Grey Gardens- Great Story/Bad Musical- Page 3

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 7:31pm

oh, I didn't realize you posted this as well as pm'd me. as I said there, I just don't agree with you on any of that. and, if u had stated those things instead of what was originally said, I wouldn't have accused you of not listening.

the fact is, the musical does address her flaws. you just don't agree with how the writers presented that.

and the woman clearly has wants. she wants to hold on to as much of her crumbling world as possible. she wants to protect her daughter. she wants to be loved and adored. I just don't agree with you analysis of the piece.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 7:38pm

WalkOn, it's interesting how you view Act 1 as focusing on Little Edie because more frequently I hear complaints that it doesn't focus enough on Little Edie.

[WalkOn]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 7:59pm

I've heard that complaint too. I don't agree with it.

I think Little Edie has the strongest dramatic need in the first act. It is really her story in the first act, while Big Edie/Ebersole is the star of the first act.

Little Edie wants to leave GG and every obstacle(internal as well as external) is in her way. Will she or won't she leave?

But Big Edie does not have an equal or greater dramatic need. Yet the star of the show is cast as Big Edie.

That were the imbalance is for me as an audience member.

If Big Edie's "want" is to keep her family together, she does very little by way of direct action to keep it so.

And direct observable action is what is what the Philip Barry style they are using is about.

Updated On: 2/21/07 at 07:59 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 8:16pm

I never said she wants to keep her family together.

[WalkOn]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 8:19pm

No you didn't. I did.

It is the closest thing I could come up with as an overall dramatic act one want for Big Edie's character.

Updated On: 2/21/07 at 08:19 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 8:26pm

every character in every show ever written has objectives/wants. ebersole is clearly executing this basic component of acting. fine if you don't agree with her choices or with what parts of the story the writers chose to show and/or refer to.

I just don't see how you can watch such a needy character for an hour and come away thinking she never had any wants.

[WalkOn]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 8:37pm

I think part of Ebersoles brilliance is to gloss over the flaws of the first act. Little Edies has wants,sure:

She wants to sing at the concert. Done, she gets it.
She wants to arrange the party. Done, she gets it.
She says she doen't want her accompanist to leave. He still leaves, she does nothing.
We guess she doesn't want her husband to leave. She can't or won't do anything anything about it - that we can directly oberve.

She DOES want to end her daughters engagement. THAT we do get to see. That is when she become interesting instead of mostly just entertaining.

But she has does not have an over all dramatic want that most central character in that style play have. Her daughter does, but she doesn't.

No strong dramatic want + no matching obstacles = no conflict.

no conflict = no drama.

My guess it that the authors would have had the entire piece be about Little Edie, if she didn't go from 20 to 50 something in one evening.

Updated On: 2/21/07 at 08:37 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 8:50pm

and then there's her conflict with her father and then edie leaves and edith is stuck with the huge inevitable chaos of guests arriving to a doomed party. she sings a song that sums up her character's wants after having her world collapse around her.

and then we ask how did this woman become the woman of the second act? because she did not (could not?) do anything to stop the deterioration. because she chose to stay there.

and as an actor, I can't play a character who fails or is inactive as being inactive. you still have to fight for something. now, you don't feel that you saw that, but I did.

I can't and won't pretend to know what ms. ebersole's analysis of the character is--that's her business. for her to know. as an audience member, all I can ask is that actor have made choices to work towards something within the givens the writer has provided.

I have a hard time questioning what the writers chose as much of it all is based on reality and the rest filled in with logical choices. logically, they created a woman whose inactions led to her downfall.

and as we've discussed in other threads, is it her fault or was she a victim of a time that was cruel to women? was she suffocated by the restrictions of high society? was that her downfall--that she stubbornly hung onto that world instead of fixing her life? many, many fascinating questions.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 9:11pm

There's a great deal of conflict in Act 1.

The moment when Big Edie cries, "I'm your daughter! Why must you hate me so?" sends a chill through me every time.

[WalkOn]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 9:23pm

I agree with that Miss Pennywise. That is a great MOMENT.

But, for me, the balance just isn't there. Little Edie has a solid over arching goal in the first act that Big Edie just doesn't have.

I REALLY want Big Edie to be the central character of the first Act. I think the audience in general is expecting her to be because we go into the show knowing that Ebersole is the star.

I really want it to be HER story, but it isn't, It is Little Edie's.

Updated On: 2/21/07 at 09:23 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 9:29pm

I think you are placing way too much on the whole star thing. what if this show hadn't been created with a star in mind? what about when the musical is produced regionally with no stars? that shouldn't be a factor at all.

[WalkOn]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 9:37pm

Great Observation Jrb!!!

Very true. In future produtions the director may focus on The actress playing Little Edie in the first act. However,It still may be hard for the audience to swallow that if they know that the single actress playing Big Edie in the first act will be playing Little Edie in the second act.

I don't think focus on the "star" part is out of line,here. Whe we see a show with actors name above the title it sets up expectations that the actor will be playing the character the show is about.

It think that is a major problem with GREY GARDENS. Act One isn't about Big Edie, dramactically it is about Little Edie. I felt an imbalance and I think the audience does too.

Updated On: 2/21/07 at 09:37 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 9:46pm

and again, you place emphasis on casting where that has nothing to do with the creation of the piece.

what if future productions cast 4 actors in those parts instead of 3? what if they decide to have 2 actors stay in their roles and age?

[WalkOn]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 10:02pm

Again I place emphasis on casting?

This thread is about what we think are the problems with GREY GARDENS.

