Roundabout FINALLY has a hit on their hands (spoilers)

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/5/10 at 11:42pm

I'm just home from the first preview of The Glass Menagerie at the Pels, and to say that I'm gobsmacked would be an understatement. This is the kind of production where, after you've seen it, you want to stop total strangers on the street and implore them to buy tickets. Gordon Edelstein has radically re-imagined the staging of the play, and in doing so, the audience is able to see it with fresh eyes. Rather than producing it as a museum piece, he truly makes it into a "memory play" by setting the entire drama in the hotel room where Tom Wingfield is writing the story we are watching. As he puts the characters on the page, they begin to appear on stage and act the situations he is constructing; it is as if they are materializing straight from his subconscious. This trick works extremely well: for the first time, Tom's soliloquies didn't seem to stick out like a sore thumb. This is how revivals--especially of plays produced as often as this one--should be done: with fresh ideas.

As far as the cast is concerned, they're practically flawless. Judith Ivey is probably the closest thing to a definitive Amanda Wingfield as we're ever going to get. For once, it was nice to see her not played as a victim. Ivey's Amanda is sunny and optimistic until the final moments, when she realizes that all of her efforts have come to nothing. The slow-boil technique she employs is fascinating to watch. Keira Keeley is the first actress I've seen who's played Laura as more than a caricature. The scenes in which she describes her "glass menagerie" to the Gentleman Caller are chilling. Patch Darragh is appropriately sensitive as Tom, and Michael Mosley is a brawny, arresting Jim.

In short, go see it as soon as you can. After a shaky start, the Roundabout season finally has a winner.

Updated On: 3/6/10 at 11:42 PM

[bjh2114]

Posted: 3/5/10 at 11:50pm

March 19th can't come soon enough!

[Brick]

Posted: 3/5/10 at 11:56pm

Wow. I thought I couldn't possibly want to see another MENAGERIE for years. And I want to see this!

[Cape Twirl of Doom]

Posted: 3/5/10 at 11:58pm

Well, I'm glad you had a good time. I found it incredibly dull and boring and ended up leaving during intermission, as did three separate people behind me.

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/6/10 at 12:01am

Was also there!
I thought it was stunning. The first act was a bit slow for me. It was my first time seeing the play live. I've only read it before. But the second act was WOW. It was pretty amazing. The final moments were unbelievably chilling.
Wonderful acting all around. Ivey is absolutely fantastic.
This is a must-see.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 3/6/10 at 12:10am

Going tomorrow! Very excited!

[taylorPHENOMENON2]

Posted: 3/6/10 at 12:14am

I was slightly bored in the first act, but as the second act picked up I enjoyed it more. I agree that Judith Ivey is close to perfection in the role. I liked the guy that played Jim but wasn't sure if he was appropriate to the time.

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/6/10 at 12:15am

It was a creditable production, no more, no less. The first act was slow, the second improved.

It was solid work, but what was lacking to me was the luminous, poetic quality of the piece. It's elusive, and hard to capture, but necessary if this play is to be presented in the best possible way.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 3/6/10 at 12:22am

Was also there tonight, and despite some bizarre seating policies (the head usher moved a bunch of people up, but told us it was "only for act 1" and that we'd have to move back at intermission) and a very late start (it was quarter to eight when the lights finally dimmed), I found it to be utterly fantastic.

It was my first time seeing the show live, so I can't really comment on how radically reimagined the staging is, but it worked for me. As others have said, Ivey is a force of nature, and never plays Amanda like a victim. She maintains a sunny disposition throughout (though you get glimpses all along that things are not quite right), which makes her breakdown in the final moments all the more shocking and stunning. The rest of the cast was also great. Keira Keeley's speeches with her glass menagerie are chilling, almost frightening. Patch Darrough is a very calculating Tom, and you get the sense he knows exactly what he's doing all along. In the brief, but pivotal, role of the Caller, Michael Mosley is very effective.

My only quibbles are with the rather ugly set, and the too dark lighting. Ironically, the one time the lighting is supposed to be dark, after the lights go off, it was quite bright.

