the problem with Grey Gardens- Page 3

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 5:51pm

Not at all. And the film could be fascinating. I am simply saying that I don't think it was a flaw.

ETA--for the musical not to SHOW the period between.

Updated On: 10/24/07 at 05:51 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 5:55pm

Jane2---It's better than leaving a show "wanting less," right?

I was more than satisfied with what was presented. I was left pondering the who/how/why. And I began to ponder my own "life choices" as well.

("How did you get to be here, Mr. Sheperd?")

And no, I don't agree that everyone who loses an inheritance and breaks off an engagement ends up tying sweaters on their heads and safety-pinning skirts upside-down. It's in no way that simple.

[Jane2]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 6:07pm

Besty, you know, I don't consider myself one of those people who need everything spelled out for me. Goodness! I'm an artist and very frequently my work is abstract. I see films and plays which leave much to the imagination, and I appreciate them. I'm able to give lots of thought to those pieces.

However, with GG, my problem was the drastic change in the women. I thought it was a little too drastic. One would have to come up with a lot of scenarios to come to a conclusion. I think it's great to have to come up with our own conclusions if you don't have to fabricate practically an entire life. I need a "little" more info. But that's just me.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 6:20pm

Well, it's not like this is a work of fiction where you might be able to say, "BS!" to the drastic change. It really happened. So how can it possibly be too drastic? The shock of how drastic it is is why this story is so compelling. Watching the doc had the opposite effect--seeing photographs of who they once were.

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 6:41pm

The fascinating thing to me is that I didn't perceive it as that drastic of a change.

The "drastic" part was their surroundings and their circumstances... and the fact that they didn't change enough to get out of them.

I'm sure Little Edie was cavorting around as a young beautiful debutante doing silly dances, acting outrageous for a laugh, still headstrong, still saying what she wanted to say... and Big Edie was still judgmental, controlling and in denial about her own life. The difference was the money, the social circle they were "behaving" in, the advantages they had, their YOUTH, and the opportunities and possibilities that lay before them.

Jump ahead 40 years, and the truly mystifying part is that they're STILL acting the same way. The house has fallen down in ruins around them, Big Edie is still ordering her daughter to behave like a proper young lady (even though she's almost 60!), and Little Edie is still "doing silly dances," acting outrageous and pining for (what amounts to) the loss of her high school sweethearts. Yet they have little or no opportunities ahead of them. "Youth" and "possibility" are gone now.

In my opinion, they didn't change ENOUGH, when life hit them upside the head. They "floated above it all" in their minds, and with each other... yet they continued to age, they didn't accept responsibilities that faced them, and they didn't learn anything from their past experiences.

That's the jaw-dropping part for me, between Act I and Act II:

How little they changed in spite of their circumstances. Our perceptions of them are now as two "crazy old ladies," when in truth, if you added back in their youth, money, advantages, social circles, opportunities, etc., we would say, "Oh, aren't they charming individuals?" or "What a delightful couple of colorful, special characters!"

Instead, we see them as misfits and freaks... and many are deeply disturbed or confused by the results.

[Jane2]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 6:42pm

jrb-I don't think you got my point. I didn't say it was too drastic to have happened. Obviously it happened. It's stunning.

I'm saying it's too drastic a change to leave the huge gap to our imagination.

Updated On: 10/24/07 at 06:42 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 6:45pm

Well, I disagree and there you have it. We just won't be agreeing on this.

[dfwtheatreguy]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 6:46pm

well then by jerby's standard: "Indeed. And the truth is--great theatre asks questions. It provokes thought." - "Grey Gardens" was not great, in my opinion, because no thought was provoked, just dumbfoundedness.

AND

Act 1 is total fiction, jerby- a fantasy. Act 2 is the documentary (facts) put to music.

Updated On: 10/24/07 at 06:46 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 6:47pm

Interesting, Besty. I guess we really differ here.

I think they turned into "freaks" to use the term that the public used for them back in the day. If they were the least bit like their former selves, the squalor they lived in wouldn't be there, for one thing. Little Edie dressed in a bizarre fashion. Oh, I could go on. Living in that kind of squalor and not doing anything about it is one of the symptoms of severe mental illness. I know this from my sibling's condition.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 6:52pm

Act One is non-fiction, honey. Biographical. Based on true events.

Documentary does not equal facts either. It is merely a style of film making. You ask the Maysles: Edie often lied. Thus, you can't really say it's all "facts".

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 7:08pm

Isn't one of the (fundamental) definitions of "mental illness" to do the same exact thing, over and over again, and expect a different result?

I would say that describes the Beale ladies. They kept "doing their thing," despite everything crumbling and fading around them.

Perhaps they didn't show enough of that for you in Act 1. They did for me. Although Little Edie wasn't tying scarves around her head (at least not on the night of her engagement party), I've no doubt she did many similar silly/rebellious things as a youth. They just got "sillier" (aka "crazier") and more rebellious as she got older.

