Miriam's The Glass Menagerie Reflections

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/24/05 at 1:46am

A few years ago, Miriam (Onceadancer2) had written a wonderful response about The Glass Menagerie on another message board. I had saved her reflection because I found her comments interesting. Since Menagerie is once again playing Broadway, I thought I'd repost her thoughts for all to enjoy. (Part of the paper is torn so I'm missing a couple of words). Thanks Miriam for your wonderful account!!

I saw the original Glass Menagerie in 1945. The one thing that many of you have not been able to do is to put the play in its original historical context. When Menagerie opened in 1945, the war was ending and the US was coming out of the depression. Watching the play made the audience see and feel what had happened to them; grinding poverty, miserable living conditions, parents eking out an existence and also looking for a way to exert one's own voice in an age that had seen devastation of which you cannot recapture or know in those days after WWII. It was exhilarating, but it was frightening. Where do we go from here?

It was this spirit that Williams captured so beautifully. Laura was crippled, yes, but the nation also felt crippled in [word missing] and was looking for a way out, but how? Of course, I am generalizing, but you would have had to experience a depression to feel the depth of these people.

The original cast was extraordinary. Laurette Taylor captured every nuance of a woman totally at loss with the world and she was also able to exhibit a spirit of what once was great physical beauty that had languished as well as a spirit that was almost broken but seemed capable to nurse itself. She also stressed Amanda's self-absorption, stubbornness [word missing] and how this ultimately stifled Laura. Eddie Dowling, who played Tom, was 50 years old, I think. One got the impression in the play that Amanda had him at a young age right before her husband abandoned her. And since Taylor was in her sixties, it made for very interesting situations. Dowling also played him as a gay man who had sublimated his passion too long, that his outbursts were more sexual frustration than anything else. This was downplayed by the critics, but for someone who was there, it was very palpable.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 3/24/05 at 1:50am

What a beautiful post.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/24/05 at 3:27am

Miriam is SUCH a wonderful treasure on this board. I wish she would post more often because her insights are always insighful, inspirational, educational and invaluable. Thank you, Miriam.

One thing that occurs to me -- how important is it, do you think, that on some level, for the Tom character to work, should he "read" as gay? Tom is the Williams surrogate in this somewhat autobiographical play and, as we all know, in real life, Williams was gay, adored his sister (and made sure she was taken care of for the rest of her life), but felt smothered by his domineering, Amanda-esque mother. In my opinion, the character's frustrated and closeted homosexuality is very much part of the subtext of the play.

Miriam mentions how Dowling, who was obviously a bit too old to play Tom, was still very effective in the role because he emphasized the character's sexual frustration. In the various productions I've seen over the years that "worked," I definitely sensed that same frustration from Tom.

Part of what doesn't work about the current one is Slater's rather roughneck portrayal of Tom that lacks a sensitive spirit, a vulnerable ethos and, most critically, the soul of a poet. I suppose a Tom that has those qualities doesn't necessarily also have to read as gay and still be a successful characterization, but given the deep connection the character has to the "real" Williams, I wonder if it's ever totally escapable.

Can Tom be played as being undeniably straight, yet still be fully convincing?

My own answer is "perhaps" (Waterston was close), but I think that the question of Tom's orientation will always, AT LEAST, linger in the air by the play's close if it's been a successful performance and a production that fully captures the spirit of Williams' intentions.

[WillParker]

Posted: 3/24/05 at 10:37am

thanks for posing the question that you did, margo. I was thinking along those lines when the critcs complained that Christian Slater was not gay enough in the role. Having read the play many many times and actually having played Tom, it's my opinion that yes, the character is gay and while that's certainly in the subtext, Tom has much more going on for the actor to play as well. I think he's got lots of guilt, lots of pain, he's trapped, frustrated, repressed (sexually and otherwise), and I'm of the opinion that those things are more important for the audience to see than the homesexual undertones. Gay is not necessarily fey and poets are not necessarily dreamy. So yes, I do think it's entirely possible for Tom to be played believably without being necessary to have him played overtly gay.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/24/05 at 11:37am

Thanks, Goth for reposting this--and thanks Miriam for posting it.

Rob and Craig ought to do some sort of oral history (or electronic history) of Miriam's memories--or maybe give Miriam a page on BWW.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/24/05 at 1:46pm

whether or not the audience gets that Tom is gay--Tom IS gay. And you can bring that subtext easily to the surface or not.

There was a wonderful moment between Elizabeth Ashley and Robert Sella (Alley Theatre 2001) where after describing Jim as good looking, Amanda gave a half smirk to Tom--that knowing look. Mama knows!! And it's just something that isn't discussed in the household even though both characters know about it.
She knows full well WHY he "goes to the movies". And he may be going into the theater--but not JUST to watch a movie.

