Rachel York and Betty Buckley Grey Gardens in New York?- Page 2

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/9/16 at 4:17pm

Wow, I don't remember being bored by act one on Broadway like some of you are with this new production. 

Updated On: 7/9/16 at 04:17 PM

[lovebwy]

Posted: 7/9/16 at 5:20pm

Yeah in act 1 the specifics of what was going on were unclear to me, I got the general idea. In New York, was Big Edie signing at the garden party any kind of highlight? Here it just fell flat.

Act 2, however, was stunningly great because of Betty Buckley. He Jerry Likes my Corn was out of this world.

 

Updated On: 7/9/16 at 05:20 PM

[JoseLee_]

Posted: 7/9/16 at 5:55pm

I remember that I didn't laugh once in all of act 1. I didn't understand the plot. I also only have seen some parts from the documentary, so maybe that's why. All i got from it,  is that little edi was trapped there for her mom. She felt bad for her?  And the mom was jealous of her daughter? 

[LeTigre]

Posted: 7/9/16 at 7:20pm

Sheesh, you don't sound like the sharpest tack in the drawer, JoseLee.

[erinrebecca]

Posted: 7/9/16 at 7:53pm

Haha, LeTigre!

I don't recall ever being bored at this show either. I only saw it once in NY but saw the Toronto production earlier this year three times and it was wonderful. Lisa Horner was perfection.

 

[lovebwy]

Posted: 7/9/16 at 9:45pm

LeTigre said: "Sheesh, you don't sound like the sharpest tack in the drawer, JoseLee.

 

"

Not nice, and JoseLee is right. The way it was presented at the Ahmanson, what was going on in Act one was a bit unclear. It may well have been different in other productions.

 

 

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 7/9/16 at 9:54pm

I too was there for Friday night's performance, in row J, which was a blessing in that barn of a theater. I missed the original NY production entirely, so I've been living on the glories of the OBC recording to imagine the show in my head till the live thing could come back to LA.

First the good news-- Betty Buckley was magnificent, even if she never really nailed the speech peculiarities of the original Big Edie (something that seemed to come naturally to Mary Louise Wilson). But her performance was funny and thrilling and real, and her songs have never been sung so beautifully.

Rachel York played Act I as if she were in a 40's musical, a dubious choice that seemed very shallow and one note to me. I liked her Act II Little Edie much more, and for me her "Another Winter..." was sublime. Weirdly, she made even less attempt than her mother to sound like the Edie of the documentary-- why not?? 

The sets were spectacular-- nothing like the bare-bones production seen on Long Island last year. Shingled sections of the exterior facade slid across to create an "in 1", on which live feeds of our performance were projected as a nod to the closeups in the documentary. A little clunky in execution but a great idea. The nightmarish ruin of the interior set for Act II seemed a little Wagnerian to me, but hey, it served the piece well. And I loved the introduction of the Maysles actually filming sections as a motif to carry the evening along.

As for that damn problematic first act-- as far as I can see it just isn't very well written. The conflicts are so haphazardly sketched in until that fateful telegram shows up, and frankly the worst songs in the score all pile up in the middle of the act. Sad to say, because Act II is still such a wonder, and still easily worth the price of admission.

 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/10/16 at 1:38am

My best friend is stage managing this, and I really want to fly out and see it. Always loved Grey Gardens and this sounds amazing. 

Is it not something Roundabout could produce in the Laura Pels? 

[MarkBearSF]

Posted: 7/10/16 at 2:15am

Reading this thread, I was struck with the thought, "How often does a show have FIRST act troubles?"

...and, having seen the OBC production, I can't say I disagree with most of the comments.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/10/16 at 2:32am

Mark, I believe William Goldman argues in THE SEASON that "second act problems" are nearly always "first act problems" that just don't become apparent right away.

Of course, he had never seen a show like GREY GARDENS when he was writing 50 years ago.

It's odd that none of the posters have mentioned the young lady who plays Little Edie in Act I, because most of the action concerns her. I guess I'll find out what they are talking about in 10 days.

[bear88]

Posted: 7/10/16 at 4:03pm

I saw it on Wednesday with my daughter. Act One has occasional moments, but the whole thing just rang more than a little false. It just feels made up, and not in a good way. I agree that it's not very well-written, and it also does a very poor job of setting up the second act. It almost felt like two different musicials. Little Edie shows no signs of the character she becomes in Act Two. The opening and closing of Act One are, by far, the most intriguing parts - as the "film footage" is used - and it's appropriately creepy. But they could have dropped it entirely and I wouldn't have cared. 

Betty Buckley got big entrance applause during both acts, which struck me as a little much. Maybe everyone was relieved to see her again after the first act? 

