Although the play itself was entertaining, I found it confusing, because I knew nothing about Maria Callas. Before I reached the end of the play, I could make almost no sense of her long, emotional flashback narratives. I plan to do research on the woman and reread the play, and I advise others to do so as well. As a singer I appreciated the depiction of Maria Callas and her students as artists who want to have something special that other artists can envy and strive for. Every artist experiences the wish to be different from those who possess the same dreams, and this play shows that truth. The sarcastic dialogue etches for the reader a distinct picture of Maria's character in the play. (Whether or not it is accurate to her true personality, I cannot tell.) I appreciate this play for its accurate portrayal of the struggling artist, but I am sure I will appreciate it more after I have done my homework on Maria Callas.

When Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington listen to Maria Callas sing "La Mamma Morta" in the film "Philadelphia," I am sure most viewers did recognized neither the aria nor the diva. If the name of Maria Callas is mentioned it is as likely because she was Aristotle Onassis' mistress as it is that she was one of the world's greatest opera singers. In 1971 Callas returned to the stage to teach master classes at Julliard, which were transcribed and collected into a book edited by John Ardoin. A quarter century later Terrence McNally was inspired by those lectures to write his play, Master Class," which may do as much as anything to restore Callas to her rightful spot in the history of opera as anything since her death.

McNally's great conceit in this play is to make the theater audience the members of the master class. The house lights never go completely down during the course of the play, allowing Callas to lecture (harangue) the audience along with her master students who she puts through the wringer, usually reducing them to tears. The play uses an accompanist, two sopranos and a tenor to play and sing the music, while Callas comments on both the meaning of the texts and their performances. When she performed on stage the key description of Callas was that she was "dramatic" as a singer. In this play McNally tries to make it clear why this is true, for even if the diva can no longer sing, she retains her total understanding of each piece under discussion.

Because Callas is talking about music in general and various arias in particular, there is certainly a missing dimension to this script. I am serious when I say it would be nice if there was an audio tape of the arias that you could play while Callas talks about them (e.g., Verdi's "Macbeth"). Unfortunately, I am ashamed to admit my opera collection is inadequate to the task of putting together my own tape. But it is certainly fun to listen to those particular works as they are discussed. Not as good as actually seeing this play in performance, but that is unlikely to happen since it requires not only someone with the commanding presence of Zoe Caldwell but several singers like Audra McDonald. This is a fascinating portrait of a person who was as dynamic a personality as she was a performer. As much as I enjoyed reading this play, I have to lament the fact that reading it deprives me of the musical dimension that is at the heart of "Master Class." If you enjoy opera, musical theater or the creative process of the performing arts, this is a wonderful play for you to read.

I have played violin since age 4 hence especially enjoyed Maria's passion for music. Her eccentricities with the students and her theatrical manner are traits with which practically anyone in the music business is destined to encounter in his or her career. Also, the significance of Maria, Ari, and Ms. Kennedy-Onassis (only briefly referred to) adds another interesting element to the play.

this book has virtually no plot and i wouldn't recomend it to anyone. it has to much sex and to much talk. it doesn't give much detail about the outward apperances and all i had to rely on was the pictures in the middle of the book

This is one amazing play! A two-man play, Frankie and Johnny in the Clair de Lune exceeds all expectations. The play is about a woman, Frankie, and a man, Johnny. They work together in a restaurant. She's a waitress, he's a cook. They meet but don't connect. The beginning of the play finds them in Frankie's apartment after making love on the night of their first date. Throughout the two-act play, the star-crossed lovers are faced with trying to salvage something that ought to last, and not self-destruct.

This is not a book in the sense of a novel, it is a play. That is why there is so much "talking", or dialogue. I have studied this play intensively and it is so rich of true human emotion. The characters aren't glamorous. Their opposite personalities and views of love and romance turn "the last of the red-hot lovers" into the most unlikely couple. Still, you want the best for both of them. I love this play and consider it one of McNally's best.

I first saw this piece done in a community theatre workshop and loved it. To span an entire character's life and still be witty and not preachy is a tough assignment but Elaine May has done it here. As a word of warning, I would not suggest any novice actors try this piece as it requires only four actors to play NUMEROUS roles.

An interesting play. Three acts, one by each author. All take place in one day, on the same beach. Same three actors in each scene, but different characters. The first scene is dramatic, but slightly confusing. The second is light and humorous. The third, by Terrence McNally, is quite good - very poigniant. In all, a good play - I'd be interested to see it performed.

This is one of the most blasphemous pieces of [work] on the market. I heard about this play, and decided that I'd read the reviews to see what all the fuss was about. Now I know. This is totally sick, and SHAME ON THE PEOPLE INVOLVED. Terrance McNalley has brought NOTHING worthwhile to the literary world. You know, if you want to attack someone's Lord and Savior, why oh WHY does it always have to be Jesus? There are many others out there to choose from. Pick on one of them. Blaspheme on one of them. Please. Its ridiculous.

First thing, Jesus was not a sinner like all of us, thus he was not a homosexual. He was certainly a bastard, fatherless most his life, and "the government was on his shoulders". Anyone could rewrite the story of the messiah without making him a homosexual, there are plenty of things you could jump on to make him hated by society. You say he preaches a message of love and tolerance, I would disagree that Jesus taught such a message. Love certainly, but tolerance, I disagree. 'Anyone who causes another to sin is the least in the kingdom of heaven.' Would a tolerant man yell "You brood of vipers!" at the most respected citizens of the time? Tolerance is failure to put your own friendship on the line to prevent someone else from harm, and homosexuality is sin, and sin kills, plain and simple truth. Love and hate aren't opposites, the word used in the Bible for "love" is agape, which is selfless, sacrificial love. Failure to sacrifice your relationships with people to attempt to prevent them from sinning is complete selfishness, and thus the opposite of love. To say Jesus preached a message of Love and Tolerance is just like saying he preaches a message of selflessness and selfishness, which is hipocrsy, the exact thing you are are trying to fight! Don't get me wrong, we should all love one another regardless, but we don't need to tolerate other's sin.

Sorry felt obligated to correct the error! ...

Terrence McNally is an extremely gifted writer. I have seen two of his shows on Broadway this year. He has the ability to see past the minor issues of daily life and to examine the big picture of human existence.

In Corpus Christi he re-writes the passion of Christ from his own perspective. This perspective is that of a gay man growing up in 1950's Texas. There has been much controversy surrounding this play and the Manhattan Theatre Club's production of it. McNally has been vilified by much of the Christian right and many have even gone so far as to ban the production.

On its face however the story basically tracts and updates the biblical version of the Passion. The message of the play is that all men must love one another and we must continue to struggle to make the world a better place no matter what one's individual beliefs happen to be.

If one takes the time to step away from the controversy and to actually read the words what unfolds is a very moving and deeply Christian worldview. If we don't look closely at past events and hide our heads in the sand concerning the problems of society we have a tendency to repeat the mistakes of the past. This is perhaps the greatest sin.