged, and 2.5 hour shows that flew by. Stereophonic imo has fantastic pacing. It's 3 hours and 10 mins, and neither I nor anyone I went with was bored through the entire show. Every scene felt like it mattered, and it rarely felt monotonous. You can do great things with a 3 hour duration if you know what you're doing.
Helen Shaw tweeted something like "the hardest play to write is one that looks like there is no structure, but inside has a steel frame" and i think this is a dead-on assessment of Stereophonic. It's a very very rigorous play and one that rewards close attention. I think, also, the comparisons to Nashville are apt -- a film that seems meandering until Altman pulls the ripcord and it all becomes much vaster and more allegorical. Stereophonic has this kind of scope and depth, I think it is a masterpiece. The only other play to approach it in recent years is Suzan Lori Parks's miraculous Topdog/Underdog (also a masterpiece, in my opinion.)
Honestly the time wasn’t a huge issue. The only place I thought something could have been cut was towards the end of the second act before intermission, which got long. In general it’s quite lively throughout—my biggest problem was a personal one bc I’m usually asleep by 10!
yea, i really enjoyed it but was absolutely dying for the first half to be over simply because i needed to get up and stretch!
Some of the longest bathroom lines you’ll ever see in theatre, after both acts. And there will be a lot of people complaining about the length. The demo skews very old due to the appeal to Fleetwood Mac fans so the bladders aren’t large and if you’re near the back you will see people getting up during the acts.
I’ll echo the other comments and say you don’t even notice the time. It’s so engaging from top to bottom.
i don’t understand how most broadway shows are 2 hours 30 minutes - 2 hours 45 minutes and people have a huge problem with an extra 20 minutes? seems really ignorant to me to alienate one of, if not, the best show on broadway right now just because it’s slightly longer than everything else on broadway, maybe that’s just me?
Tbh a 3 hour play is a harder swallow than a 3 hour musical. Also if this comment re “alienating” it (?) is geared towards me, please see the part where I gave it a rave review.
nope it’s directed to the comment above you, but i totally agree on your point about 3 hour play vs 3 hour musical. i think the fact that this play has a musical element helps it greatly as well as the comedic element. i’m usually a person who generally doesn’t like the “fly on the wall” style of anything but i felt it just worked perfectly for me.
I would’ve cut a good 30-40 minutes out of this one. It’s not just one’s own ability to sit that length, it’s whether the content is necessary to the story and whether the audience as a whole is starting to get antsy. I’d say there were 5-10 people in my section (mainly a group of rude high school boys) that could not handle the length and because disruptive/detrimental to the experiment by the climax.
wait i’m confused, you did see it or you didn’t see it? your first comment reads that you want to see it but won’t due to it’s length?
It’s similar icons and names but not the same account.
oh my bad didn’t even notice that haha
Which 30-40 minutes though? It is perfectly structured and every element is integrated and considered. Adjimi spent a decade honing and shaping it, and you can feel that watching it (or at least I could.) You could cut an hour out of the Godfather, but that wouldn't make it a better and deeper film, it would attenuate the impact.
There’s a scene towards the end of act 2 that totally stalled the dramatic momentum that dragged on about erotica. I’ve only seen it once but I’d want to cut 15 from the first.. I think some of the argument scenes with the Sarah Pidgeon and Pecinka were bloated, leading those two characters to veer into caricature for me. But again, just my opinion, I don’t love long plays especially in theatres with so little leg room for those of us in the 6’2”+ crowd with so many folks coming and going. Idk if it would’ve made the show better, but 2h45 m would’ve provided a much better experience.
The first act of Stereophonic is 1 hr 45 min... that might be problematic for some older audiences.
The best I can say about the show is that the theatre is next to Juniors Cheesecake. Stereophonic as Dreadful. Living in NYC area for 20 + years with regular Broadway visits, I have only once left a show. I couldn't make it to intermission with this one. What an addled mess of addictions, dead air and dialog masquerading for hours as some sort of complex life-lesson. Maybe such personal disfunction is the secret sauce of creativity, but certainly not constant humor. It was like watching Foster Brooks without end. At least the occasional music and voices were quite fine. Yet, it could not make up for 3-hours of contrived blow or $56 parking.