Dedications or Stuff of Dreams (Nathan Lane)

[ken8631]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 9:27am

Saw it last night at the 59E59 theater - not bad (Nathan was excellent, as usual). A little depressing at times, though, and had it's slow points. How does Nathan do it, going from show to show, new lines to remember, etc? And starting rehearsals for "Odd Couple" shortly as well?

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 10:36am

I'm going tonight. I'll post my thoughts tomorrow.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 10:53am

"How does Nathan do it, going from show to show, new lines to remember, etc? And starting rehearsals for "Odd Couple" shortly as well?"

The Greats can "just do it" - it's a rare gift. Two others I can think of with this ability were Judy Garland and Shirley Temple, who endeared herselves to her adult co-stars by not only learning her lines in one reading...but THEIRS as well. And she'd prompt them, too. Goddamn brat!

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 11:37am

Not to take anything away from Nathan, but what's so impressive? Two roles in a year is impressive? Heck, there are people out there who do two shows AT THE SAME TIME. There are thousands of actors in rep companies around the country and the world who do a dozen or more different roles a year. Most of my actor friends in NYC, do 5 or 6+ off and/or off-off plays every year (plus readings and workshops and commercial work). And let's not talk about people in soap operas and weekly hour long series on tv who have dozens of pages of new dialogue to learn every day.

Sorry, doing two shows in an entire year (and having PLENTY of rehearsal time prior to each) is hardly a big deal. Most decent actors do more than that.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 11:52am

Very true, Margo. Kathleen Chalfont and Cynthia Nixon, to name just two, have appeared in two shows simultaneously. Charlotte d'Amboise and Elaine Stritch have both understudied major roles while performing major roles in other shows. That is much more impressive to me.

Margo, have you seen the show yet?

[ken8631]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 12:45pm

Well, I'm impressed by anyone who can remember lines even in a single show (I'm not an actor). At a Q&A after a play with Patrick Stewart, I remember one question and answer. He was asked what was his least favorite part of doing a play, and he said - learning the lines. He wished there was a computer chip you could stick in your head for each play so you didn't have to memorize the lines.

I don't see how people do it, I can't remember what I just had for lunch!

[SamIAm]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 12:47pm

Margo...not sure what you are counting as a year in the life of Lane but in the past 12 months he has done the Frogs for which he wrote AND acted, the Producers in the UK (with three days of rehearsal) AND the Producers movie. Now he is doing Dedications with about 3 weeks of rehearsal AND a new actress inserted along with his taking over Frechette's role. AND he is studying the script for the 9/6 start of the Odd Couple rehearsal. Prior to that he did Butley and the second run of the Producers along with a bunch of voiceover work. He's a busy boy.

I understand your point about other actors. I did summer stock and I know the rigors of doing one show and rehearsing another. I don't think anyone on this thread is saying that there aren't other actors out there doing this...just that Lane is a real workhorse. As are a number of other actors. It is clear that they are very dedicated to their work and, even when the gig doesn't pay well, there are still actors out there who will take the job.

BTW, I do know actors who don't take soap operas and summer stock because they are not quick studies and can't be prepared on short notice, or find it impossible to work on more than one thing at a time. As you said, without taking anything away from Lane, I think we can tip our caps to those actors who know the rigors of multiple projects and STILL give Lane kudos on stepping in to help out McNally.

Just as an aside, regarding Dedications in general, Lane and Seldes both demonstrate grace, nuance and depth in their performances. This piece could easily become trite and melodramatic in the hands of the wrong actors. But not so with these two.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 1:39pm

No one's debating whether Lane works hard, but in my opinion, he doesn't work any harder than most decent actors out there -- few of whom make even a fraction of the $100,000/week he got paid for The Producers or the $50,000/week he'll get for the Odd Couple. I don't begrudge him the money -- he's earned it. But, if I were going to give an award for the hardest working stage actor around, he wouldn't make my top 1000. It would go to one of my friends (or their colleagues) who go from play to play to play (usually for a salary that barely amounts to cab fare) in the city and around the country, to audition after audition, non paying workshops and showcases and readings, and waiting tables or bartending for hours on end to keep a roof over their heads. THEY deserve an award for hard work, not Lane.

Putting all that aside, I did see the show last week and found it enjoyable for the most part. It was a surprisingly heartfelt, bittersweet, sentimental work from McNally, celebrating the importance and the healing power of the theatre. Lane was in a much more somber, low-energy mode that usual, but was nonetheless, more or less effective. Seldes is Seldes, giving her usual master class in the art of acting with each glance and movement. R.E. Rodgers was at his scene-stealing best as the chauffer and Michael Countryman was solid.

