Official "A Streetcar Named Desire" Review Thread- Page 2

[Princeton78]

Posted: 4/26/05 at 10:44pm

Actually, the more I read the Times review...it's kind to Richardson, but I'd say far from a love letter...

"as incarnated by a truly radiant Natasha Richardson in the production of "A Streetcar Named Desire" that opened last night, Miss DuBois appears as pretty, dewy and healthy as a newly ripened, unbruised peach. Let them bring on those naked light bulbs, Blanche honey. You look marvelous."
------
"without credible conflict and crisis, there isn't much of a play.
All right, I'm exaggerating, but just a little."
------
"though Ms. Ryan turns in the production's only fully integrated performance, it is nonetheless Ms. Richardson, who has more effectively harnessed her star power for the Roundabout in "Cabaret" and "Anna Christie," who makes this "Streetcar" worth consideration by hard-core Williams devotees. Of all the great lady basket cases of the theater - a roster that includes Ophelia, Strindberg's Miss Julie and Mary Tyrone (of "Long Day's Journey Into Night") - the ethereal but erotic Blanche DuBois may well be the hardest, er, nut to crack"
-------
"The problem - and it is, let's face it, a really big problem - is that this Blanche never seems all that vulnerable. Ms. Richardson has a couple of moments of searing, outraged pain, as when Blanche describes her young husband's suicide. But her means of signaling imminent nervous collapse is to make her voice and hands tremble, and these vibrations often feel artificially switched-on. And Ms. Richardson's uncannily fresh face does not bear the marks of suffering."
------
"Mr. Reilly, so brilliant in Sam Shepard's "True West" and the films of Paul Thomas Anderson, would have been perfect as the awkward, gentlemanly Mitch, a role he has played elsewhere. But while Stanley does not have to be a beauty like the young Marlon Brando, who created the part, he does need to exude strong sexual promise and menace, neither of which is in Mr. Reilly's goofy portrait of him. "

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/26/05 at 10:50pm

USA Today is Positive (Three Stars):

"However beleaguered or vulnerable her characters — among them Zelda Fitzgerald, Patty Hearst and Cabaret's Sally Bowles — Richardson has rarely given the impression of being either a pathological narcissist or fragile beyond repair.

But in Streetcar, which opened Tuesday at Broadway's Studio 54, she seems stripped of all vestiges of earthiness, empathy and common sense. Showing up at her sister Stella's house, emotionally and financially broken, this Blanche is a fluttering, preening mess — but purposefully so. Mining all the pathos and humor with which Williams painted his hopeless heroine, Richardson makes us feel for her without trying too hard to make us feel sorry for her. It's a brave, often funny and ultimately moving interpretation.

The performance likely to generate the most controversy, though, is John C. Reilly's as Blanche's brother-in-law and tormentor. As immortalized on stage and screen by the young Marlon Brando, Stanley Kowalski was a coarse, menacing hunk of brute male sensuality. Reilly's Stanley, in contrast, is ... well, coarse, but not quite so menacing — and certainly no hunk.

Yet Reilly's lack of conventional sex appeal and the gee-whiz folksiness he conveys in calmer moments don't make him an unconvincing foil for the mannered, repressed Blanche. And his scenes with rising trouper Amy Ryan, who delivers another pitch-perfect performance as the much-put-upon Stella, offer a gritty naturalism that counters Blanche's frazzled fantasy world.

Director Edward Hall further emphasizes Blanche's inability to adapt to her surroundings by showing us Streetcar's New Orleans in all its grimy glory. Fans turn languidly, booze and cigarettes are in plentiful supply and bawdy-looking women with blaring gospel voices wail between scenes, lest we forget that the play isn't set in a Scandinavian monastery.

Granted, Williams' material generally isn't known to inspire subtle approaches. And artful nuances are provided by the actors under Hall's guidance, among them Chris Bauer, who lends some relief from all the tempestuous doings as the seemingly benign loser who courts Blanche.

In the end, of course, Streetcar is Blanche's vehicle — and fortunately, it's in capable hands."

http://www.usatoday.com/life/theater/reviews/2005-04-26-streetcar-desire_x.htm

[williamsburg]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 12:16am

The Times review is more a well-deserved love letter to Amy Ryan than anyone else in the cast. She is marvelous in it as she is in most anything she does.

