THE ROYAL FAMILY Reviews

[LimelightMike]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 5:05am

Post 'em here!

It is Thursday, October 8th, marking the official opening night performance of George S. Kaufman and Edna Ferber's The Royal Family, playing the Friedman, in a production by Manhattan Theatre Club. Preview performances began on September 15th.

The Royal Family is a 1927 comedy that centers around The Cavendishes, a theatrical clan patterned after the Barrymores, with its aging matriarch Fanny Cavendish (Rosemary Harris), whose career began before the age of electric lights. The greatest lights in her dimming life now are her children and granddaughter  all of whom are actors.

"In the play, "going on" is as much about continuing a bloodline and its traditions as it is about getting up on the boards and doing a turn," press notes begin. "The stakes are high: Fanny's daughter, leading lady Julie (Jan Maxwell) might be wooed away from the stage by a former lover (Larry Pine), ingenue grandaughter Gwen (Kelli Barrett) is quitting acting for a man, and wastrel son Tony (Reg Rogers) is mired in scandal, and fleeing Hollywood."

This incarnation, directed by Doug Hughes, also features Ana Gasteyer, John Glover, and Tony Roberts, with Freddy Arsenault, Caroline Stefanie Clay, Rufus Collins), David Greenspan, Anthony Newfield, Henny Russell, Cat Walleck, and John Wernke.

Having already been extended a week, performances are to continue through Sunday, November 29th.

My absolute to all involved.

Best,
- Mike

[Edna Turnblad]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 6:51am

Can anyone tell me 1. if this is true, and 2. what the producers of this show or the nominators will do? I believe that I've read somewhere, perhaps in an article or in the official rules, that Tony elligability is based on who performed on opening night, unless, I'm supposing, the show's producers appeal. Does anyone know what will be done with Tony Roberts in this show since he probably isn't performing tonight (nothing has been said if he will or not)? Will he be selected as elligable, or will his understudy, or both?

[bjh2114]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 9:43am

My guess is that the producers will appeal for Tony to be eligible. He's only missing a handful of performances to get better. It's not a Cheyenne Jackson/Xanadu situation where he was going to be in for a few months before James Carpinello came back (which never happened anyway).

[UAisGREAT]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 1:34pm

Its a really wonderful show. Funny, touching, and beautiful. The set and the lighting are fantastic. Catherine Zuber's costumes are absolutely gorgeous. The cast is great and have really nice chemistry with one another. Jan Maxwell, Rosemary Harris, and the man who plays Tony are the standouts. I am so happy the Jan Maxwell has found this show because she really gets to showcase her great talents. Hopefully a Tony nomination or win is in the works for her. Rosemary Harris is funny and the closing moments of the show are very touching.

GO SEE THIS SHOW!

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 1:48pm

Even if it is superb, it will be long closed by the time Tony noms role around so it does have that working against it.

[TheaterBaby]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 2:22pm

Even if it is superb, it will be long closed by the time Tony noms role around so it does have that working against it.

Just remember - Michele Pawk took the Tony for Best Actress for "Hollywood Arms" which was a limited fall run.

It might not happen often, but if a performance is THAT good and memorable, it has a chance.

Updated On: 10/8/09 at 02:22 PM

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 3:10pm

Another thing to consider is that, if the reviews and public response are great enough, it MIGHT transfer to another theater for a regular run. I truly doubt that that will happen, but it's not beyond the realm of possibly. I haven't seen this production yet (seeing it November 21st), but I've always had a fondness for the play and still remember with pleasure the '76 revival. There was a television version done in the mid-'50s with Helen Hayes as Fanny -- has it ever turned up or is it lost to the ages?

Updated On: 10/8/09 at 03:10 PM

[Edna Turnblad]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 5:11pm

Well, it's been announced that Robers will be returning. I'm glad he is and I don't have to needlessly worry.

Second, Ed, there's also a 1970's filmed version of The Royal Family that has Rosesmary Harris. I've watched part of it, it's pretty good. I seem to have read that it was a filmed version of the 70s revival.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 6:22pm

And also, there was a filmed version done in 1930, I believe, with Ina Claire as Julie. I've never seen it for sale and, as I recall, the movie wasn't all that great. Would be willing to give it another shot, should the occassion arise.

[LearnToBounce]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 8:51pm

The Associated Press is a Rave:

"Director Doug Hughes has cast the show well all the way down the line. Check out the work done by the actors who play the Cavendish maid and butler, Caroline Stefanie Clay and David Greenspan. Despite only a minimum amount of time on stage, they do exemplary work in creating real characters.

But then Hughes never lets any of the actors descend into cartoons, which makes the play's surprisingly emotional ending all the more poignant — especially after all the frivolous mayhem that has preceded it.