Alison Fraser struck me as a bit strident and uncertain as Lane's partner. Miriam Shor and Darren Pettie do what they can with the underwritten, stock characters they've been given, but McNally really hasn't given them anything to play (also perhaps part of the problem with Fraser's performance).

The direction by Michael Morris plods in places and lacks energy. He relies too much on Lane and Seldes to carry the evening -- which they more or less do -- but gives them little support. Seldes is gifted enough to give a great perfomance in a vacuum (which she sometimes has to do here) and Lane is always watchable, but his performance is so subdued and unengaged that at times he appears drowsy and overmedicated (I half expected him to start yawning and lay down on the stage and take a nap a few times).

But, it's always a pleasure to see Seldes and Lane on stage, even in a production and play that's as unfocused and torpid as this one. McNally has created an occasionally evocative, melancholy mood piece with some occasionally funny zingers for his two leads and some charming things to say about life, death, hope, art and inspiration. A pity that the overall production fails to be imbued with the kind of theatrical magic it attempts to celebrate.

[ken8631]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 3:14pm

Wow - Margo certainly has a way with words (engineer here). Great job with that review! I agree with all she said about the play and the performances that my wife and I saw last night....

We're looking forward to the "Odd Couple". Off to "Spamalot" tonight with the 2 children (24 and 21, so not "children" anymore...)

[SamIAm]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 4:11pm

Margo, as I said in my first post, I DON'T disagree with you. There ARE plenty of hardworking actors out there. I don't want to vote on who works harder than someone else. I think the statement here was just that Lane works hard and is dedicated to his craft, not that he worked harder than all other actors in the business.

Both Seldes and Lane are constantly working and that's great. When people get to a certain point in their career, it is tempting to lay back and just take certain projects or to live on the money you are making and not work for months at a time. Really dedicated artists don't do that.

As for the salaries you quote, I'm surprised to see this come up again after Lane AND Broderick have denied the salaries and said that the press was exaggerating. Whether you believe them or not, no one has ever confirmed these salaries, and thereby shot down what NL and MB said...so whatever they are making...they are making...working hard is still working hard and I would say that they have brought some interest back to the theater on the part of those tourists and audience members who were previously wandering away, which is also worth something.

As for your review of the show, I do agree that the piece needs work, though with the new ending now in place, I doubt McNally will do anything more during this run. Perhaps he might undertake some rewrites later...only he knows that for sure.

I agree that Lane and Seldes make this show worth watching and there are moments of good dialogue in the play that could be expanded, some scenes that could be tightened or cut, and some character background that could make the play more meaningful.

But I'll leave all of that to McNally. As for Lane seeming to be drowsy, I didn't find that to be true. He IS playing a more subtle character...NOT Max B or Pseudolos, and he isn't center stage at all times, but he is clearly engaged in what is going on. I like seeing actors do things that allow them to show their talent in other areas, and hopefully prevent the studious pigeon-holing that most audience members like to engage in.

There are lots of other comments I might make about the cast and the writing but I'll save that for the critics, and will not spoil the plot for those who have not yet seen the show. The show can use some work, but if you haven't seen it yet, I think it's worth seeing Seldes and Lane together on the stage!

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 4:18pm

Anyway, it isn't like Lane WROTE the Frogs in one year (which was last year anyway).

As far as The Producers stuff - I don't imagine he had THAT much extra stuff to learn/do....as he's been doing the show long enough.

Of course he is a great talent - but it isn't surprising what he does.

Hell, Gary Beach did The Producers movie and La Cage...and that probably isn't all.

[TabooPhan1]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 4:47pm

I think everyone here has very valid opinions, but for me, the reason Nathan Lane is seen as such a workhorse is not because of the number of things he does, but the energy he puts forth when he does. Not to say that you are wrong Margo, because many actors put forth just as much energy and time, but there's something about the way that he does it that is to be admired. I've often wondered what entertainment would be like without him, and I realized that I don't know any actor that could do the roles he's done quite so well. Any interview with his co-workers will say, "I've never seen someone put so much energy in from rehearsal to production", and if that is the case (as I've never worked with him), that is a trait I aspire to meet and I think he is worth every positive comment he gets. Just my opinion.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 5:14pm

Thank you, TabooPhan1 for that very eloquent and perceptive statement.

