THE GLASS MENAGERIE Previews (2017 Revival) — Page 3

Goodness, I had a totally different experience, but admittedly I was in the orchestra section and there was a part of me that wondered if these performances were translating to the back reaches of the theater. I guess they didn't! Well love it or hate it, this might be the seasons The Crucible. But I was wowed.

*MAJOR SPOILERS FOR THE PRODUCTION*

All I can say is: wow.

I went in with no expectations and ready for anything. You enter and it's just the bare stage with no set. A plain table, four chairs, a record player with records, and Laura's glass menagerie. That's it. Without the lights going down, Mantello walks up the stairs to the stage, followed by Ferris, who is helped up by Amanda. The opening monologue is begun, and you notice that everyone is in very modern clothes. Then Wittrock is introduced, in full costume (because he is the only "realistic" character in the play) and he exits. The other characters remain onstage pretty much at all times.

I agree with the comparisons to "A View From the Bridge", and there are some similarities, but I actually found this much more emotionally involving than that piece (maybe because I consider Miller to be much more cerebral in his works than Williams?). Williams' poetry is fully on display, to ravishing effect. To hear his words from so close and to see each actor so clearly was a gift.

I wasn't sure at first if I would like this bare bones approach, but somewhere along the way I was sucked in and emerged with tears streaming down my face.

Mantello was very good as Tom, but I still think he's working on finding a complete character. He seems to rely on little actor tricks that feel ersatz. I think it's interesting about the age thing, but of course the original Tom was in his 50s and that was the production that brought the play and Williams to such success. I think he may need a little time, but often he is wonderfully affecting. However, much like Jessica Lange in "Long Day's Journey Into Night", his final scene is stretched way to long and his sobs are unconvincing and rob the final moment of its emotional impact.

Ferris provides an interesting parallel for Laura. I thought many of her moments were effectively staged, but this is not the Laura that Williams gives us. Ferris is cold, sarcastic, always on the defensive. These are understandable choices and they might have been very interesting moments for Laura, but when people comment about how shy she is, you don't believe it for one moment. I loved her scene with Jim - it was gorgeous and vulnerable (to use the word I told Ferris at the stage door, it was "exquisite".

Wittrock is just about perfect as Jim. His energy was powerful and deeply insightful. I never realized just how callous he is, even as he tries to raise Laura up. But the dance scene was incredibly moving - leading up to the wistful kiss and the shattering of the unicorn (and Laura). The revelation after is devastating.

But Field is the reason this is a must-see. I was always upset I had missed the Tiffany production, but now I'm glad I didn't have Jones in my head to compare. Field was devastating in this role and it seemed to be made for her. I almost forgot about the legendary Taylor performance, because I almost can't imagine a better performance. Her Amanda cares so deeply and gives in to her silly, sincere nature. Her monologue when she reveals her dress had me in tears. The way she acted around Jim was as if she was still in her teens, and he was HER gentlemen caller created a tension, while one-sided, that propelled her through the rest of the play - I thought it was an inspired choice. And the final argument had me sobbing. I got shades of Blanche DuBois' mad scene in certain moments, and I thought it was pitch-perfect.

As for the production itself, I came out liking it a lot more than I thought I would. Most of it builds up for the pay off in the final hour of the play. Ferris alternates between her wheelchair and the ground, and it is mostly very effective. The scenes bleed into themselves, so it's better to be familiar with the play before you see it (same as in View From the Bridge, which having never seen or read, I was utterly confounded by). But while props are only taken out as needed, when Amanda discovers the gentlemen caller is coming, she springs into action, bringing out realistic table settings, and the costumes become more defined. Laura gets a dress, and Amanda pulls off her old bathrobe to reveal a bright pink taffeta gown obviously for someone much younger than her. She uses the dress as an extension of herself in many ways, and the memory of her past briefly becomes her reality again.

For the dinner scene, loud music plays through the speakers and the sprinklers go on on the stage, signifying the rain outside. Then, the lights go out and the rest of the play is done in candlelight (because Tom didn't pay the light bill). The table is pulled to the back of the stage and Jim and Laura sit in candlelight for their scene. They were right in front of me for this, and it was incredible moving. The intimacy brought so much to the performances, and I was in tears by the time Jim left. The final coup de theatre is Tom leaving. Tom opens the load-in door at the back of the stage and literally goes into the street, Amanda following him. Laura crawls to the table and gets into a chair, the first time she is seated not on the floor, the table, or in her wheelchair. Amanda returns to sob in her lap. Tom returns and they watch as he delivers his final monologue. Blackout.

