Grey Gardens — Page 2

>> "Sorry to be dense, John. Was your point, then, that Terkel had already given the narratives shape when he published them? Or was it that Terkel's subjects were anonymous while many people knew the Eadies from the docs?"

The latter. The Edies from the docs were so specific as characters that it would be almost a crime to re-interpret them with different "faces". (Although I do very much appreciate the creative conjectures made in ACT I.)

The Edies were not participants in their story - their "story" fell victim to their very specific personalities, including how they spoke, and every little idiosyncrasy of how they conducted their lives. To change even one iota of how they spoke and behaved as recorded in the documentary would mean that their "story" would have to change.

With Terkel's narratives, there is much more room to create variations on "living" beings that still adhere to the narratives.

Terkel recorded situations that appealed to a "commonality" regarding careers. For example, the Fireman could play his monologues as a gruff Chicagoan but still be as believable if played as a more tender-hearted Philadelphian. The same is true for the Waitress, the Father, "Lovin' Al", etc. The stories of their occupations are "universal" but (just like in real life) their telling can be interpreted by all types of different characters that inhabit those occupations.

Even though his narratives were specific, Terkel's Working captured universal themes that were not completely dependent on specific character types. In contrast, the documentary of "Grey Gardens captured specific personalities that completely governed their narratives.
.
.
.
In my opinion...

Updated On: 5/18/13 at 02:09 AM

>> "FWIW, I did see the OBC of WORKING and it was quite a mess."

I'd heard that, too!
The nice thing is that shows can be re-worked and have successful regional productions. That was my first (and seemingly more satisfying) experience.

Even though I enjoyed the show, I still wouldn't rank it in a "Top 10" of best musicals...

1) I've never seen the documentary and loved the musical so obviously, the show does not rise or fall on the strength of "impersonating" those real people.

2) The first act is sort of wonderful- but afterward you do sort of see it as a prelude to the "real" drama of act II. But just as some misguided folks do act one as a "Happy" Into the Woods, the first act of Grey Gardens could stand alone as a quirky short musical. In any case, I think you need it to give pathos to that ending.

Wonderful wonderful!

Ebersole's "Another Winter" remains one of the most transporting moments I have ever experienced while watching live theater.

---

I fell asleep during the show. The only one that I slept as far as I can remember. Don't get the show and the appeal of the character. It was like,"So?"

I thought this topic said Grey Goose. No, seriously I did. Wow. One of two things is wrong with me. ...maybe both.

sanda, wish you would've enjoyed it more.

I think this story is so fascinating, as Christine Ebersole said, because of the unanswerable question: how did they get this way...or MOST importantly...why are they unable to get out of the situation? It really does fascinate me. I mean, Jackie took care of the $32,000 clean-up, and then, what...4 years later AT MOST...it's virtually uninhabitable AGAIN. How? How can Little Edie take care to choreograph and practice and make costumes and head wraps but not know that it's a bad idea to dump cat food and loaves of bread on the floor for raccoons? How can this have been true? I don't know, but it was.

The questions are endless, and, as Ebersole noted, unanswerable. I catch myself trying to come up with reasons as to why they couldn't get unstuck, and I just can't do it. It seems a paradox to me, really - a situation that seems absurd but is actually true.

I still don't see why Gettelfinger was replaced. I know - she didn't look like Christine, or she was too tall or something, and I know it's all mere speculation, but I would love to know how that decision was made. I thought Sara was wonderful and contributed so much to making that show so strong.

Sometimes it's best to trust your first instincts. I think Gettelfinger was the best choice for the role. She didn't match Ebersole to a T, but who cared? She totally understood Little Edie and played her beautifully and memorably.

I liked Erin Davie when I saw her, but there was a focus and fierce determination that was so right about Gettelfinger. She got the essence of Little Edie.

And that's worth more than any lookalike you can find.

I'm guessing the "creatives' were worried that their "stupid audience" couldn't figure out that Gettelfinger (of Act 1) was Ebersole (in Act II).

They should have trusted more. Hell, the housewives could follow along when Joan Crawford replaced her own daughter in the same role on a soap opera. Give them a little credit for using their imaginations.

(Another reason why I love Our Town so much. It never, ever insults the intelligence of its audience.)

---

I asked someone who worked on both the off broadway and broadway version why Sara Gettelfinger was replaced. He told me that the producers who became involved with the move to broadway said they would only move the production if she was replaced. Apparently they were the only people seriously interested in moving the show and the only way for Grey Gardens to get to broadway was with them. Nobody else was going to put up the money.

Incase anyone is interested, it looks like Sara Gettelfinger is doing Grey Gardens again at StageWorks in Fresno, CA this time in Christine Ebersole's track.
StageWorks

Incase anyone is interested, it looks like Sara Gettelfinger is doing Grey Gardens again at StageWorks in Fresno, CA this time in Christine Ebersole's track.

I would LOVE to see Sarah play Christine's part! What a trip that would be. I'll bet she's great.

---