I am surprised by the negativity about Natasha in some of the reviews. I really did like her perspective on Blanche.

[magruder]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 12:27am

Brantley says this about Amy Ryan:

"The capricious gods of casting have not been kind to Tennessee Williams of late. This "Streetcar" follows last spring's production, at the Kennedy Center in Washington, which was most memorable for the perversely witty wiliness of its Blanche, played by Patricia Clarkson, and the matter-of-fact sensuality of Amy Ryan, who portrayed Stella, Blanche's sensible sister. Happily, Ms. Ryan is on hand for this production, too, and she again lends the show an anchor of authenticity that keeps it from drifting altogether into the clouds of unbelievability.

Yet for all her admirable efforts, Ms. Ryan's Stella has problems connecting with her hunk of meat of a husband, Stanley, and her fey sister. (This is not, for the record, Ms. Ryan's fault.) Worse, there's not a flicker of that destructive chemistry that is supposed to flare when the hoity-toity Blanche, who grew up on a grand Mississippi estate, drops in on Stella and Stanley's slovenly digs for an extended stay. Since "Streetcar" is all about what happens when worlds and psyches collide, this lack of emotional contact leaves the audience dry when it should be wet with anxious sweat and tears."

Certainly nice for her, but I wouldn't call it "love letter" territory.

[williamsburg]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 12:35am

I said more a love letter to Ryan than to anyone else in the cast. Don't understand why that should irritate you.
Updated On: 4/27/05 at 12:35 AM

[magruder]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 12:48am

I'm not irritated. Just saying that even though he calls her performance the most fully integrated in the production, he still says she has trouble connecting with Reilly's Stanley. And while it's a good notice for her, I felt it's short of "love letter" territory, which is usually characterized by unqualified praise.

[KindnessofStrangers]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 12:51am

I haven't seen this yet, but according to the majority of the reviews it's exactly as I've imagined -- Richardson lacks the appropriate vulnerability and Reilly lacks anything remotely resembling charisma and brutish sex appeal that's needed to distinguish him from Mitch.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 12:52am

Actually, he says that Ryan has trouble connecting with Reilly's Stanley - this is true, but then he goes on to say that his is of no fault of Ryan. That doesn't detract from her nice comments, it's more of a dig to Reilly.

[magruder]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 1:05am

Here's the Bergen Record review. Just a warning that it comes accompanied by Eden Espinosa screaming at you.
Bergen Record

[magruder]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 1:11am

Pretty nice review in the Hartford Courant
Hartford Courant

[MadameButterfly]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 3:10am

"Actually, he says that Ryan has trouble connecting with Reilly's Stanley - this is true, but then he goes on to say that his is of no fault of Ryan. That doesn't detract from her nice comments, it's more of a dig to Reilly"

I had a thought about this. Overall the reviews seem to place the lack of chemistry squarely on Reilly, but wouldn't Amy Ryan also share in this? From reading the reviews, it seems to be taken for granted that if Reilley was more Brandon-esque that this factor would be obvious. However, I don't think that necessarily would follow. I think part of the "blame", for lack of a better word, could be placed on Ryan because it is an important part of her role to convince the audience that she is passionate about "her" Stanley...even if his charm is not immediately apparent to everyone else.
Updated On: 4/27/05 at 03:10 AM

[MATheaterLover]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 8:04am

I think its very ugly of Brantley to suggest that Patricia Clarkson should have brought the role to Broadway.

I love Patricia Clarkson's film work to death, and I would have DIED to see her perform Streetcar.

But I feel the same way about Ms. Richardson, and I was so pleased with her performance, that I could wait another 25 years to see someone else tackle the great Blanche DuBois.

Even if he didn't care for her interpretation, its a low-blow to suggest that another actress should have been cast.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 8:27am

MAtheatreLover, I don't see how you could possibly be in shock over that comment, it's in direct keeping with Brantley on a regular basis. :)

That said, it does seem most of the reviewers (I hesitate to ever call them critics) went right down the line of what everyone here feared, specifically that the show was miscast (at least for Stanley, which is pretty problematic). It certainly doesn't make me want to flock to see the show and I'm sure these reviews are going to hurt its chances for a Tony now.
12 Angry Men, anyone?

