GREY GARDENS - reviews

Am I missing a thread already about this? Can't believe nobody else has tabulated the reviews for GREY GARDENS that opened last night at Playwrights Horizons.

Overall, a very mixed to negative reaction for the show with praise (often extravagant) for leads Christine Ebersole and Mary Louise Wilson. Ben Brantley calls Ebersole's performance one of the best ever to grace a musical.

NY TIMES:

http://theater2.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/theater/reviews/08grey.html

NYPOST:

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/62861.htm

NYDAILYNEWS:

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/theater/story/397632p-336976c.html

BROADWAY.COM:

http://www.broadway.com/gen/Buzz_Story.aspx?ci=525896

It wouldn't appear that the show has received enough critic support to transfer, but one laments that Ebersole's performance won't be eligible for the Tony Awards where she would make the competition squirm!

Updated On: 3/8/06 at 11:47 AM

I'm not sure I would call those reviews mixed-neg...more on the dead mixed reviews, with almost raves and almost pans. As of Sat, they were looking to transfer the show. But that was before reviews came out. I'm not sure those reviews will change much.

---

if you go to www.broadwaystars.com - there's a whole listing of the reviews

it's kind of funny - everyone is unanimous in praise of Ebersole, but the reviews are completely polarized - either they had a million problems with the show, or they loved it...

As I said in my review, they should toss out Act One altogether, and just use Act Two as the basis for the show, perhaps retaining three or four songs from the first act for use in flashbacks. Ideally this is a 85-90 minute one act musical. There just isn't enough interesting or dramatically essential material to justify a two hour, forty minute running time.

---

I agree with Margo, that the show really shines in the second act. Act 1 is needed in parts for those who do not know the story well but may work better as flash backs? or as a shorter intro to the show. All in all I rather enjoyed the show, esp the cast which I thought were incredible.

---

Well, the documentary manages to set up the story in about a 1 minute montage of newspaper clippings. The two women pretty much tell the story of their lives, so it would seem flashbacks would be an easy way to flesh out the backstory (if they really feel it is necessary).

There is no way to really dramatize just "how" Edie and Edie ended up like they did. It's simply the combined effect of isolation and decades of an insular existence. The documentary I think makes that pretty clear - so I agree, even without having seen the musical - that a long first act trying to point to one specific period in their life when it began to "unwind" isn't going to work or be effective.

Updated On: 3/8/06 at 03:14 PM

That what ultimately annoyed me about the first act. After 90 long minutes with 14 pastiche songs, we had been given no insight of any kind into these women that isn't readily apparent from the opening of the documentary. It told me nothing new. Not even a specualtion. We see Big and Little Edie in typical little mother-daughter conflicts that frankly are no different than you would see in any family with a strong mother and 20-something daughter still living at home. With the breaking of the engagement with Kennedy I guess the creative team is somehow suggesting that that was Edie's last chance at love and that she was then condemned to live out her life in Grey Gardens, which -- if that's what they're going for -- is ludicrous. There's no reason whatsoever a very tall and very attractive heiress's life would be "over" at the age of 24 from one broken engagement. So what? There surely must have been dozens of other eligible men of their class out there.

And as far as her being trapped in that house from then on, she moved to New York shortly afterwards and lived there by herself for years (returning when her mother fell ill). The psychology and pathologies underpinning the choices that led to their reclusiveness and living in squalor are far too complicated and complex (and unknown) for a 90 minute first act to try to capture (and too be sure, 14 bland Porteresque songs don't even begin to explore the questions).

Also, the book and performances of the characters in Act I bears little resemblance to the eccentric old broads in Act II. The two Edies are barely recognizable in Act I and thoroughly normal (Gettelfinger especially who couldn't be more sane and together -- there's zero resemblance personality-wise between her and Ebersole's Little Edie of Act II). Since they're completely normal when the Act I curtain falls and looped out of their minds and crazy when the curtain comes back up in Act II, makes you wonder what the hell happened to them in the ensuing 30 years. The show doesn't even speculate. It's like two completely unrelated musicals that just happened to have a mother and daughter named Edie in each.

Act I, as written, doesn't have a reason for existing, undermines the overall show and needs to go.

---

No as it is the second act is way too short to be its own show.

---

No, Act Two is not long enough. But, as Margo said, by using a handful of scenes and songs from Act One as flashbacks, it could be long enough. About 90 minutes or an hour and 45 minutes (tops). The show uses the ensemble as ghosts of the past in a semi-sense for about one number in Act Two, and then never again. It was creepy and interesting and I thought it worked well. I just wish that they used it more often. I mean, the Edies led a very glamorous life and then it crumbled away into a pathetic existance. I'm sure there would be SOME memories that they look back on that would cause some controversy.

I really did like this show a lot, but that is mainly due to my fondness for Act Two and Christine Ebersole's wonderful performance. I didn't think it was a "mess" as some posts have stated, I thought that it was merely flawed. I like about 75% of the score in Act One and probably most of the score in Act Two. The song "Around the World", I find very lovely.