That is a time period where you did not discuss these things. Either to mom or to an audience. And it makes for delicious subtext.

Can Tom work as a heterosexual? I think he probably can. But, I don't believe that it is true to Williams' intentions.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 3/24/05 at 5:02pm

i saw the Alley production as well, and when Ashley could catch her breath, there were magical moments.

As to Tom's "orientation" i think it's one of those things an actor playing the role can decide for himself. Certainly Tom would reject the stereotype of patronizing dependence that was modeled for him in his parent's marriage---and that he rebels against for Laura's sake as well. Whether that means he rejects heterosexuality is up to how the actor decides to imbue the inner life---but a reading of Williams' whole canon reveals not a single mature relationship between adults, either hetero or same-sex. At war always seems to be the "animal" (most clearly in STREETCAR's Stanley, but also in the doctor in SUMMER AND SMOKE) and the "noble" (Stanley's antagonist Blanche and the doctor's, Alma). That both these sides of human nature exist in all people regardless of orientation is pretty clear---and that while one side might be the preponderence, glimpses of the opposite are usually discerable as well. Frustration as the two extremes provide conflict in each character's internal motivation is a natural outlet. But not necessarily is that outlet, for Tom's character, a choice of being "gay."

For a very funny take on the debate, see Durang's FOR WHOM THE SOUTHERN BELL TOLLS, where Tom's "you always go to the movies" takes on a whole other meaning. The gender reversal of Laurence and his lesbian blind date help push the sexual stereotyping of the original to the forefront.

And JRB, how handsome, and actually well-acted, was Grant MELROSE PLACE Show as Jim, the Gentleman Caller, at the Alley?

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 3/24/05 at 5:05pm

Tom is gay. It's just never fully discussed. You are supposed to figure out yourself.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 3/24/05 at 7:51pm

sorry, ERRICO, with all due respect, i'm always skeptical of "supposed to" statements. The actor should play what feels right for himself. The audience should perceive what makes sense for them. Insisting on any one reading being universal can limit interpretation in a non-productive way. Williams writes fascinatingly complex and ambiguous characters. Why should we insist our individual perception be agreed on by every other opinion?

The fact that Williams was gay, and that Tom is his surrogate, is not enough to impose that perception. That's like suggesting Shakespeare could only write women's roles as played by men, since he was a male actor who had played female roles as a boy. The characters he created are not men in drag, but women. There are shades of meaning to be found and played, if interested, in the origin of the characters and their casting, but they are not exclusive of other interpretations.

Beacuse of Albee's sexuality, there have been attempts to "conceive" WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF as all-male, or a mirror for two male couples. Or to impart homoerotic impulses in ZOO STORY. There are parts of Albee, likely, in every character he writes, just as there probably are traces of Williams himself in those he created. But every person has so many disparate elements, why should a thinking actor settle on the same element of the author's personality for his own interpretation?

[GypsyRoseLee]

Posted: 3/24/05 at 11:58pm

I just recently saw The Glass Menagerie this past Sunday. In my opinion, Christian Slater's interpretation took something away from the role. When he says...

"And while the other boys in the warehouse regarded me with suspicious hostility...Gradually their hostility wore off and they also began to smile at me as people smile at an oddly fashioned dog who trots across their path at some distance."

...I felt that a good deal of the meaning of that line was lost.
He struck me too much as just a regular old guy for anyone to regard him with "suspicious hostility."
I agree with TxTwoStep that insisting on a universal interpretation is limiting, but I think that there are certain things about certain characters that are just too important to leave entirely up in the air. I feel as though this is one such case. A good deal of his unhappiness, I feel, comes from his sexual frustration, and eliminating that weakens the character for me. Maybe i've just been reading the play and having my own interpretations of the characters for so long that a new one is a little shocking for me. I am trying to remain as open-minded as possible. :)

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 1:26am

I don't think Tom is gay because Williams is gay. I think Tom is gay because the play is autobiographical. And because the subtext is clearly there--though you CAN turn those lines to mean something else if you truly want to--I just don't think it works as well, hence the criticisms that Slater is getting. I believe he is gay because Elizabeth Ashley was best friends with Williams and knows the answer to that question. And THAT is how she played Amanda. (sidenote--Williams remarked that Amanda is more Ashley's mom than Williams')

"The actor should play what feels right for himself."

I do not agree with this statement. My job as an actor is to stay true to a writer's intentions. And the director's vision. Yes, I have to work off of my experiences and emotional life--but I would never play all of my characters as gay. And let's be clear that when I say gay, I do not mean fey.

I do agree that an audience is allowed to come to whatever conclusion they do--that is what is beautiful about subtext. "It is important to be clearly specific, but not specifically clear". This is one of the most important things an actor can remember.

