I was very impressed with the acting. It was neat that there were famous people – Amanda Peet and David Duchovny, but I thought the two supporting actors were phenomenal. I had no idea that the women who played the talk show host (which I think was one of the best scenes acted out – she was incredible portraying a TV host) was also the prostitute a couple of scenes later. Her ability to play the two roles showed her talent; and I think she outshone Duchovny. The whole play was well done because they kept it exciting and dramatic throughout. The use of music/sound and lighting was very effective and helped keep the audience’s attention. The ending, when John Smith told the whole truth (or was it more of a lie??) about what happened in the office, was a surprise, which I enjoyed. It was also interesting to think about what he said – “that people should just be good.” I wonder if he was just putting on a show and just hypocritically preaching that people should be “good” yet still going out and continuing to do the bad things he had done his whole life. It is easy for anyone to say that they have changed their ways…we have all done it, and said that we will be better in the future. However, to actually go out and put those words into action is difficult and does not happen over night…and very often does not happen at all. It takes a strong will to say it and actually follow through by doing it.
This play was definitely weird, I have to say. I think that the play itself was not violent, like physically. It was more of emotional and verbal violence. But I think that that was the whole purpose of the play; to be violent enough to bring about reactions from the crowd. The lighting, the words, the way the stage was set up, the scenes. I was all about making people feel a little uncomfortable with what was happening. There were many reviews that were criticizing it, and it might be because John was a little bit of an extremist. I was really into it no matter how weird it got. But I think it was because the it was something that not everyone is accustomed to. Then again, if you have seen the X-Files and Californication, the play itself was not that weird.
The John character was trying to change so badly, but he is constantly failing… I think he was being hypocritical in a way, because he was claiming to be something he was not. And this is something that he was struggling with the whole time. He was trying to tell the truth, but he just kept on lying about everything…having changed, etc. The whole experience itself, in my opinion, was real, but he began to change the real story so much, that by the end, his story was not entirely credible… and maybe it was all about the theatrics as Renisha said in class.
And maybe that’s the reason I liked the play… it was weird and very contradicting.
This play was something I was totally not expecting. Seeing as how the opera wasn’t much to my liking, I had pegged this event to be just as uneventful. But I was clearly proven wrong. From the beginning, the lights, the sound, overwhelmed me. And to start it off, there was a loud boom and the sudden appearance of blinding lights. I literally jumped in my seat when I saw that, but for some reason, the abrupt opening gained my interest. Slowly, as the play progressed, I liked it more and more. The acting, the stage set-up, the music, the lights. all these features pulled together to create quite an awesome show. It was something I had never seen before. It was indeed very unique. I may just go back… 😀
Break of Noon was great! First of all, there was David Duchovny! Growing up my siblings and I used to watch X-Files A LOT even though we barely understood English. Anyways, I was really excited to see an award-winning actor perform in stage. After the freezing weather outside, the auditorium felt really cozy and when that fire siren started playing, I was ready. I thought the play was going to be very dramatic and even though it was, there was enough humor to make me have a good laugh. Duchovny’s performance was amazing. The fact that he was on stage the entire time was crazy. Oh, and the costume change. Each time there was a change in scene, I counted how long it took for Duchovny to come back and it was always less than 25 seconds. Although I liked Duchhovny’s performance, I did not like his character, John Smith. Even though he kept saying “I am a different man” he didn’t show the change and his former self kept showing up every time he became angry. Character-wise, I enjoyed Janet, the talk show host. Her personality was hilarious and the actress who portrayed her spoke really fast to bring out Janet’s personality. Overall, this was my favorite MHC seminar event.
