If you heard one of our readings, please post a comment.
Tell us what you thought: what worked, what needs work?
Please make your comments constructive to help LAB and our playwrights continue to develop these plays toward their next stage.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
The Motherf**ker with the Hat
Saturday, November 15, 2008 THE MOTHERF**KER WITH THE HAT Written & Directed by Stephen Adly Guirgis Featuring Elizabeth Canavan*, John Ortiz*, Elizabeth Rodriguez*, Yul Vázquez* & David Zayas*
As an avid S.A.G.-watcher, I was happy to get the chance to see his latest "maybe" work. He's just got an amazing way with words and knows how to work them for both comedy and dramatic moments.
The cast was stellar from the lovable-but-biteyourassoff Elizabeth Rodriguez, the perfect level of ham in Yul Vazquez, the ever-volatile Elizabeth Canavan and the LAB's leadingest of men John Ortiz and David Zayas (pretty sure I'd watch them in anything).
Can't wait to see where the story/show will go. Keep up the constant work, Stephen. I'll keep coming to see it.
This is motherf*@ing HILARIOUS...the best thing I've seen in a long, long time. I was a Stephen Adly Guirgis virgin before. Now I'm gonna want to see everything he writes. Great performances, too, across the board.
My wife and I (she's a writer) are avid Labyrinth fans, myself a Stephen/Philip Seymour Hoffman "junkie". I waited through the series for this play like an anxious child counting the days till xmas. Wow, the hysteria of Stephen Adley's audience is a marvel, but it became annoying and difficult to experience the reading. I've noticed this through a couple of the LAB co. writers plays this Series. I found this "maybe" work reminiscent of earlier plays of his, and can't really understand the exaggerated use of expletives here, though watching this cast would have been worth broadway admission (John Ortiz!!!). My wife said it's a guys play but I feel like what does that mean, her reply is that it wasn't comfortable to sit through. The critics scalded his last mounted play and It seems even Mr. Hoffman could not escape the heat, I wonder what he might have made of this recent work and am curious of his absence, though I saw him amongst the spectators. I can't help feeling that baring some of the earlier works and removing the searing sunlight of a star like Mr. Hoffman, it's evident the emperor's really not wearing any cloths, and is certainly not among the likes of John Patrick Shanley.
The 2008 Barn Series revealed the secret that Labyrinth theatre company's strength lies in it's company of actors.
Last time I checked this forum was to add contructive thoughts that are useful in the development of a play. All I read of your comments - Kevin - were snide, little pot shots. Perhaps you need to be reminded that you were at a reading of a play - not an opening night. You saw an unfinished and in-progress work that is playing with themes of hypocrisy, love and forgiveness. And magically - somehow - you manage to channel some kind of bile that would make Charles Isherwood proud.
Wow - what vitriol! I wonder - how many plays at the Barn Series did you see to proclaim that LAByrinth's strengths lie solely within its company of actors? I saw more than half of the work and there were many pieces that were very good. If you feel comfortable enough to make a statement like that based off of one reading and then to go on and compare Guirgis to Shanley (see Romantic Poetry) or to insinuate that Guirgis' work cannot stand without the "searing sunlight" of Mr. Hoffman, than one has to question your agenda in your post.
In response to Kevin Whitlock's comment. WOW. How come my comments on "Face Cream" were censored with no warning and deemed too personal, and this comment wasn't?
I want to stress that I don't think Kevin's comment SHOULD be censored, at all!! But to those of you who read my comment before pulling it off-line, this REALLY proves my point.
"Wow, the hysteria of Stephen Adley's audience is a marvel, but it became annoying and difficult to experience the reading...it's evident the emperor's really not wearing any cloths."
To whoever censored my (I thought) constructive post about "Face Cream", please compare and contrast it to this, and please lay out some guidelines for audience members so that we can write appropriately constructive comments on the blog.
There's actually a fairly thick line between protecting a playwright from personal attack and protecting her from any criticism at all. You should sketch out that line with some guidelines for this process.
my 2 cents plain...which used to describe a fountain seltzer, if memory serves.
s.a.g. is trying to bend theater around the working language--a/k/a slang--and not speaking to the ages, except as a time capsule, which ain't so bad neither. this is not "the way we were" but sure is the way we ARE. any refs to the grecian muses is waycool, but not germaine when you're painting a train.
funny? yeh, ubetcha. thoughtful? mebbenotmuch. disturbing? well, if you know anything about 12-step programs, the characters were not only believable, but awful. especially in light of his last one, "our lady of something-or-other", you know, about the mother in the hospital up in the bronx? (don't get me wrong, just 'cause the name ain't on my lips don't mean i didn't recognize half the cast from this one in that one.) i think steve likes his characters fresh outta rehab because that's when they are the most vulnerable, like they just lost a layer of skin or shed that lobster armor.
me? I got zip to carp about; got me away from the remote for an evening and a chance to hear the modern tongue as if it were being used for more than the inarticulate mumbles of thugs’n’ho’s trying to get some butter.
