Minority Report: The Glass Menagerie

Let me first off say that I have absolutely no frame of reference for this play. I read it once in high school and did the Laura/Gentleman Caller scene my freshman year in college...which was twelve years ago. I've never seen a production or any of the movie/television versions. I came to this play practically a virgin, likening my reading it in high school to frottage.

Unlike probably everyone else on the planet, I thought Jessica Lange was quite wonderful. True, she doesn't quite look like herself since she discovered the miracles of modern science, and some of her vocal inflections were pure Jessica Tandy. And yes, she cried more than a young widow at her husbands funeral. But, all tolled, she delivered an extravagent, heartfelt yet mannered performance. Acting 101 told us to make the actor's problems the character's problems. So, her mannerisms (she loves to act with those fluttery hands of hers) worked in the grand scheme of things. Her portrait of a faded Belle who has been hardened by life (unlike Blanche, who has been driven insane) was quite accomplished, if not yet fully realized. However, because of other casting issues, I don't think that her Amanda will ever reach the heights that I believe it could.

I have nothing bad to say about Christian Slater, the actor. He is quite accomplished, dedicated and does well by a role for which he is simply miscast. Because I hadn't familiarized myself with the play in quite some time, I was struck by how thinly veiled Tom's homosexuality is. I mean...my GOD he's gay. Slater is too robust, too butch for the role. He would not seem out of place at a shoe factory, where he was regarded with suspiscion. He also doesn't have the right vocal instrument for the role. He simply cannot let his voice rise and fall with the poetry in Tom's heart and soul. That said, he is still a compelling presence on stage, and so, if it doesn't completely work, I never felt like it was a failure either. May he return again and again to the New York stage.

After the performance, my boyfriend and I tried to figure out who would have been a terrific Tom. I would have loved to have seen Dallas Roberts' take. But, since that was out of the question, we went through a litany of young(ish) actors who could do it, but had trouble finding the perfect one. At 7:45 this morning, I opened my eyes, shook my boyfriend and said, 'Peter Sarsgaard.' He looked at me and asked, 'is dead?' I said, 'No...as Tom.' He declared it was a terrific choice and then fell right back asleep. I'm glad my epiphany stirred feelings in him. Fact is, not only is Tom a poet, he's also bitter...not really angry, not quite disillusioned...bitter. It's actually a hard quality to pull off, which is why it's such a difficult role to cast. I, however, being entirely too bitter, believe I would be definitive

Sarah Paulson was fascinating in the role of Laura. I completely understand the changes of 'acting like she's retarded,' but I felt there was more to it. It was actually quite daring, even if all of her risks didn't pay off. She had some heartbreakingly beautiful moments in the very long scene with Jim. I believe her attack on the line 'Now he's just like the other horses' was a risk that didn't pay off. It indeed acheived it's desired affect (laughter), but I think I would have liked to have seen it be a little more devastating (for the character and the audience). Her silent moments after Jim leaves were lovely (no...that is not a backhanded compliment).

Josh Lucas seemed uncomfortable on that stage at first. But the longer he performed, the more confident he got. He, too, had some terrific moments in a role for which, I believe, he is not ideally suited. He's just plain too hot and too much a winner to believe that this most popular kid in high school had hit troubled times. Strangely, I believe they tried to address this with his costume. It was ill-fitting to the point of making him look like he's gone to seed. But it didn't quite undercut his 'winner' demeanor. But, again, because he's quite a terrific actor, the performance was not a loss. It simply wasn't ideal.

The play itself is simply stunning. A glorious piece of theatre that I'm delighted I got to see. And, quite frankly, I'm glad I have the chance to discuss something (flaws and all) on a different level from the other theatre I've been exposed to recently.

There are friends on here who are gonna think I'm bonkers for my affection for this production (you bitches know who you are). But I stand by my opinions and encourage others to see this flawed, but surprisingly affective, piece of theatre.