That delightful turbulence is played out on designer John Lee Beatty's baronial set, a lavish duplex Manhattan apartment that probably could only exist in the theater. Don't tell the Cavendish clan. For them, on stage is the only life that's real."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091008/ap_en_re/us_theater_review_royal_family

*****

USA Today gives the show 3 Stars out of 4:

"Under Dough Hughes' sprightly direction, the other ensemble members all perform gamely, if less consistently. As Fanny's foolish, pompous brother, the excellent John Glover wins us over in spite of his role; as his cloying wife, Ana Gasteyer doesn't. Larry Pine is a tad pallid as Julie's wealthy, gallant love interest, while Reg Rogers is a bit overzealous as her brother, a movie idol with a talent for trouble.

None of this detracts, of course, from Harris' and Maxwell's star turns. Women wear the pants in this Family, and they're a joy to behold."

http://www.usatoday.com/life/theater/reviews/2009-10-08-royal-family_N.htm

*****

Variety is Mixed-to-Positive:

"There's a sentimental satisfaction in watching Rosemary Harris -- who played equivocating diva Julie Cavendish in the 1976 Broadway revival of "The Royal Family" -- still navigating the stage with grace and good humor, this time as the clan's proud matriarch, in the play's latest appearance. The rhythms of Doug Hughes' production are too uneven to make all its rewards equal, but George S. Kaufman and Edna Ferber's 1927 comedy about a New York stage dynasty retains plenty of charm for theater lovers. And while the ensemble work could be tighter, its lead performers rise to the occasion in sparkling turns."

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117941339.html?categoryid=33&cs=1

[LearnToBounce]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 8:53pm

Backstage is a Rave:

"Phones ring. Doors slam. Flowers arrive by the bushel. Monkeys, Russian wolfhounds, yogis, babies, and movie stars come and go. Hearts are broken, careers are made, and productions are planned. It's just a typical afternoon at the Cavendishes' swank duplex apartment, as this temperamental clan of actors balances personal affairs with chaotic stage lives. George S. Kaufman and Edna Ferber's 1927 comedy is given a rousing revival by the Manhattan Theatre Club under Doug Hughes' crack staging, which appears frenetic at first, but by the final curtain you'll realize that Hughes commands his thespian troops with the precision of a military strategist."

http://www.backstage.com/bso/reviews-ny-theatre-broadway/the-royal-family-1004020631.story

[LearnToBounce]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 9:05pm

The Wall Street Journal is Negative:

""The Royal Family" is a backstage spoof that pokes fun at the flashy foibles of the Barrymore family, which were familiar to anyone likely to set foot in a Broadway theater in the '20s. It still has its amusing moments, but the element of satire (underlined by the fact that Reg Rogers, who plays Tony Cavendish, is made up to look like John Barrymore) is now dated past the point of easy recognition, and the humor dries up abruptly and unpleasingly when the plot takes a bathetic turn in the last act. Noël Coward knew better than to get soppy in "Hay Fever," the classic 1924 backstage farce on which "The Royal Family" is rather too obviously based, and I kept wishing that I were seeing that play instead of this one.

Doug Hughes, the director, appears to have encouraged his cast to try too hard, with results that not infrequently suggest a stageful of nail-driving carpenters. Fortunately, Rosemary Harris and Jan Maxwell manage to give neatly turned performances—Ms. Harris is stately and sardonic, Ms. Maxwell fey and winsome—that are just about worth the price of admission. So is John Lee Beatty's fantastically lavish set, whose expensive appointments include a staircase, a fireplace, two suits of armor and a grand piano. I enjoyed gazing at the décor even when my attention drifted away from the script, which was fairly often."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574457001553209162.html

[A Director]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 9:46pm

Terry Teachout, the WSJ play reviewer, is a hack. The Royal Family has little in common with Hay Fever. I'm familiar with the 1927 reviews for The Royal Family and none mention Hay Fever. If I'm not mistaken, Noel Coward directed the play when it was produced in London. (The show was called Theatre Royal). I'm sure he would have noticed it was similar to his play.

You don't have to know anything about the Barrymores to enjoy The Royal Family.

[LearnToBounce]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 10:17pm

Ben Brantley is Mixed-to-Positive:

"As staged by Mr. Hughes (“Doubt,” this season’s revival of David Mamet’s “Oleanna”), this “Royal Family” takes a while to find its natural rhythm and even then doesn’t always hold on to it. Not all the cast members seem equally at home in John Lee Beatty’s lush rendering of the Cavendish family’s two-tiered apartment, a deluxe playpen for grown-up babies. (Catherine Zuber has provided mouthwatering period costumes to match...

...Joe Orton, the great, subversive comic playwright of swinging London, insisted that farce worked only when played sincerely. Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Harris prove how right he was. Ms. Harris’s Fanny is an artfully subtle creation. Age hasn’t withered her, but it has subdued her, and the actressy poses of a lifetime have become gentle reflexes. You’re aware of the gap between eager spirit and weaker flesh, yet there’s a graceful continuity to every move Fanny makes.