I know people disagree on this matter, but Tom IS gay just as Jim IS straight. It is NOT an infringement on universal blah blah blah for me to say that. The way I see it, it's as foolish to think Tom is straight as it is to think that Brick, Arnold Beckoff, or Zanna is.

Yes, Grant Show was lovely. Anne Dudek was also a revelation as Laura.

[GypsyRoseLee]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 3:05am

A bit off topic, (but my curioustly will hopefully excuse this transgression) but what does "fey" mean?

[SturmUnDrang]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 5:07am

someone who is 'fey' has adopted the stereotypical gestural and vocal traits that would be associated with a screaming, flaming queen.
as for tom... It's absolutely the actor's choice as to whether or not he should be played gay. The text supports him being so- I would say it almost demands it.
But sexual orientation is not the issue- what Tom needs to be is exceptional... painfully different and acutely sensitive. Whether that be 'fey', or 'dreamy eyed wanderer'... he is not an average joe. That's Jim's role. Jim's tragedy is that he once was more than an average joe, he was once exceptional, and we meet him at a point when he has accepted the fate of reducing himself to average, but is not so far gone that he can't still conjure the taste of his promise...
Tom's is that he never has been, nor will be, anything other than an outsider. No matter who his buddies are, what job he does or where he lives... he will always be on the periphery.
margo is right- he needs to have the soul of a poet... someone who is estranged from his fellow man, with no hope of being accepted into the fold... but filled with great longing and love for them (whether that be sexual or spiritual longing, is up to the actor to decide)...
Updated On: 3/25/05 at 05:07 AM

[onceadancer2]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 10:14am

I had forgotten all about my previous post. What is so interesting about the first GLASS MENAGERIE was that the success was so unexpected.

Look at the original actors:

Laurette Taylor: who was known as an alcoholic and very unreliable. She had not had a success in almost 30 years and was considered a true has-been.

Eddie Dowling: a song and dance man who had made a name in the Vanities and Scandals as well as "SALLY IRENE AND MARY" and Honeymoon Lane. In the late thirities he went "legitimate" with excursions into Saroyan with variable results. But as a serious actor?

Julie Haydon: one of the theatre's most bizarre and kooky characters. She later married the waspish critic George Jean Nathan. Does anyone know is she is still alive?

Anthony Ross: a respectable actor, who, strangely enough, was so out that I don't think he was even in. Stories used to proliferate about him and his nocturnal sojourns. But not for this board!

Dowling directed along with Margo Jones, who later became the director of the Dallas Repertory.

Critics were very impressed. However, Stark Young of the New Republic made mention (if I am not mistaken) of Tom's "unusual character" He also said something to the effect that the works of Williams would succeed if there was "enough of the sexy about them." I wonder what that means?

Also, regarding Laurette Taylor, she no doubt channeled all her frustrations, pent-up emotions and raw feeling into the role so that the playbill should have read, not Laurette Taylor as Amanda Wingfield, but Amanda Wingfield as Laurette Taylor. Perhaps this was the key to that original characterization.

Miriam

Updated On: 3/25/05 at 10:14 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 12:23pm

I was blown away by the number of people who site Laurette Taylor's Amanda as the performance that changed their life in Broadway: The Golden Age. It's a shame that performance isn't on video.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 3:45pm

"Julie Haydon: one of the theatre's most bizarre and kooky characters. She later married the waspish critic George Jean Nathan. Does anyone know is she is still alive?"

No. She passed in 1994, at the age of 84.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 3:04pm

i want to make clear that i have no problem with someone playing Tom as gay. However, i do think in our PC and "politics of sexual identity" era, the imposing of a modern reading on the character of Tom's sexuality might not be necessary. When Williams wrote Tom, much less the source short story "Portrait of a Girl in Glass", he didn't even define himself as homosexual (or as anything) yet. That was not the fashion of the period. i'm not sure Williams ever, in the subtle discretion of his adopted Southern background, defined himself as gay. Why then should the alter ego of his adolescent self?

Yes, the play is autobiographical. So were Eugene O' Neill's. But not every character modeled on O' Neill himself ends up a playwright or an alcoholic. Aspects of the inspiring personalities are used when appropriate. Williams wrote in a kind of naturalism, with a lyrical quality...that is why i suggest an actor interpreting Tom draw on qualities they identify with. If "gay" in the modern sense is not one of those qualities, creating a possibly false impression of it is not helpful nor constructive (regardless of the actor's own sexual preference). i am also not defending Slater's performance, which i have not seen. Likely his choices might have led him astray in other directions.