David Duchovni is the man. I saw him on David Letterman talking about the play, and he spoke about how he never rehearsed his lines. He is also featured on south park and his fictional depiction matches his real life persona. It was great sitting in the second row, Josh and I got to see the facial expressions that the actors were making (mostly trying not to crack up). It was a great last trip
Sitting down I truly did not know what to expect. From the description of the play it sounded as though it was going to be interesting and somewhat confusing. As the first scene began, a man covered in what was suppose to be blood , and a flash of a bright light , dimming right above him was what I saw. From the very instant in which he began speaking, I had the feeling that this was going to be a good play. I was not disappointed, and actually came out fairly surprised. The acting was wonderful- the reporter being one of my favorite characters. She truly made me laugh out loud. The characters acted very realistic, and they did do in spite of dealing with such a difficult topic, often what seems to be the “mysterious” and “unspoken” of. Even more so, I truly enjoyed how there were never any direct answers- it was up to you to experience what was happening and try to reach your own conclusion. I loved the ending, the elevation was unexpected. Overall , I found it amazing how so many emotions- anger, fear, confusion, sadness, desire- how all of these human qualities were somehow embedded to the story line. It created this story, a story that didn’t force itself to be a story. I gave the play 4 out of 5 stars. I left the night with a smile on my face, and many questions on my mind.
This play was….provocative, as it was intended to be. Through the language and acting, sometimes I felt as though the actors were presenting a caricature of the ideas they represented. Many scenes felt like satires while others seemed to be the playwright honesty approaching a sensitive subject we baffle with. For instance, the scene between the main character, John Smith, and the prostitute GiGi as well as the final scene seemed overdone and satirical. The former-sinner-now-evangelist levitates. Mid-oral sex he saves a sinner.But scenes like those between the police detective and John Smith really confronted issues people have with religion and “God.” In many scenes, I did not feel the sincerity of the main character. I didn’t believe his transformation. It don’t know if this was the work of the actor or how the playwright intended it.
I felt as though the production was excellent, including the set design, set changes, lighting design, etc. They were concise and aided in the play.
Overall, it was provocative and made us all think. As it was intended.
An odd, but very interesting play….
Violence, religion, relationships. But all throughout, there was an irony that highlighted both sides of the issues being discussed. Really good actors. I loved the humor. Especially in the scenes with the talk show host and the prostitute. I liked the plot, although I did leave the theater with many questions.
The issue of religion that was brought up in the play seems very contemporary. Although we live in a society in which religion has mostly faded away during the past decades, there’s also a part of this society that has strong beliefs… Publically talking about a religious experience is something that brings a lot of attention. People who do so are usually classified as extremely conservatives or as charlatans. There are many religious groups that have strong opinions, but once confronted with someone like John – who claims to have heard God’s voice and have been saved by him – these people doubt that such miracles happened. How can people with so much faith not believe that God saved John? Will they ever believe in any ‘miracles’?
Something that confused me a lot was why did John have so many different versions of what happened in that office. Did he forget about some of the details when talking to the police? Did he not want to tell them before? Or did he just make it up? Right after the play was over, I left the theater with a feeling that he did make up the story he told in the end.
Is John, is this random man, saved by God? Or is he a man who foresaw the kind of money using God’s name in the wake of such a terrible incident would bring?
In the beginning, it seems that he might truly believe that he’d been touched by God, but as time goes on, and the story grows grander, it seems that John Smith may be milking it for all it’s worth. He may be exploiting his incident, but one thing is never clear: whether he truly believes or not.
This isn’t something we’re told, either. I believe that whether or not John really believed wasn’t the point. It was about how something could twist and turn into something so grand. It was about Christianity, and every other religion, from the humble beginnings to something into exploit, into a spectacle, into… a savage hypocrisy.
No man is perfect… it could be that innocent intentions were corrupted by sudden fame. Or, perhaps, it was a plot to exploit. But the viewer will not know.
The play was actually interesting, considering the intensity of the plot. I like how there was humor embedded into the script, and also the sense of sarcasm. Also, the lighting and sound effects definitely added to the atmosphere of the play. On another note, the storyline of Break of Noon was really different- how many people can say that they were the only ones to survive a massive shooting, and then end up with a mission from God? The play certainly brought up the topic of religion, and reflected the debate of different views in America. I thought it was interesting that the writer of the play showed most Americans to show little or no belief in any gods, and how John Smith was scorned and ridiculed for believing in his mission. I myself am religious, and was slightly offended by the way the idea religion was carried out through the play. I wanted the audience to believe him, and that he wasn’t lying. However, the more times he retold his story, the more he changed it and the less I began to believe his story.
