THE GLASS MENAGERIE (2017) Reviews- Page 4

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 3:21pm

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "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."

 

How is that problematic for the rights of people with disabilities? In the context of the time period?

 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 3:25pm

theatregoer3 said: "ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "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."

 

How is that problematic for the rights of people with disabilities? In the context of the time period?

 

 

"

The fact that you don't have the same feelings of Laura needing to get over it because she's much more disabled may be understandable, but it's also a lot more condescending to a disabled person. Even "in the context of the time period" we know Laura actually has the ability go as she pleases nearly as easily as an able-bodied person can because despite this direction, the dialogue itself did not change. If Williams wrote Laura having serious accessibility issues in The Glass Menagerie then I would be singing a totally different tune about this extreme take on Laura's disability.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 3:45pm

.

[theatregoer3]

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

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "The fact that you don't have the same feelings of Laura needing to get over it because she's much more disabled may be understandable, but it's also a lot more condescending to a disabled person. Even "in the context of the time period" we know Laura actually has the ability go as she pleases nearly as easily as an able-bodied person can because despite this direction, the dialogue itself did not change. If Williams wrote Laura having serious accessibility issues in The Glass Menagerie then I would be singing a totally different tune about this extreme take on Laura's disability."

That's a very valid point. Thank you for pointing that out. I have to think about that for a bit.

[A Director]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 5:33pm

How important is it to Sam Gold for Laura to be in a wheelchair?  Carey Cox who is the understudy does not need one.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 3/11/17 at 1:25pm

I can't imagine that at any time in the play's 70 plus year history, that Amanda Wingfield has been called an "ugly babbling old witch" with less conviction than Joe Mantello's Tom was barely able to summon at last night's performance.

[little_sally]

Posted: 3/11/17 at 8:18pm

A Director said: "How important is it to Sam Gold for Laura to be in a wheelchair?  Carey Cox who is the understudy does not need one.

I was wondering about that too. How will this production play if Cox goes on? Would she use a wheelchair too?

 

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 3/12/17 at 6:58pm

I really appreciated the fresh and dynamic take on the material. After the gorgeous Cherry Jones vision, I don't think I needed another faithful parlor recreation and a Southern belle on the decline. 

I truly viewed this as a fever dream nightmare Tom was having at his present age, the age of Mantello. I had no issue with Madison. I think Joe and Sally demonstrated (quite physically and effectively) how they got Laura in and out of the house everyday. This broke my heart. I took no issue with her using the the term "walking". I viewed this as another of Amanda's insistences so as not to acknowledge her disability. 

I liked that Laura had more anger and I liked what Madison brought to the role. The whole family was codependent vacillating between anger and helplessness. 

I also like that the audience is forced to face their discomfort with Madison. This is how she moves her body and has her entire life. I think many in the audience has to struggle with that and that will be a deal breaker for them. Some will not be able to get past it and will be embarrassed for her, angry for her, feel she is exploited. This is how she moves and her fellow actors are clearly at ease with her and she is very at ease on stage. I thought it was beautiful. 

Also some of her inflections and tone, including her laughter (which sounds like crying) are due to her muscular dystrophy, vocal control, and are not "bad acting." I found her incredibly vulnerable and moving. Joe, Sally and Finn do great with her. They are clearly a trusting bunch. 

I think Sally and Joe were wonderful. Joe, as Tom in the present, having this terrifying nightmare from his past about the family he abandoned. Even the rains can't wash his guilt and shame away. 

I found this a challenging and thought provoking twist on a classic. My condolences to all the Williams "experts" out there who are pissed Sally isn't sashaying around in taffeta with lemonade in a properly appointed parlor. 

I feel grateful Broadway produced this daring interpretation. 

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 3/12/17 at 7:01pm

I caught this yesterday, and I share all of Bettyboy's thoughts. This was my first time seeing the play live, and I was very taken with it.

[sylvesterbird]

Posted: 3/12/17 at 7:28pm

I saw the production last night and came away deeply affected. It’s the first production of Glass Menagerie I’ve seen, which, judging from the reviews here, seems to be a good thing (or at least made for a much more satisfying night). Ultimately I think the production doesn’t work for a Broadway theatre, and at times felt like an experiment you might do for a workshop or school assignment…except with a killer cast. I agree with a lot of what Jesse Green wrote in his review, both the positives and negatives, but that last image of Mantello, bitter and weary and physically so far from his family, won’t leave my mind.