My preference is that audiences (and reviewers) keep an open mind to motivations. Different choices can shed light on different aspects of well-written characters. And Williams certainly gave us those.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 3:11pm

"However, i do think in our PC and "politics of sexual identity" era, the imposing of a modern reading on the character of Tom's sexuality might not be necessary."

I posed my question SPECIFICALLY in response to Miriam's statement that when she and other audience members saw Dowling play the role 60 years ago, she said he "also played him as a gay man who had sublimated his passion too long, that his outbursts were more sexual frustration than anything else."

That's not a modern PC reading -- that's a reading from 60 years ago. And throughout the years, actor after actor has made the same choice. It's right there in the subtext of the play and I think that if an actor, such as Slater, chooses to ignore it, then he's not being true to the character, the play or Williams' intentions.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 3:13pm

Definition of fey: slightly insane, an otherworldlyish "elfin" quality NOT flaming.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 5:56pm

with all due respect, Margo, i think "subtext" is just that. Actor after actor played the EmCee in CABARET like Joel Grey. Does that discount the choices the revival EmCee's have made? not at all. Either approach is valid.

i don't discount Miriam's reading of the original actor's choices. However, i have done my fair share of Williams research, and i don't agree that his intention, nor the first actor's choice, was the modern definition of "gay." It hadn't been defined yet. If an audience member saw it that way, or remembered it that way, all for the good for them.

i still don't think it should be a "universal rule." That's all. And let me quote today's DILBERT:

"I simply mentioned both the pros and the cons. People are so conditioned to take sides that a balanced analysis looks to them like hatred."

http://www.dilbert.com

That's true of a lot of debates on this board.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 6:03pm

Have you seen Slater's performance, and if so, do you think it works?

I don't and the reason to me is that he doesn't come off sensitive/vulnerable/ gay enough. THAT'S my point. That's why I asked whether someone had seen someone play Tom without those qualities, but still be effective. I haven't through over a half dozen productions I've seen of it over the years.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 6:17pm

yeah, i stated i didn't see Slater's performance. i thought it was odd casting from the get-go, but i'm trying to keep an open mind. i've seen a lot of Toms, and worked on a piece about the play's opening in Chicago where in Dowling was a character, so did some research on him as well. For more about Williams and his mother, see SHOPTALK, a book of interviews, in which hers appears. There is also a great trove of Williams materials at the University of Iowa, which was collecting things prior to his willing of his estate to Suwanee. i'd love to visit Suwanee since they got some of his materials, and see the new theatre they built there in his name.

[InfiniteTheaterFrenzy]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 6:29pm

While Christian Slater was better than I thought he'd be, he definitely wasn't playing the role gay. I thought his slight vulnerabiliy, overwhelmed with toughness was an interesting choice...

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 3/28/05 at 11:17am

very interesting quote from Terrence Rafferty in yesterday's NY Times article on the daughter of Arthur Miller and her hubby, Daniel Day-Lewis (son of a British Poet Laureate, if that's what they are called over there):

"The temptation to interpret works of art in terms of their creators' biographies can be a powerful and terrible thing: the biographical approach is a fallacy at best, and at worst the snake in the garden of aesthetics."

No judgement, just a good reflection of some of the discussion in this thread.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/28/05 at 11:39am

When I speak of Tom being gay--I do not mean that the actor should have to DO anything to communicate that to the audience. The actor could very well know Tom likes guys--and the audience never know it. I'm not asking the actor to do anything more than recognize that part of Tom which is unspoken and unseen--but there if you choose to bring it to the surface. And that was a time period where men and women had to hide their sexuality--so why would Williams talk openly about it? Why wouldn't he like many other writers use as much subtext as he could get away with?

I recall when I was in highschool discovering that I was gay. I yearned to express my feelings for other boys. But, I couldn't. So, when I wrote poetry--it was absent of pronouns and names (unlike my straight classmates' poetry). I had to express my deep passions in metaphor--never blatantly expressing how I felt. When I wrote a play for my theatre class, I had to suppress any outright expressions of love or attraction between guys. I say this is the environment in which Williams wrote GLASS. I say that even if he wrote the play today, his Tom might not be able to share his secret with him mother, sister, and co-workers. (like SOMEONE I know on this board...) And before I came out to my mom--she knew. And the only time she made any indication of suspecting me was when we fought--much like Amanda does (subtextually) in her fight with Tom. People say MANY things even when they can not overtly.

And, as I stated before--Ashley KNEW Williams and KNEW this play from his lips. If you want to debate this with her--and if SHE can be swayed to agree with you, I shall call you the victor. But, in contrast to any argument and ideas we may have, I bow to the author's intentions where we know of them. Thus, I bow to the fact that Tom is gay--not to say that I do not think a straight Tom couldn't work. It isn't true to the author's intentions. And, as has been stated by others (and I agree): I have yet to see a "straight" Tom that works.