Act Two is much, much better. The writers obviously had more material, and the characters - peculiar as they were - felt like real people. I can't compare Buckley to anyone else who's performed the role. And while she doesn't much remind me of the character Rachel York played in the first act, I didn't care. "Jerry Likes My Corn" almost made the whole show worthwhile. I didn't much care for York in the first act, but she really chews the scenery - and has a marvelous time doing it - in the second act as Little Edie. My teenage daughter's reaction was surprise that Little Edie became so funny, as there had been little hint of it in the first act.

I agree that they don't scrimp on the set.

The whole thing doesn't hang together all that well, and it's hard to recover from a waste-of-time first act (nothing against most of the cast), but the second act redeemed it enough. Side thought: It would be hard for Broadway to survive on shows like this. Why would anyone under age 40 really care? It's simply not good enough to overcome the limitations of the material.

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/10/16 at 4:15pm

bear88 said: "Why would anyone under age 40 really care? It's simply not good enough to overcome the limitations of the material."

Well that's quite a generalization. I was in my senior year of high school during the original production, and while others my age were freaking out over Spring Awakening, I was proudly obsessed with Grey Gardens. I am sure the original production had many fans under the age of 40.

[lovebwy]

Posted: 7/10/16 at 7:28pm

I will say this. Grey Gardens at the Ahmanson is THE perfect show to "second act". Just get your hands on a program and waltz in at 9:20 or so. There will certainly be seats in the mezz.

[theatreguy12]

Posted: 7/10/16 at 7:42pm

This won't go down as being anywhere near my favorite musical.   But I'm glad I saw it.  Wasn't totally familiar with the story, but I knew the outcome.  And I could see hints of that coming to pass throughout the first act.  I do agree though that there isn't much depth to the writing.

It was a treat to see Buckley, regardless of how her interpretation of the character compares to that of others.  I thought she did a wonderful job.

As did Rachel York.

Again, glad I saw it.  Having a familial connection to the Kennedys through my grandmother, it was a story that I found kind of interesting, if not a bit bizarre in some ways.  I guess the behavior of a mother and the impact it has on a daughter though isn't totally unheard of.  And the codependency that ensues is not always a surprise in such a situation.

[blm2323]

Posted: 7/11/16 at 12:27am

Saw it this afternoon. I never saw the obc but have listened to the cd a lot. I found the performance enchanting. Rachel York played it with her own style which is what I want to see - not carbon copies. BB - excellent. And I loved the girl (on plane right now) who played Little Edie in Act 1. 

I found the story easy to follow and the audience was clearly engaged - a lot of laughter and tears. I thought the video projections enhanced the production. 

 

Biggest weakness was the grandfather . We worried about the pit too!

If you can see it, go! You may never have the chance to see such a high caliber production with great actors and wonderful production values.

 

[Jack Hughes]

Posted: 7/11/16 at 1:49pm

Although the first act may be just "pretty good" (which as far as I'm concerned isn't so bad), when the show hits its stride in the second act it's fantastic.  

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 7/11/16 at 2:21pm

The Broadway production was stunning. It was my first time in a Broadway theatre, and I will cherish it for the rest of my life. I cannot describe the beauty of the entire show. Act I is weaker and at the time I didn't fully enjoy some of the songs given to the supporting characters, but as I've grown older, I've come to love those songs in the album. I remember being completely floored by Ebersole singing "Will You?" and Davie standing there, ready to leave, a moment that only becomes more effective at the end of Act II. Act II, of course, was as perfect an act as one can hope for.

And the idea that no one under 40 is going to care is so silly. I was 20 when I saw the show on Broadway and it has stayed with me for almost ten years. It also made me want to watch the documentary, which I now love. I listen to the album regularly, it's gorgeous. I hope a production in the style of THE COLOR PURPLE comes to Broadway with two stellar leads and lets people see what a precious jewel of a show this is.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/11/16 at 2:37pm

I really don't get the disdain for Act 1. If you want the documentary, then go watch the documentary.

The musical's Act I is not superfluous at all, and sets everything up beautifully for the events and relationships in Act II.

It's like complaining that Dorothy isn't in Wicked until the very end of the show. It's not her story. Be patient and let them tell their own story.

This isn't the movie, nor should it be. It's a story about what led up to that. And I enjoyed it exactly for that reason.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/11/16 at 10:12pm

best12, I haven't seen the Ahmanson production yet (my tix are for the 19th), but I have written a libretto where Act I and Act II are related, but not literally chronological, and don't use the same dramaturgical strategies.

For some reason, EVERY spectator automatically assumes s/he is supposed to pick a favorite act. As if the evening is some sort of contest between the two. (And I do mean everyone. Re my piece, some people prefer Act I and some Act II, but everyone announces a preference, even while praising the evening as a whole.)

So maybe that is what is happening here.

[bear88]

Posted: 7/11/16 at 10:23pm

The young  "Little Edie" is played by Sarah Hunt, who also was in the Bay Street Theater run. She has a nice voice. 