In short, a great evening. Go to see Ivey, if for no other reason.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 3/6/10 at 1:19am

But how does it work? Do they enter "mysteriously" through the set or how does it work when the play "comes to life?"

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/6/10 at 7:53am

"This is the kind of production where, after you've seen it, you want to stop total strangers on the street and implore them to buy tickets."

I'd suggest letting those total strangers just walk on by. They might not embrace this production with the same enthusiasm as you.

" This trick works extremely well."

Actually, I don't think it worked well at all. Just stage it the way Williams wrote it.


"for the first time, Tom's soliloquies didn't seem to stick out like a sore thumb."

I never thought they stuck out like sore thumbs before.


"This is how revivals--especially of plays produced as often as this one--should be done: with fresh ideas."

The original ideas were fresh enough. They just need to be executed properly.

"As far as the cast is concerned, they're practically flawless. Judith Ivey is probably the closest thing to a definitive Amanda Wingfield as we're ever going to get. For once, it was nice to see her not played as a victim."

I'd like to know who you've seen play this role as a victim. I've seen many actresses in this role, and I've never seen it played that way.


"Keira Keeley is the first actress I've seen who's played Laura as more than a caricature."

I've never seen her played as a caricature. How many productions of "The Glass Menagerie" have you seen?

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/6/10 at 9:15am

^ So you obviously didn't like the production as much as I did, which is totally fine. Different strokes and what not. To answer some of your question (and to ask a few of my own:

" This trick works extremely well."

Actually, I don't think it worked well at all. Just stage it the way Williams wrote it.

Do you like any revival that don't rigidly adhere to the parameters of the original production? Or do you simply want every classic play staged to the letter, so that we see the same production over and over again, just with different actors? Many of the best interpretations of classic plays are those which "think outside the box": Bart Sher's Awake and Sing and Joe Turner's Come and Gone, Liv Ullmann's Streetcar, Sam Buntrock's Sunday in the Park with George, etc. If we simply keep producing the same production of the same play over and over again, people might begin to lose interest and stop going. I'd rather see someone try something new.

"for the first time, Tom's soliloquies didn't seem to stick out like a sore thumb."

I never thought they stuck out like sore thumbs before.

I've always felt that Tom's opening monologue impeded the process of the play...especially when the actor playing Tom walks out and starts showboating it as if he were doing a speech from Hamlet. What Darragh did, to me, was perfect. Again, you're free to disagree.

"This is how revivals--especially of plays produced as often as this one--should be done: with fresh ideas."

The original ideas were fresh enough. They just need to be executed properly.

Again, if you want museum pieces, good for you. I'd rather see someone try something new. Even if it fails, the risk is sometimes enough. This is a play that's done constantly. New York seems to see it once a decade, and I can name a dozen major regional productions that have been mounted since 2000. After a while, seeing the same basic production (with minor variations) is tiring. Opera has been doing this for years: offering re-imagined scenarios while still respecting the text. It's nice to see that theatre is finally catching up.

As far as the number of productions of this play I've seen, I'd put it around fifteen. In nearly every one, Amanda has been portrayed as some tragic doyenne and Laura as a sad little girl trapped in a state of arrested development. Keeley brought layers to the role of Laura. You sensed that, for her, being alone might not have been such a bad thing, that she might actually like it. To me, that's a major achievement. But you'll probably tell me that subtext is an evil plot to undermine the author's original intentions and that they should just be doing it by rote.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/6/10 at 9:36am

I'd love to see a new and fresh production of this play.

Thanks for the post, AC126748. Sounds terrific.

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/6/10 at 10:41am

" After a while, seeing the same basic production (with minor variations) is tiring."

You know, no one is forcing you to see every production of "The Glass Menagerie." You might find productions of the play as it was written to be tiring, but someone seeing it for the first time might be thrilled to see the play as it was intended to be presented.


"Opera has been doing this for years: offering re-imagined scenarios while still respecting the text."

