THE GLASS MENAGERIE (2017) Reviews- Page 3

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 12:41pm

The text does not support an interpretation of Laura as profoundly disabled. Full stop.

[BJR]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 12:48pm

Let's not go down the rabbit hole of those offended by some reviews. If they are, they are and for all we know, they may have a disability and should at least be respected in their views.

Back to the reviews, it's strange that so many here are so resentful of differing opinions on this, as if a production like this could expect otherwise. (And as a director, I have to say accusing the director of contempt for a text is just silly. Sam doesn't have to spend months of his busy life on anything, let alone things for which he has contempt.)

When was the last avant-garde (for lack of a better word, and oh, can we please find one?) production that received unanimous praise, didn't divide? All those mentioning von Hove are ignoring his work has been met with divided reviews through his whole career, and continues to be. I even recall some griping on here how his VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE was all about him and not the play.

Personally, I appreciate Jesse Green's review, which seemed skeptical at first but concluded this was a production of Glass Menagerie. It's not definitive, but why should it be? There will be another in 5 years.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 12:56pm

Have you SEEN Sam Gold's production? It's clear he has contempt for it.

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 12:58pm

This production is not "avant-garde"--a term understood by few yet throw around with abandon. 

[HenryTDobson]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 12:58pm

This discussion reminds me of my thoughts about the recent Spring Awakening revival. If you want to tell a story about a disabled or Deaf person, by all means, PLEASE tell it. We need more stories like those. But write a new story that highlights these themes, don't use an old text and completely alter the playwright's original message. 


And I would argue the people who are saying "anti-disability" comments about the negative reviews are really the ones who are slowing down the progress on how we think of others who are disabled. If Brantley or any other reviewer did not like Ms. Ferris' performance or the way it was presented in the context of the play, they have every right to critique and analyze her performance as they would for any other actor. By lying or giving a false report is only belittling the actor. They are real people, treat them as such. 

Updated On: 3/10/17 at 12:58 PM

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 1:00pm

AC126748 said: "The text does not support an interpretation of Laura as profoundly disabled. Full stop."

 

Not full stop. Cut the pretentious attitude. That's merely your opinion.

When I saw the production, my guests and I thought it worked well with the dialogue. This is the fourth (or fifth?) production of Menagerie I've seen. This is simply an interpretation. Attacking it's validity (like you are in this post) reflects poorly on you and does not further any substantial criticism.

Many of my colleagues and I really enjoyed this show and found it revealed new sides of the text - as written. Disagree all you like and give your opinions, but don't presume to be the final word.

 

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 1:03pm

HenryTDobson said: "This discussion reminds me of my thoughts about the recent Spring Awakening revival. If you want to tell a story about a disabled or Deaf person, by all means, PLEASE tell it. We need more stories like those. But write a new story that highlights these themes, don't use an old text and completely alter the playwright's original message. 

And I would argue the people who are saying "anti-disability" comments about the negative reviews are really the ones who are slowing down the progress on how we think of others who are disabled. If Brantley or any other reviewer did not like Ms. Ferris' performance or the way it was presented in the context of the play, they have every right to critique and analyze her performance as they would for any other actor. By lying or giving a false report is only belittling the actor. They are real people, treat them as such. "



Yes to all of this!

 

"When I saw the production, my guests and I thought it worked well with the dialogue"

Even the parts about how she walks around instead of going to business college? And she goes downstairs to the store?

Updated On: 3/10/17 at 01:03 PM

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 1:04pm

HenryTDobson said: "This discussion reminds me of my thoughts about the recent Spring Awakening revival. If you want to tell a story about a disabled or Deaf person, by all means, PLEASE tell it. We need more stories like those. But write a new story that highlights these themes, don't use an old text and completely alter the playwright's original message. "

Easier to say, harder to do- especially for commercial theatre and Broadway. And as someone who didn't care for the Spring Awakening revival (largely because I think it's a poorly written musical), I just fail to see the huge issue with presenting something that's different. Of course it's fine to dislike a production, but at the end of the day it isn't at though one will never see another production of the play again. I'd rather see more directors taking risks with material, even if they fail miserably. Sometimes it doesn't work, but so what? 

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 1:11pm

This is simply an interpretation. Attacking it's validity (like you are in this post) reflects poorly on you and does not further any substantial criticism.

No, it reflects that I actually know the play and don't have contempt for it. The only person with a pretentious attitude is Sam Gold.