As an avid S.A.G.-watcher, I was happy to get the chance to see his latest "maybe" work. He's just got an amazing way with words and knows how to work them for both comedy and dramatic moments.
ReplyDeleteThe cast was stellar from the lovable-but-biteyourassoff Elizabeth Rodriguez, the perfect level of ham in Yul Vazquez, the ever-volatile Elizabeth Canavan and the LAB's leadingest of men John Ortiz and David Zayas (pretty sure I'd watch them in anything).
Can't wait to see where the story/show will go. Keep up the constant work, Stephen. I'll keep coming to see it.
PS - We've GOTTA see who this "Chuchi" is.
ReplyDeleteThis is motherf*@ing HILARIOUS...the best thing I've seen in a long, long time. I was a Stephen Adly Guirgis virgin before. Now I'm gonna want to see everything he writes. Great performances, too, across the board.
ReplyDeleteMy wife and I (she's a writer) are avid Labyrinth fans, myself a Stephen/Philip Seymour Hoffman "junkie". I waited through the series for this play like an anxious child counting the days till xmas.
ReplyDeleteWow, the hysteria of Stephen Adley's audience is a marvel, but it became annoying and difficult to experience the reading. I've noticed this through a couple of the LAB co. writers plays this Series.
I found this "maybe" work reminiscent of earlier plays of his, and can't really understand the exaggerated use of expletives here, though watching this cast would have been worth broadway admission (John Ortiz!!!).
My wife said it's a guys play but I feel like what does that mean, her reply is that it wasn't comfortable to sit through.
The critics scalded his last mounted play and It seems even Mr. Hoffman could not escape the heat, I wonder what he might have made of this recent work and am curious of his absence, though I saw him amongst the spectators.
I can't help feeling that baring some of the earlier works and removing the searing sunlight of a star like Mr. Hoffman, it's evident the emperor's really not wearing any cloths, and is certainly not among the likes of John Patrick Shanley.
The 2008 Barn Series revealed the secret that Labyrinth theatre company's strength lies in it's company of actors.
Last time I checked this forum was to add contructive thoughts that are useful in the development of a play. All I read of your comments - Kevin - were snide, little pot shots. Perhaps you need to be reminded that you were at a reading of a play - not an opening night. You saw an unfinished and in-progress work that is playing with themes of hypocrisy, love and forgiveness. And magically - somehow - you manage to channel some kind of bile that would make Charles Isherwood proud.
ReplyDeleteWow - what vitriol! I wonder - how many plays at the Barn Series did you see to proclaim that LAByrinth's strengths lie solely within its company of actors? I saw more than half of the work and there were many pieces that were very good. If you feel comfortable enough to make a statement like that based off of one reading and then to go on and compare Guirgis to Shanley (see Romantic Poetry) or to insinuate that Guirgis' work cannot stand without the "searing sunlight" of Mr. Hoffman, than one has to question your agenda in your post.
In response to Kevin Whitlock's comment. WOW. How come my comments on "Face Cream" were censored with no warning and deemed too personal, and this comment wasn't?
ReplyDeleteI want to stress that I don't think Kevin's comment SHOULD be censored, at all!! But to those of you who read my comment before pulling it off-line, this REALLY proves my point.
"Wow, the hysteria of Stephen Adley's audience is a marvel, but it became annoying and difficult to experience the reading...it's evident the emperor's really not wearing any cloths."
To whoever censored my (I thought) constructive post about "Face Cream", please compare and contrast it to this, and please lay out some guidelines for audience members so that we can write appropriately constructive comments on the blog.
There's actually a fairly thick line between protecting a playwright from personal attack and protecting her from any criticism at all. You should sketch out that line with some guidelines for this process.
my 2 cents plain...which used to describe a fountain seltzer, if memory serves.
ReplyDeletes.a.g. is trying to bend theater around the working language--a/k/a slang--and not speaking to the ages, except as a time capsule, which ain't so bad neither. this is not "the way we were" but sure is the way we ARE. any refs to the grecian muses is waycool, but not germaine when you're painting a train.
funny? yeh, ubetcha. thoughtful? mebbenotmuch. disturbing? well, if you know anything about 12-step programs, the characters were not only believable, but awful. especially in light of his last one, "our lady of something-or-other", you know, about the mother in the hospital up in the bronx? (don't get me wrong, just 'cause the name ain't on my lips don't mean i didn't recognize half the cast from this one in that one.) i think steve likes his characters fresh outta rehab because that's when they are the most vulnerable, like they just lost a layer of skin or shed that lobster armor.
me? I got zip to carp about; got me away from the remote for an evening and a chance to hear the modern tongue as if it were being used for more than the inarticulate mumbles of thugs’n’ho’s trying to get some butter.