the problem with Grey Gardens

i saw the show this summer and while i love the documentary and i thought christine ebersole did a phenomenal job - i had a big problem with the musical:

they never explained HOW and WHY these two fabulous women turned into huge recluses (the Act 1 characters don't explain their Act 2 selves)

i think that the explanation is more intriguing and interesting than the contrast between the two acts - watching the documentary i always wonder what happened (i dont think it's as simple as mr. beale divorced big edie and joe left little edie).

---

They do, actually explain it. Little Edie was in New York City, not doing very well on her own when Big Edie told her to come home (presumably to take care of her).

Actually the poster is right, that is the problem with Grey Gardens. There is no dramatic plot. Act one is pre drama, act two is post drama. Do you really think it's that thought provoking to leave us to wonder how they got that way? Isn't that some of the appeal of the original documentary? We've had 30 years to wonder how they got that way. I think the show is fluff with interesting music.

Ultimately Grey Gardens the musical adds nothing new to the mythos of these people because it really doesn't have anything to say (aside from nebulous ideas about growing old and dying and failing in life). Great music, great roles, not really great drama. The lack of a dramatic question gave the audience nothing to hold on to and the show had to sell itself on one really great performance (a performance so good that it managed to sustain the show through a fairly long shelf life).

I'd like to know if people do think there's a dramatic question though. Not the themes of the show but rather the question of the show, what is it about?

---

That mystery is exactly what so many people find fascinating about the show. For me, that was the major attraction to the documentary. It was full of hints and clues and bits and wisps of information. It was like an Agatha Christie novel without the big drawing room scene at the end where all is revealed. Half the fun of the documentary is watching it over and over again, trying to piece together what might have made two people fall so far. It's a fascinating study.

I think it was a brilliant choice for the writers to try and keep that mystery intact. And despite the inklings of possibilities laid out in act one, the absence of thirty years of life successfully carries that mystery into act two.

People who don't like that mystery or those who can't see the mystery and just complain they couldn't see act two Edie in act one Edie, are just not seeing all the layers this play has to offer.

---

"those who can't see the mystery and just complain they couldn't see act two Edie in act one Edie, are just not seeing all the layers this play has to offer. "

or the reality that people evolve.

---

It's all in there. Much more so than in the doc. That's all I can say. I heard the show almost 6 times a week for the run. It's all in there.

---

well then, please enlighten me (not being snippy, i really want to know what it was that i missed).

---

I never asked what the plot was. I asked what the dramatic conflict was. Can we can have on conversation about Grey Gardens without inevitably referring to Spring Awakening?

What mystery are you guys referring to? The show and history are both very clear on why the Edies went from being respected socialites to cat ladies. Yes, Jrb, people evolve. That evolution is what is missing from Grey Gardens. The first act is a fantasy based loosely on fact and old movies, the second act comes out of the ether to show us a musicalized documentary. But there is no journey, no dramatic question (I keep using this term). Edie is dead before she lives as far as Grey Gardens is concerned, and Grey Gardens wants to glorify that for our entertainment.

It's really just celebrity schadenfreude. We laugh at her situation and we pity her but I don't really see where the depth is... are they trying to tell us some great truth about the human condition? I don't see it.

I'm speaking as someone who loves movies/plays/books that follow non-linear/traditional storytelling formats. But you always know what Guido Contini's problem and conflict CURRENTLY is. You always know what the Buendia's conflict is. What is Edie's problem now? Don't tell me what it was.

In fact, when the men in The New York Trilogy descend into madness and dereliction (in a series of stories not dissimiliar to Grey Gardens thematically), you are not only treated to the drama (which is compelling) but you are treated to the question before you receive the answer. Even Follies, another show which seems to take place after the fact, is in fact riddled with question after question--most tellingly the question of whether or not these characters WILL evolve, which Grey Gardens never asks. I see what Grey Gardens is trying to do but Follies already did it and much more successfully because Grey Gardens is a show about people who have already made their decisions.

I just think the show is a bit emotionally transparent and thematically bereft. Bizarre because the score is so damn adept. I keep seeing this crop up in different places--it makes you think? About what? About the random banal details of the story?

And yes, the show is very well written and I actually enjoy it more than I let on. I just feel the need to play devil's advocate.

---

Well said, Roninjoey.

I watched the show and ended in disappointment. I like the scene design, the score, the acting, yet, I DONOT CARE THESE PEOPLE!

I cannot enjoy a show if it makes me feel indifferent to the characters.

That's not the dramatic question. The first act is a fantasy and the second act happens after Little Edie has already gone after an acting career and failed at it. Either Edie is now too old or too crazy to realistically pursue an acting career and they know it. That's just backstory, emotional hook. In the second act they just whine about it and nothing happens (nothing emotional, nothing tangible).

Erm, I think the real question is why you would come to a thread titled "The problem with Grey Gardens" and yell at us for criticizing the show. I liked aspects of it but I don't think it works and enjoy discussing it.

I don't need to do any research because I've seen what you all have to say and I don't agree. In fact I don't even think you're actually refuting my points or answering my questions, just repeating rhetoric.

---

Since the styles of the two acts clash so much (supposedly) I expected different musical styles to show the contrast....but it all sounded the same to me.

It all sounded the same?

The first act is full of 40s pastiche and the second act was constantly compared to be Sondheimesque.

But ok.

---

The problem with Grey Gardens is that they havent brought it to London! ......yet1

---