Rachel York and Betty Buckley Grey Gardens in New York?- Page 3

[Auggie27]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 9:34am

I'm firmly in Best12bars camp on Act One.  On B'way, it was the material that felt fresh and startling, all the more so because the moments that are musicalized are not predictable. To that point, it features two truly exquisite numbers (my opinion), "Daddy's Girl" and the somber act closer, which has an odd combo of Romberg and maybe Noel Coward.  But it's all strange and wonderful to me. The show's construction has always been an issue for some; but its also its daring.  I doubt it will ever feel like an organic whole to many who want a linear and dot-connecting libretto.  Part of its appeal is the real demand it makes on audiences, to pay attention and find a way to put the acts together, both during and reflectively afterwards.  That sort of challenge doesn't speak to everyone 

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 1:16pm

Im with bestbars and auggie. I think Act One is mighty good in its own regard. I think the music was fresh and surprising. Also I felt both acts were a fantasia of sorts on opposite ends of grotesque reality. So much privilege and disregard in Act One and so much poverty and disregard in Act 2. you also see how both mother and daughter exist in their own private universe even though there are others around them. Big Edie is so detached from reality in Act One and Little Edie in Act Two.

I found Daddy's Girl with its meltdown at the end of the song very compelling.

I still feel Sara Gettelfinger trumped Erin Davie. Sara embodied "Body Beautiful Beale" with the gams and gave indicators of the neurosis to come.

[lovebwy]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 1:58pm

I don't know about NY, but in the LA production of Grey Gardens, Act 1 and Act 2 are like two different plays.

Act 1 is confusing, strangely acted, and is a bit of all over the place. There were one or two nice numbers, and Sal from Mad Men as Gould was great. I never WANTED the show to be like the documentary. But Act 1 kinda sucked.

After Act 1, Act 2 is shockingly great! Again, it was like a totally different show. What was going on was very clear, it was involving, emotionally resonant, and brilliantly acted by Rachel York and Betty Buckley.

 

 

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 11:19pm

I think my relative dislike of Act I has everything to do with the deluge of middling songs that clog up most of the Act: Mother Darling, Goin' Places, Marry Well, Hominy Grits, & Peas in a Pod all come at me one after another after another, all kind of snappy and pastiche-y and mostly sunny in outlook, even if that sunniness masks a deeper malaise. In performance I found it just too much of the sameness, and ultimately boring and uninvolving. 

Things improved for me with Drift Away, even though there goes yet another seemingly cheery but actually rueful pastiche number. But it's a good one and a perfect segue into the troubling tone of the rest of the act. From there on, Korrie and Frankel really hit their stride and keep topping themselves with their very best work all the way through the end of Act II. 

I know most of the early changes in the show from Off Broadway to On dealt with swapping and reswapping the very songs I'm complaining about. For me sadly, they never solved their basic Act I flaws.

[nmartin]

Posted: 7/15/16 at 11:00am

I saw this last night and have extremely mixed feelings about it. The show has major issues with book and score.  Unless someone is familiar with the film, I do not know how they can be prepared for the jarring differences between Act I and Act II. The hints that are given in Act I for what is to come in the subsequent act can only be understood by those familiar with the story. Act I includes a solid closing number but all else are instantly forgettable as are the characterizations offered, not entirely the fault of the actors. Rachel York is not totally successful in creating Little Edie in Act II. The closest she comes is with Another Winter in a Summer Town; however, the last "oh God" is overwrought to the point of Norma Desmond. Betty Buckley does not imitate the Big Edie of the film, only suggests her. Her performance and her two numbers are by far the reason to see this production.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/15/16 at 11:22am

Love this show but it is no where near time for a revival.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 7/15/16 at 12:13pm

I've heard some clips from the production and I think its interesting that neither York (or especially) Buckley seem to be attempting to imitate the qualities and vocal inflections of the women in the documentary.  I suppose on one level, that is admirable; but I also think the pay off is a little two-fold.  I think part of the hat trick of the OBC was that Ebersole and Wilson so brilliantly recreated those film performances on stage. The uncanny impersonations are also what I think made the TV film with Jessica Lange and Drew Barrymore so effective.

Without that aspect of mimicry, the actresses playing the Edies are able to approach them as simply characters in a play.  But that also puts a lot more pressure on the play itself to be good.

I guess what I'm sensing here is that there seems to be a lot more complaints here about the actual material than there were on Broadway. And I wonder if what Ebersole and Wilson did, in their uncanny recreation of the documentary personas, was elevate (or perhaps distract from) the quality of the material.