Ms. Maxwell, whose supporting performances were the best things about the Broadway productions of “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” and “The Dinner Party,” gets the star role she has long deserved and fills it to the fingertips. Like Fanny, this Julie turns the hackneyed notion of “theater in the blood” into biological fact. Both women are wonderful paradoxes, people for whom artifice is truly natural, and as mother and daughter they communicate in a perfect private language to which we are allowed privileged access."

http://theater2.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/theater/reviews/09brantley.html

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 10:20pm

I totally agree, A Director. This play is, first and foremost, a valentine to the theatre and a very delightful one. Even though I never saw any of the Barrymores on stage, I've always been fascinated by them. However, this play MAY have been based on the Barrymore family (notice I said MAY), but the underlying "message" is a love song to the New York theatre and everything, warts and all, that it represent.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 10:27pm

I'm so glad Rosemary Harris is showing up that nasty poster who ran to the board after 1st preview to cackle about how bad she was.

I can't wait to see this!

[AC126748]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 10:38pm

Matthew Murray of Talkin' Broadway is mixed.

(And for the record, Pal Joey, I saw an early preview, not the first preview. Isn't it about time you saw the show for yourself and formed your own opinion, instead of harping on mine?)
http://www.talkinbroadway.com/world/RoyalFamily.html

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 10:42pm

Rosemary Harris Hater!

[AC126748]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 10:51pm

You got it! My sole reason for living, going to the theatre, and posting here is to spread my hatred of one Rosemary Harris.

Updated On: 10/8/09 at 10:51 PM

[LearnToBounce]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 11:07pm

John Simon is Mixed-to-Positive (giving the show 2 1/2 Stars out of 4):

"...As Gilbert Marshall, the solid businessman in love with Julie, Larry Pine has an easier role and performs it winningly. In lesser parts, we get adequacy, which -- except from Kelli Barrett as Gwen, the youngest Cavendish -- is good enough.

We live in times when even the nontheatrical royals have become, if not downright democratic, rather less than regal. Thus mere actors perhaps cannot be expected to reproduce easeful hauteur. Add to this that despite some funny bits, Kaufman had not yet reached the height of his comic gifts. So we get rather more competence than magnificence."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601098&sid=agyy3ZiC44Ug

[LearnToBounce]

Posted: 10/8/09 at 11:18pm

Entertainment Weekly gives the show a B+:

"Yes, The Royal Family is old-fashioned. And yes, it's a bit windy at nearly three hours. But the vanity of actors and the ravenousness of the tabloid press remain remarkably unchanged since the '20s. Kaufman and Ferber's dialogue is still bitingly funny, and Maxwell's center-stage meltdown at the end of the second act is a priceless showstopper. This show is as sturdily constructed as John Lee Beatty's impressively ornate two-level set, which recreates the Cavendishes' luxe Park Avenue apartment."

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20311318,00.html

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/9/09 at 1:03am

NY1 is mixed to positive:

"The Manhattan Theatre Club invites you to visit a time that, while fantastical, once existed. A time when actors behaved like aristocracy, they shunned Hollywood in favor of the stage, and plays had three acts, 16 actors, oh, and two dogs making a last-minute cameo. It's George S. Kaufman and Edna Ferber's 1927 showbiz comedy "The Royal Family," and it's a pleasant enough trip in the time machine.

...

Revivals are always a tricky balance between archeology and restoration, and "The Royal Family" scores above average. It's a tasteful banquet of nostalgia served up with class, with a horde of worthy actors still struggling to get on the same page."
Review and Video

[DryMartini]

Posted: 10/9/09 at 7:40am

I can't wait to see this! And hopefully Jan Maxwell will finally get that Tony she deserves!

[TheaterBaby]

Posted: 10/9/09 at 1:55pm

hopefully Jan Maxwell will finally get that Tony she deserves!

I have to agree with this.
I saw it last night. I didn't "love" the play, but I did enjoy it. The characters were delightfully over-the-top (though I don't think that should have extended to the butler and maid...which it did). Jan and Rosemary gave fantastic performances. John Glover is always a treat to see. Ana Gastyer, while her character is quite annoying, has the ability to make an already-funny play even funnier.

Tony Roberts did have an awkward moment when his fellow cast members had to help him with his line; but hey, I'm impressed that he even went on after his medical scare this week. Good for him.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/9/09 at 2:26pm

The New York Post is mixed with **1/2 out of ****:

"Watching the leaden first act of "The Royal Family," the 1927 comedy revived by Manhattan Theatre Club last night, I began to dread the next two.

Actors run around an overstuffed duplex filled with oil paintings, heavily upholstered furniture and mini suits of armor. The banter feels forced. The jokes don't land.

Some genius at MTC looked at director Doug Hughes' credits -- "Doubt," "A Man for All Seasons," "Inherit the Wind" -- and thought: This guy can bring in the laughs!

Well, maybe he can't.

Granted, when the show improves after the first intermission, you realize that Hughes shouldn't bear the sole blame for its unpromising start: The act is one long exposition as George S. Kaufman and Edna Ferber merely introduce their dozen or so characters.

...

The surprisingly bittersweet ending is handled with a nice mix of melancholy and levity. But the change of tone would have been even more effective if what preceded it had been funny instead of funny-ish."

Full Review Updated On: 10/9/09 at 02:26 PM