If you want my "substantial criticism," here you go: 

Williams does use the word “crippled,” and writes in the stage directions that one of Laura’s legs is shorter than the other and that she wears a brace. That is a physical disability, for sure, but it strains credulity to present Laura as a wheelchair user who can only walk by using her hands and feet. For one thing, the Wingfields live in a tenement apartment building, and clearly not on the first floor (scenes take place on a fire escape). If Laura were a wheelchair user, she would be essentially housebound, yet we know that she’s been leaving the house all day under the guise of going to business college. When Amanda finds out that Laura has not been going to college and asks what she’s been doing all day, she replies: “I went in the art museum and the birdhouses at the zoo. … Sometimes I did without lunch and went to the movies. Lately I’ve been spending most of my afternoons in the Jewel-box, that big glass house where they raise the tropical flowers.” This play takes place in the ‘30s; these places would not be handicap-accessible; Laura would have had to be accompanied by someone to get to most of these places.

Laura is mildly disabled, but she has internalized her disability to such a degree that it has completely stifled her (think about how Laura says that she thought the clumping of her leg brace sounded like thunder, whereas Jim says he never noticed it). This is why Amanda can still see potential for her to be a wife and mother even if Laura cannot. Amanda sees a pretty girl with a slight problem, whereas Laura sees herself only through the prism of her disability. Having Laura played as profoundly disabled loses all of this. 

Updated On: 3/10/17 at 01:11 PM

[HenryTDobson]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 1:12pm

wonderfulwizard11 said: "HenryTDobson said: "This discussion reminds me of my thoughts about the recent Spring Awakening revival. If you want to tell a story about a disabled or Deaf person, by all means, PLEASE tell it. We need more stories like those. But write a new story that highlights these themes, don't use an old text and completely alter the playwright's original message. "

Easier to say, harder to do- especially for commercial theatre and Broadway. And as someone who didn't care for the Spring Awakening revival (largely because I think it's a poorly written musical), I just fail to see the huge issue with presenting something that's different. Of course it's fine to dislike a production, but at the end of the day it isn't at though one will never see another production of the play again. I'd rather see more directors taking risks with material, even if they fail miserably. Sometimes it doesn't work, but so what? 

 

"

I'm definitely interested in seeing directors take chances with material, but in both these examples, the directors completely changed the themes and focus of the plays. Again, I would love to see a play, musical, TV show, movie, ANYTHING about these ideas, but using an old text, especially one as rich as The Glass Menagerie, is only doing a disservice to these new themes that ultimately take a backseat to the other themes that are supposed to be presented. And they then quickly feel like gimmicks. 

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 1:16pm

neonlightsxo said: "Even the parts about how she walks around instead of going to business college? And she goes downstairs to the store?"

Yes. Even then. It seems as though many are searching for a literal interpretation of the text and have forgotten that this is a dream play. Tom's not necessarily a reliable narrator. Who knows how accurate his memories are and which ones have been tainted by time and subsequent struggles. Did everyone think it was crazy that in a recent production he pulled his sister out of the couch?! Was that supported by the text? Or was it an interpretation of the text?

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 1:18pm

Why can't a play be malleable though? Certainly scores of directors have altered the themes and focuses of Shakespeare- some of the productions work, and some don't. The Glass Menagerie has been around for decades- is it that surprising that someone would want to try something else with it? 

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 1:23pm

Yeah, I'm with AC126748 & HenryTDobson on this.

You guys can go enjoy that Sam Gold production all you want, I'm happy you like it; that's two hours of my life I'll never get back.

Updated On: 3/10/17 at 01:23 PM

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 1:26pm

Tom's not necessarily a reliable narrator. Who knows how accurate his memories are and which ones have been tainted by time and subsequent struggles. 

If you were to make an argument that Tom imagines Laura as more disabled than she was because that's how the situation felt to him, I would say that's a borderline valid argument. I don't see that as Gold's interpretation though. But hey, if you got something out of this production, more power to you.

[HenryTDobson]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 1:34pm

wonderfulwizard11 said: "Why can't a play be malleable though? Certainly scores of directors have altered the themes and focuses of Shakespeare- some of the productions work, and some don't. The Glass Menagerie has been around for decades- is it that surprising that someone would want to try something else with it? 

 

"

But we're talking about issues bigger than changing a time period or adding a color theme. Deafness and other disabilities are a huge topic that can be very sensitive. If a director wants a specific message about them to be out in the world, using an old text just isn't going to cut it.