There also seems to have been a directorial decision for this LA production to play the first act highly 'stylized' - as if it were 1940s musical melodrama.  This I think is a mistake. There is no reference point for this for the audience. Even if you found out in the second act that, say, the Beales were obsessed with old movie musicals -- there still wouldn't be any reference point as the audience is experiencing it.  No wonder audiences don't know what to make of it.

For the first act to work, in my opinion, it must be played totally straight and 'for reals.'

Updated On: 7/15/16 at 12:13 PM

[ABB2357]

Posted: 7/15/16 at 2:50pm

I saw the original and had the same Act 1/pacing issues you all did, but thought the strength of the direction and performances elevated it.

The production here doesn't begin to compare, but I will say that York and Buckley are giving two of the best performances I've seen anywhere - especially Buckley. Her "Jerry Likes My Corn" was out of this world, and I liked that both of them didn't rely as much on pure mimicry (as effective as it was with Ebersole/Wilson). They're both putting their own stamp on the characters, and I give York in particular a lot of credit. Ebersole was instantly hailed as legendary, and if York's not quite as memorable as Buckley here, it's because she has a larger shadow to step out from.

The negatives are that the direction and design elements don't have any of the detail and nuance of the Broadway production. And my biggest complaint (as with any show at the Ahmanson) is that the theater is a BARN. You never feel Little Edie's sense of suffocation by Grey Gardens, the squalor they lived in, etc. Sometimes the actors just wander back and forth across the vast stage (while dodging the distractingly dangerous orchestra pit). This is a show that needs the atmosphere and intimacy of a house like the Walter Kerr.

But when the two leads holding everything together are this good, all other criticism seemed minor - at least for me. I wish the original had run long enough for York and Buckley to go in as replacements. On their work alone, this is a must see and the best thing I've seen in LA in a long time.

[Jayar2]

Posted: 7/17/16 at 2:17am

I saw the matinee on 7/16, and it was the longest 57 hours of my life. I hate to be so critical, but this was not my cup of tea. The story moves very slowly, and I don't feel like I got to care enough about either women to warrant an emotion at the end of the show. In particular, Simon Jones was not up to the level of the rest of the cast (nor were the children), and his song as Norman Vincent Peale was grating at best. I also have to say that the projections were a distraction, and added little to the experience. And why the heck did they have to dress Betty Buckley like The Man With the Yellow Hat from Curious George?

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/17/16 at 2:38am

qolbinau said: "Yes it is interesting to me because when I think about what makes a good musical I usually think it's one where the songs explore the characters and/or forward the story well. Act One of Grey Gardens does this well, but there is still something missing for me. But it is so important - would Act Two be still as powerful without seeing where the two characters came from? Would dialogue such as "I had a wonderful marriage" be as hilarious and awkward without knowing the truth from Act One? Would "Another Winter In a Summer Town" be as moving without knowing the 'full' history of how Edie got to what was probably one of the lowest points in her life? I doubt it. Act One is necessary exposition for Act Two.

 

"

This is certainly what I have always thought while listening to the Bway and off-Bway CDs. I'm counting the days until Tuesday.

[bear88]

Posted: 7/18/16 at 12:08am

I've heard some clips from the production and I think its interesting that neither York (or especially) Buckley seem to be attempting to imitate the qualities and vocal inflections of the women in the documentary.  I suppose on one level, that is admirable; but I also think the pay off is a little two-fold.  I think part of the hat trick of the OBC was that Ebersole and Wilson so brilliantly recreated those film performances on stage. The uncanny impersonations are also what I think made the TV film with Jessica Lange and Drew Barrymore so effective.

Without that aspect of mimicry, the actresses playing the Edies are able to approach them as simply characters in a play.  But that also puts a lot more pressure on the play itself to be good.

QueenAlice, you raise a lot of interesting issues. I walked into the LA production virtually cold. I knew the basic story, but I had never seen the documentary or listened to the OBC recording, or watched the TV-movie. So it didn't make any difference to me whether York or Buckley looked or sounded like the actual people.

Should that make a difference? Shouldn't I be able to make the connections myself while watching the musical? It's not a complicated story with lots of important characters. There are basically two people who matter. Little Edie is a dramatic problem, at least in LA. The young version is not a great match for Joe Kennedy, as she seems too preoccupied with being a Broadway star and not a politican's wife, but she also comes across as reasonably levelheaded and embarrassed by her mother. If she seemed more delusional in the Broadway show, they set up the second act a lot better.

There also seems to have been a directorial decision for this LA production to play the first act highly 'stylized' - as if it were 1940s musical melodrama.  This I think is a mistake.