I understand the gripes here about how Gold treats the script, and if I came into the production with any familiarity with the play, I imagine I would have a similar reaction. It took some time for those moments when the staging blatantly contradicts the text to not distract from what was actually happening, but Gold makes his intentions very clear in that opening meal scene, and after a while the incongruities didn’t matter so much. What stayed with me is the story of a family that can’t save itself, and how that impending dissolution leads each of them to cope in an intense way that inevitably clashes with the other two. Field’s character made sense to me; she can be completely horrible, but in a way that’s always rooted in a very real, consuming desperation.  As someone else wrote here, she’s a woman who starts the show at the end of her rope, and we see what tiny bit she has left run out by the end. I do agree that Mantello seems too old for Tom, but for me it paid off in the end. I found it striking how he doesn’t see the whole thing with sorrow, but with anger and bitterness, like he hates himself for telling us about this memory, for not being able to forget the whole thing and move on without this burden.

I still haven’t figured out how I feel about casting Ferris as Laura, which I know is one of the major sticking points. It really didn’t bother me, because I read it as Green described it in his review – that Laura is the most level-headed and resigned about the whole situation, which makes for an interesting contrast between her and the other two Wingfield’s. What all this means is that in the end, even though Jim’s inevitable departure is devastating for Amanda, it felt more of a hopeful thing for Laura, a brief moment of normalcy. And for me that’s where the production became the most problematic, because that’s clearly not what Tom’s memory is meant to be.

I always appreciate simple design if it serves to tighten and intensify a play's focus, but this stage is just too big for the "set" to be what it was. There's no sense of physical claustrophobia, which is a problem when Tom's whole issue is that he's being suffocated by his surroundings. I didn't need a period-appropriate set, but a set that contributed to the sense of ratcheting tension would have been appreciated. And the decision to have all that rain just made no sense to me; there were multiple times I just felt bad thinking about how wet the actors were getting sitting in all that water. 

All that to say, a day later I’m still mulling over the play, and that’s never a bad thing. So if you haven’t seen a production of The Glass Menagerie yet, you may very well find it worth it. I’ve also found the discussion here very interesting, though I’m sorry it’s been such a bad experience for so many. After reading all these comments, I do wish I had seen the John Tiffany production.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 3/12/17 at 8:57pm

Sylvester, I agree with you. This version has stayed with me, whereas the Jones revival was enjoyed and forgotten. I viewed the claustrophobia coming from the impoverished dark abyss that was swallowing the family. It made me very tense. They floated in the poverty of setting. 

[Callum_brown1]

Posted: 3/13/17 at 11:49am

Really hoping to see this when I'm in NYC at the beginning of June. I know it's booking until the beginning of July but are there any possibilities it might close early? Really don't want that to happen but I know not everyone is on board with it. How's box office?

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 5:31pm

No it won't. It's co-produced by LCT, which is responsible for its members who booked tickets throughout the run. 

Saw it today. What a wonderful production. I love plays that provoke than resolve, which this production does a really good job to deliver. I'm also really happy that we still get to see risky and innovative productions on Broadway in a time that it's largely inundated by Jersey Boys crowd-pleasing and "safe" productions.

[Andy51]

Posted: 3/29/17 at 11:16pm

I came across this NYT article  -- "A Wheelchair on Broadway Isn't Exploitation. It's Progress" -- from last Friday a bit late.  Not only does it bear on the discussion above, but it's particularly notable here as I believe the author is directly seeking to respond to those on this board -- indeed this very thread -- who argue that Gold's casting of Madison Ferris is exploitative.  (He explicitly mentions this argument being made on "theater chat boards"  So, in case you missed it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/theater/a-wheelchair-on-broadway-isnt-exploitation-its-progress.html

Updated On: 3/29/17 at 11:16 PM

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 12:21pm

The author doesn't actually address the substantive concerns raised on this board, and completely dismisses them in a really cheap way by saying that people who find it exploitative are just uncomfortable with looking at disabled people.

 

Kind of a prick. 

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 12:30pm

Agree, Scarywarhol. I have no problem with seeing disabled people onstage. Frankly, I want more of it. But not in the way Sam uses Madison in this production.