For instance, Romeo and Juliet could easily include Deaf themes by having one family Deaf and the other hearing - sounds interesting enough to me. Some of it may work and the director's message can be demonstrated among the feuding families. Most of it won't, though, and because we're unable to change the text of these plays, there's no way of fixing or adjusting it. The times that work then just feel coincidental and not really evoking a strong message about deafness or the Deaf culture. Instead, take whatever the message you want to convey (whether it be the struggle of hearing parents who have a Deaf child, the language barrier that separates hearing and Deaf people, the differing cultural components of Deaf and hearing people, etc.) and write a whole new play that focuses solely on this highlighted issue. 

 

Updated On: 3/10/17 at 01:34 PM

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 2:01pm

AC126748 said: "This is simply an interpretation. Attacking it's validity (like you are in this post) reflects poorly on you and does not further any substantial criticism.

No, it reflects that I actually know the play and don't have contempt for it. The only person with a pretentious attitude is Sam Gold.

If you want my "substantial criticism," here you go: 

Williams does use the word “crippled,” and writes in the stage directions that one of Laura’s legs is shorter than the other and that she wears a brace. That is a physical disability, for sure, but it strains credulity to present Laura as a wheelchair user who can only walk by using her hands and feet. For one thing, the Wingfields live in a tenement apartment building, and clearly not on the first floor (scenes take place on a fire escape). If Laura were a wheelchair user, she would be essentially housebound, yet we know that she’s been leaving the house all day under the guise of going to business college. When Amanda finds out that Laura has not been going to college and asks what she’s been doing all day, she replies: “I went in the art museum and the birdhouses at the zoo. … Sometimes I did without lunch and went to the movies. Lately I’ve been spending most of my afternoons in the Jewel-box, that big glass house where they raise the tropical flowers.” This play takes place in the ‘30s; these places would not be handicap-accessible; Laura would have had to be accompanied by someone to get to most of these places.

Laura is mildly disabled, but she has internalized her disability to such a degree that it has completely stifled her (think about how Laura says that she thought the clumping of her leg brace sounded like thunder, whereas Jim says he never noticed it). This is why Amanda can still see potential for her to be a wife and mother even if Laura cannot. Amanda sees a pretty girl with a slight problem, whereas Laura sees herself only through the prism of her disability. Having Laura played as profoundly disabled loses all of this. 

 

"

I absolutely agree with this. Even if we were to give Sam Gold the benefit of the doubt that Tom is an unreliable narrator, that still comes off as a post-hoc justification for this directing choice and it doesn't synthesize with Laura's spoken dialogue unless we are to argue that Tom is also a very inconsistent and lazy narrator as well, which will then can be used excuse all sorts of inconsistencies and directorial decisions that make no sense.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 2:05pm

Furthermore, if we were to interpret Tom as an unreliable narrator, why even do this play?

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 2:31pm

HenryTDobson said: "But we're talking about issues bigger than changing a time period or adding a color theme. Deafness and other disabilities are a huge topic that can be very sensitive. If a director wants a specific message about them to be out in the world, using an old text just isn't going to cut it.

For instance, Romeo and Juliet could easily include Deaf themes by having one family Deaf and the other hearing - sounds interesting enough to me. Some of it may work and the director's message can be demonstrated among the feuding families. Most of it won't, though, and because we're unable to change the text of these plays, there's no way of fixing or adjusting it. The times that work then just feel coincidental and not really evoking a strong message about deafness or the Deaf culture. Instead, take whatever the message you want to convey (whether it be the struggle of hearing parents who have a Deaf child, the language barrier that separates hearing and Deaf people, the differing cultural components of Deaf and hearing people, etc.) and write a whole new play that focuses solely on this highlighted issue."

I don't disagree that there should be new plays exploring these themes, but I think you are greatly overestimating the ease of getting that work produced, especially in a production on Broadway. When's the last time there was a play actually about a deaf person? The only two to immediately spring to mind are Children of a Lesser God and Tribes, and Tribes never played Broadway. When was the last time there was a play featuring a character with a disability, let alone being played by an actor with a disability? Again, I think everyone is obviously free to not care for this production (or Deaf West), but saying "just write a new play!" is more easily said than done. 

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 2:38pm

neonlightsxo said: "Furthermore, if we were to interpret Tom as an unreliable narrator, why even do this play?"

