Internet,

We’re back in New York, the baby is still asleep, so I’m writing this review. Good moooooorning!

Last night, I saw the recent Broadway revival of Glengarry Glen Ross. This is one of the star-cast shows of the season that’s been getting a lot of buzz for being over-priced and exploitative. It also got mediocre reviews, so it wasn’t on the top of my hit-list. However, thanks to the wonder of the THEATR app, we got last-minute heavily discounted (but still great) seats. Thank you, theatre gods.

Glengarry Glen Ross is a 1983 David Mamet play that’s revived every 10 years or so. The play is about four salespeople selling worthless real estate, and what they’re willing to do to get it done.

Going into this play, I’d heard a number of things about it:

1. It’s too expensive
2. I hate David Mamet, politics politics grr
3. Kieran Culkin is miscast
4. It’s kind of meh

On the topic of cost – yeah, I mean Kieran Culkin, Bob Odenkirk and Bill Burr together in a limited-run play is going to have high demand, but I don’t love these new Broadway prices (shocker). Putting aside equity issues, I’ll instead try to answer the question, “Is it worth it?” To be decided.

Re: Mamet. The general gist I get is that he’s too conservative for some theatre goers. On this note, I say: (1) Boycotting dissenting opinions will make you more narrow-minded, so don’t be a prick; (2) Glengarry Glen Ross dives into the morality of capitalism, and it doesn’t exactly paint a rosy picture, so I think you’d be judging the book by its cover if you assumed what Mamet’s views would be; (3) Telling other people they’re bad people if they enjoy a Mamet show is, again, a self-righteous, morality police, prick move.

Onto Oscar-winning (but Tony-ignored) Kieran Culkin. He was neurotic, quirky, a bit spastic and, well, Kieran-y. But I found him to also be charming, energetic and compelling. If the play demands a powerful, deliciously smooth salesperson a la Harold Hill, then no, Culkin isn’t delivering that performance. He comes across as crafty and desperate. I also saw a performance at the tail-end of his run, so maybe Culkin has gotten more comfortable in the role. And look, perhaps if I were more familiar with the play, I’d be disappointed in his performance, but Plebian me thought he was great.

It’s also worth noting that the rest of the cast was very strong (in particular, Bob Odenkirk), so you’re in good hands.

Onto the question: is it ‘meh’? The play is short and moves quickly, especially the second act (even with a stupidly long intermission, the production runs under 2 hours). The set is gorgeous. The acting is great. It’s funny. Here’s where I’m a bit thrown off: the play is called a ‘tragedy’, but I didn’t find it too tragic. The stakes weren’t high…I never felt that tension, that pull to learn forward in my seat. My response to the ending (not to give anything away) was in effect, “yeah, that sucks, but fair enough.”

All that is to say I still thoroughly enjoyed Glengarry Glen Ross. If I had paid $600 for my ticket, I likely would have only seen one play this trip, and I expect a lot from shelling out that kind of moolah. All I can say is that I didn’t spend $600, and I was incredibly satisfied.

Alright, the baby is starting to stir. I’ve got 3 more shows planned this trip – hopefully I’ll be able to tackle them all in later posts. Until next time.