Major changes that need to happen if they have any intention of making the show transfer to Broadway successfully:
-Sarah Gettlefinger either needs to get a new grip on her character or needs to go.
-If Act One must stay than much of the dialogue and two handfuls of songs need to go (see down)
-At the top of my head "Body Beautiful Beale", "Being Bouvier" and "Daddy's Girl" are ones that DEFINATELY need to go. "Mother Darling" and "The Telegram" can become dialogue, it would help.
-Again, if Act One has to stay we should get a hint of what the Edies will become in Act Two rather than doing "inside jokes" throughout. Such as Little Edie saying to Joe "My days at Grey Gardens are limited". We should see a hint of the zestiness that the later Little Edie is full of in Act Two. Right now, she just becomes a nose-in-the-air heiress
-Again, just trim or re-write most of the dialogue. Because the length of the show is too long and Act One is completely pointless unless we see an easier transition from Act One to Two.

And that's it. I hope that the creative gets the stamina to actually CUT and REWORK parts of the material. Because you can see something wonderful there.

---

Wickedfan,

I think you're onto somethng when you talk about the use of ghosts in Act II. Why not have it happen a couple of times that an argument between the two older Edies, suddenly gives way and segues via turntable into the two younger Edies having basically the same argument 30 years earlier? Have this lead into a song that then three quarters of the way through is finished up by the two older Edies who return via the turntable. It would tie together the past and present and comment on how they wound up being what they became. You might also have the "ghosts" of the 1940s Edies accompanying the 1970s Edies on a song or two, unseen in duet (you'd have to cast another actress the play older Edie in the 40s but that's fine -- lose the brats who add nothing anyway and the ensemble won't be any larger in size).

It would all be very FOLLIES and a very effective way of telling this fascinating story. Heck, maybe Hal Prince might even be persuaded to stop by and give a few pointers on how to stage it. I think it would be SO much better than what they have.

---

It's funny you mention FOLLIES, Margo. I mention resmblances between GREY GARDENS and FOLLIES in my review for the show. I love the idea of having scenes from the present and past intertwine by using the turntable. I always thought that a turntable was a brilliant staging technqiue but that too many shows abuse it by either overusing it or not using it in the right places. GREY GARDENS would be the perfect example of just how effective it could be.

At least they have SOME good material to work from. I really just think Michael Grief should be canned. I didn't like his direction for RENT and thought that he didn't have enough good moments in GREY GARDENS to really gain any praise from me.

I think this show could be very much like FOLLIES and it has so much potential. I really do hope all the best for it.

Margo, thought: What if the end were similar to the one they have now with "Two Peas in a Pod", but with the ghosts of the younger Edies looking on? Or mimicing a scene behind them where they fight but resolve it. It could either show how the ghosts of their prime will always hang over them, or it will show that despite all of the ranting and bickering, these women really DO care for each other.

---

Exactly. They didn't explore a flashbacks and ghosts concept because it was too FOLLIES? How stupid is that? So, instead they went with a lumbering meandering static piece of non-staging where characters sit around a piano and burst into musical number after musical number -- none of which advance the plot one iota? That's what they decided to go with instead? Dumb.

I love how Des McAnuff was unafraid to borrow a little bit of Michael Bennett's incomparable staging of DREAMGIRLS for JERSEY BOYS. It made perfect sense. You're telling a backstage story of a 60s music group where you need to do quick almost cinematic cuts from on stage to backstage, so why not steal from the master? It's the cleanest, quickest and most efficient way to keep the story moving at a rapid pace, but still keep the storytelling clear for the audience, so borrow away (if Bennett were alive, I'm sure he'd be flattered). All the greats stole from each other -- that's a fact. A step here, a transition there, a fun lighting effect here..... why not? As long as most of the rest of the work is your own, why not reuse the good stuff?

I frankly don't know what Greif and Jeff Calhoun did here in this Act I. They obviously did no cutting or refining or shaping of the material and the blocking is right out Directing 101 (any decent high school director -- with a million dollar budget -- could stage this show as well). There's a very good show somewhere in all of this material -- someone ELSE needs to come in and find it (paging Hal Prince..........)

---

Updated On: 3/8/06 at 06:04 PM

The ending with "Two Peas In A Pod" as it is, is the one false moment in Act 2. It's the one 'cute' moment that seeks to tie everything up nicely. It negates the shattering "Another Winter in a Summer Town" number that preceds it. I actually feel that Act 2 could be even darker.

Having the earlier Edies 'haunting' the later Edies is a very interesting and tantalizing idea, but it means that Ebersole (or whoever plays Act 2 little Edie) needs to give up the sassy Big Edie of Act 1 to another actress. I'm not sure if she'd want to do it. But it would add the strength of another actress capable of a real star diva turn. Now, who would everybody cast as the "Dream Big Edie"?

I say Victoria Clark.

---

Updated On: 3/8/06 at 06:21 PM