 

There are countless narrators in theater and literature as unreliable. This statement makes no sense.

 

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 2:42pm

...because it's a memory play.

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 2:49pm

AC126748 said: "Laura is mildly disabled, but she has internalized her disability to such a degree that it has completely stifled her (think about how Laura says that she thought the clumping of her leg brace sounded like thunder, whereas Jim says he never noticed it). This is why Amanda can still see potential for her to be a wife and mother even if Laura cannot. Amanda sees a pretty girl with a slight problem, whereas Laura sees herself only through the prism of her disability. Having Laura played as profoundly disabled loses all of this."

 

I'm hearing what you say. I really am. But I don't think it loses any of this. Do you actually think that parents of disabled kids look at their children as hopeless? Lost causes? Or do you think they imagine enormous possibilities and maintain an enormous sense of denial about who their kids really are? In past productions I kept thinking, "Laura needs to get over this. She's just making her own life worse than it really is. There's no mental disability, she's just insecure about a minor limp." whereas in this production, she can't just get over it. She really is trapped but Amanda is in complete denial and Tom cannot keep up the charade.

[HenryTDobson]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 2:49pm

I don't disagree that there should be new plays exploring these themes, but I think you are greatly overestimating the ease of getting that work produced, especially in a production on Broadway. When's the last time there was a play actually about a deaf person? The only two to immediately spring to mind are Children of a Lesser God and Tribes, and Tribes never played Broadway. When was the last time there was a play featuring a character with a disability, let alone being played by an actor with a disability? Again, I think everyone is obviously free to not care for this production (or Deaf West), but saying "just write a new play!" is more easily said than done. 

 

But why would taking a classic play and adding in Deafness or disabilities, be any easier? Producing any sort of new work is challenging, especially if your only goal is Broadway. I've seen many regional new works that have highlighted such topics, which I found both poignant and exciting - their messages were presented clearly throughout. 

Look, I'll never scuff at the idea of a play or musical giving work to Deaf or disabled actors, regardless if it's new or a revival. I just wish directors (or playwrights, for that matter) would give us original work highlighting these themes. 

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 2:50pm

neonlightsxo said: "...because it's a memory play."

 

Ha! How reliable is your memory?

 

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 2:57pm

My imagination is that it's at least marginally easier to produce a Tennessee Williams revival starring an Oscar winner or the first revival of a well-liked Tony winning musical than it is to create from the ground up a new play. 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 3:15pm

theatregoer3 said: "AC126748 said: "Laura is mildly disabled, but she has internalized her disability to such a degree that it has completely stifled her (think about how Laura says that she thought the clumping of her leg brace sounded like thunder, whereas Jim says he never noticed it). This is why Amanda can still see potential for her to be a wife and mother even if Laura cannot. Amanda sees a pretty girl with a slight problem, whereas Laura sees herself only through the prism of her disability. Having Laura played as profoundly disabled loses all of this."

 

I'm hearing what you say. I really am. But I don't think it loses any of this. Do you actually think that parents of disabled kids look at their children as hopeless? Lost causes? Or do you think they imagine enormous possibilities and maintain an enormous sense of denial about who their kids really are? In past productions I kept thinking, "Laura needs to get over this. She's just making her own life worse than it really is. There's no mental disability, she's just insecure about a minor limp." whereas in this production, she can't just get over it. She really is trapped but Amanda is in complete denial and Tom cannot keep up the charade.

 

"

Because scared people like Laura exist everywhere. People are obsessed with their "imperfections", and many people become stifled by their self-consciousness about their "imperfections" and the tragedy is that it is self-defeating, but that's human nature. Many people instead retreat into their own fantasy worlds where they feel safe rather than actually do anything to possibly improve their life. Those feelings get worse the more years you isolate yourself and harbor those thoughts of inferiority. The fact that making her more explicitly disabled than what Williams intended made you finally get why Laura is trapped and go "of course, she's literally trapped and she can't do anything with her life", I think changes the character completely and goes against what she really stands for. I also think Gold making her disabled with a wheelchair to obviously point out that she can't go anywhere and is physically trapped rather than Laura mentally trapping herself is a pretty problematic message on the disabilities rights front if we really want to go there. 

Also, with this directorial choice, the fact that Jim says he never noticed her disability in high school makes him much more condescending to Laura, which I don't think Jim should be. 

Updated On: 3/10/17 at 03:15 PM