I could go on for hours, but in the end only one thing matters: we were blown away and absolutely loved it.

He says that Some scenes feel slow, others rushed. The pacing is designed to contrast the hyper-controlled public performances (the tournament, media events) with the chaotic private realities of the characters.

Their fractured emotional journeys are not flaws but reflections of the show’s themes: propaganda, surveillance, power struggles, and the loss of personal agency. He’s watching for classical emotional storytelling, while the director is deliberately presenting something more Brechtian and distanced.

He says: Character motivations blur, and major emotional arcs don’t feel earned.
Again, this is part of the dramaturgical strategy. The production highlights how characters are pulled and manipulated by systems larger than themselves.

What he calls “messy,” I see as a deliberate aesthetic: the world of Chess is not clean or linear, and the direction embraces that ambiguity rather than smoothing it out.

I believe he misunderstands the director’s dramaturgical approach. The fragmentation, shifting focus, and stylized transitions are intentional — they reflect the political complexity, the psychological instability of the characters, and the tension between spectacle and personal stakes.

As a lifelong chess fan, seeing so many productions worldwide i can say, and I am speaking on behalf of lots of friends, the new Broadway production is the best ever. The book has many layers. Mickey Jo clearly missed those. I am not impressed by his review 1/3

Mooi hoe ze in een klein zinnetje Henk Kamp parkeert. Die hield daarna wijselijk zijn mond. Mijn stem heeft ze de volgende keer.

Did you like it?

You get used to it! 😂

Blij dat je dit eens aan de kaak stelt. Raymond ‘nuance’ Mens moet misschien een wat minder nuanceren. Soms is slecht gewoon slecht.

That’s funny I am watching it now.