Judy Garland Musical "END OF THE RAINBOW" Headed To Broadway March 2012- Page 3

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 12:01pm

Bennett sounds extraordinary; I'm looking forward to seeing her.

PalJoey has nearly encyclopedic knowledge of all things Garland. I think he's expressing reservations that would seem to have been borne out as indicated by two reviewers from the "Guardian":

"Peter Quilter's musical play about Judy Garland is wafer-thin and depressingly predictable, and relies for its effect far too heavily on camp  a laziness possibly born of the knowledge that Garland's fans will devotedly pack out almost anything to which her name is attached."

"But, for all the skill of the acting and the smoothness of Terry Johnson's production, it's hard to love a play that invites us to wallow in Garland's tragic decline without offering much in the way of enlightenment."

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 12:28pm

I happen to know PalJoey was in a drug-induced haze during the last year of Judy's life, he emulated her that much. He was taking it all. Restoril, Ambien, Xanax, the whole nine. He finally snapped out of his stupor on the day he heard Judy died. He was so angry that night he started a riot at his favorite watering hole.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 12:54pm

@Paljoey. You obviously don't know much about Judy in her last six months of her life

Cute, Juggles, but I know a little bit about a lot of things. But the writer and director and producers of this show obviously don't know anything at all about her Garland's previous 46 years and 7 months.

The British review Reginald quoted is the one the Guthrie and the Shuberts should have paid attention to.

The Guardian review said "Garland's fans will devotedly pack out almost anything to which her name is attached" but in America, that kind of Garland fan doesn't exist anymore.

Most Americans don't really remember or care about Garland other than the Wizard of Oz and to a lesser degree some of her lesser-known film performances. The large percentage of her fans are not the "camp-loving gays" of the pre-Stonewall/pre-AIDS era. They are, perhaps surprisingly, middle-American, middle-aged, heterosexual and female--and more interested in her talent than stories of her drug-taking.

The Judy Davis performance is now a benchmark that this seems to fall very, very, very far below.

I predict mixed reviews in Minneapolis, where the slick direction and pathetic over-acting will impress some reviewers and subscribers, followed by unanimous pans from the New York critic, all of whom will agree with the Guardian.

[juggles]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 1:03pm

@Reginald...thanks.
But not all the review has been 'shown' here is some more of it. Billington states that it is not explained how Judy got there....yes it is; 'Judy' explains to Mickey how the studios initially got her on drugs [not class A drugs.] and how her mother fed them to her as well. Then 'Judy' goes on to list them all. Don't know how Billington missed that part.
.............................

Quilter's play, however, deals in symptoms rather than in causes. It shows us Garland as a walking casualty without ever explaining how she got there: it says virtually nothing about a Hollywood studio system that in the 1930s pumped its child stars with amphetamines in order to maximise their working potential. The play also offers few insights into performance psychology. "It's a terrible thing," says the heroine, "to know what you're capable of and never get there"; but all the evidence suggests that Garland, at her best, was perfectly capable of achieving her goal.

The play's main virtue is that it does at least show Garland could be funny: discovering that she has inadvertently swallowed capsules intended for a cocker-spaniel, she gleefully does canine imitations and rolls over on her back to have her tummy tickled.

And, of course, there are always the songs, which Bennett delivers with the right mixture of emotional intensity and vocal bravura. She even manages to move with great dexterity from a Garland slumped on the hotel room floor to one defiantly delivering The Trolley Song or The Man That Got Away.

[juggles]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 1:07pm

@Paljoey, sorry to come back to you but an American critic went to see the production and gave it a brilliant write-up in the New York Times.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 1:12pm

Are those last two paragraphs you posted, juggles, supposed to be good things?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 1:26pm

I don't think Brantley's review made it sound like anything other than Garland-slumped-on-the-hotel-room-floor with a flashy performance and slick direction. He used Joyce Carol Oates's phrase "celebrity pathology" and talked about her performance being so manic it was scary. Hardly the kind of review that brings in Broadway tourist audiences.

In the end. this is just the kind of thing gives the British a necrophiliac thrill but leaves American audiences cold.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 1:29pm

She rolls on her back to have her tummy tickled?

Oh for crap's sake.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 1:31pm

Juggles, I don't believe it seemed I was quoting the whole of both reviews. I was pointing out some aspects wherein the reviewers seemed to agree with what I took to be PJ's point about the play.

[juggles]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 1:31pm

@Findingnamo.....It gives Bennett a good review. All I can say is go see it and find out for yourselves.
To others who think West End audiences aren't as discerning as American ones, makes me howl with laughter.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 1:40pm

I am pretty sure the Barbeau "Garland" play folded early as well due to lack of interest and wasn't that one playing in the Village?

This show sounds like a re-tread and a snooze to me. Audiences due tend to show up for great performances though. If Bennet is really stellar people may come.

However, it always surprises me what flies on Broadway and what doesn't. To me shows like Master Class, Looped, End of the Rainbow all seem the same to me-half-baked, fabricated stories of legendary women where they are treated like side show acts or stand up comedians. Yes, some get lauded and some get panned. It makes no sense to me.

[juggles]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 1:54pm

What a shame that all the criticism is, before anyone has even seen the play, which at one point has men blubbering into their handkies; it is so sad that the world lost a most wonderful icon and that's part of what the play is saying. Must dash, I have a plane to catch.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 2:02pm

The play's main virtue is that it does at least show Garland could be funny: discovering that she has inadvertently swallowed capsules intended for a cocker-spaniel, she gleefully does canine imitations and rolls over on her back to have her tummy tickled.

