why write jut one play when you are talented enough write a trilogy? (the third part)

CB and I finally saw the third installment of The Norman Conquests. I laughed so hard my face hurt. Three well-written, well-acted plays, all linked together, yet separate. It’s quite an achievement. We did it ass-backwards, seeing the plays in 3-2-1 order. Oddly enough, we both agree that it was a better sequence than the recommended 1-2-3.

On Saturdays and select Sundays you can see all three plays in one day for a special low price. I have no idea how the actors are able to perform at peak levels for seven hours—especially the lead—but word on the street is that they pull it off quite well. I’m not sure I would undertake it. I eventually burn out on laughing.

A few of the actors were nominated for Tonys and the play won for best revival. It deserved it. The show is doing okay business but not as well as it should. The house is running at about 87% of capacity. The problem is that it’s marketed as a trilogy and most people don’t want to invest the time and money into seeing ONE play much less THREE! The producers should make it clear that it’s not necessary to take in all three plays. You can have a perfectly fine evening seeing just one. Besides, only a lunatic, theater-obsessed New Yorker would sentence themselves to spending seven hours with a demented British family. Right, CB?