All Female Glengarry Glen Ross Revival??- Page 2

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 8/9/18 at 7:17pm

Is David Mamet against gay marriage? I've never read anything from him that would suggest that, and several of his plays (November, Romance, Boston Marriage, The Anarchist) have openly gay characters

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 8/9/18 at 7:20pm

also, my answer to this is the same as my answer to the all-female Ghostbusters, and the all-female Ocean's Eleven: Make your own original all-female things, don't make crappy all-female versions of all-male things

[Sauja]

Posted: 8/9/18 at 7:51pm

Does this play really hold up that well? I was so disappointed by the Pacino/Cannavale/Shamos production which was my only experience with it. I love Amy Morton as a director, and I think doing a play about masculinity with an all female cast could be interesting, but...I don’t know. I can’t quite get excited about this, though I’m sure they could assemble a cast that would get me to buy a ticket to see how it shakes out!

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 8/9/18 at 9:23pm

I’ve been let down before by directors and performers I have utmost faith in, but I have a lot of faith in an artist like Amy Morton - who has a very particular eye and attack on material that I love - taking on this material.

I mean, if you absolutely have to revive this again after such a short absence, why not do it right and pull the rug out? I feel similarly about Van Hove’s WSS. Why not? If producers want to keep producing over-produced work, do it in a new way.

Updated On: 8/9/18 at 09:23 PM

[WayTooBroadway]

Posted: 8/9/18 at 10:34pm

“If producers want to keep producing over-produced work, do it in a new way.”

100% agree. Breathe new life!

[10086sunset]

Posted: 8/9/18 at 10:53pm

I hope to be proven wrong but I can't see this working.

 

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 8/9/18 at 10:54pm

As someone who is only vaguely aware of Morton’s television and film acting career and has never seen a (film or stage) production of the play, I was really intrigued and excited about this. But I should have known that I would only need to read this thread to cure me of my excitement. Lol

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 8/9/18 at 11:31pm

In a nutshell, here is a summary of the thread so far in regard to why this revival is a bad idea:

- It’s been revived too recently
- There is no audience for it
- Men shouldn’t play roles originated by women and vice versa
- David Mamet is a homophobe
- It’s a show about toxic masculinity so how will it work with an all female cast? (Good question)
- There were no all-women real estate offices in that era
- No more revivals! Only new plays!
- The female-led Ghostbusters and Ocean’s Eleven were bad
- The play hasn’t held up well

All the above is possibly true, but here’s my semi-rebuttal:

- Both Angels in America and The Iceman Cometh had fairly recent revivals (Angel’s previous revival was not on B’way). I loved, loved these recent B’way revivals.
- Some of my favorite shows from my June trip likely didn’t recoup (including Angels and Iceman - I am aware that does suggest a limited audience for a frequently revived play). Still glad they made it to B’way.
- Perhaps a female cast can bring different shades and focus to the script (yes, I know I haven’t seen a production so I may be taking outta my a$$ here).
- I have heard DM is sexist and Republican. Wasn’t aware he is homophobic. Maybe this production could rectify some of his biases in his work. Who knows.
- Maybe they’ll change the time period. I’ll just say I totally bought Denzel as Hickey in an era where I don’t think a POC would have been accepted in that bar or in his profession.
- My favorite experiences in June were almost all revivals (Angels, Three Tall Women, Iceman, The Boys in the Band).
- I enjoyed the new Ghostbusters (haven’t seen new O11).
- Who woulda thought TBITB woulda been viable in 2018.

Now someone tell me to go bugger off. Lol

[astromiami]

Posted: 8/9/18 at 11:35pm

So it is an adult version of Daffodil Girls?

http://www.theaterjones.com/ntx/reviews/20130509211756/2013-05-10/Fun-House-Theatre-and-Film/Daffodil-Girls-Inspired-by-David-Mamets-Glengarry-Glen-Ross

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 8/10/18 at 8:01am

^I've never heard of this play before, but the concept sounds hilarious. Can we have that on Broadway instead?

[BJR]

Posted: 8/10/18 at 8:41am

ColorTheHours048 said: "I’ve been let down before by directors and performers I have utmost faith in, but I have a lot of faith in an artist like Amy Morton - who has a very particular eye and attack on material that I love - taking on this material.