The play was weird. I didn’t really find a point. It was interesting but I thought you were supposed to come out of it moved and believing in God. I thought he was lying about is whole experience, that there was some conspiracy between Juan Diaz and John Smith. Also, who would think to take a picture at that precise moment? They never mentioned that Juan also died until the end. I think the whole barrel in the mouth story was a throw off. Why didn’t he just say that in the beginning, that would have probably gained him more believers. Him levitating at the end was a bit much. The yellow lights were blinding but I like when they were turned off and focused back on the character, it sounded like Law & Order. The way he said he played pranks on Juan with his co-workers while Diaz worked there were sick and very immature. It sounded like they were back in high school. For some who was supposedly saved by God, did curse so much and kept on saying Jesus Chris or Goddamn.
I expected this play to be boring and uneventful at first. I had no idea what to expect since I’ve never seen a Broadway play or a play about religion. However, I was very pleasantly surprised and intrigued considering the performance left me in awe at the end. I think props and lighting give off a very strong message to the audience and the play’s use of those utilities was amazing. I liked how the story started off in the middle, after the shooting was over, so a lot was left to our imagination. It was up to us to determine what really happened and what we believed in. Because of this we were more focused on the dialogue as well as the action. Overall I really really enjoyed watching the play and I thought the message of it was very ambiguous- in the end we were all left with the question of whether the man really saw God as he claimed or not. I thought he was making it up all along but many of my peers seemed to disagree. Whatever the message was, the play was entertaining nonetheless.
After seeing this play, I totally agree with Leandra that I did not really see a point in all of it, however I did enjoy the play. I found the story line interesting and at many times I found it to be very humorous which I love when it comes to watching plays. In terms of the story itself, I found it to be very all over the place in the sense that one minute I believed that the protagonist had seen God, and the next I was sure that he didn’t and then soon I would be back to my first thought. However I like how the author uses flashback, and I was very impressed with how fast the actors changed roles, and clothes, and how smooth the transition of scenes were throughout the play. For a small stage, they truly utilized every part of it. So the actors, dialogue, etc were at times confusing but all in all, they were funny, and it made one think while entertaining the audience so I enjoyed it.
I liked the play because it made me think about how I would go about talking to someone who believes so strongly in God. Even though he did make it all up there are people who actually do believe that God has saved them. I don’t believe in God for many different reasons, but someone like John believes in God so strongly just because of one reason. A reason that is hard to talk about because it’s either you accept what he says or you don’t. In his case he was saved and he choose to say or believe that it was God that saved him, but maybe to someone else it could have been luck or to someone else it could have meant that it wasn’t their time to die. The play brought up a really interesting point
Can I gush over David Duchovny first? Yes? Thanks.
Well, let’s talk about the location first. The theater itself. Could it be in a more fun place? Look at the shops nearby and the more faint-of-heart are sure to get eyefulls. I thought that was hilarious. The inside though was really nice, cozy without feeling overly small. It was like, we were honestly experiencing something all together, and I think the play was meant for that kind of feeling. The lights burned my retinas at first but I got used to them pretty quickly and then really thought about their significance. John Smith, man of God? Don’t know but they sure tried to imply that with the white lights and the angelic music during scene changes. And those changes were quick! The swivel set was really cool and the actors went into the scenes like clockwork. The red strobe light in the beginning though, for the emergency vehicles pulled me in from the start, even before Duchovny’s beginning scene. He was brilliant, the honest-possibly-conniving belief that John had his experience resonated throughout the whole thing up until the end. Amanda Peet was in it too and it looked like her but then it didn’t but goodness, she was great too. All the actors had double roles except or Duchovny and they were all so different from each other.
I honestly don’t want to think about whether or not John had really met God. His most honest retelling of that day seemed like the very first one, when he was telling the police the story initially. Maybe the play was about fame and misplaced priorities and self-help versus helping others instead of God. I don’t know. It was pretty awesome though, no doubt.
I suppose you could say this play was different from what I expected. I actually enjoyed it, even though I though I’ d never seen a play with this type of controversial subject matter. John seems to me like a hypocritical figure. Did I believe he saw God? I don’t know. Sometimes his story is believable, while other times it seems unlikely. The transitions between scenes definitely caught my attention. I felt as if it was trying to keep me awake (which it did) between scenes. Overall I liked the play and the whole atmosphere of the theater made it a relaxing experience.