I agree. The first act is both stylized and more than a little dull. If the first act necessary to set up the second act, it still should set up characters who resemble the ones we see later. York comes alive in the second act. She may be crazy, but she seems like a real person. The actress is clearly having a blast, and the audience reacts with unrestrained glee - as if this (and Buckley, who is very good) is the show they've been patiently waiting to see.

Overall, I'm glad I saw it. The second act is very good, but I treated it as its own one-act show. And yes, I did worry momentarily that Buckley might fall into that pit when she did a little dance a little close to it.

[MichelleCraig]

Posted: 7/18/16 at 11:16am

I saw it last night. I really enjoyed it as did the five friends I attended with. My friends all commented on how sad the first act was; they'd only seen the documentary and had no knowledge of any "back story"... I have to admit, the first act seemed more powerful to me than when I first saw the show on Broadway.

I was wondering if Betty Buckley insisted on her hair or wig being somewhat styled? Mary Louise Wilson looked as if she hadn't had her hair styled in decades, but Betty sported some nice curls and waves...

Finally, and I can't believe I didn't initially pick up on this, beginning last night, Rachel York's understudy will be going on for all of the Sunday evening performances. I thought I was seeing Rachel the whole time! During the first act, I was wondering if Rachel had had some "surgery," but when I got home and read the program I realized it wasn't Rachel I was watching. Melina Kalomas played the part(s) and she was very, very good. I messaged my friends when I got home and one mentioned that she'd seen a poster in the lobby announcing the replacement...but this friend of mine is not a Broadway or musical person, so she didn't mention it at the time. 

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 7/21/16 at 7:23pm

I am in Los Angeles this week for a business trip, and saw this production last night and enjoyed it thoroughly.   It is true that the first act seems a little less steady than it did on Broadway, and I think that may indeed have something to do with the supporting cast, who seem less sure than their Broadway counterparts (though I thought Sarah Hunt as Little Edie was quite wonderful).

The second act, though, I thought was fabulous. It is a different take on the material, but in some ways I actually found it more moving and resonant than it was on Broadway. Rachel York doesn't have Christine Ebersole's radiant singing pipes, but after having heard clips of her performance, was surprised to find that she actually looked and sounded to me more like the real Little Edie. She gives a terrific performance.

As has been discussed, Betty Buckley doesn't seem interested in doing any kind of impersonation of her historical counterpart, but instead offers a master class in musical theatre performance. "Jerry Likes My Corn" which was almost a throwaway satirical piece in New York, in Buckley's hands becomes a mini drama that is not only funny, but incredibly moving.

The live video feed that is supposed to suggest the Maysles filming their documentary worked for me - especially during a climatic argument between Little Edie and Big Edie.Watching the action play out concurrently on film made the moment almost uncomfortably voyeuristic (part of the odd appeal of the documentary).

Definitely worth seeing.

 

Updated On: 7/21/16 at 07:23 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/21/16 at 11:33pm

I finally saw this production on Tuesday and I absolutely agree with QueenAlice. In fact, I found myself agreeing with most of the comments here, pro AND con.

It's true that Betty Buckley does nothing to impersonate the real Big Edie. I don't know Buckley, but I first saw her in 1776, 45 years ago, and I suspect "impersonation" is not an art form to which she aspires. But she was no less brilliant for having created a new character and "Jerry Likes My Corn" is one of those performances I will remember for the rest of my life.

On the other hand, I thought Rachel York WAS doing an impersonation of Little Edie in Act II and I thought she did it rather well. Okay, she isn't Ebersole, but Ebersole was a once-in-a-lifetime meeting of actor and character. Miss York was a credible approximation of the lady we met in the doc, and the relationship between York and Buckley was ultimately deeply moving.

On the other hand, I thought the direction was a mess, particularly when anybody else was on stage. When most of the actors in Act I seem to have little sense of what their characters are doing or why, I think one has to look at the director. (The director seemed embarrassed by the "freedom songs" (Itty, Bitty Geisha and Hominy Grits) and staged both as far upstage as he could, right at bottom stair. This killed the comedy of the songs, which is that Big Edie is so clueless as to why they are inappropriate.) Most damaging was the performance of Little Edie, who didn't seem to understand her own character's tendency toward hysteria. In "Daddy's Girl" she spelled "S-E-X", but sang the rest of the song as if there were nothing unusual (or dangerous) about a girl of that era getting drunk in a frat house.

I felt much the same of the children, the father and even Byron Batt. We KNOW the latter can act, but I saw nothing in his performance that suggested Gould would ultimately commit suicide in a flea bag hotel. In fact, I couldn't figure how why he was taking a tantrum over being a "kept man" on the day of his patron's daughter's engagement. (And why were building inspector's singing "Cat's Eye View" in Act II? I always thought the fact that the cats were metaphorically singing was a strength.)

