I feel the same as I do about
Hands On A Hardbody.
The appeal in both documentaries (for me) was "the reality" of their characters. Specificly, with "Grey Gardens", there was a sense of "
You can't write these characters -- nobody would believe it!" Documenting the "reality" of these specific, real people was what was interesting and captivating.
Additionally, in both documentaries, the "story" took a back seat to its characters. The more interesting element was that these characters were real (and in the case of 'Grey Gardens' - nearly unbelievably real) people.
When you remove that "truth" element, it's like making a recording of a recording; there's a noticeable "generation loss". A layer has tangibly gone missing.
The musical
Working was a much better fit to musicalize because although it was documentary-like, it was a collection of Terkel's written
stories. We didn't connect so much with specific people as much as we did with anonymous, relateable tales. Putting those stories onstage added the layer of connection to "real" people.
_________________
EDIT: To my mind, the success of
Grey Gardens lies in how well the two lead actresses can
specifically re-conjure those characters as they appeared in the documentary. It's similar to how I can appreciate a good impressionist. The beauty of the craft is in the execution of its details.
That also explains (for me) why ACT II is more interesting than ACT I.
I don't find the score all that interesting. They've basically musicalized the more interesting monologues (and that's a poor choice of words because 'monologue' implies 'fiction') from the documentary. Not such a great accomplishment to my mind.
Updated On: 5/15/13 at 05:38 PM