Beautiful RAIN: Julia? Let's hear it for the boys

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/12/06 at 7:20pm

Ms. Roberts' debut is the spring buzz, but Mr. Greenberg's play has always been about the men, in particular, the two contrasted roles played here with brilliant attention to nuance and emotional shading by Paul Rudd. Rudd's work is the centerpice of THREE DAYS OF RAIN, frankly as it should be. Though it's an ensemble piece, in the strict sense, the highest emotional stakes are centered around the complex father/son dynamic (MILD SPOILER:) that Rudd gets deeply inside by illustrating both men. We feel the father's ghost hanging over act one, and then meet him, poignantly, in the compelling and (to me) satisfying 2nd act. Cooper's work as his competition in every arena is vibrant, comedic, and equally impressive.

That leaves us with the odd casting and presence of the "event," Julia Roberts. Stage chops? To me, she's merely adequate, in the way a good understudy can be. She generally holds up her end of the equation, but does so without much fire or emotional impact. Or, critically, sufficient craft--vocal power. The intermission buzz this afternoon was all about her intermittent inaudibility. A key word at end of an important line was swallowed, making everyone want to hit the rewind button.

To me it more about her low camera-ready energy. Perhaps the same work would resonate on film, where the eyes can prove to be an actor's center. But on stage, we need to be reached. IT's all too small and perhaps internalized. In act two, she must truly prove herself to be inspiring. A kind of muse. Sexy, crazy, mysterious. I couldn't help but think of how wonderful Patricia Clarkson must've been in this part. It cries out for more textured character work, and casting a leading lady, whose bag of tricks (C plus southern accent, admittedly luminous smile) is rather limited, leaves the show feeling oddly imbalanced.

Expectation with such powerhouse star casting hurts such a play's impact. We EXPECT too much of the Roberts character, whent the play is really far more about the crises between the men. In both acts, she has no big starry scene, no cathartic moments that she alone must carry, and the audience is left feeling ambivalent about her characters relative "weight," and thus Greenberg's work--unfair, because he never wrote this beautiful small-canvas play as a vehicle for an actress.

I am personally thrilled this piece finally landed on Broadway. It's a lovely play. I only hope its reception isn't overshadowed by the evaluation of Roberts. If she were to leave the play, and Clarkson brought in in June, the entire enterprise would truly be "must-see." I'd go back.

Updated On: 4/12/06 at 07:20 PM

[bare_nakedlady]

Posted: 4/12/06 at 8:28pm

Thanks for the great review!

I myself hated to see that this was a first broadway attempt (some would say vehicle) for Julia... not because I dislike her, but because I bet that Paul Rudd is amazing and wildly overshadowed. Too bad tickets flew out the door with all the Robertinites buying expecting something else. Thanks for letting us know about the men in the show! I wish I could see it!

Updated On: 4/12/06 at 08:28 PM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 4/12/06 at 9:06pm

I loved the entire show and staging. I'm a HUGE fan of the play and it really lived up to my expectations. I give her a supreme amount of credit for selecting this play in particular. It's a very tough and dense play to get through and any stage novice wouldn't usually attempt it on their first go-round.

[chouinard]

Posted: 4/12/06 at 9:47pm

I love this play. I think it's beautiful and the revivial currently on broadway - terrific. I enjoy most how subtle it is. And I have to disagree to anyone who doesn't think that Nan/Lina isn't a challenging role. I mean she carries the second act and I would say, it's as difficult as Rudd. Because they both have to play wildy opposite characters and do so with ease. I also liked the chemistry the two of them shared. I think Cooper has the easiest ride between all three of them. And he is terrific - oozing charisma. The more I reflect on the ending - the more I like that as well. Very life-like, intimate, moving, and funny.

[broadway86]

Posted: 4/12/06 at 10:39pm

Saw it today, and enjoyed it very much. I was very surprised by Ms. Roberts. While she certainly has room to grow, she really sold her few monologues, as well as most of her lines. She also carries herself well on stage.

I was not surprised with the vibrant work from Rudd and Cooper. Hopefully, both will get Tony nominations. The sets and lighting were brilliant, and the block was (mostly) very fluid. I met Joe Mantello after the show and told him what I thought of it. He was very nice, and seemed very appreciative.

While Cooper didn't sign autographs after the show (he was doing an interview), both Roberts and Rudd signed for EVERYONE, and were very friendly.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/13/06 at 12:07pm

Bare: I wish the show would extend after Roberts departs, because the evening's pleasures are many and varied. It's a play worth talking about on the way home, the next morning... Not enough of those around. Any number of wonderful women could come in and keep it alive. Too bad it's being sold as a "vehicle," when the piece itself might become the event, once the star goes.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 4/13/06 at 12:09pm

It's not being extended. It ends next to the last week of June and Martin Short has the theater booked from mid-July.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/13/06 at 12:49pm

We know it's not being extended.

This discussion is about the bigger issue, how the "event" became the star opting to appear in a play, rather than the play itself. It's just too bad that an American play's life on the Broadway stage is so truncated, based on star casting, in a season that is full of pieces from England and elsewhere (FESTEN, HISTORY BOYS, FAITH HEALER.) I hate to see Greenberg's play disappear after 12 weeks because Roberts is seemingly its sole reason for being. (And believe me, I welcome all of the other plays mentioned.)