I mean, if you absolutely have to revive this again after such a short absence, why not do it right and pull the rug out? I feel similarly about Van Hove’s WSS. Why not? If producers want to keep producing over-produced work, do it in a new way."

I agree. If you're gonna do it yet again, at least it's not so X can star in it. Say something.

[WayTooBroadway]

Posted: 8/10/18 at 9:46am

A May opening tells me this could have some star wattage a la BOYS IN THE BAND with a limited run. The Steppenwolf ensemble seems to be very well-connected.

[CaseyBrent41]

Posted: 8/10/18 at 9:52am

I'm so excited to see who they can get for this...I agree though its been done a lot on Broadway and is it really that worthy of so many productions? I will ALSO say I think this could be VERY interesting I just re read the play a few months ago and its very....masculine??? So I think it will be fun and enlightening to see women take ownership of these roles and see how it plays out!

[quizking101]

Posted: 8/10/18 at 9:55am

I'm...wary.

We must keep in mind that the behaviors that men get away with in this production could be seen as powerful, but in a woman's hands, seem "shrill" or "undercutting".

I feel like only a cast of actors with a solid pedigree would sell me on this entirely. Ideally, Laurie Metcalf needs to be in on it. (And, with the shooting schedule for the upcoming Roseanne-free "Roseanne", she could feasibly do a no-pressure, 2-3 month run).

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 8/10/18 at 10:28am

"We must keep in mind that the behaviors that men get away with in this production could be seen as powerful, but in a woman's hands, seem "shrill" or "undercutting".

 

I think that might be one of the points of the entire production, actually. To show us what we celebrated the previous male actors in the parts for doing we'd see, say, Martha Plimpton do and go "ugh, why is she being such a b*tch??" then realize that we're being misogynistic. 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/10/18 at 1:54pm

I've never understood the appeal of Mamet and this idea sounds more like a gimmick than a concept.

To show us what we celebrated the previous male actors in the parts for doing we'd see, say, Martha Plimpton do and go "ugh, why is she being such a b*tch??" then realize that we're being misogynistic.

Does anyone really think that would actually happen?

- It’s been revived too recently 
Any revival is too recent
- There is no audience for it 
Unless you have magic powers and a crystal ball, nobody can really state that with any authority, especially with potential star power in the casting
- Men shouldn’t play roles originated by women and vice versa 
So ridiculous, it's not even worth the bandwidth to argue 
- David Mamet is a homophobe 
Unsurprising and irrelevant with respect to this concept
- It’s a show about toxic masculinity so how will it work with an all female cast? (Good question) 
It will probably remain toxic as well as reinforce catty infighting as a female stereotype
- There were no all-women real estate offices in that era
That is 100% false 
- No more revivals! Only new plays! 
So ridiculous, it's not even worth the bandwidth to argue 
- The female-led Ghostbusters and Ocean’s Eleven were bad 
True and irrelevant
- The play hasn’t held up well 
Probably the least significant flaw with this concept

[Ftworthguy]

Posted: 8/10/18 at 2:36pm

astromiami said: "So it is an adult version of Daffodil Girls?

http://www.theaterjones.com/ntx/reviews/20130509211756/2013-05-10/Fun-House-Theatre-and-Film/Daffodil-Girls-Inspired-by-David-Mamets-Glengarry-Glen-Ross"

It was originally done here in Dallas with an all 'girl' cast -- younger actresses taking on the roles -- I recently did a production of GGR and they did a reading of Daffodil Girls here with adult actresses in the roles -- it was BRILLIANT -- THIS I'd pay to see 

[Ravenclaw]

Posted: 8/10/18 at 3:07pm

I find it fascinating that the press release doesn't explain the concept beyond that the cast will all be women. Will names and pronouns be adjusted (like the London revival of Company), or will we understand them to be women playing men, adding a contextual layer (like how in Hamilton the actors are people of color, while the historical figures they play are white)?

