the problem with Grey Gardens- Page 2

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 5:12pm

I miss Grey Gardens more than any other show. I wish I'd seen it 20 more times than I did but am grateful to have seen it at all. It's just a very special work.

[WickedBoy2]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 5:14pm

I wholeheartedly agree.

[nymommy]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 7:08pm

Hey first of all, "all the same"???? No, the music is in stark contrast. Second of all, why must the audience be spoon fed details? I saw the show several times, and often came up with different reasons for the devolving. It depended on my mood, whose side I was taking that evening, and often times a new idea popping into my head as to why. If it were spoon fed, I might have become bored with the show. To each his own. Remember, a girl's gotta have a little mystery. I don't think anyone will ever know why completely they fell so far, hence the Act I suppose, it's meant to get one thinking. Isn't that what theater is all about, or have we fallen to the Disney machine? Say, I didn't even bring up SA. = )

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 7:13pm

The same reason why a musical about Siamese twins did not make it. Sideshow was a hard sell as not many tourists wants to see shows about off beat subject matter.

I liked Sideshow better than GG.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 11:21am

Audiences don't mind shows with offbeat subject matter. MOST musicals have offbeat subject matter. Wicked is fairly offbeat subject matter (and I would say the music is just as populist as that in Sideshow). Shows fail for a large variety of reasons, that often being one of the least of them.

"Act One is not a "fantasy". Like all biographical stories, they condensed major events into a story. Dramatic licensing. It's all based on the docs and speaking to people who knew them from the Maysles to Jerry."

Erm, the play is pretty damn clear (with all the whoooo music and the high-handed declarations) that Act One is not meant to be taken literally. If anything Act One presents more mystery than anything else in the show (versus the much more literal second act) because it is supposedly Little Edie's memory, and we're supposed to get by the end of act one that Little Edie is maybe a little cracked.

Most biographical stories draw their power from specificity to tell their stories. Take a recent movie, Queen Elizabeth: The Golden Age. I did not think this was a great movie. It was a fun movie, interesting, sure. But the movie has a fairly unfortunate grasp of history (even if it follows the basic details), more an excuse for the leading lady to show off than to tell about history, make observations about it, etc... much like Grey Gardens IN MY OPINION.

I think Grey Gardens might be better off without the first act, which is slightly redundant and highlights many of my problems with the show (although it has great songs).

The dramatic question is whether or not Little Edie is going to escape this existence. She does at the end of Act One only to end up back where she began but with greater obstacles. Big Edie wants to hold onto her daughter after having lost everything else.

But everyone knows going into the play that Edie will come back in act two and live with her mother again. Never in the play is the question of whether or not Little Edie will escape seriously confronted. It's flirted with and mused upon as a possibility, and she longs to do it, but it's not like she comes to the brink of doing it and retreats. It's just a facet of her character.

It's not really a satisfying dilemma anyway.


"Either Edie is now too old or too crazy to realistically pursue an acting career and they know it."

I'd say that is all wrong given that Little Edie DID pursue a career after Big Edie's death.

But that doesn't happen in the play, nor is it implied.

Better?

Not really.

I just think of Grey Gardens as the ultimate impressionist musical, even more than Pacific Overtures or Assassins. The characters and situations flit in and out without real consequence, mostly treating us to a slice of life sort of show. I like the show because of that, because it's a musical experiment. I just wasn't especially satisfied by that experiment.

I'm honestly not the first person to say this. Michael Feingold called it the first musical about a house. I'm not saying Grey Gardens shouldn't exist, it definitely should, it's a great show. The flaws in artistic works are often what makes them interesting, and all artistic works are flawed (even Hamlet). If you take risks, you're going to screw up in some places.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 11:23am

PS.

I thought about it for two seconds and I think maybe the first act is necessary for audiences who are coming in without prior knowledge of the show. One thinks that the second act may completely baffle them but in that respect the two acts are necessary.

Keep the first act anyway. It's fun.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 12:06pm

It doesn't matter if they showed her performing career post GG in the musical. It doesn't matter if that had never happened.

What matters is she wanted it. What matters is that Big Edie wanted it, too--no matter how realistic a notion that want is. Characters don't often succeed at getting their want.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 12:19pm

Nope, but now we're plumbing the psychological depths of the characters (which are substantial). Your characters can be as deep as hell and still not have an essential dramatic issue.

Honestly though I don't think the authors ever really intended for there to be one.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 12:45pm

I agree with the Impressionist comment. I saw Grey Gardens a number of times and always felt it was a very wonderful intricate character study set to music.
We are given lots of hints as to what happened between Acts 1 and 2. We even have Little Edie breaking down and saying that Mr Beale would have had her committed. It is fun to speculate on which of the two woman's rememberances of the Barbizon Years come closer to the truth. The first Act holds some subtle (and not so subtle) hints.
I also agree that the first act is needed and it is the memories of Little Edie played out. It might be that the fact that it IS just idealized memories is not presented in a strong enough manner. We were only given a brief glimpse of Old Edie then and now striking the same pose wearing the same kimono after rambling musings on how wonderful her voice was and what back then and what a wonderful time it was.
It is a play about regrets, unachieved dreams yet the human spirit's ability to still dream despite the circumstance.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 4:24pm

No. I am not delving into the psychological depths blah blah blah. I was talking about it as an actor. What is their want?

[JulianHookbucks]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 4:32pm

in an interview on Broadway.com around TONY time, Mary Louise actually said that she took nothing from Act 1 when creating her character for Act 2... how did that service the disjointedness of the two acts in a positive way? Her ACT 2 character and Ebersole's ACT 1 character are the same woman... thirty years apart and with a giant gaping life changing dilema between the two's existance... but there should have been a remnant or three of the act 1 Big Edie somewhere in there I feel...

