Munk's ON GOLDEN POND review

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/26/05 at 12:48am

I saw this a couple weeks ago, but just remembered I never posted a review, so here:

Going by the reviews for this show, people like Ben Brantley for example, would lead the reader to believe that James Earl Jones is relevatory, ingenious, and is literally the second coming of Christ up on stage at the Cort. So maybe it's all the hype I was hearing - or maybe Ben Brantley was just being a tad dramatic - but I found little to be genuine and honest in this revival of ON GOLDEN POND - including Mr. Jones.

This is not to say that he isn't a good actor - clearly, he's fantastic. While he surely is deserving of (some) praise and of his Tony nomination, by no means is he brilliant in the role. I found everything about him, especially early on in the show, to be very VERY forced, insincere, and dishonest. He should have just worn a t-shirt that said "IM ACTING!" He certainly got more fluid and believable as the show went on, but he would frequently slip back into an awkward pattern of speech. His response time was alarmingly slow for most of the show. In act two, however, he was quite good. Even through the awkward "heart attack" scene that I don't particularly care for (and that doesn't quite work,) he was positively enchanting. Maybe it was a bad night for him - or maybe he has a hard time acting oppposite someone as terrible as Leslie Uggams - but it wasn't until act two when I really started to see some spark in his performance.

Okay, maybe when I said that Uggams is terrible I was being a tad dramatic. She's not a terrible actress. She's a pretty bad actress, and her shortcomings are far more evident than they should be in this production. I didn't for one second believe that she loved Norman. I didn't for one second see any sort of maternal quality within her - despite the evident history of their daughter's non-existant relationship with them. Every time she squacked "Oh NORMAN! THE LOONS!", I wanted to run screaming from the theatre. She does have a certain aura about her onstage - but God knows it's not from her acting ability.

Likewise, also lacking in the acting department (and every department, for that matter) is Linda Powell in her portrayal of Chelsea, the semi-estranged daughter of Norman and Ethel. First of all, Chelsea is supposed to be in her 40's - maybe even older. In the first act, it is mentioned that she is SO middle-aged that her ability to have children is either non-existant, or coming to a close. When Powell saunters on stage later on, she doesn't look a day over 25. Part of that has to do with her costuming - which was terrible. It looked like something out of the junior's section of JC Penny's in 1990. Yes, really that bad. She is the weakest link in the show - and performing along side Uggams - that is saying a hell of a lot.

As Chelsea's boyfriend (then husband,) Peter Francis James does just fine - he's barely in the show, and he does very well with what he has. As his son, Alexander Mitchell is really fantastic. It was a real joy to watch him onstage - and espcially to see Norman's demeanor change as a result of this child. With a tough hard-head like Norman, it would take a hell of a lot to make him reconsider things and change - which means a pretty damn special kid - and in this case, Mitchell nails it. He gives every reason for Norman (and the audience) to fall in love with him - and because of him, the play isn't quite so boring.

Overall, it's a pretty standard production of a pretty standard show. This show takes no risks - and this production (appropriately) is done in the spirit of the show - nothing stylized, nothing strange, and nothing out of the ordinary - it's all just very standard. And it's fine. The set looks just how it should, with a beautiful framed "backdrop" (for lack of a better word) of Golden Pond in the background that I wouldn't mind having in my house. And please, keep in mind that my calling this production "fine" and "standard" isn't to discredit this production - or to discredit this direction. ON GOLDEN POND is very honest and sweet in its intentions - but it's just not all that strong of a play - it never has been. But what sets this play apart from other plays of its nature is that it never tried to be anything other than a sweet, run-of-the-mill tale about an aging couple. Nothing groundbreaking, nothing revolutionary - nothing special. Just a honest-to-goodness heartwarming tale about life, and how fragile it really is.

As far as its 2 Tony nominations go, I'm still not quite sold on its nomination for Best Revival. Certainly, it's a more focused, clean, centered, and "packaged" production than the others of this season - THE GLASS MENAGERIE, STEEL MAGNOLIAS, and A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE - just to name a few, but in my opinion, STREETCAR should have gotten the nod over POND any day. Just my two cents.

[Thenardier]

Posted: 5/26/05 at 12:50am

Nice review

[broadway86]

Posted: 5/26/05 at 12:54am

Though you give me a hard time, Munk, your reviews are extremely entertaining.

'Every time she squacked "Oh NORMAN! THE LOONS!", I wanted to run screaming from the theatre.'

LMFAO

[Thenardier]

Posted: 5/26/05 at 12:55am

The boobs make me laugh...or is it the acting?

Updated On: 5/26/05 at 12:55 AM

[broadway betty]

Posted: 5/26/05 at 1:23am

Thanks for the review, munk. My eyes are about to fall out but it was worth reading(everything you write is worth reading, right? lol). It was on my long list of shows to see but I just scratched it off.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/26/05 at 1:46am

I wouldn't say by any means to scratch it off your list - it's pretty heartwarming - and this may be one of the last chances you have to see James Earl Jones live. If you can get there, get there - but I wouldn't make it a priority.

[TVBoy]

Posted: 5/26/05 at 1:57am

nice work, Munk... :)

[broadway betty]

Posted: 5/26/05 at 2:04am

That's the problem. I still want to see James Earl Jones but there's so much good theatre I haven't seen yet. Oh dear, what's a girl to do?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/26/05 at 2:08am

Thanks!

Well, they do have student rush. And, I can't see this show winning any awards and the weekly grosses are pitiful - so it will probably close not too long after Tony time. Just keep that in mind. Something like SPAMALOT, DRS, DOUBT, PILLOWMAN, even PIAZZA will be around longer than OGP.

[B-WayHereEyeCome]

Posted: 5/26/05 at 2:32am

To let a lone poster's disparaging review discourage you from experiencing two, count them two TONY winner's performances, is pretty sad. Don't let this poster's review keep you from experiencing, ONE a great play in its own rite, and TWO a great cast putting on a great production.

[pab]

Posted: 5/26/05 at 3:07am

I think it's a bit of stretch to call "On Golden Pond" a great play. It's an okay work but the term great should be reserved for the likes of "Death of a Salesman".

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 5/26/05 at 8:44am

We missed you!

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/26/05 at 2:57pm

I missed you guys too!

B-wayhereeyecome: Yea, two Tony winners. But they didn't win Tony's for this production. You could also say the same for two-time OSCAR winner Denzel Washington in JULIUS CAESAR - but it's simply not true. Have you seen the show?

And no, this isn't a great play. It's an okay play and this is a pretty good production, with the exception of the two ladies.

[romanov]

Posted: 5/26/05 at 3:04pm

On Golden Pond has got to be one of the best arguments against what Michael Bennett called "museum theatre." This revival should not have been. Oy vey is mir!

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 5/26/05 at 3:48pm

Munk (as usual) I couldn't agree more with your review. Except, I don't believe that Leslie Uggams is a pretty bad actress. This is just a bad role. She has been good in previous vehicles.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/26/05 at 5:57pm

I'm sure she's not always terrible - the only things I have seen her in are this and THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE (the worst-best musical ever, according to FORBIDDEN BROADWAY.) She did not impress me in either, so I really don't know how good she really is.

Although, I don't think the role is bad - Katharine Hepburn and Julie Andrews were great in it.