All in all, much to see and digest. I unabashedly loved it, but I expect it to be deeply divisive. Like "View From the Bridge", I expect it plays much better from the orchestra and much is lost in the balcony. No one seems to be amplified, and I worry about audibility throughout the house, especially when they face backstage. I hope it gets nothing but raves, and I think Field deserves a Tony for this incredible performance, the likes of which I wonder if I shall see again. I encourage all lovers of Williams and theatre to see this. So happy for the text to finally get its due in a Williams play (something lost in St. Anne's stark naturalistic "Streetcar".

For those wondering about stagedoor, everyone came out. Field only signs one thing per person - with one picture per person as well. Everyone was lovely, although a Field stalker was there. As a side note, Ferris told me she saw me in the front row and that she saw how moved I was (well, she actually said "you were tearing up a lot. I hope someone gave you a hug." They all seem very happy to work on such a beautiful piece.

Updated On: 2/8/17 at 12:28 AM

I rushed and I was front row center. You have to look up a little, but because there's no set everything is visible. And, you get the added pleasure of having the Laura / Jim scene played very close to you. The "balcony" in the play is on the left of the stage, and the stairs on the right, so you may have to turn to see their faces, but for $30 I found it an extraordinary view.

Updated On: 2/8/17 at 12:38 AM

Sally Durant Plummer said: "I rushed and I was front row center. You have to look up a little, but because there's no set everythign is visible. And, you get the added pleasure of having the Laura / Jim played very close to you. The balcony is on the lfet, so you may have to turn to see their faces, but for $30 I found it an extraordinary view.



"

Thank you, hope I can score some rush tickets tomorrow!

I would echo the sentiment that this belongs in a much smaller house. The early scenes, with no visual focus among the general house-wide light wash, are swallowed from the mezzanine.

Updated On: 2/8/17 at 01:55 AM

RippedMan said: "This sounds super disappointing. I love production design, and I'm all for minimal. But not when I'm paying $100+ to see something. "



I have to say, I find that comment pretty baffling. Is that a common sentiment among Broadway ticket-buyers? Maybe I have no right to speak on the issue since I've never paid $100+ to see a show, but it seems to me that when you pay that much money for a show like this, you're not paying for lavish, espensove sets. You're paying for a certain caliber of artistry. You're buying on the basis of the play, the director and the cast. Obviously the show may still suck for other reasons, but why would you be disappointed by a minimalistic set just because you payed $100? And of course it would be different for a big lavish musical, where I can understand expecting a higher level of production value for your dollar, as that is more likely what you've payed to see.

Thanks for your suggestions!

Seeing Menagerie in April- but minimalism- or over the top staging- is not what makes a production soar, in my opinion- it is the story and the acting- and if both are amazing and riveting- the production will be satisfying.

I've not seen this production, but it's weird to me that people are using Van Hove as a reference point here. Sam Gold has a history of minimalist revivals- Uncle Vanya and Look Back in Anger come immediately to mind.

KJisgroovy said: "This production originated at Toeelgroep Amsterdam... seems a fairly straightforward reference to me. "



ha! I hadn't realized that! So it's really a direct line of influence from Van Hove.

QueenAlice said: "The performance style for this production has been taken to the level of the ultra conversational. Yes it's true a great deal of the pathos of this production has to do with Ferris's real life disability but I found her work heartbreaking. She doesn't need to act the role of Laura - she is it.



I'm not seeing this production until tomorrow evening, so perhaps your comment will make more sense to me after seeing it, but what exactly do you mean by, "She doesn't need to act the role of Laura- she is it?"

Just because someone may share personal real-life experience with a character he or she is portraying doesn't mean they will be able to act it out well on stage or even act at all. I think someone always needs to "act" a role. Just because someone is a bored housewife or a military vet suffering from PTSD or a famous chef in real life doesn't mean they would be good playing their real life roles on stage.

Something I take much bigger issue with is the apparent conclusion you've drawn that this actress IS Laura. Do you know her in real life? Are you saying that because she's disabled she hasn't been able to find love, happiness, etc in her own life and that is what allows her to not need to "act" the role? This sounds naive at best and highly offensive at worst...

Whizzer, I do not know Miss Ferris personally but I can understand how my comment saying she "is" the role could be misconstrued distastefully. For me, This actress was able to convey all of the pathos of this character in such a naturalistic way that I felt like she wasn't acting at all. Oddly enough, that's a comment many said in favor of the great Laurette Taylor in the original production as Amanda.



But I can see how others, perhaps further back in the theater, would not have seen the realism I saw in her performance being less than 10 feet from the stage.



But from the moment she handed the gentleman caller her broken unicorn as a souvenir tears fell unabashedly down my cheeks steadily till the end of the play. I have never been so moved by a production of the show.

Updated On: 2/8/17 at 11:46 AM

If you 're coming to the show tonite, and sitting in the mezzanine, say hello! I 'll be on aisle 2. Would like to meet a few of you guys.

Updated On: 2/8/17 at 01:29 PM