I finally saw this production on Tuesday and I absolutely agree with QueenAlice. In fact, I found myself agreeing with most of the comments here, pro AND con.
It's true that Betty Buckley does nothing to impersonate the real Big Edie. I don't know Buckley, but I first saw her in 1776, 45 years ago, and I suspect "impersonation" is not an art form to which she aspires. But she was no less brilliant for having created a new character and "Jerry Likes My Corn" is one of those performances I will remember for the rest of my life.
On the other hand, I thought Rachel York WAS doing an impersonation of Little Edie in Act II and I thought she did it rather well. Okay, she isn't Ebersole, but Ebersole was a once-in-a-lifetime meeting of actor and character. Miss York was a credible approximation of the lady we met in the doc, and the relationship between York and Buckley was ultimately deeply moving.
On the other hand, I thought the direction was a mess, particularly when anybody else was on stage. When most of the actors in Act I seem to have little sense of what their characters are doing or why, I think one has to look at the director. (The director seemed embarrassed by the "freedom songs" (Itty, Bitty Geisha and Hominy Grits) and staged both as far upstage as he could, right at bottom stair. This killed the comedy of the songs, which is that Big Edie is so clueless as to why they are inappropriate.) Most damaging was the performance of Little Edie, who didn't seem to understand her own character's tendency toward hysteria. In "Daddy's Girl" she spelled "S-E-X", but sang the rest of the song as if there were nothing unusual (or dangerous) about a girl of that era getting drunk in a frat house.
I felt much the same of the children, the father and even Byron Batt. We KNOW the latter can act, but I saw nothing in his performance that suggested Gould would ultimately commit suicide in a flea bag hotel. In fact, I couldn't figure how why he was taking a tantrum over being a "kept man" on the day of his patron's daughter's engagement. (And why were building inspector's singing "Cat's Eye View" in Act II? I always thought the fact that the cats were metaphorically singing was a strength.)
Which brings us to the book. It is certainly literate and occasionally witty, but I was disappointed. I felt it wanted to set up Act II, but threw so many things at us willy-nilly that the set-up was less than it needed to be. There's nothing wrong with characters having conflicting motivations; in fact, it's usually a plus. But in a well-written play (musical or otherwise), one senses levels of conflict, turning points, etc. And why do the Edies end up in such squalor? Is it because of their aristocratic eccentricity? Is it simply a matter that the Bouvier family fortune was spent and neither "married well"? I suspect it was mainly the latter, but I think the book could have been clearer.
And while some motivations are obscure, others are overly numerous. Take Joe Kennedy for example. He walks out in Act I because (a) his mother-in-law to be is eccentric (though hardly so much one need run from her) and oddly aggressive; (b) there is a scandal brewing in the Beale's pending divorce; and (c) Edie herself may have a dubious sexual history. All three motivations may co-exist; it even makes more sense that he is put off by all three rather than just one. But which actually makes up his mind? When is the point of no return? Damn if I can tell when all three revelations are played at the same level.
And then almost everything in Act I is contradicted in Act II. Yes, I understand these women don't have the best grasp on reality; so when Big Edie talks about her "perfect marriage" I accept that an old woman rewrites her personal history: she "chooses to be happy". And Little Edie, who blames her mother for chasing off all her suitors in Act I, insists in Act II that she didn't like any of them anyway. Okay, I can accept that, too, as an example of the Bouvier eccentricity.
But where did Little Edie get the idea that if her father had returned home after his "fling", he would have had her committed? That seemed in diametric opposition to her faith in Act I that "Daddy will fix everything when he arrives" and the fact that the telegram invites her to have drinks with her father and stepmother upon their return from Mexico.
So to sum up: glad I saw it, but I was perplexed by the book, and the direction of this production.
Updated On: 7/21/16 at 11:33 PM
ear Evan Hansen" "Cats" "Falsettos"...Wow! 