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 4:35pm

But that's the writer's job. If MLW was using the doc for inspiration, that's all she needed to do. Grab the externals from there and say the lines applying the want.

If anything was missing, it's the director and writer's job to correct it. But I'd give a guess nothing was missing...

[bwaylvsong]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 4:37pm

IMO the only problem with GG was the poor advertising and representation of the show. Everything about the show itself was just about perfect.

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 4:37pm

I guess the majority of the audiences today don't want to think about what they see anymore.

They want everything spelled out literally in front of them, from A to Z, so they can merely "react" to it.

Such a shame.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 4:39pm

Indeed. And the truth is--great theatre asks questions. It provokes thought.

[artscallion]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 4:55pm

Julian, The base line for this story is the documentary. It's the only documented truth we really have of these people. That's what people know and they wisely held true to it. So it should be considered the starting point that the charachters should be developed from.

I think MLW was correct to base her character on that, not on Christine's interpretation of the younger Big Edie. It was Christine's job to move her character back in time from that base line of the documentary and MLW's portrayal. The same holds true for Erin Davies. She developed her portrayal by working backwards from things she saw in Christine's performance in act II.

Updated On: 10/24/07 at 04:55 PM

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 4:57pm

What they want is certainly an important part of their psychological makeup. Of course these are things you should think about as an actor O.o

You guys keep going on and on about provoking questions and thought, but you have yet to tell me (even though I keep asking) what questions and thoughts Grey Gardens provokes. All it provokes is a preponderance on what may have happened in between act one and act two. What deeper questions does it ask about these characters/the world/humanity/etc?

It's sad when your dreams don't work out? Is that it?

If THIS is what passes for truly thought provoking we've come a long way. Great theater asks questions. Grey Gardens doesn't.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 5:04pm

"What they want is certainly an important part of their psychological makeup. Of course these are things you should think about as an actor O.o "

No. What a character wants is part of script analysis. It's how you choose your actions. It's rather important.

And, no, I am not going to relist all of the things I feel GG asks and explores regarding humanity etc. As I said before, you can refer back to earlier threads where I and others did indeed wax eloquent on all of this.

And, no, it was way more than dreams not working out.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 5:22pm

It's about the complexity of relationships, especially those that are familial, and particularly those between a mother and daughter. It's about how love and responsibility sometime transcend one's personal desires and dreams. It's about aging and how merciless it can be. It's about sexism and classism. It's about the ability of the spirit to carry on even when one has been stripped of dignity.

Grey Gardens is about so many things. What's remarkable about it is how personal it is for each person touched by it. The wounds it exposes are so raw that many will turn away because it exposes emotions and realities we do not want to face.

That being said, there's nothing "wrong" with anyone who doesn't respond to it the way some of us have. But you can't argue with how people feel about it, no matter how much you analyze it.

Updated On: 10/24/07 at 05:22 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 5:26pm

I took great interest in these two characters-both in the documentary and in the show.

Count me in with those who wish they knew how this drastic change came about in the two women. I personally think there was something clearly and obviously missing between the two acts. I've even asked friends of mine who are pretty erudite in the subject of socialites in NYC what actually had happened and none of them knew for sure. I'd love to have known.

Also, if it's all there in the musical, there sure are lots of us who didn't see it.
You shouldn't have to seee it 6 times a week to get it.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 5:31pm

No, I got it the first time, thank you.

Why is it so difficult to understand how they got there? They were non-comformists who lost almost all their money. They were ****ed over by the men in their lives at a time when things weren't as good for women.

Perhaps the new film will cover this period VISUALLY for you so you can all see it and finally be pleased. And I wonder how much they will have to imagine dramatically as they will be in the same boat as the musical writers--having only the docs and people still living to get any answers.

Updated On: 10/24/07 at 05:31 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 5:40pm

Oh come ON! The unfortunate circumstances which occurred in their lives do not automatically turn people into what they became. Did you know that there are people who suffer much worse tragedies and who are relatively unscathed? I guess you don't.

"Perhaps the new film will cover this period VISUALLY for you so you can all see it and finally be pleased"

If so many people are left wanting more about this story, it's only fair to consider the possibility that the show was not perfect, which it wasn't. But you don't care to do that-you'd rather be condescending.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 5:46pm

I don't think the majority feel the way some of you do. I haven't heard that much complaining about this issue.

And, I realize that different people handle different tragedies in different ways. So, clearly you see from the doc or Act Two that these two women didn't handle it so well. They did not triumph against all odds. They spiraled downward over the course of 30 years. And I never once felt that I needed to SEE that. What's more shocking is seeing the juxtaposition of who they were and who they became.

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 5:48pm

Miss Penny--that was beautifully put.

"Oh come ON! The unfortunate circumstances which occurred in their lives do not automatically turn people into what they became."

Jane2--ditto!

They're not just victims of their circumstances. That's only a part of the story. These two ladies made conscious choices throughout their lives.

We are all the summation of a thousand little life-decisions that we make each and every day. We build our own jail cells over time, and if we're strong enough we can free ourselves from many of them. The tragedy to me is when people can't see what they're doing to themselves. Sometimes they are unable to see it, or even worse, they CAN see it, but don't have the strength or the ability to change.

[Jane2]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 5:49pm

I guess I'm guilty of being SO interested and captivated by these two women that I wanted to know more!

Is that so bad?