[magruder]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 8:34am

Some more reviews this morning

New York Post is positive
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04272005/entertainment/45469.htm

Daily News is positive
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/303801p-260015c.html

Star-Ledger is positive
http://www.nj.com/entertainment/ledger/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-0/111458222697640.xml

Washington Post is negative
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601447.html

Variety is mixed-negative, though good for Richardson
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117926904?categoryid=33&cs=1

Journal News is negative
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050427/LIFESTYLE01/504270365/1031

Updated On: 4/27/05 at 08:34 AM

[robbiej]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 10:26am

When you take a play as well-loved and studied as STREETCAR and you cast it in a way so as to illuminate aspects of character that may not have been illuminated before, you're going to have a WIDE variety of opinion. As it should be.

It's fascinating reading these reviews because they simply graf what they believe the play should be onto the current production without actually taking into consideration what the production team might have been attempting.

There's no sexual chemistry between Reilly and Richardson? I agree. And I think it was an absolute choice. This isn't a production where they want to f*ck the whole time and then get it on in a nasty, S/M kinda way. He rapes her. He rapes Belle Reve right out of her. He destroys her. It's not pretty and it's not sexy. I believe they were completely successful on this account. Now...if you believe that this cannot be supported by the text of the play, you have every right to express that and make a case for it. But I find it bizarre that eveyone is like, 'They're MISSING it!!!' Like a group of theatre professionals could actually get in a room and just not figure out that other productions have made Stanley and Blanche powerfully drawn to each other sexually.

Do you think it was an accident that Blanche in this production is the more overtly sexual creature? Disagree with the choice, but don't say 'They missed it' or 'they forgot it'. They didn't.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 11:23am

Superb points, Robbie. And on that score: Richardson's Blanche actually looks rather put-off by the Ryan Stella's waxing on about what happens between "a man and a woman in the dark." The 'chemistry' is very one-side, about a man who has a very proprietary attitude toward all women. He is child-like screaming for Stella, and sees her as chattel. When he rapes Blanche and destroys her, it almost feels is with a twisted sense of entitlement. That is the interpretation they have gone for, and it is consistently applied.

And, as per Robbie's remarks about the interpretation, never, ever has Blanche's aria about Stanley being a caveman landed with such specificity! (And one might say, accuracy.) THIS Blanche is not using the speech to distract from her own attraction fo Stanley; on the contrary, she finally lets loose with words to describe her own REVULSION. As Robbie says, love or hate it, this is very much supported by Williams' text, and is a viable way to go. Does anyone think a woman of Richardson's experience, education (and lineage!) would not know what she was aiming for?

Updated On: 4/27/05 at 11:23 AM

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 11:32am

Robbiej, I reiterate what we used to debate in our theatrical criticism class in grad school: the people writing on theatre in the papers today aren't critics, they're reviewers. This is all their opinion, supported by emotional statements designed to create neat, concise little sentences to either go on a billboard supporting the show or to be written elsewhere and accompanied by the phrase, "ouch."
None of these reviewers are engaging, in any sense of the word, in actual, theatrical criticism.
They do call them reviews, though, just as even the NYT calls their book reviews just that. They're personal. They take into account whether or not the play made Ben Brantley's showqueen diva worship turn on or not but not any actual analyzation of the text.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 2:00pm

Note -- Roma Torre also gave Streetcar a very positive review on NY1

Totally agree with the points above. Most reviews weren't critiquing the interpretation of the play that was on the stage in front of them, they were simply whining about how this production isn't exactly like the movie and so therefore it must be all wrong. Most of them couldn't get past their own preconceived notions of the play and how, to them, the roles MUST be cast in order to work, which points up yet another deficiency of most of these reviewers. They simply lack the training and skill to be able to evaluate a production on its own merits.

I, too, have see the film version many times, but you know what? In case you haven't heard, Brando's dead, as are Leigh (and Tandy), Hunter and Kazan (bless Karl Malden for still being around). They aren't coming back anytime soon and even if they could, they would play these same roles the same way in 2005. Must every Streetcar production be cursed with the ghosts of the film (since few people around now saw the stage production)? Shouldn't talented artists be allowed to find their own way into this material without being panned for not being enough like the movie?