The play was a surprising take for me, as I really didn’t know what to expect. The character John really switched his personality around from person to person, and all the while I couldn’t help but ask the whole time, “what was he really like beforehand? Amanda Peet was wonderful, and the acting was out of this world. Plays are never really a big part of my life but this one definitely took the cake!
I guess I interpreted the play very differently from my classmates. I went into the play expecting it to be about a man who truly believed God saved his life, and the rest was left to audience interpretation. When I watched the play, I believed John seized an opportunity to make money by lying about a divine intervention which saved his life.
I found several reasons to believe he didn’t truly believe God saved his life. He preyed on the weaknesses of everyone in his life to try to better his image to the public. He first saw his ex wife to try to look like he’s making things right in his life, but when she wanted nothing to do with him he moved on to her cousin, whom he had an affair with. He wanted them to come out about their infidelity to make things right in God’s eyes. But she pointed out to him that that would only better his image in the public’s eye, it would be terrible for her entire family. He didn’t care, of course, because his goal was to be a believable figure to the public, and his goal was to make money. When he saw he wasn’t able to convince her, he preyed on her insecurities by calling her needy, which triggered her to burst into tears and hold him. He feigned sympathy, but as he held her he moved his hands towards her butt. Everything he did was fake.
When he failed at getting both his ex wife and his ex lover on his side, he moved to one of the victim’s daughters, and preyed on her suffering to convince her to support his agenda. I thought it was very sad when she burst into tears and prayed with him, clinging to any hope she could that she could be forgiven for her chosen path in life as a prostitute.
He is truly a despicable character, to come out of a massacre alive and claim it’s because God chose him to live out of everyone. In the practical sense of the word, a “miracle” can be used to describe his unlikely survival, but to suggest that God saved him is insulting to all of those who died.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘1708575879 which is not a hashcash value.
Leave a Reply
Add Users
If you want to add yourself as a user, please log in, using your existing Macaulay Eportfolio account.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
I was very impressed with the acting. It was neat that there were famous people – Amanda Peet and David Duchovny, but I thought the two supporting actors were phenomenal. I had no idea that the women who played the talk show host (which I think was one of the best scenes acted out – she was incredible portraying a TV host) was also the prostitute a couple of scenes later. Her ability to play the two roles showed her talent; and I think she outshone Duchovny. The whole play was well done because they kept it exciting and dramatic throughout. The use of music/sound and lighting was very effective and helped keep the audience’s attention. The ending, when John Smith told the whole truth (or was it more of a lie??) about what happened in the office, was a surprise, which I enjoyed. It was also interesting to think about what he said – “that people should just be good.” I wonder if he was just putting on a show and just hypocritically preaching that people should be “good” yet still going out and continuing to do the bad things he had done his whole life. It is easy for anyone to say that they have changed their ways…we have all done it, and said that we will be better in the future. However, to actually go out and put those words into action is difficult and does not happen over night…and very often does not happen at all. It takes a strong will to say it and actually follow through by doing it.
This play was definitely weird, I have to say. I think that the play itself was not violent, like physically. It was more of emotional and verbal violence. But I think that that was the whole purpose of the play; to be violent enough to bring about reactions from the crowd. The lighting, the words, the way the stage was set up, the scenes. I was all about making people feel a little uncomfortable with what was happening. There were many reviews that were criticizing it, and it might be because John was a little bit of an extremist. I was really into it no matter how weird it got. But I think it was because the it was something that not everyone is accustomed to. Then again, if you have seen the X-Files and Californication, the play itself was not that weird.
The John character was trying to change so badly, but he is constantly failing… I think he was being hypocritical in a way, because he was claiming to be something he was not. And this is something that he was struggling with the whole time. He was trying to tell the truth, but he just kept on lying about everything…having changed, etc. The whole experience itself, in my opinion, was real, but he began to change the real story so much, that by the end, his story was not entirely credible… and maybe it was all about the theatrics as Renisha said in class.