It's not her fault that her character doesn't really resemble the character in Act Two at all. The most we get is that the younger version was a bit of a playgirl and wanted to be on the stage. But she is portrayed as rather levelheaded and embarrassed by her mother. Big Edie scares off the Joe Kennedy character very easily. 

I haven't seen the documentary, and I went in knowing that the first and second acts were separated by three decades.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone who loves the show not to love it. I'm glad I saw it. But the difference between the first act - which struck me as silly and forgettable - and the second act, which is by turns funny, bizarre, and tragic - is hard to ignore. It's basically a different show. 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/11/16 at 10:28pm

bear, on both recordings, the Act I Little Edies are clearly hysterics (like mother, like daughter) which goes a long way toward explaining how Little Edie ends up as she does.

I'm not saying the character doesn't have good reason for her drama, just that her "uncoolness" doesn't bode well for a woman of her social class looking to attract a prominent (and even politically minded) husband.

Updated On: 7/11/16 at 10:28 PM

[binau]

Posted: 7/11/16 at 10:58pm

GavestonPS said: "best12, I haven't seen the Ahmanson production yet (my tix are for the 19th), but I have written a libretto where Act I and Act II are related, but not literally chronological, and don't use the same dramaturgical strategies.

For some reason, EVERY spectator automatically assumes s/he is supposed to pick a favorite act. As if the evening is some sort of contest between the two. (And I do mean everyone. Re my piece, some people prefer Act I and some Act II, but everyone announces a preference, even while praising the evening as a whole.)

So maybe that is what is happening here.

 

"

Maybe, but I do think there are some genuine challenges with act one. I wrote this in the War Paint thread about Grey Gardens, but the issue with act one in my opinion is simply that most of the songs, while dramatically appropriate, are boring. Act Two has many absolutely top-tier moments (e.g., Another Winter, Around the World, Revolutionary costume, Jerry Likes my Corn). Act One has one great song (Will you?), one good song (five fifteen) and a bunch of throw away songs (Mother Darling, Going Places, Marry Well, Daddy's Girl). I don't deny that every song has a real purpose. But compared to the incredibly dramatic, melodic, sometimes hilarious songs in Act Two, Act One just falls so far flat. 

On my phone, excuse grammar. 

Updated On: 7/11/16 at 10:58 PM

[SweetLips]

Posted: 7/12/16 at 5:36am

Just by looking at those production stills are the costumes as hideous 'in the flesh' as they are in the photos?

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/12/16 at 9:54pm

qolbinau said: "GavestonPS said: "best12, I haven't seen the Ahmanson production yet (my tix are for the 19th), but I have written a libretto where Act I and Act II are related, but not literally chronological, and don't use the same dramaturgical strategies.

For some reason, EVERY spectator automatically assumes s/he is supposed to pick a favorite act. As if the evening is some sort of contest between the two. (And I do mean everyone. Re my piece, some people prefer Act I and some Act II, but everyone announces a preference, even while praising the evening as a whole.)

So maybe that is what is happening here.

 

"

Maybe, but I do think there are some genuine challenges with act one. I wrote this in the War Paint thread about Grey Gardens, but the issue with act one in my opinion is simply that most of the songs, while dramatically appropriate, are boring. Act Two has many absolutely top-tier moments (e.g., Another Winter, Around the World, Revolutionary costume, Jerry Likes my Corn). Act One has one great song (Will you?), one good song (five fifteen) and a bunch of throw away songs (Mother Darling, Going Places, Marry Well, Daddy's Girl). I don't deny that every song has a real purpose. But compared to the incredibly dramatic, melodic, sometimes hilarious songs in Act Two, Act One just falls so far flat. 

On my phone, excuse grammar. 

 

"

Thank you for the thoughtful response, q. I'm just now listening to the OBCR, because unbeknownst to me I had been listening to the off-Broadway recording all these years. I admit I do find the replacement songs less interesting than the earlier songs (but I've been trying to keep an open mind as it may just be that the Broadway song list is newer to my ear). "Marry Well" certainly gets to its point faster than "Being Bouvier", but I'm not sure the song is as much fun.

Or perhaps it all depends on one's taste for pastiche. I'm pretty tolerant in that regard.

[binau]

Posted: 7/13/16 at 8:09am

Yes it is interesting to me because when I think about what makes a good musical I usually think it's one where the songs explore the characters and/or forward the story well. Act One of Grey Gardens does this well, but there is still something missing for me. But it is so important - would Act Two be still as powerful without seeing where the two characters came from? Would dialogue such as "I had a wonderful marriage" be as hilarious and awkward without knowing the truth from Act One? Would "Another Winter In a Summer Town" be as moving without knowing the 'full' history of how Edie got to what was probably one of the lowest points in her life? I doubt it. Act One is necessary exposition for Act Two.