Updated On: 4/27/05 at 02:00 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 2:08pm

But in this world of cultural shorthand, how could you expect anyone to put thought into something? If it doesn't reference the iconic touchstones of the movie, then how can it have any worth. Because, as we all know, there's only one way to do something...especially when it's as well written as STREETCAR.

What's killing me is all this reference to poetry. There's no poetry in STREETCAR. None. The language certainly is musical...but guess what...so is language in every single play (some more 'melodic' than others...some atonal...but all are musical). Just because Richardson perhaps played with the tempo and decided to emphasize some notes rather than others does not mean that she didn't do justice to the language. More importantly, she found the TRUTH!

[paradox_error]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 2:43pm

"And Ms. Richardson's uncannily fresh face does not bear the marks of suffering."

Ugh.

Once again not thinking, are you Mr. Brantley?

Who said the scars of suffering are external?

[robbiej]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 2:45pm

I haven't read all the reviews, but from what I have read, only one refers to Blanche's alcoholism, which I believe was a major addition for this production. I don't recall Viv drinking quite so much throughout the movie.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 2:52pm

I don't either and it's a major undercurrent to the characterization.

And as for "external scars" while Leigh had certainly seen better days at the time of the filming, all the photos I've ever seen of Tandy in the original stage production make her seem as much a radiant porcelain beauty as Richardson is here.

I'm gonna pull out my tape of the Lange/Baldwin production and double-check some of the interpretive choices made there.

[KindnessofStrangers]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 4:32pm

Margo Channing writes:
"Most reviews weren't critiquing the interpretation of the play that was on the stage in front of them, they were simply whining about how this production isn't exactly like the movie and so therefore it must be all wrong. Most of them couldn't get past their own preconceived notions of the play and how, to them, the roles MUST be cast in order to work, which points up yet another deficiency of most of these reviewers. They simply lack the training and skill to be able to evaluate a production on its own merits. "

I think that's a load of rubbish, although it does seem true of the current production of Glass Menagerie. The miscasting of the inarguably unattractive Reilly undermines Williams' intention (supported by the text) that Stanley and Blanche have a sexual attraction. Reilly has little magnetism and his, ahem, desire to stretch has damned this production.

"I, too, have see the film version many times, but you know what? In case you haven't heard, Brando's dead, as are Leigh (and Tandy), Hunter and Kazan (bless Karl Malden for still being around). They aren't coming back anytime soon and even if they could, they would play these same roles the same way in 2005. Must every Streetcar production be cursed with the ghosts of the film (since few people around now saw the stage production)? Shouldn't talented artists be allowed to find their own way into this material without being panned for not being enough like the movie? "

More rubbish as an attempt to explain bad reviews by someone less discerning.

[robbiej]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 4:44pm

'Shouldn't talented artists be allowed to find their own way into this material without being panned for not being enough like the movie?'

If you really think that statement is rubbish, then you have no knowledge, love or respect for the theatre.

Honestly.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/27/05 at 5:07pm

Kindness of strangers,

As anyone who reads me regularly knows, my comments aren't some attempt to explain bad reviews since I have gone on record that ALL of these critics need to be replaced -- whether I agree with them or not. There are a half dozen reviews I could point out that DID seem willing to try and accept the vision of this production (The Daily News, The Post, The Hartford Courant, USA Today) and responded positively to it, but frankly that doesn't matter either.

What matters is that you are every bit as closed-minded and incapable of evaluating a production on its own merits as the rest of the hacks out there. You went on record early as not liking the casting in this production before you'd even seen it and apparently there isn't a crowbar big enough to open your narrow mind on this matter. Just because your screen name is "Kindness of Strangers" doesn't mean your opinions have any credibility or validity whatsoever vis-a-vis Williams.

I'll thank you to refrain from attacking me in the future. More than that, why not just block me since everything I have to say seems to be "rubbish" in your eyes. Given your closed mind, nasty attitude and misguided ill-informed opinions, you clearly know from trash.

Updated On: 4/27/05 at 05:07 PM