Which brings us to the book. It is certainly literate and occasionally witty, but I was disappointed. I felt it wanted to set up Act II, but threw so many things at us willy-nilly that the set-up was less than it needed to be. There's nothing wrong with characters having conflicting motivations; in fact, it's usually a plus. But in a well-written play (musical or otherwise), one senses levels of conflict, turning points, etc. And why do the Edies end up in such squalor? Is it because of their aristocratic eccentricity? Is it simply a matter that the Bouvier family fortune was spent and neither "married well"? I suspect it was mainly the latter, but I think the book could have been clearer.

And while some motivations are obscure, others are overly numerous. Take Joe Kennedy for example. He walks out in Act I because (a) his mother-in-law to be is eccentric (though hardly so much one need run from her) and oddly aggressive; (b) there is a scandal brewing in the Beale's pending divorce; and (c) Edie herself may have a dubious sexual history. All three motivations may co-exist; it even makes more sense that he is put off by all three rather than just one. But which actually makes up his mind? When is the point of no return? Damn if I can tell when all three revelations are played at the same level.

And then almost everything in Act I is contradicted in Act II. Yes, I understand these women don't have the best grasp on reality; so when Big Edie talks about her "perfect marriage" I accept that an old woman rewrites her personal history: she "chooses to be happy". And Little Edie, who blames her mother for chasing off all her suitors in Act I, insists in Act II that she didn't like any of them anyway. Okay, I can accept that, too, as an example of the Bouvier eccentricity.

But where did Little Edie get the idea that if her father had returned home after his "fling", he would have had her committed? That seemed in diametric opposition to her faith in Act I that "Daddy will fix everything when he arrives" and the fact that the telegram invites her to have drinks with her father and stepmother upon their return from Mexico.

So to sum up: glad I saw it, but I was perplexed by the book, and the direction of this production.

Updated On: 7/21/16 at 11:33 PM

[wish i were here2]

Posted: 8/1/16 at 12:52pm

I saw the show yesterday and the show itself is questionable, but the performances that Rachel York and Betty Buckley gave were absolutely sublime. 

The stark contrast between Act 1 and 2 was so large, it felt like I watched two different shows. The book and songs for Act 2 is amazing, but pretty much everything about Act 1 is just BAD. I know Act 1 is just a speculative take on what life could've been like at Grey Gardens at its height, but I was bored for most of it. It got interesting when Big Edie and Little Edie have their first fight over the songs, but then it got boring again. But, when the telegram scene occurred leading to Rachel York's beautiful rendition of "Will You?" did I actually feel connected with the story. I agree with what everyone says, that Act 2 was SO much better than Act 1. Everything about Act 2, broke my heart, in a good way. The ending has stayed with me for the past day, I cannot stop thinking of it. 

I enjoyed the set for Act 2, but during Act 1 it just seemed very empty, I feel like they needed a couch or something, rather than that lone ottoman. I actually did like the live stream projections. I thought it was really clever, and it did help seeing Rachel and Betty's facial expressions during some scenes. Sitting in the Ahmanson balcony, which is like watching Hamilton from the Rear Mezzanine of the Lunt Fontanne; it leaves much of the facial expressions to interpretation. I feel like the director and the creative team for this production was like, let's just make everything about Act 1 meh, but let's go all out for Act 2. 

All in all, I am glad I saw this beautifully tragic show, but I really hope someone fixes Act 1 or removes it all together and expands Act 2 to a one act 90 minute musical. 

[Steve C.]

Posted: 8/5/16 at 4:45am

There are a lot of "differing opinions" on this production of "Grey Gardens". I would just love to see it. There are clips, and "artist interviews" and even whole productions from NY and WE on YouTube. As much as I loved Christine Ebersole and Mary Louise Wilson, it would be great to see Betty Buckley and Rachel York back on Broadway. (I want to see Rachel York get S-T-A-U-N-C-H, da-da-da-daa-daa). Please make this happen!

Can you imagine a Broadway season with Betty Buckley, Bette Midler, Glenn Close, Christine Ebersole, Patti LuPone, Rachel York and more ??  Not to mention the new productions of "Miss Saigon", "Natasha, Pierre..Great Comet". "Come From Away", ear Evan Hansen" "Cats" "Falsettos"...Wow! 

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/5/16 at 7:09am

Buckley said on SandyLand on radio Andy that there is some commercial interest and talk. 