You've pointed out something that sets Lane a bit apart - that very old-school dedication and comittment to every project he undertakes that one sees in Merman, Jolson - all the very greatest Broadway stars. That attitude can't help but be inspiring to others - more than one star has stated that they'd crawl through broken glass to be able to work with him.

Updated On: 8/10/05 at 05:14 PM

[bta212]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 5:50pm

I appreciate and admire Lane's energy, his impeccable comic timing and his ability to give a powerful and powerfully nuanced performance. Having said that, am I the only one who is tired of his "sad, gay clown" character? He strikes me more and more as a one-note performer. The one note is beautifully realized, but increasingly repetitive.

As for Dedications or Stuff of Dreams, I found the performances of the principals to be quite good, with Marian Seldes tossing off another (apparently) effortless performance of a caliber and power that left me literally breathless more than once in the course of the evening. She is, as always, pitch-perfect in every line delivery and every move of her body. I believe that there is nothing that woman cannot achieve dramatically, and that there is absolutely no-where that she won't go in the service of her character. It is positively thrilling to watch her.

I found the play itself completely unsatisfactory. The relationships and feelings and emotions are described but not felt or demonstrated. None of the relationships or characterizations rang true, save for that between Lane and Seldes, and I attribute that entirely to their skill rather than to the writing.

As with the other McNally dramas I have seen, he has come up with several nice turns of phrase and posits some potentially thought-provoking ideas, and then lards a few hours of pointless dialogue and stage direction onto them and calls it a play.

I can't recommend the play, but I will still insist that any theatre-loving person I know go see it in order to experience Ms. Seldes' performance.

[TabooPhan1]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 6:21pm

"...Having said that, am I the only one who is tired of his "sad, gay clown" character? He strikes me more and more as a one-note performer. The one note is beautifully realized, but increasingly repetitive..."

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think that's entirely untrue. What about Laughter on the 23rd Floor? He's hardly a sad clown in that, or his roles in The Lion King or Mousehunt? I'm sure you'll find certain elements in these roles that could be construed as "Sad-clown", but I think that's pushing it. Even The Birdcage didn't make him a sad clown, he was just acting like a mother. Having said that, I think that his forte as the humorous, miserable man stems from his actual life (if you read anything about his past, it shows...blatantly). My opinion is that it works for him, and he makes me laugh every time, so what does it matter? It's his choice if he stems out or not, and I would love to see him do it. But if what he's doing is still funny, who cares?
As for the sad, GAY clown thing, I think that was just a silly remark. In most of his work, he plays a schovonist (sp?), I don't understand why you threw that in.

[bta212]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 6:43pm

Taboo--you make some valid points; I didn't see "Mousehunt" or "Laughter on the 23rd Floor", and I'm willing to say that maybe I've missed the performances that would change my mind. "Birdcage" clearly struck us differently, as I would put that in to support MY thesis, rather than yours.

As for the gay thing, there is an archness, a camp quality to his humour--the stinging retorts, the bitchy observation--he's clearly channelling a gay vibe: I can't label it any other way; it's like Paul Lynde as center square: the line isn't necessarily gay, but the line reading sure is.

And you're right to say that it's his choice to push himself or not. I can only speak for myself: I am losing interest in him as a performer.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 6:44pm

taboo you posted before I had a chance to answer but I do have to agree that the generalized statement that he always plays a sad, gay clown is really a misstatement. Many of his roles (outside of Terrence McNally plays) are men who are NOT gay and there isn't a hint of sad, gay clown there. He is a dramatic and a comedic actor and in Butley he turned the funny lines as well as the dramatic ones...but if you want to fault McNally for writing this kind of role, remember that Lane wasn't even IN the original cast so if you think Nuncle is a sad, gay clown (which I don't) then he would have been played by Peter Frechette and not Lane. It seems to me that you are a) not considering Lane's entire body of work and b) not considering that he doesn't WRITE this stuff he just portrays it and if SOME of his roles are about gay men who are unhappy gee....now isn't THAT realistic in some way?

And besides, my idea of a one-note actor is one who does and only CAN play one type of character or one role over and over again on stage, TV and in film. Someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Chuck Norris springs to mind.