[carnzee]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 2:55pm

I agree completely, Scarywarhol. This paragraph in particular bothers me: On those chat boards, some writers have complained that Ms. Ferris isn’t very good. Here’s the thing: We have been conditioned to define good acting in terms of facial expressions, comic timing, physical bits. An actor with a disability, especially one involving muscle control or cognitive impairment, isn’t necessarily going to be able to give the kind of performance we’re used to. Will Ms. Ferris impress someone looking for that kind of performance? Probably not. But she gives the most realistic portrayal of a person with muscular dystrophy that I’ve ever seen.

He is arguing that we shouldn't judge Ferris with the same standards we would judge any other actress. This seems unfair to Ferris. 

And if this play were about muscular dystrophy, his last sentence would be relevant. But it isn't. 

 

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 3:30pm

"He is arguing that we shouldn't judge Ferris with the same standards we would judge any other actress. This seems unfair to Ferris. "

Yeah, what the hell? Isn't that the opposite of true?

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 3:43pm

I spoke with another person I know--a highly educated theater professor whose opinion I generally respect. She basically shut down any criticism of this production with the same line of reasoning (if you can even call it that) that Genzlinger employs: basically, that a negative reaction to this production means you're uncomfortable engaging with disability. Like Genzlinger, this woman has a child with disabilities. I'm starting to wonder if it has to do with being too close to the situation in their personal lives to approach any criticism without being dismissive.

Updated On: 3/30/17 at 03:43 PM

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 3:52pm

"I'm starting to wonder if it has to do with being too close to the situation in their personal lives to approach any criticism without being dismissive."

I'm with you on this.

[EthelMae]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 3:57pm

I loved this production and I've seen this play many times. I also liked the recent NYT article mentioned here.

I think the Times article was trying to point out that people with disabilities shouldn't only have to play roles that have that particular disability. Why shouldn't Ms. Ferris play Laura- just because the character is supposed to have "a slight limp"? It is a memory and memories take on their own reality when being remembered. And even without the memory detail, why shouldn't this actress  be able to make her Broadway debut in this role? Because us as an audience can't accept this casting? That's not a good enough reason. Should she wait until a role comes along with her particular disability? Or a role that doesn't conflict with the reality of her disability? That's too black and white.

Why can't Miss Ferris play any role? I know a lot of actors who have disabilities and have to conquer the walls that keep them them from playing a certain role. For instance,  I know an actress who played Dolly in The Matchmaker. She's missing a leg due to cancer. She can't play Dolly because Dolly runs around Yonkers and New York and how can she do that with one leg?  That's silly. And she triumphed as Dolly, BTW.

Updated On: 3/30/17 at 03:57 PM

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 4:14pm

Ethel, you're misreading what we're saying. None of us are saying Ferris shouldn't play Laura.

[EthelMae]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 5:14pm

What?? Of course you are! Most of the posts say that Laura has a slight limp and Ms. Ferris has much more than that so an audience can't accept that.

What are you trying to say about Ms. Ferris being cast in this role if not that?

And this is not idle chat. This is important for people with disabilities and what they can and can not do as defined by others-others without a disability in most cases.

Updated On: 3/30/17 at 05:14 PM

[HenryTDobson]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 7:42pm

Mr. Genzlinger might mean well by his article, but it's really a step back for people with disabilities. His article is incorrectly making assumptions about how audience members feel - these assumptions are coming from his own head (at least to my knowledge) and he's stating them as fact. I find it disturbing that he mentions that he has a daughter with a disability - I wonder if he asked her permission to mention her disability in an article that was to be printed in the NY Times, seen by thousands of people. His own experience with these topics does not make him more right than someone else. 

It's interesting that he mentions the TV show Speechless and the new character on Sesame Street; these characters are new people in the world that are being created with a fresh slate. The writers of these shows can create new themes with these characters without having to force it through an old text. Or they won't create themes and simply have them as characters in their stories. That works as well. I think that Mr. Genzlinger makes assumptions again - when many of us were discussing the casting of Glass Menagerie and Spring Awakening, we were not upset because an actor in a wheelchair was cast in the show. It was more a discussion on how the directors attempted to change the original meaning of the text, something that is unnecessary and actually a disservice to the person who is disabled. 

The more we talk about disabilities in this way, the more we become accustomed to saying someone is "disabled" or  has "disabilities" or "limitations," instead of simply calling him or her "a person." 

[HenryTDobson]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 7:43pm

And Mr. Genzlinger's mention of the Deaf West Productions alludes to deafness as a disability which is a whole other thread for another day. I would advise him to be more knowledgeable about topics before going to print.