My problems with the show have to do with dramactic struture... the playwriting of the piece. I think those problems are only pointed up with the way the show is cast (Lead actress playing secondary role in first act and then playing primary role in second).. not who is cast...

In fact.. if you read carefully.. you would notice that I say Ebersoles brilliance is that SHE glides over the inherent dramatic flaws of piece. By the force of her talent she ALMOST makes us not notice those flaws.

I'm not trying to convince you I'm correct. I'm trying to make my point as clearly as possible...to myself and to anyone reading this post.

Now, I think YOU are focusing on what YOU think are the problems of MY reaction to GREY GARDENS, and not the problems with the show itself... which, again, is what this thread is about.

Updated On: 2/21/07 at 10:02 PM

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 10:05pm

Someone in another thread captured it very simply: "In Act I, she (Christine Ebersole) really played the 'all about me' card very well."

I don't think there is a "right" and "wrong" here about "whose" act it is, WalkOn. It's a matter of perception. In many ways, it's about both women, just as Act II is. I don't want to be redundant and simply cite everything already mentioned. I only used ONE example--the conflict between Big Edie and her father--because I think it illustrates an underlying issue that Major Bouvier expresses in "Marry Well."

Women were not educated so that they could have careers, contribute fully to society and support themselves. They were, largely, the vessel through which lineage was preserved. Big Edie exercized her "freedom" as best she could, but she was pretty much doomed. And Little Edie's options weren't much better. Clearly, the expectation is that she will marry into the Kennedy family and become "a wife with hobbies" just like Joe's mother and her "bridge."

Women were also not expected to speak their minds or challenge men, especially their fathers. (I know I am generalizing; there were, of course, exceptions to this rule, but this wasn't one of them.)

More than anything, Big Edie wants attention. She wants to be "noticed." She wants to be "celebrated." People who desperately need attention create conflict in every "relationship" they have...or attempt to have, I should say, because, for the most part, their relationships are unsuccessful.

I understand your reference to Barry, but that is, still, one dramatist's view. Even if his were the only "rules," I say rules are meant to be broken. One of the things I find most fascinating about GG is that it defies convention and takes risks. It may not be 100% successful, but at least it tries to say something in a fresh, new way...and let's face it: there is nothing NEW to be said, only NEW ways to say it. Shakespeare knew that!

[WalkOn]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 10:11pm

Well, to me if they attempted to at once model the Phillip Barry style of playwriting for Act One (Which Doug Wright has said in many interviews) and at the same time break the rules of that style of playwriting for Act One, I don't think they succeeded.

Which to me is a probelm...which is what this thread is about.

I hope it is clear that ADORE this show. I think it is the best show on Broadway right now. But for me it is not without its flaws.

Updated On: 2/21/07 at 10:11 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 10:15pm

I would be surprised if future productions cast those roles with four actresses instead of three.

I think a huge part of the draw and success of this show is that one actress plays both Big Edie and Little Edie.

[WalkOn]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 10:20pm

I think so too Rathnait62.

I love the idea of the same actress playing the Mother in the first act and daughter in the second.

However, I don't think the playwriting supports that casting idea as well as it could.

oh... and by the way Rathnait62, I agree that Erin Davie doesn't get the attention she deserves. She, for me, gives the performance in act One that has the real emotional and dramatic charge.

at least..I think you said she was under appreciated...

Updated On: 2/21/07 at 10:20 PM

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 10:53pm

Erin Davie herself told me that she was "shaky" in previews. (I'm not making this up or trying to be funny.)

A lot of opinions expressed about her on the board came early on in her tenure. I have seen tremendous growth in her performance since October. She took on a herculean task, in my opinion, and has done a lovely job.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 10:57pm

Erin was very nervous and unsure of everything - it is her Broadway debut and she was definitely feeling the pressure early on.

[WalkOn]

Posted: 2/21/07 at 11:04pm

Well, I think she can be VERY proud of herself. Hers is not an easy role.

Gettelfinger came off as stiff and hard. But with Davie you see the damage to Little Edie already starting to develop.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/22/07 at 12:24am

I can imagine the kind of pressure Davie had, especially since Gettelfinger got less-than-stellar reviews and she was replacing her, it must've felt like she had to prove the creative team, the audience, and the critics that she was the right person to play this role.
I just saw her for the first time about two weeks ago so I can't speak of her performance early in the show. I will say that seeing her play Little Edie was one of the highlights of the show, she captured the role just as good as Ebersole does in Act II but for some reason she isn't getting the notices she deserves. I believe the first act should definitely be more about her, less about Big Edie (I think it's definitely focused on Big Edie--or maybe focused on Christine Ebersole), but she gave a mesmerizing performance the night I saw her.
Seeing her put on the scarf and run towards the end of the show (is it during "Another Winter in a Summertown"?) while her older self is going through a similar moment was the most brilliant point of the night for me.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 2/22/07 at 11:20am

no conflict = no drama

I disagree with that statment. I think the show has plenty of conflict both internal and external. However, as I have stated before I think she show works more as a "character study", a glimpse into the interpersonal world of this family. IMO, it was never a linear play with an introduced conflict and resolution, it is more series of snapshots for the audience to ponder, project, and react to.

[wiggum2]

Posted: 3/27/07 at 7:27pm

Back to the first post, I was very underwhelmed after I saw GG but like others have said it has totally grown on me and now I can't wait to go see it again hopefully this summer. Let it sink in for a while(it took about a month for me)

[ashley0139]

Posted: 3/27/07 at 8:13pm

Grey Gardens is my favorite show I have seen in a LONG time. I thought it was brilliant. It's beautiful and tragic and heartbreaking. I wish I could give a better review, but to say everything I loved about it would take hours. I adore it though.