Just what I want to see Garland doing canine impressions. Where do I book my tickets?

[Kristie-K2]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 2:28pm

Negative Sells...The preview looks like a bad production of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf"

Why can't they do a show about Judy starting in 1960, starting with Carnegie Hall.

I don't want to see a drunk, pill taking, crawling on the floor Judy...

The Greatest Entertainer of all time does not deserve that!!!

[beagle]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 3:09pm

I find it frustrating that people who haven't seen the show are arguing like they know better than people who have seen it. I thought it was a showcase for a remarkable performance by Bennett. It is dealing with a very specific period in Garland's life, and I guess if you want shows that focus on who she was when she was younger, then this isn't the show to see, but I did not see it as sensationalism or reveling in Garland's weakness and pain. The bad side is shown, but so is the good side. Since I didn't know a lot about Garland's later life, I did some looking on YouTube just to see if there were any videos of Garland in the last months of her life so could get an idea of what she was like then, and there is a documentary that shows her onstage and backstage at her last (or one of her last) concerts. Based on that I think Bennett got her just right. I didn't think the show was about wallowing in Garland's tragedy, but the tragic elements are there because the play takes place very close to the end of her life. The echoes of the earlier Judy that I also saw in my YouTube search are there, as well, and I thought it was a multi-faceted portrayal and one of the best individual acting performances I have ever seen live.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 3:56pm

beagle, I understand your points and respect them. However, to people who are Judy fans and even those only acquainted with her work there is a valid question. Do we need another histrionic, scenery chewing ode to Garland. Let's face it-she's pretty easy to nail behaviorally and vocally-any number of drag queens and actors worth their salt could do it with enough study time.

It does irritate me that so many people are so easily impressed. An actor hits a few broad brushstrokes physically or vocally while re-creating a person who actually lived and people just gasp in awe. That statement is not to denigrate Bennet-I have not seen her.

Now I hope I don't get crucified for this but let me say first that I adore the performance of Ebersole and the show Grey Gardens. It's my #1 favorite musical. However, I am also a devout Little Edie/Grey Gardens fan and was long before the musical was born. Ebersole doesn't "nail" Little Edie-she hits a few of the trademark Edie-isms and blends them with her own performance. I think Ebersole's is an iconic, masterful performance but I don't think I'd go so far as to say she is channeling Edie. There are moments in the musical where she sounds nothing like Edie and morphs into various vocal terrains (Long Island Jewish mother among them.)

I think being known for a striking impersonation of a person who lived is hard, but its much easier when the person has a colorful canvas of physicality and vocal style to draw from. I hold judgment on Bennet but do wonder if she isn't going to be Isabel Keating re-dux. It's hard not to "do" or "be" Judy without appearing as campy as the drag queen at the corner bar.

Also, there is validity to someone who says "that isn't Judy." If Liza were to see any of these shows, I imagine she would know firsthand that these constructed case studies of her mother are inherently false and hurtful. Most of these shows tends to play, again, on very pronounced, dysfunctional aspects of the singer but may entirely miss the boat on who she is.

[beagle]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 4:47pm

I wouldn't call Bennett's performance a direct impersonation. She does get a lot of Judy's mannerisms from what I've seen from that video I was watching, but it's not a one-to-one copy. To me, it seemed more like Bennett was trying to capture the essence of Garland's personality without religiously copying every detail. I don't think a performer can do that, anyway, without coming off as a cheap imitation. I think actors always have to bring something of themselves to a portrayal or it comes off as fake. Also, no matter how good a singer a performer is, nobody is going to exactly re-create Garland's voice, so they have to go with trying to capture the spirit of her performances, and I believe that Bennett did that. Others can disagree if they want, though. What I saw on stage in London was a three-dimensional portrayal that came off as a real person and not a tribute act or simple impersonation.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 4:53pm

How is her impersonation of the Cocker Spaniel?

[beagle]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 4:59pm

^To be honest, I don't remember that part. It's a very small part of the show.

Just see the show and decide for yourself what you think. I personally really enjoyed it.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 6:20pm

juggles, PalJoey didn't say West End audiences are less discerning, he said they are composed of necrophiliacs.

I suppose a lack of discernment might inadvertently lead one to necrophilia, but as a rule they are different attributes.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 6:37pm

^ This may be my all-time favorite post.

[juggles]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 7:20pm

gaveston2 all I can say is hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[juggles]

Posted: 8/27/11 at 1:21pm

@carlosalberto.


#####The play's main virtue is that it does at least show Garland could be funny: discovering that she has inadvertently swallowed capsules intended for a cocker-spaniel, she gleefully does canine imitations and rolls over on her back to have her tummy tickled.

Just what I want to see Garland doing canine impressions. Where do I book my tickets? #####

Carlos, you just don't get it, hey? That scene displays Judy's sense of humour and just how funny she was.................go see it




Updated On: 8/27/11 at 01:21 PM

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 8/27/11 at 1:41pm

I would rather see Judy's sense of humor portrayed another way, thank you very much.

[juggles]

Posted: 8/27/11 at 1:47pm

Oh the play does more than that to display her wit, but you have to see it all in context but never mind; don't see it...that's totally your loss