[MaxCady]

Does anyone know what the above play is like? Is it a good AM play? Ive never heard of it

[Mikey]

Does anyone know what the above play is like? Is it a good AM play? Ive never heard of it

First produced in 1944, this was Arthur Miller's first play; it ran for only 4 performances although "already addressing the major themes of Miller's later work". It was revived in New York in 2002 and was described then as "a well-crafted and compelling work to which attention must be paid". Now is your chance to see how America's greatest playwright began.

[Jan Brock]

First produced in 1944, this was Arthur Miller's first play; it ran for only 4 performances although "already addressing the major themes of Miller's later work". It was revived in New York in 2002 and was described then as "a well-crafted and compelling work to which attention must be paid". Now is your chance to see how America's greatest playwright began.

I have seen a production of it. I agree with the description above.

[Lynette]

'to which attention must be paid' - ha , how cute. But is it good or crummy? The play the Old Vic tried to give us - I say tried because it was , so terrible - was his last play. Maybe you should chop off the first and last?

[Jan Brock]

'to which attention must be paid' - ha , how cute. But is it good or crummy? The play the Old Vic tried to give us - I say tried because it was , so terrible - was his last play. Maybe you should chop off the first and last?

I agreed with this comment: "a well-crafted and compelling work to which attention must be paid". It is a little old-fashoned but entertaining - about as good as "The Price" which gets a run now and again. His "unknown" early plays are better than his "unknown" late ones.

[El Peter]

I'm going to see it with a friend and am looking forward to it. I like new plays but this last year or two I have enjoyed revivals of early or not often shown good work by proven writers.

[El Peter]

It is amazing that this play when first staged in the US ran for just a handful of performances. It could be that the novel of the same name, also by Arthur Miller, put people off with its ending, even though this play coming after the novel had a different ending and, I believe, other changes to the novel-version of the story. Anyway, it is another example of something really rather special in music or theatre or painting that fails dismally at first but is revealed in time to be worth very much more attention.

This play is about to open at the Donmar, London, touring in a few weeks to the Lowry, Salford, the Liverpool Playhouse and finally Cornwall, and is worth catching. Set in the 1930s US Mid-West, it concerns a young man who has a charmed life when faced with obstacles and who is aware of his luck especially when set beside all those other people he knows who suffer setbacks. If they wonder why they suffer such personal reverses and are alarmed at their experiences, what causes him increasing concern is what it is that can be making his life so relatively straightforward. What, if anything, is behind all this; what can it mean?

Here you see the playwright showing a talent to write, create interesting characters, and pose the kind of questions, that in time would make his plays something to look out for. It's an early work, for sure, but a good one and fizzing with potential, and not to be classed alongside the much later, very last, not so impressive plays of a very elderly writer. The ensemble does the play justice and must be in line for nominations at least when the time comes for awarding prizes for plays in 2008.

[Laughingmonsta]

I Have tickets for this at the lowry - pm me if your interested (they are free)

[El Peter]

For anyone interested in seeing the play and wanting some guidance, reviews are in today's newspapers. It's in the main section (page 5) of today's 'Independent', away from all the other reviews in its Extra supplement, though reviewer Paul Taylor despite some praise for it isn't that taken with it either. In today's 'Guardian', Michael Billington gives it four stars out of a possible five.

[foxa]

I saw it last week in previews and liked it. Oddly for the Donmar, it might have been slightly undercast, but the play was fascinating. Miller later called it the opposite the Book of Job, but the man's good luck is equally a plague. The reversals really surprised me, one scene, with the baseball agent ,was fantastic - an object lesson in how to play a relatively small role well. But the text is the star and we were talking about it for a couple of days after. I was engaged and interested throughout. I would give it four stars out of five.