Also it should be noted that Amy Morton has directed the play before, in a successful 2001 production at Steppenwolf with an all-male cast, featuring the great Mike Nussbaum.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 8/10/18 at 3:14pm

Alex Kulak2 said: "also, my answer to this is the same as my answer to the all-femaleGhostbusters, and the all-femaleOcean's Eleven: Make your own original all-female things, don't make crappy all-female versions of all-male things"

 

I agree.

But if not, I look forward to the day we will get all male versions of "The Women" and "Steel Magnolias".

 

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 8/10/18 at 4:41pm

I saw a production of Fat Pig by Neil LaBute, another play partly about toxic masculinity, last year with an all-female cast. The whole thing felt superficial and hollow, but the worst scenes were the ones between the two men in the cast, because while the women were talented actors, they fundamentally misunderstood the way men interact with each other, and they couldn't possibly unless they were men.

That's assuming they do GGR with women portraying male characters. If they adapt the show to be women playing female characters, then the show is just going to ring hollow. It's like if you staged August: Osage County with the Weston siblings as men. Nothing would ostensibly change, but you'd lose the context of mother-daughter rivalry and sisterly rivalry that makes the show so great

[sdrick]

Posted: 8/10/18 at 5:02pm

Multicultural casting

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/26/entertainment/la-et-cm-glenglarry-review-20120927

 

[John Adams]

Posted: 8/11/18 at 4:14am

Alex Kulak2 said: "[...] If they adapt the show to be women playing female characters, then the show is just going to ring hollow. It's like if you staged August: Osage County with the Weston siblings as men. Nothing would ostensibly change, but you'd lose the context of mother-daughter rivalry and sisterly rivalry that makes the show so great"

I agree with your thoughts and I'm riffing on a post I made in the Female Sweeney Todd thread in regards to my personal "Lin-Manuel Miranda Test" for how to evaluate the efficacy of non-traditional casting. 

First, a disclaimer that "non-traditional" casting is NOT the same as color/gender-blind casting (which I totally support). The latter is actor-focused, while the former refers to the characters as written by the playwright.

The evaluation I created for myself is based on how effectively Lin-Manuel Miranda created Hamilton. The criteria I choose are as follows:

1. Does the change maintain all of the original characters' narrative arcs and interactions with other characters, as scripted by the playwright?

2. On a scale of 1 to 10 (with 1 being Showcases the actors’ skills and/or talents and 10 being Expands what can be found and explored within the narrative), how would you rate the PURPOSE for the change? Note: the lower end of the scale is actor-centered and the higher end is more universal, and includes the audience. Neither is necessarily “right” or “wrong”.

3. On a scale of 1 to 10 (with 1 being Derogatory and 10 being Elevated), how does the change effect the audience’s perception of the character? Note: Again, neither end of the scale is necessarily “wrong” or “right”.

4. On a scale of 1 to 10 (with 1 being Not at all and 10 being Highly effective) to what level does the change allow the audience to see, learn and/or experience something new, or previously unknown.

For my tastes, the killer of this idea centers around #3. Do I want to see an interpretation that (as quizking101 and nasty_khakis point out) portrays women as "shrill", "undercutting" or "b!tches"? That is SOOO far away from the original intentions of the characters that my vote would be "Absolutely Not".

My personal responses to the other criteria don't rank high enough to warrant any support of an all-female G-GGR.

Updated On: 8/11/18 at 04:14 AM

Posted: 8/12/18 at 2:50am

Everyone stop doing this play. Stop. Let’s agree to stop. This sounds like a horrible idea. No. No dear god no!

[Melissa25]

Posted: 8/12/18 at 8:52am

I trust Amy Morton and am very excited for this.  Vulgarity, cons, scams and deceit.  Sound familiar?   I will be front and center with my pink hat on to cheer on the actors and their “talk.”

[Stephen75]

Posted: 8/12/18 at 10:09am

Melissa25 said: "I trust Amy Morton and am very excited for this. Vulgarity, cons, scams and deceit. Sound familiar? I will be front and center with my pink hat on to cheer on the actors and their “talk.”"

Seriously! This thread is such a snooze. We're going to get an all female revival of a classic with extremely juicy roles. Even if it doesn't work, it'll be interesting. Can we start talking about dreamcasting or something? 

Im throwing Metcalf and Nina Arianda into the ring.