Did Critics Fall in Love with the Revival of Barefoot in the Park?
Here is a sampling of what they had to say:
Rob Kendt in his Broadway.com Review: "This roommate saga has better chemistry than that odd Couple. While it's very hard to imagine this marriage proceeding very smoothly past the final curtain, Peet and Wilson do come off as exactly the sort of pair that would end up-or at least start out, and maybe keep coming back-together. Wilson's strapping, babyfaced Paul has enough cocky virility to explain his attraction to and for a volatile wildcat like Corie, even as he's edging into a recognizably cranky, baiting exasperation that will only make her wobble and worry all the more. And both performers have the crucial capacity to seem both genuinely riled and amused by the other… There's a whole other play, a delicious side dish, simmering between Roberts and Clayburgh. Both actors have gracious, unpushy comic timing, which makes them seem positively courtly, and in their own way much sexier than the randy youngsters."
Ben Brantley of The New York Times: "For a work that celebrates the liberating force of spontaneity, this version doesn't have one scene that feels organic, let alone impromptu. The quip-packed dialogue that is Mr. Simon's signature registers here with the animation and full-bodiedness of projected supertitles. As the current Broadway revival of The Odd Couple indicates, early Neil Simon retains its original freshness about as well as sushi. But as miscast and uneasy as this season's Odd Couple is, it at least has the momentum that comes from honoring the Ping-Pong rhythms of bouncing zingers. Barefoot progresses with the stiff-legged, robotic gait of Boris Karloff as the Mummy."
Clive Barnes of The New York Post: "It's unlikely ever to become an American classic, but it remains entertaining enough. Filling the shoes first filled by Mike Nichols, Elliott has staged it with much the same manic energy and telling nuance he brought to Mike Leigh's Abigail's Party earlier in the season… Peet certainly has the right ditsy manner, which she plays on like a harpsichord, but also a spunky brightness that suggests a character that won't make her mannerisms her profession. Wilson, on the other hand, is so downbeat as the bright, bushy-tailed young lawyer that even when he becomes upbeat, you wonder how the pair even met, let alone married."
Howard Kissel of The New York Daily News: "Unlike The Odd Couple, with its simple premise about two men trying to live together, the plot in Barefoot feels forced. Its manufactured crises might work as pretexts for sitcom episodes, but they don't seem plausible as part of a play. Moreover, Scott Elliott's staging invariably seems strained… Peet is especially guilty of overdoing everything. As her pushy mother, Clayburgh works overtime, but she at least gets laughs. If her role had been better cast, the laughs would have come more easily. Wilson never seems fully comfortable."
Michael Kuchwara of The Associated Press: "There here has to be some specific reason for resurrecting this kind of entertainment--and none is discernible in director Scott Elliott's bland version of what was Simon's first megahit. This revival features Amanda Peet and Patrick Wilson, two performers who are agreeable if not exactly star-wattage material. Peet pouts prettily and there is some humor in Wilson's attempts at excessive orderliness. Plus the twosome spar quite cutely, battling all over Derek McLane's expansive skylit setting that could only be considered a 'small' apartment in the fairy-tale world of theater. More interesting is Jill Clayburgh, who manages to mine all the laughs out of Mrs. Banks...These days on Broadway, Barefoot in the Park qualifies as a curiosity, despite the story's familiarity, primarily through the 1967 movie version which starred Redford and Jane Fonda. And it's a curiosity that won't be satisfied by this mild, so-so revival."
Elysa Gardner of USA Today: "Director Scott Elliott and his starry, supple cast try admirably, but they can't quite breathe life into a period piece that must have struck some people as dated even four decades ago. One feels especially for the lovely and talented Amanda Peet. Like Elizabeth Ashley and Jane Fonda, who respectively introduced Corie on stage and screen, Peet has proved her mettle playing more sophisticated and substantial women. But having come of age in a time when gals like Corie no longer roamed the earth--or at least the Upper West Side--the younger actress seems to have no reference point for this needy, nattering baby doll who can't understand why her lawyer spouse would have to work the night before his first court appearance."
Linda Winer of Newsday: "Elliott admirably resists all easy parody of the era--really more of a post-'50s transition than the rebellious years known as the '60s. The director, best known as a specialist in such edgy working-class dramas as the recent ruthless revival of Hurlyburly, works hard to find details that shade and deepen characters within the limitations of the form. Peet has a gorgeous, goofy ebullience as the bride… [Wilson] has an endearing, square-jawed, Dagwood Bumstead haplessness as the new husband and fledgling lawyer. Playwright Simon cannily reveals the man's less attractive neatnik compulsions at the same time they begin to irritate his free-spirited bride."