You've just proven my point. Opera has been RUINING, and I mean RUINING, masterworks by allowing egomaniacal directors to destroy classic works. Audiences at the Met have been booing these desecrations, and deservedly so. And that's what you want for the theatre?


"It's nice to see that theatre is finally catching up."

What you see as catching up I see as dumbing down.

"As far as the number of productions of this play I've seen, I'd put it around fifteen. In nearly every one, Amanda has been portrayed as some tragic doyenne and Laura as a sad little girl trapped in a state of arrested development."

I guess we haven't seen the same productions.

" Keeley brought layers to the role of Laura. You sensed that, for her, being alone might not have been such a bad thing, that she might actually like it. To me, that's a major achievement."

Is that what Williams intended? And what if she DIDN'T actually like it? And again, I never felt that previous portrayals caricatured Laura.

"But you'll probably tell me that subtext is an evil plot to undermine the author's original intentions and that they should just be doing it by rote. "


You know what I'll tell you? I'll tell you subtext is an evil plot to undermine the author's original intentions and that they should be doing it not by rote, but with brilliance, just like the original possessed.

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/6/10 at 10:56am

And I think you've proven my point...

(And how can anyone really, truly know what Williams intended? Did you sit beside him as he wrote it? Were you in the rehearsal room for the original production? Have you digested every word he ever said about this particular play? I'm always weary whenever someone invokes the author's "original intentions" to disparage a fresh staging of a classic play.)

Updated On: 3/6/10 at 10:56 AM

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 3/6/10 at 11:13am

My facebook buddy says it was extremely boring, but I wanna see it anyways.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 3/6/10 at 12:19pm

After Eight, is there any revival you enjoy other than paint by numbers re-creations of the originals that you enjoy? Was there really any reason for you to make a line by line analysis of ACL's post attempting to dispute everything? They enjoyed more than you. So what. Move on.

As for the re-imagining. It's really not all that radical. The show does not take place in an insane asylum in Tom's head, and Amanda does not play the tuba. We're really not talking about extensive, radical changes. Calm down.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 3/6/10 at 7:12pm

I enjoyed it to a certain extent. I've never really loved the play (I find it to be really boring) but this is a nice production. I didn't really think it was anything incredible. But it's a fine production with a fantastic lead performance from Ivey.

She's the reason to see the show. Many people around me were bored, fidgety, and complaining. I liked the approach to the play but thought the execution in the direction could be a little swifter, which may just be an issue of the fact that they've only performed the show twice on this stage. It should get tighter.

I liked the cast but the guy who played Tom (don't have my Playbill handy) was the one real weak link, IMO. It was like he was in a different play. He was overacting and teetering on ridiculous at times. Everyone else is very real and grounded though.

If you like the play itself, see it. If you don't, you can skip it, unless you really want to see Ivey give a truly wonderful lead performance.

Updated On: 3/6/10 at 07:12 PM

[Sauja]

Posted: 3/6/10 at 11:24pm

I'm with AC on this one. Just got home, and it's an unbelievable production. The fresh take on the staging simply reinforces the memory quality of the play in profound and moving ways. It highlights Tom's distance from his family during the action of the play and makes it easier to question his memory vs. his creation, particularly in the gutwrenching scene between Laura and her gentleman caller.

While certainly there have been productions of all sorts (plays, musicals, operas) where directors have gone off the deep end trying to reimagine things, nothing about this performance felt less than completely true to the play as written.

Judith Ivey is wonderful, but I found all four actors magnificent. It left me in tears. I need more time to digest it, but on first impression, I'd say that it and Our Town are by far the best revivals the city has seen in the past two or three years.

[dave1606]

Posted: 3/6/10 at 11:46pm

So I have heard responses all over the map with this one. Its so incredible you are roping strangers off the street and making them see it, or so awful you are fleeing at intermission? Honestly I found it to be neither.

That said, I did really enjoy tonight. Judith is incredible as everyone is saying, and every second she is onstage, I was engaged. Not all of the supporting cast lives up to this, and it is unfortunate that the weakest of the cast is left delivering what should be some of the plays most powerful lines. Patch Darragh is giving an extremely modern performance which seems to be stuck in another play. I do think this could work, had the rest of the production been as modern but it was not. He felt out of place and his character just rang false with me. Sadly opening and closing the play on with him just didn't leave me with as much excitement that I did have during the middle sections of both acts.

