THREE TALL WOMEN Reviews — Page 2

I sincerely hope not- directorially, AiA is messy.

I'm not usually a contrarian for its own sake, but I suppose this is the thread to post my take on the Saturday matinee I saw, notwithstanding the unanimous raves from the press. I certainly give raves to the beautiful set; it's transformation is practically worth the price of admission. I give raves to the skill of those 3 illustrious women to keep straight which iteration of repeated speech they're giving from endless scene after endless scene. More than that, I give huge plaudits to both Laurie Metcalf and Glenda Jackson (Allison Pill less so), for keeping me interested in where the damn thing was headed without hypnotizing me into a stupor.

But sorry to say, those plusses weren't enough to salvage this long long afternoon of endless talk between 3 not very interesting women. Act I was especially insufferable; I couldn't wait for the blackout that ends it all. Act II held much more interest-- at least everyone was back in their full wits with the ability to do a proper postmortem of what went on before. But honestly, by the end of it I had very little idea of what we were supposed to take away from the show, other than a vague appreciation for ladies of a certain age to prove they've still got it. Sorry, Mr. Albee. Truly great plays (yours included) have proven that 2 hours in a theater can offer much much more.

Hilton Als, unlike the other reviewers, is quite critical of this production. While I'm still on the side of the raves, I do think Als offers an intelligent and interesting perspective.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/09/a-lost-opportunity-in-three-tall-women

Updated On: 4/4/18 at 10:21 PM

I am trying to remember: I do recall reading another review he wrote where (as in this case) he seemed to think that he was intellectually superior to everyone involved in the production. Those who can, do; those who can't write for the NEW YORKER.

Hilton, in the second act you saw sadistic castrating bitch, dour bitter spinster and disgruntled drug majorette.

I saw a wise dying woman gracefully embracing every part of herself young and old and good and bad, a woman in midlife fondly looking back, coping with the present (which is hardly spintsterhood, far from it, and characterized not by bitterness but by assuredly navigating domestic realpolitik without sacrificing her own joy) and spiritually wary of the future mistakes she is told she will make, and a young lady with set moral standards confronting a loss of even more innocence to come with both denial and terror. A powerful triptych of life, holding a mirror to so many in the audience (which the set carries through), no matter their background, gender, sexual orientation or age.

Perhaps Als is projecting misogyny onto Mantello's Three Tall Women. I see no evidence of it onstage.

Updated On: 4/5/18 at 02:26 AM

What do you think the chances are of this extending? Telecharge says it will close June 24 and I won't have an opportunity until July 21. I've got one slot to fill and I'm leaning toward Straight White Men, but if Three Tall Women was still running I might consider that instead. Thoughts?

wonkit wrote: "I am trying to remember: I do recall reading another review he wrote where (as in this case) he seemed to think that he was intellectually superior to everyone involved in the production."

Not sure if this is what you are thinking of, wonkit, but didn't Als piss a lot of people off with a review of last year's Sweet Charity? I don't recall exactly what the debate was about that review but I recall an actor friend, a woman (in this case a salient factor), posting Als Sweet Charity review and that many people finding his take on the production condescending and the basis of his opinioin straining supportability for anyone familiar with the show itself and the production.

The Als review is so ludicrous and purposefully contrarian, it's not worth bothering with. Your time would be better spent reading Michael Feingold, who is just out.

Glenda Jackson Stands Tallest Among Edward Albee’s “Three Tall Women”

henrikegerman said: "wonkit wrote: "I am trying to remember: I do recall reading another reviewhe wrote where (as in this case) he seemed to think that he was intellectually superior to everyone involved inthe production."

Not sure if this is what you are thinking of, wonkit, but didn't Alspiss a lot of people offwith areview of last year's Sweet Charity? I don't recall exactly what the debate was about that reviewbut I recall an actor friend, a woman (in this case a salient factor), posting Als Sweet Charity review and that many people finding his take on the production condescending and the basis of his opinioin straining supportability for anyone familiar with the show itself and the production."

I actually went back to see which reviews Als has written that I actually read, and it was his review of van Hove's VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE that angered me. First, he acted like Arthur Miller's psychiatrist in discussing how the play came to be written. Nice try, but most playwrights aren't autobiographers in everything they create. If you thought that was true, Hilton, you would have to deny that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Second, he focused almost exclusively on the kiss between Eddie and Rudolpho (which is not a sexual kiss but an expression of dominance) and not the incestuous tension between Eddie and Catherine that drives most of Eddie's actions throughout the play. Als described the production as "romanticized masculinity" - something which I think the reviewer brought to his experience of the production. And that is why the characterization of the three women in the current review bothers me. Hilton is indeed projecting onto the play his own reactions to it rather than judging the production for its own voice.