And maybe that’s the reason I liked the play… it was weird and very contradicting.
This play was something I was totally not expecting. Seeing as how the opera wasn’t much to my liking, I had pegged this event to be just as uneventful. But I was clearly proven wrong. From the beginning, the lights, the sound, overwhelmed me. And to start it off, there was a loud boom and the sudden appearance of blinding lights. I literally jumped in my seat when I saw that, but for some reason, the abrupt opening gained my interest. Slowly, as the play progressed, I liked it more and more. The acting, the stage set-up, the music, the lights. all these features pulled together to create quite an awesome show. It was something I had never seen before. It was indeed very unique. I may just go back… 😀
Break of Noon was great! First of all, there was David Duchovny! Growing up my siblings and I used to watch X-Files A LOT even though we barely understood English. Anyways, I was really excited to see an award-winning actor perform in stage. After the freezing weather outside, the auditorium felt really cozy and when that fire siren started playing, I was ready. I thought the play was going to be very dramatic and even though it was, there was enough humor to make me have a good laugh. Duchovny’s performance was amazing. The fact that he was on stage the entire time was crazy. Oh, and the costume change. Each time there was a change in scene, I counted how long it took for Duchovny to come back and it was always less than 25 seconds. Although I liked Duchhovny’s performance, I did not like his character, John Smith. Even though he kept saying “I am a different man” he didn’t show the change and his former self kept showing up every time he became angry. Character-wise, I enjoyed Janet, the talk show host. Her personality was hilarious and the actress who portrayed her spoke really fast to bring out Janet’s personality. Overall, this was my favorite MHC seminar event.
David Duchovni is the man. I saw him on David Letterman talking about the play, and he spoke about how he never rehearsed his lines. He is also featured on south park and his fictional depiction matches his real life persona. It was great sitting in the second row, Josh and I got to see the facial expressions that the actors were making (mostly trying not to crack up). It was a great last trip
Sitting down I truly did not know what to expect. From the description of the play it sounded as though it was going to be interesting and somewhat confusing. As the first scene began, a man covered in what was suppose to be blood , and a flash of a bright light , dimming right above him was what I saw. From the very instant in which he began speaking, I had the feeling that this was going to be a good play. I was not disappointed, and actually came out fairly surprised. The acting was wonderful- the reporter being one of my favorite characters. She truly made me laugh out loud. The characters acted very realistic, and they did do in spite of dealing with such a difficult topic, often what seems to be the “mysterious” and “unspoken” of. Even more so, I truly enjoyed how there were never any direct answers- it was up to you to experience what was happening and try to reach your own conclusion. I loved the ending, the elevation was unexpected. Overall , I found it amazing how so many emotions- anger, fear, confusion, sadness, desire- how all of these human qualities were somehow embedded to the story line. It created this story, a story that didn’t force itself to be a story. I gave the play 4 out of 5 stars. I left the night with a smile on my face, and many questions on my mind.
This play was….provocative, as it was intended to be. Through the language and acting, sometimes I felt as though the actors were presenting a caricature of the ideas they represented. Many scenes felt like satires while others seemed to be the playwright honesty approaching a sensitive subject we baffle with. For instance, the scene between the main character, John Smith, and the prostitute GiGi as well as the final scene seemed overdone and satirical. The former-sinner-now-evangelist levitates. Mid-oral sex he saves a sinner.But scenes like those between the police detective and John Smith really confronted issues people have with religion and “God.” In many scenes, I did not feel the sincerity of the main character. I didn’t believe his transformation. It don’t know if this was the work of the actor or how the playwright intended it.
I felt as though the production was excellent, including the set design, set changes, lighting design, etc. They were concise and aided in the play.
Overall, it was provocative and made us all think. As it was intended.
An odd, but very interesting play….
Violence, religion, relationships. But all throughout, there was an irony that highlighted both sides of the issues being discussed. Really good actors. I loved the humor. Especially in the scenes with the talk show host and the prostitute. I liked the plot, although I did leave the theater with many questions.