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 8/5/16 at 12:15pm

If it comes Broadway, I hope they work on it prior to opening. I know I shouldn't judge by performances that aren't "live" but I got my hands on an LA recording...the direction is so strange, and the pacing painfully slow. I'm a big GG fan, both the films & show, and I just don't know if this is a good representation of the show. Buckley and York are terrific, but I feel the direction is misguided.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/5/16 at 3:28pm

Without contradicting what I wrote above, I find that the more time passes, the greater my disappointment with the Ahmanson version of GREY GARDENS. And I was sitting fourth row center; the size of the house wan't an issue, though the size of the stage was, especially because of the set design.

On the other hand, BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY has only grown deeper in my memory and in repeated listenings to the OBCR.

Color me shocked!

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 8/5/16 at 3:40pm

I think that Grey Gardens would probably have a better and longer life off-broadway.  I do think that there needs to be some edits made to the material.  "Choose to be Happy" really needs to go.  I recently directed a production and the whole cast and creative team loathed the song so much that we actually pre-recorded a little bit of the song and had it play on the radio as Little Edie packed her bags and then we had it fade away as she left the house.  We cut that godawful 3 minute song down to about a minute and the production definitely benefitted from it.  

We also set the whole show in the dilapidated house with Big Edie watching the spirit of her younger self.  The spirits continued to inhabit the house through the second act.  This helped to make sense of the odd "Greek chorus" of the original production.  Grey Gardens really is far from a perfect show, but it's a wonderful show nonetheless and I hope it makes it to New York.

[Littleshopofcarrie]

Posted: 8/5/16 at 8:11pm

On the BWW snapchat Perez Hilton stated that the production may come to Broadway. Betty Buckley has also been retweeting a few tweets that say the show should come to Broadway, although she responds to pretty much anything that anyone tweets to her. 

 

I I really hope it comes as I have never seen the show onstage and York and Buckley are two of my favorite actresses. 

[DeNada]

Posted: 8/6/16 at 10:32am

I saw this show about a week ago on a whim while on holiday in LA (the Ahmanson season for next year looks pretty cool - if only Amelie or Fun Home had been on instead of this!).

I don't know if I really have much to add that others haven't said.  The first act is like a completely different show; a fairly staid melodramatic playlet with an uninteresting score and characters.  I don't know whether Rachel York breathes miraculous life into Big Edie in the first act (I saw Melina Kalomas, who was absolutely fine, if perhaps a bit glamorous and poised as Little Edie in the second act!) but nothing really "lands".  The second act is clearly what the creative team was more interested in, and you have a trio of wonderful numbers in Jerry Likes My Corn (particularly in Buckley's hands), Around The World and Another Winter In A Summer Town.  As the dialogue and many of the lyrics seem to be drawn directly from the documentary, it's a massive tonal shift in a way that doesn't make much sense.

I also don't know whether it was a fault of the production that Big Edie seems rather monstrous in the first act and a great deal more normal in the second, while Little Edie's slightly deranged nature in the second act isn't very effectively foreshadowed; it's like seeing a completely different character.

I am glad to have actually seen the show live; I missed the London production this year with Jenna Russell and Sheila Hancock which was in one of our tiny barely-even-a-theatre spaces which would have probably added more to the atmosphere than the grandiose nature of the Ahmanson.  But I don't think there would be much in the way of commercial prospects for a Broadway revival, unless York is completely unforgettable in the role...

[adamgreer]

Posted: 8/6/16 at 10:50am

icecreambenjamin said: "I think that Grey Gardens would probably have a better and longer life off-broadway.  I do think that there needs to be some edits made to the material.  "Choose to be Happy" really needs to go.  I recently directed a production and the whole cast and creative team loathed the song so much that we actually pre-recorded a little bit of the song and had it play on the radio as Little Edie packed her bags and then we had it fade away as she left the house.  We cut that godawful 3 minute song down to about a minute and the production definitely benefitted from it.  

We also set the whole show in the dilapidated house with Big Edie watching the spirit of her younger self.  The spirits continued to inhabit the house through the second act.  This helped to make sense of the odd "Greek chorus" of the original production.  Grey Gardens really is far from a perfect show, but it's a wonderful show nonetheless and I hope it makes it to New York.

 

"

Where was this production? The concept sounds familiar to me. I wonder if I saw the production you directed. 

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 8/6/16 at 12:03pm

^I directed it at my college.  What college I go to is a bit more information than I'm willing to share on here, but I was told that the London production with Jenna Russel had a similar concept.

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/6/16 at 12:07pm

Is it permissible to cut a three minute song down to one minute?