If you were sitting in the Cort Theatre back in early 2015, you probably heard a sound that doesn't happen much on Broadway anymore. It wasn't just laughter. It was that specific, gasping kind of wheeze that happens when Larry David says something he definitely shouldn't have. Fish in the Dark wasn't just a play; it was a cultural anomaly that broke box office records before it even had a single review.
People expected a two-hour episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. Honestly, they mostly got it. But there is a weirdly specific history to this production that most casual fans completely miss, especially regarding how Larry actually felt about being on stage every night.
He hated the schedule. Well, "hate" might be a strong word, but Larry David famously told the New York Times that the eight-shows-a-week grind was basically a nightmare for his social life. You've got to realize that this is a man who values his downtime more than almost any other person in Hollywood. Suddenly, he was stuck in Midtown Manhattan, dealing with the logistics of a death in the family—the fictional one in the play, anyway.
The Plot That Felt Like a Seinfeld B-Side
The story is simple. Norman Drexel, played by David, deals with the death of his father. That sounds heavy. It isn't. It’s actually a chaotic exploration of the "shiva" culture, inheritance squabbles, and the sheer annoyance of having to be a "good son" when you'd rather be literally anywhere else.
Anna D. Shapiro directed it. She’s a powerhouse—the same person who did August: Osage County. You might think putting a high-brow director with the guy who wrote the "Contest" episode of Seinfeld would create friction. Instead, she let him lean into the neurosis. The cast was a murderer's row of talent, too. Rosie Perez, Rita Wilson, and Jayne Houdyshell were there to basically play the straight-man roles to Larry’s spiraling anxiety.
There’s this one bit about a maid and a will that feels so much like a discarded Seinfeld script from 1994. It works because it’s familiar. It fails if you’re looking for Death of a Salesman. Critics were split, but the audience didn't care. The play had an advance sale of over $13 million. That’s "Hamilton" territory before Hamilton even existed.
💡 You might also like: Songs by Tyler Childers: What Most People Get Wrong
Why the Title Fish in the Dark Actually Matters
What’s with the name? It sounds like a bad indie movie. In the context of the play, it refers to a specific, somewhat ridiculous memory or observation about how people behave when they think no one is watching. It’s a metaphor for the secret, selfish lives we lead.
Larry David has this obsession with the "unspoken rules" of society. Why do we bring tuna fish to a mourning family? Why do we care about who gets the good clock in the will? Fish in the Dark explores the murky water of family obligations. Most people think the play is just about Larry being Larry, but it’s really about the performance of grief.
The Understudy Who Became the Story
When Larry’s stint ended, Jason Alexander stepped in. Think about that for a second. The man who played George Costanza—who was based on Larry David—was now playing a character written by Larry David, based on Larry David. It was like a hall of mirrors.
Alexander was technically a better "actor" in the traditional sense. He projected more. He hit his marks with Broadway precision. But some fans felt something was missing. Larry’s charm comes from his genuine discomfort. When Larry forgot a line or broke character slightly, the audience loved it because it felt like they were in on the joke. Alexander made it a "play." Larry made it an "event."
The Financial Reality of a "Star Vehicle"
Broadway is a brutal business. Most plays lose money. Fish in the Dark was a freak of nature. Because it was a limited run, the "scarcity" factor drove ticket prices into the thousands on the secondary market.
📖 Related: Questions From Black Card Revoked: The Culture Test That Might Just Get You Roasted
- Advance Sales: $13.5 million plus.
- Weekly Gross: Often exceeded $1 million, which is rare for a non-musical.
- Run Length: Originally slated for 18 weeks, extended slightly due to demand.
The production proved that "personality theatre" is a viable financial model, though few people have the pull Larry David has. You can't just put any sitcom star on stage and expect those numbers. It required the specific brand of "Larry-ness" that people had been craving since the long gaps between Curb seasons.
Breaking the Fourth Wall Without Trying
There was this rumor during the run that Larry would sometimes look at the audience with genuine confusion. It wasn't a bit. The Cort Theatre is intimate. You can see the front rows. Imagine being Larry David and trying to remember a monologue while some guy in the third row is loudly unwrapping a lozenge.
He didn't just perform the play; he survived it.
The dialogue was quintessential David. Fast-paced. Repetitive. Arguing about nothing. If you look at the script—published by Grove Press—you can see how much of it relies on the cadence of the "shout." It’s not meant to be read silently. It’s meant to be yelled over the sound of a New York audience.
Is It Actually Good?
If you ask a theatre critic from The Guardian or The New Yorker, they’d probably say it was "slight." They aren't wrong. It doesn't have the emotional depth of a Miller or O'Neill play. But that’s a stupid metric for this.
👉 See also: The Reality of Sex Movies From Africa: Censorship, Nollywood, and the Digital Underground
It was a masterclass in comedic timing. Larry David knows how to structure a joke better than almost anyone alive. The way a small grievance in Act 1 spirals into a total catastrophe in Act 2 is a textbook example of the "Seinfeld" ripple effect.
- The Pros: Hilarious, relatable for anyone with a loud family, incredible cast.
- The Cons: Plot is a bit thin, leans heavily on Larry's existing persona.
Honestly, the play’s biggest accomplishment was bringing people to Broadway who would never, ever go to a play. It was a bridge between prestige television and the stage.
Actionable Takeaways for Theatre Fans and Larry David Completionists
If you missed the original run, you’ve missed the "lightning in a bottle" moment, but you can still experience the work.
- Read the Script: The Grove Press edition is worth it just to see how David formats his arguments on paper. It reads like a transcript of a very funny fever dream.
- Watch "Curb" Season 9: There are echoes of the stage experience in Larry’s later work. His comfort level with long-form rants definitely evolved after doing this play.
- Check Out the Supporting Cast: Many of the actors in Fish in the Dark are Broadway royalty. If you see Jayne Houdyshell's name on a playbill today, buy the ticket. She was the secret weapon of the show.
- Look for Local Productions: While it's a "Larry David" play, regional theaters occasionally license it. Seeing a different actor tackle the role of Norman Drexel is a great way to see if the jokes hold up without the celebrity attachment. (Spoiler: Most of them do).
The play remains a weird, loud, and incredibly profitable footnote in Broadway history. It didn't change the world, but it made a whole lot of people laugh at a funeral, which is exactly what Larry David was put on this earth to do. While he hasn't returned to the stage since, the ghost of Norman Drexel still feels like the final evolution of the George Costanza archetype. It’s the ultimate expression of the "no hugging, no learning" rule, applied to the one place where hugging and learning are usually mandatory: the theater.