The issue of religion that was brought up in the play seems very contemporary. Although we live in a society in which religion has mostly faded away during the past decades, there’s also a part of this society that has strong beliefs… Publically talking about a religious experience is something that brings a lot of attention. People who do so are usually classified as extremely conservatives or as charlatans. There are many religious groups that have strong opinions, but once confronted with someone like John – who claims to have heard God’s voice and have been saved by him – these people doubt that such miracles happened. How can people with so much faith not believe that God saved John? Will they ever believe in any ‘miracles’?
Something that confused me a lot was why did John have so many different versions of what happened in that office. Did he forget about some of the details when talking to the police? Did he not want to tell them before? Or did he just make it up? Right after the play was over, I left the theater with a feeling that he did make up the story he told in the end.
Is John, is this random man, saved by God? Or is he a man who foresaw the kind of money using God’s name in the wake of such a terrible incident would bring?
In the beginning, it seems that he might truly believe that he’d been touched by God, but as time goes on, and the story grows grander, it seems that John Smith may be milking it for all it’s worth. He may be exploiting his incident, but one thing is never clear: whether he truly believes or not.
This isn’t something we’re told, either. I believe that whether or not John really believed wasn’t the point. It was about how something could twist and turn into something so grand. It was about Christianity, and every other religion, from the humble beginnings to something into exploit, into a spectacle, into… a savage hypocrisy.
No man is perfect… it could be that innocent intentions were corrupted by sudden fame. Or, perhaps, it was a plot to exploit. But the viewer will not know.
The play was actually interesting, considering the intensity of the plot. I like how there was humor embedded into the script, and also the sense of sarcasm. Also, the lighting and sound effects definitely added to the atmosphere of the play. On another note, the storyline of Break of Noon was really different- how many people can say that they were the only ones to survive a massive shooting, and then end up with a mission from God? The play certainly brought up the topic of religion, and reflected the debate of different views in America. I thought it was interesting that the writer of the play showed most Americans to show little or no belief in any gods, and how John Smith was scorned and ridiculed for believing in his mission. I myself am religious, and was slightly offended by the way the idea religion was carried out through the play. I wanted the audience to believe him, and that he wasn’t lying. However, the more times he retold his story, the more he changed it and the less I began to believe his story.
The play was weird. I didn’t really find a point. It was interesting but I thought you were supposed to come out of it moved and believing in God. I thought he was lying about is whole experience, that there was some conspiracy between Juan Diaz and John Smith. Also, who would think to take a picture at that precise moment? They never mentioned that Juan also died until the end. I think the whole barrel in the mouth story was a throw off. Why didn’t he just say that in the beginning, that would have probably gained him more believers. Him levitating at the end was a bit much. The yellow lights were blinding but I like when they were turned off and focused back on the character, it sounded like Law & Order. The way he said he played pranks on Juan with his co-workers while Diaz worked there were sick and very immature. It sounded like they were back in high school. For some who was supposedly saved by God, did curse so much and kept on saying Jesus Chris or Goddamn.
I expected this play to be boring and uneventful at first. I had no idea what to expect since I’ve never seen a Broadway play or a play about religion. However, I was very pleasantly surprised and intrigued considering the performance left me in awe at the end. I think props and lighting give off a very strong message to the audience and the play’s use of those utilities was amazing. I liked how the story started off in the middle, after the shooting was over, so a lot was left to our imagination. It was up to us to determine what really happened and what we believed in. Because of this we were more focused on the dialogue as well as the action. Overall I really really enjoyed watching the play and I thought the message of it was very ambiguous- in the end we were all left with the question of whether the man really saw God as he claimed or not. I thought he was making it up all along but many of my peers seemed to disagree. Whatever the message was, the play was entertaining nonetheless.
After seeing this play, I totally agree with Leandra that I did not really see a point in all of it, however I did enjoy the play. I found the story line interesting and at many times I found it to be very humorous which I love when it comes to watching plays. In terms of the story itself, I found it to be very all over the place in the sense that one minute I believed that the protagonist had seen God, and the next I was sure that he didn’t and then soon I would be back to my first thought. However I like how the author uses flashback, and I was very impressed with how fast the actors changed roles, and clothes, and how smooth the transition of scenes were throughout the play. For a small stage, they truly utilized every part of it. So the actors, dialogue, etc were at times confusing but all in all, they were funny, and it made one think while entertaining the audience so I enjoyed it.