Updated On: 8/10/05 at 06:44 PM

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 7:11pm

"...there is an archness, a camp quality to his humour--the stinging retorts, the bitchy observation--he's clearly channelling a gay vibe: I can't label it any other way; it's like Paul Lynde as center square: the line isn't necessarily gay, but the line reading sure is. "

I'm a gay man, and I don't see Lane as giving a line a specifically 'gay' reading. That snarky, wry quality in Lane's delivery is in the great tradition of those actors of the 1930s and 1940s I love: Jack Benny, Joan Davis, Jack Oakie, Joan Blondell, Jimmy Durante, Patsy Kelly, Phil Silvers, Ann Southern, Ned Sparks, Martha Raye and Louise Hovick.

Updated On: 8/10/05 at 07:11 PM

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 7:14pm

That's reasonable.

His popular movies are the ones in which he plays that gay clow role.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 8:49pm

Wow! This thread is really getting weird. First of all, I thought we were talking about Dedication. But since it seems to have turned to a discussion of Lane being less or more hard working than the average actor and/or his one-note 'sad clown' career history:

First, the DELIVERY of his lines in Dedication is now what distinguishes them as 'gay' ala Paul Lynde (and therefore evidence of his sad clown portrayal)? He IS supposed to be a gay man in this play so??? And...I really didn't find his delivery GAY...though I'm not sure exactly what that means anyway. What is gay delivery? As Master said, I don't get that comment!

Secondly, the note about his most popular movies being those where he played a gay clown? Which ones would those be? Bird Cage (no), Mouse Hunt (no), Lion King ????? Boys Next Door???? Which ones?

My advice is that if you tire of an actor, move on...but don't blame the actor. Perhaps you've gotten all you can from them as performers...that doesn't mean they only act on one note nor does it mean that they are letting you down. It's OK to just say you don't like them.

As for how much work Lane did and when...the Producers WAS on three days of rehearsal and while he DID know the role well, he still had to get up to speed on what they were doing and gel with a new cast. Also true that Frogs was NOT written all in two weeks, but it was written while he was doing a lot of other projects, as was the screenplay to the defunct Jackie Gleason movie which he wrote while working on a number of other projects.

Remember that just because someone isn't in the street doing visible work, doesn't mean they aren't working on several things you just don't know about.

All of that aside, I THOUGHT we agreed from the beginning that there are other hard working actors, and that by saying Lane was working hard we were not denigrating any other performers or saying they were slackers. I'm sure the person who started this thread by saying 'Lane is hard working' is probably sorry they even brought it up at this point.

I have an idea...let's go back to talking about Dedication and its merits and/or flaws. I'd be interested to hear more reviews. I've seen it and, as I said, have my own opinions, but I'd like to hear what others think.

[HeartinNYC]

Posted: 8/10/05 at 9:47pm

Mercy, guys...

Listen, there are all kinds of hard-working actors out there...some famous, some not...some successful, most not...etc. etc. etc. Nathan Lane is one of them. He's also not a twenty year-old kid with boundless energy; and in fact, it has been discussed over and over again here and elsewhere how he worked through severe leg pain due to an accident during FROGS, etc. Acknowledging Nathan's hard work by no means lessens the discipline and accomplishments of other actors.

And as for an actor giving gay delivery...omg, let's drop this topic like a hot potato. I'm a lesbian and can't stand another label on anyone.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go out to buy a few flannels shirts and get a buzz cut. (Yes, that was sarcasm.)

PLAY NICE!

[TabooPhan1]

Posted: 8/11/05 at 1:28am

I'm actually really interested, SamIAm, to hear more about Dedication. I haven't seen it yet, and unfortunately probably won't get the chance. However I would love to hear more about it :)

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 8/11/05 at 12:01pm

I went last night. I'll post a review shortly.

[ken8631]

Posted: 8/11/05 at 12:46pm

The ONLY reason my wife and I went to go see this was because Nathan Lane is in it. Plus, the house was full. We did enjoy it, but would not have gone if Nathan (who we have seen in other plays) wasn't in it. (

As an aside - We did go se "Under My Apron" on Sunday night at the MTF, was not bad - not only seeing shows just due to who's in it... Daughter and son both have been waiters, that's why the interest in this one.

I will admit, we do tend to gravitate to shows that have actors/actresses we like in them thogh ("Over the Moon" for Jarrod Emick, "Manuscript" for Jeffrey Carlson, "Lennon" for Terrence Mann, etc)

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 8/11/05 at 1:33pm

I don't have time to write a big, long review. I'll just say that I found the show underwritten. Lane and especially Seldes are terrific. I felt that Alison Fraser was acting in a totally different play.