---

Updated On: 3/17/05 at 10:50 AM

Again, you have every right to believe that. However, I think I've argued my case. So trust me, even though you may think I'm bonkers, I'll still find a way to sleep easy at night.

---

Reading that actually makes me want to go back and see it a second time so I can watch it with all those thoughts in mind. And I really didn't like the play or the production.

---

That's my problem. I dont think these actors were mining for laughs at all for the most part. Their poor line delivery just attracted the laughter most of the time. I cant possibly imagine that every time Amanda gives her southern-belle-type advice, the audience is supposed to roar with laugter. If that were the case, what the hell does Tom have to feel so anguished about. He might as well sit on the couch with a beer and just laugh at the woman. I don't think Paulson was aiming for laughs either. But if you are going to deliver beautiful, poetic realism through this monotone yelling voice, youre going to get laughs, no question. Anything dramatic can be MADE funny if you try. I also dont think Slater was going for the laugh. But when Tom is this exploseive, obviously-no-way-around-it hetero who just likes to yell, delivering anything in the language of tennessee williams will come off as funny. my feeling is that williams is such a poet, you must take special care to deliver his language. these actors in this production approaced this as if they were in some Niel LaBute show. Modern, nonchalant, yelling. Glass Menagerie is about a family trapped in a place where the trouble goes unspoken. There is RICH subtext here, not unlike a Chekov piece. These actors just completely missed it, IMHO. The resuly--laughter. Which they deserved. Whether they wanted it, im not too sure.

I suppose we'll never know. Though I do hate most of David Leveaux's work, i must say. Either way, too bad for me. But glad you enjoyed it. It seemed most of the audience actually did as well. It just irked me at the shows end when some woman commented to her hubby, "That was really funny." At that very moment I think I heard a creak from Tennessee Williams rolling in his grave. Just a creek.

has this actually opened yet?

Theatreboy33, I haven't yet seen this production so I've no idea whether or not I'd agree with your opinion, but you should really read the play again. There's a lot of humor inherent in TGM itself, as there is in most of Williams' plays. For some reason, a lot of people often interpret them as tragedies.

I say this with all due respect to your grandmother and her lovely memories:

Don't let anyone talk you out of seeing something because it couldn't be as good as the original (now...how would you ever know?)

It's one of the greatest plays written in the 20th century and is receiving a noteworthy production, imo.

PS...I just totally realized I'm logged on as the wrong person...switching back to robbiej!!

Updated On: 3/17/05 at 04:22 PM

I'm really excited about this production. I'll post a review after I see it a week from Tuesday.

Oh buh-ruther. Another theater major with a chip on his shoulder. I didn't say TGM is an undiscovered comedy, just that it ISN'T a tragedy, and it's NOT, certainly not by the elements used to define classic tragedies. If you can't keep an open mind then I think you're pursuing the wrong profession.

Didn't Tennessee Williams originally imagine the play as being more comedic than it's usually staged these days? Why else did he imagine the ironic projected captions in the reading version? They seem to serve to undercut or limit the melodrama of the play.

---

As you all know, I enjoyed the evening without thinking it was fully successful. After thinking about it some more, I've come to realize what I truly didn't like about the attack on the 'Now he's like the other horses' line. There was much about to like about Paulson's performace, chief quality being she wasn't an idiot. Yes, she was crippled by her shyness, but she was also knowing. Why I would have preferred a more wistful line reading is just that...it would have kept with the portrait of a woman who may have untapped talents and humor, which allows us to feel for her even more.

The truly shocking 'laugh' line, though, was Lange's reading of 'The future becomes the present, the present the past, and the past everlasting regret' (please note that that is a horrible bastardization). A risky choice, but one that I believe payed off. In that one line, you see a woman who has been beat up by the world, but who survives, nonetheless.

Again, would that the play were a touch more wistful, in general (which will be aided by Slater's deepening of the character with more time). But I think it would have been a terrible mistake if this were just an unrelentlessly maudlin piece.

---

Although I was relatively close, I had not one problem hearing her. Anybody else sitting further back have a problem?

---