And Miss Reardon Drinks A Little

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 3/17/17 at 6:31am

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/-Award-Winning-Retro-Productions-Presents-AND-MISS-REARDON-DRINKS-A-LITTLE-20170316

One of the complaints in a recent thread is that we don't discuss non-Broadway offerings enough. I thought the description of this play sounded interesting. Does anyone remember seeing the original production or any subsequent productions? Can you offer any non spoiler-y opinions on whether it's worth seeing?

[sabrelady]

Posted: 3/17/17 at 7:27am

I saw the tour. I think it may have dated a bit now. It's the dysfunctional family story of 3 sisters ( now adults) all who work within the school system. Only one has married and escaped the home environment. The youngest is having a quasi nervous breakdown which comes out in an obsession about animal welfare ( ie no leather , vegan) and a possible "relationship" w a student. The eldest sister  is the proverbial Miss Reardon , and to cope - she drinks a little. I didn't get the marriage as an escape then, and now would be even more outre.

I remember Julie Harris was wonderful in it. 

 

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/17/17 at 8:06am

I enjoyed the play,  and feel that Paul  Zindel is a very underrated playwright. The play was both funny and sad. Julie Harris, Estelle Parsons, Nancy Marchand, and Rae Allen were in the cast --- and you can't get any better than that. They all gave dynamic performances.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/17/17 at 8:08am

I saw a regional production in the 70s and enjoyed it very much, but it's definitely a post-Who's-Afraid-Of-Virginia-Woolf, psychological abuse, "oh, look, the dark secrets are spilling out and neatly spaced, too" kind of play, a genre that was very popular in the 60s (and which still gets written today, hello August: Osage County).

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/17/17 at 8:45am

Saw the original production, trying out in DC with Harris, Parsons, Marchand and Bill Macy.  Later a tour with Sandy Dennis and Betty Garrett (odd as sisters, but it was persuasive; Dennis remarkable.)  It's a beloved community theater staple for a good reason: every role is a gem, and a field day for actresses.  If it's dated, it's still truthful enough. It's pre- (or cusp of) second wave of feminism, but as a period piece, arguably a snapshot of the times.  When I consider the actors I saw in it, in only two productions, I understand anew why women fight for good parts. Zindel could write 'em. Which is why he was given the screenwriting chores for "Mame," by the way. The less said about that the better. 

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 3/17/17 at 2:03pm

Thanks for weighing in everyone. You've sold me. I'm seeing it mid-May. I'll try and remember to check back in after seeing the show. 

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 5/18/17 at 1:54am

Quick thoughts... I might have more to say at a later date once the play really sinks in. In general, I don't think you really need to see this one. It's kind of amateurish in the acting and directing. And that's not a knock on off-Broadway. I've seen plenty of good off-Broadway performances. 

I do think the language and sheer volume of words was a lot sometimes for the actors and some handled it better than others. I know the actress who plays Catherine has a larger role in the company. Perhaps she took on too much responsibility because she disappeared the least into her character. In general, I feel like the play should have been funnier but there wasn't a strong tone and sometimes the acting didn't sell those lines so a lot of the jokes just plopped out, DOA. And as far as the intensity of the drama, I felt like it should have been a lot more cringey and uncomfortable and emotional but it lacked the depth of feeling that would have gotten the audience to that place. I don't know if it's a great play but I with a spectacular cast who could sell the humor and the angst, I can see how this would be a thrilling night of theater. For example, aside from it being a loud noise, I felt nothing the first time the gun went off. Another issue, which is no fault of the actors, is that the actors cast as Fleur and Bob did do a fairly good job which created an imbalance. I was much more drawn to them than to any of the sisters. Bob probably sells the most dramatic scene and Fleur comes out as the most sympathetic in spite of her idiosyncrasies and both actors seem notably more comfortable delivering their dialogue in a way that feels somewhat natural. 

As for the production, the set could be for anything and I thought the costumes were bad.They didn't seem thoughtfully chosen, just whatever fit the actresses that was cheap and somewhat period-appropriate. My other criticism was the play seemed to be trying to give some context of the time period but the production was not. It tries to put you in the 60s with the music they play in between but then you're jarred out of that whenever the play starts up and the actors (besides Fleur and Bob) aren't really selling that. 

I guess I commend them for supporting that cat charity though it seems like a weird takeaway given the content of the play. It's not the first play I'd pick for animal rights advocacy. 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 5/18/17 at 9:37pm

newintown said: "I saw a regional production in the 70s and enjoyed it very much, but it's definitely a post-Who's-Afraid-Of-Virginia-Woolf, psychological abuse, "oh, look, the dark secrets are spilling out and neatly spaced, too" kind of play, a genre that was very popular in the 60s (and which still gets written today, hello August: Osage County).

 

"

I saw a regional production starring Sandy Dennis and Betty Garrett in 1972 and liked it a lot. But I associate that sort of dark comedy with the 1970s, corresponding to the sitcoms of Norman Lear. The 1960s were the decade of Neil Simon and sex comedy still ruled.