They did become "extremes" of their innate personalities ("first your another sloe-eyed vamp, then someone's mother, then you're camp..."), but those traits and eccentricities were present all along.

Perhaps the story could have been improved (for you) if you had seen more of that come out in Act 1.

In a 20-year-old beautiful, well-kept debutante traits like that are "fun." She's Body Beautiful Beale, after all! In a 60-year-old destitute woman, living in squalor with her ancient mother, it's not so attractive or forgivable... or easily explainable.

Updated On: 10/24/07 at 07:08 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 7:12pm

Besty, I'm glad we have such differing opinions, and we aren't arguing-just discussing. It's a beautiful thing!

But our trains on this topic shall never meet! xo

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 7:16pm

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 7:22pm

Ooooh, that's pretty!

[Jane2]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 7:23pm

thanks Jerby, all's well that end's well~

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 7:24pm

always a good thing.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 7:48pm

I will spare everyone the details, but I saw "Grey Gardens" unfold in my own life within my own family. Going from wealth and social status to reclusivity and isolation is a PROCESS...and not necessarily a captivating one, believe me. It tooks YEARS to get from Point A to Point B and explaining all the events that occurred in between does not guarantee that you will have answers...or that it will be particularly dramatic or entertaining!

What is striking about it is the CONTRAST. And that is what the creators of the musical saw, too.

[ashley0139]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 8:10pm

Although Little Edie wasn't tying scarves around her head (at least not on the night of her engagement party)

Ah, but that's exactly what she did. When she walked down the stairs with her suitcase, she tied the blue scarf around her head. Made for a nice thread throughout the show.

Just saying.

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 8:27pm

Oops! I actually meant to say "sweaters," as I had previously.

But you're absolutely right. And as Jerby would be quick to rush in and say, "See? It's all there."

And I agree... that (for me) enough of the "seeds are sewn" in Act I for a very powerful, artistically inspiring, entertaining, and thought-provoking Act II.

[IAMmyownMUSICAL]

Posted: 10/24/07 at 9:17pm

There was NO problem with Grey Gardens. It's one of the greatest pieces of theater I have ever seen

[dfwtheatreguy]

Posted: 10/25/07 at 12:20am

if Edie often lied, then how do we know she really went to New York and was a failed actress? that would have been an interesting angle to take with the show - having an unreliable narrator presenting one story but having the audience seeing the disconnect with reality.

[dfwtheatreguy]

Posted: 10/25/07 at 12:28am

and i think it says a lot to point out the major flaws in the script itself when it's award winning actress, MLW, says she took NOTHING from Act 1 to help her create the Act 2 version of Big Edie.

Updated On: 10/25/07 at 12:28 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/25/07 at 12:42am

Well, she got rave reviews and a Tony. I gather she did it just right. Who are you to tell her what technique to use?

And if you want to see a different version of the show, write it. Make that version happen.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 10/25/07 at 10:48am

Yikes. Not everyone is going to see a show the same way. Why would you want want that? Anything with a ounce of depth will provoke different reactions.

Also, NO ART is perfect. Not even Grey Gardens. Sorry.

BTW, I'm with Jane2 on this one. I think the reason we want the in between is because Act 1 Edie doesn't lead logically to Act 2 Edie (for ME. Maybe she does for you). And doesn't it just sound INTERESTING? Per Michael Feingold:

"The glamorous gowned and dinner-jacketed figures out of a Peter Arno cartoon who inhabited Act I have suddenly become half-demented crones living hand to mouth. However much we may admire their capacity to make do in the situation, we can't help wondering why and how it happened. That would be their drama, and it's precisely what the musical doesn't give us."

http://www.villagevoice.com/theater/0611,feingold,72519,11.html

His second review provides an alternative viewpoint:

http://www.villagevoice.com/theater/0645,feingold,74958,11.html

I don't think they ever quite solved the initial problem but he's right that Little Edie's mental instability is always clear. B12, you may see them merely as loveable eccentrics but to define them as anything less than a bit crazy undermines what the authors are clearly telling us, I think. But I think Big Edie is driven crazy by circumstance whereas Little Edie was never all right.

I guess it all comes down to whether or not you emphasize. I don't (and I certainly emphasize with the quoted Merrily We Roll Along). I find it more interesting and relatively moving, I guess.

Oh and JRB, as I understand it nobody knows why they ended the engagement and none of those circumstances happened in one night at a dinner party, they happened over many years. It's not biographical fact, none of it, just speculation aided by the outline of history.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 10/25/07 at 10:58am

I love the fact that the musical DOESN'T spell it out why they fell apart so dramatically. You are purposefully left to imagine why.

I had no problem with the Broadway GREY GARDENS.

And I love this Feingold quote in particular: "And dominating the whole event, like a double-faced caryatid, is Christine Ebersole, as the first act's still-young Big Edie and the second act's tormented Little Edie, an architectural monument of Gothic archness, ornately ludicrous, desperately vulnerable, and astonishingly beautiful."

I thrill every time a critic uses a word like "caryatid".