BK, I personally had a very fine time at Title of Show, and we found its insights powerful and disturbing, just wonder aloud where the universality is. Sorry if my late/early-morning post gave the wrong impression. And nothing about it doesn't feel like it belongs on Broadway in terms of physical size of the show. My issue with the show is that these two main characters - as written - just WANT to be writers and have success, they don't seem to have NEED to be an artist, no special need to communicate; that NEED to be an artist seems to have been written into one of the supporting ladies, and it's very effective there.
Here's my complete post from All That Chat:
"Up late, can't get TITLE OF SHOW's disturbing themes out of my head - SPOILERS, esp. re production values
Posted by: BklynBoy 03:04 am EDT 07/09/08
In reply to: re: By chance... - shoebusiness 12:51 am EDT 07/09/08
shoebusiness, i always enjoy reading your thoughts on just about everything - but maybe because I'm seeing the show for the first time, I'm still ruminating over the experience of having seen TITLE OF SHOW tonight. I suspect most struggling theater writers will find it hilarious, insightful and disturbing; I have no idea how people who have no interest in or fascination/desire about actually being in the world of theatre will relate to it.
My feeling was that Bell and Bowen and thus their characters would have lovely careers as performers even if they couldn't write, and somehow the lack of survival-urgency of their particular need to write made it a strong want rather than a real need, and for me it became a very funny, thought-provoking journey, a Noel Coward play for slackers I felt, but (despite the greatness of Heidi Blickenstaff's performance) Susan Blackwell's journey became the one I FELT most strongly about, since her character needed to get away from what she was doing with her life, or at least that was the impression I got.
Meanwhile, the much-minimized-by-some production values seemed to me to be no less elaborate than many other shows for which I've paid close to $100 a ticket, and I suspect that whatever the "official" ticket price is, very few people are paying anywhere near that. The producers must label the ticket $110 to get $47.50; one of the things producers must deal with in the 2000's. But the physical set is even more elaborate than that for Spring Awakening, Xanadu or A Chorus Line, let alone Equus and other plays, as far as this scenically-untrained eye can see. Here's the spoiler: Making the whole set fly up like that and then the faux stuff that descends didn't seem cheap at all, and it helped make the whole scenic design extremely satisfying for this first-time attendee at the show, and took away any sense that this was a cheap show."