I loved the candle light scenes with Michael Mosley in the second act. I was completely engaged and taken aback by the sweetness that both he and Keira Keeley brought to their parts. They really made what followed all the more devastating.

Overall I think the pacing needs a bit of work, especially in act 1, but it is absolutely a production that is worth seeing. Certainly the best thing that roundabout has put on in quite sometime.

The biggest credit I can say is that it made me appreciate what an incredible playwright Williams was, and I think a solid first production for me to see. If this were on Broadway I would demand a tony nomination for Judith Ivey.

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/7/10 at 12:15am

"As for the re-imagining. It's really not all that radical. The show does not take place in an insane asylum in Tom's head, and Amanda does not play the tuba. We're really not talking about extensive, radical changes. Calm down."


Adamgreer: I'm perfectly calm. And you're right. This production is more traditional than radical. In fact, that's what I was objecting to in my reponse to the original poster, who claimed that Amanda and Laura had been played as a victim and as a caricature in previous productions, but not here, which I did not find to be the case.

My other objection- wholly apart from the specifics of this production- was to the notion that classic plays need to be "reinvented," and that any production which is actually presented in accordance with the author's text and stage directions is to be disparaged with such derogatory expressions as "a museum piece." With that, I disagree vehemently.

And finally, as far this "Glass Menagerie" is concerned, I said it was a solid production, which is a far more positive assessment than what some others have given on this board.

[Play Esq.]

Posted: 3/7/10 at 11:08am

"After a shaky start, the Roundabout season finally has a winner."


I couldn't agree more, but it's a pity that the Roundabout can't manage a hit without importing a regional production. That said, it was a wise idea to import this production and it fits the Laura Pels Theatre quite well, though I do miss the intimacy of seeing it in the round. Otherwise the transfer was quite seamless and the company exceptional.

Just one comment to After Eight: your analysis of re-imaging theater, regie theater, and the "running" of opera is quite inaccurate. Met audiences shower boos for bad productions (La Sonnambula, Hoffmann, the recent Tosca), not necessarily regie productions - many of which are very well received (the new Zauberflote and Butterfly, the current productions of Lohengrin and Die Frau ohne Schatten). Thoughtful re-imaginings can bring audiences to plays (or operas) that might have otherwise forgone another viewing of La Boheme or Menagerie...as I believe is the case with this production.







Updated On: 3/7/10 at 11:08 AM

[Patash]

Posted: 3/7/10 at 11:42am

Several comments seemed weird to me -- like Laura always being played as a caricature and Amanda always being played as a victim, but I stopped following this thread when I got to this line in one of the responses to other people's comments:

"I've always felt that Tom's opening monologue impeded the process of the play...especially when the actor playing Tom walks out and starts showboating it as if he were doing a speech from Hamlet."

Clearly you've never seen a good production of this show before, so suddenly your comments mean nothing to me. Hamlet? Any GOOD Tom (or even half-decent one) makes the monologues very conversational.

[Brick]

Posted: 3/7/10 at 12:45pm

It isn't about it being conversational. It's about making it vital. Many of the productions I've seen didn't have a Tom like seemed to NEED those speeches to the audience. Of course Tennessee wrote them and they are wonderful, it's a memory play, but the conceptual approach to the material didn't make them vital.

Good example is Cromer's much heralded OUR TOWN. He made Wilder's theatrical devices vital, not just "how you do OUR TOWN'.

I haven't seen this yet, but I applaud the bravery. Why else do this damn play again and again so often?

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/7/10 at 5:33pm

"Good example is Cromer's much heralded OUR TOWN. He made Wilder's theatrical devices vital, not just "how you do OUR TOWN'."


Wilder's devices have been vital from the first day they were performed. They have certainly seemed that way to me in every production of "Our Town" I've seen. And they didn't need Cromer's production to make them so.