Albee's Thoughts on Virginia Woolfe

[Nina]

Posted: 3/18/05 at 11:20am

Prompted by an earlier thread stating there is nothing interesting left to discuss, I give you this topic.

I recently heard Edward Albee say of ".....Virginia Woolfe" and it's revival that some plays become famous for breaking ground or being shocking but after a period of time, the play is famous just for being famous. It no longer shocks and is long past groundbreaking. It continues to appeal to new audiences just because it is famous.

I believe Mr Albee was not down playing his brilliant writing but was showing modesty in explaining away the almost cult nature of the show. Is it possible for a show, like a celebrity, to become famous just for being famous? If so, which plays do you think are the Paris Hilton of theater?

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 3/18/05 at 11:38am

Are you asking what shows survive more on the hype than on the quality? Or what shows are remembered more because of our fond memories of them rather than on how good they really were?

I think Pippin is one that people think is better than it really was. I don't think it really holds up very well yet people are crying for a full revival.

The Wiz? Groundbreaking? Yes. Still holds up? Ehhh...not so sure.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 3/18/05 at 11:40am

What an interesting topic. I think I'd have to think about it for a bit.
I will say I often feel the hype surrounding Rodgers and Hammerstein shows is a bit much considering I'm never very wowed at them. I can certainly appreciate R&H's contributions to the form (and Agnes DeMille, for that matter! Don't forget her!), but I much prefer Rodgers and his other H(Hart) and their music and shows.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/18/05 at 11:41am

The first one that comes to mind is THE BOYS IN THE BAND. I'm not sure it was all that great to begin with - such melodrama! - although the first act is pretty uproarious. It's relativity had to do with its era of production. Now it seems to garner attention because of its place in gay history more than anything else.

I've also been a little leary of the awe that the name Shakespeare seems to induce - Cymbeline is not Hamlet.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 3/18/05 at 11:50am

Boys in the Band is a great example. Especially since it has been compared to Virginia Woolfe. I still feel VW is a much stronger play. I was dragged to a production of Boys a few years ago, not wanting to see it again. But it was a great production of a flawed piece.

I think this thread could turn into an "over-rated" debate. And I think there is a thin line. Nina, would you care to clarify the topic before we stoop to Cats and Phantom bashing? Hmmmm...?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/18/05 at 11:54am

"She Stoops to Phantom-Bash"

[Nina]

Posted: 3/18/05 at 11:55am

I wasn't thinking so much about shows that are over hyped, like Wicked, for instance. I think what Albee meant is that there are shows that may have been groundbreaking or controversial in their day and which new audiences attend with a cartain hope or expectation of experiencing that.

What seems to happen is that the audience does, mainly because they are looking for it, not because it exists any longer.
Bill Irwin was saying that audiences have been giggling at lines like school children hearing a naughty word. Certainly it's not the first or worst these adults have heard but for some reason they seem to feel they must be shocked or titillated.




Updated On: 3/18/05 at 11:55 AM

[Nina]

Posted: 3/18/05 at 12:10pm

I think this thread could turn into an "over-rated" debate.


No, not over rated show, we've done that discussion to death. And certainly not over hyped shows, we do that on a daily basis.

This is about brilliant pieces of work such as those written by Albee, Williams and others that have gained a larger than life reputation for something other than their brilliant writing. Those shows that, according to Albee, people go to see because of the shows reputaion or fame, not because they actually know and/or appreciate the show or writing.

My Paris Hilton comment was misleading. It would make it appear I was talking about shows that have no real substance.

Updated On: 3/18/05 at 12:10 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/18/05 at 12:23pm

If the writing is sound, I think it all boils down to the viability of the subject matter, or perhaps the universality of the topic. THE CRUCIBLE was written in the 50's as a response to McCarthyism, but it's theme of societal judgement can be layered over a wide range of concerns.

It also deals with the perspective of the theatre-goer. There was a recent disagreement over the dated nature of A CHORUS LINE on the main board. Some felt that it's treatment of the gay themes were out-of-date because of the advancements made in gay rights, while others of us felt that the fears and prejudices addressed in it were still in evidence today.

As a side note, something else that I think affects this phenomenon is the effect that film has on the public consciousness. Because of its more far-reaching capabilities, I think many in the general population may know of a piece more from that medium. I'm always curious as to what happens when someone goes to see CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF, for example, because they loved Taylor and Burton in the movie - and then get confronted with the ideas presented in the full script.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/18/05 at 12:29pm

Taylor and Newman?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/18/05 at 12:34pm

Oops, sorry - had Woolf on the brain!

[Nina]

Posted: 3/18/05 at 12:54pm

Maybe I should give Albee a call and ask him to further explain his comment. The way I view it is that when you go to see a show with that type of attitude, it's like reading the Cliff Notes of a Macbeth. There is something missing. The shows reputation has over shadowed it's brilliance.

I think you make a good point, Dgrant, regarding the movie versions of classic plays. those would be another type of theater goer. Those who were impressed with the Taylor/Burton version of the show, the Taylor/Newman version of "Cat...." or the Leigh/Brando version of "Streetcar..."

[wildcat]

Posted: 3/20/05 at 9:19am

I wonder if EQUUS would stand up under close scrutiny after all these years. And I don't know that TORCH SONG TRILOGY would have the same impact these days, especially as Fierstein's plea for tolerance of some sort of gay marriage would no longer be considered a groundbreaking concept.

[paradox_error]

Posted: 3/20/05 at 4:51pm

A musical like COMPANY that was groundbreaking in its day now has to settle with being a period piece. Sure, when it premiered there was shock about marajuana, alcoholism, some gay themes/mentions, but now it has to be updated to be relevant. It also doesn't work so well as a period piece, because well...the seventies are a period most people would like to forget...

So this masterpiece doesn't work as well as it used to. It's still wonderful, but it doesn't have the punch that it did when it first premiered.