I liked the play because it made me think about how I would go about talking to someone who believes so strongly in God. Even though he did make it all up there are people who actually do believe that God has saved them. I don’t believe in God for many different reasons, but someone like John believes in God so strongly just because of one reason. A reason that is hard to talk about because it’s either you accept what he says or you don’t. In his case he was saved and he choose to say or believe that it was God that saved him, but maybe to someone else it could have been luck or to someone else it could have meant that it wasn’t their time to die. The play brought up a really interesting point
Can I gush over David Duchovny first? Yes? Thanks.
Well, let’s talk about the location first. The theater itself. Could it be in a more fun place? Look at the shops nearby and the more faint-of-heart are sure to get eyefulls. I thought that was hilarious. The inside though was really nice, cozy without feeling overly small. It was like, we were honestly experiencing something all together, and I think the play was meant for that kind of feeling. The lights burned my retinas at first but I got used to them pretty quickly and then really thought about their significance. John Smith, man of God? Don’t know but they sure tried to imply that with the white lights and the angelic music during scene changes. And those changes were quick! The swivel set was really cool and the actors went into the scenes like clockwork. The red strobe light in the beginning though, for the emergency vehicles pulled me in from the start, even before Duchovny’s beginning scene. He was brilliant, the honest-possibly-conniving belief that John had his experience resonated throughout the whole thing up until the end. Amanda Peet was in it too and it looked like her but then it didn’t but goodness, she was great too. All the actors had double roles except or Duchovny and they were all so different from each other.
I honestly don’t want to think about whether or not John had really met God. His most honest retelling of that day seemed like the very first one, when he was telling the police the story initially. Maybe the play was about fame and misplaced priorities and self-help versus helping others instead of God. I don’t know. It was pretty awesome though, no doubt.
I suppose you could say this play was different from what I expected. I actually enjoyed it, even though I though I’ d never seen a play with this type of controversial subject matter. John seems to me like a hypocritical figure. Did I believe he saw God? I don’t know. Sometimes his story is believable, while other times it seems unlikely. The transitions between scenes definitely caught my attention. I felt as if it was trying to keep me awake (which it did) between scenes. Overall I liked the play and the whole atmosphere of the theater made it a relaxing experience.
The play was a surprising take for me, as I really didn’t know what to expect. The character John really switched his personality around from person to person, and all the while I couldn’t help but ask the whole time, “what was he really like beforehand? Amanda Peet was wonderful, and the acting was out of this world. Plays are never really a big part of my life but this one definitely took the cake!
I guess I interpreted the play very differently from my classmates. I went into the play expecting it to be about a man who truly believed God saved his life, and the rest was left to audience interpretation. When I watched the play, I believed John seized an opportunity to make money by lying about a divine intervention which saved his life.
I found several reasons to believe he didn’t truly believe God saved his life. He preyed on the weaknesses of everyone in his life to try to better his image to the public. He first saw his ex wife to try to look like he’s making things right in his life, but when she wanted nothing to do with him he moved on to her cousin, whom he had an affair with. He wanted them to come out about their infidelity to make things right in God’s eyes. But she pointed out to him that that would only better his image in the public’s eye, it would be terrible for her entire family. He didn’t care, of course, because his goal was to be a believable figure to the public, and his goal was to make money. When he saw he wasn’t able to convince her, he preyed on her insecurities by calling her needy, which triggered her to burst into tears and hold him. He feigned sympathy, but as he held her he moved his hands towards her butt. Everything he did was fake.
When he failed at getting both his ex wife and his ex lover on his side, he moved to one of the victim’s daughters, and preyed on her suffering to convince her to support his agenda. I thought it was very sad when she burst into tears and prayed with him, clinging to any hope she could that she could be forgiven for her chosen path in life as a prostitute.
He is truly a despicable character, to come out of a massacre alive and claim it’s because God chose him to live out of everyone. In the practical sense of the word, a “miracle” can be used to describe his unlikely survival, but to suggest that God saved him is insulting to all of those who died.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘1708575879 which is not a hashcash value.