As I'd said in another thread, I think it's a real shame the ghost Skipper is gone. It added a beautiful sadness to the story that I found extremely moving.
I was there too today. I enjoyed your thoughts Custom, but I left the theater very satisfied, and overall, I was very impressed. I didn't see any of the other recent mountings of this show, but I kept thinking to myself that this would have to be the best of the three. I thought that all the leads gave very strong performances, and that overall, it as beautiful to watch as well.
"The price of love is loss, but still we pay; We love anyway."
I saw the show last night and was disappointed that I missed out on Skipper's physical presence. Having heard so much deabte on Ashford's choice to create this onstage role, I was looking forward to seeing how it all played out, although I'm thinking it's probably for the better.
I think the show belongs to Benjamin Walker. He has an electricity about him and is wonderful in the role. I am also a little obsessed with Debra Monk's interpretation of Big Mama.
I was fairly certain the Williams estate would eventually put their foot down about "Ghost Skipper" -- having worked with them in the past, I can say from first hand experience that they are extremely strict.
It's a perfectly entertaining, if drama-queeny and ham-handed, production. It feels like seeing your favorite (very talented) community theatre actors in a show that's revived every 5 years. They build upon the established work of numerous previous productions, and you idly wonder why there are so few equally good contemporary plays for them to do now, where they could do the initial leg-work upon which future actors could build.
Nothing new, nothing different. I was glad not to see a "Ghost Skipper" because I think it's a stupidly pretentious notion, worthy of university or community theatre ("How can I make this play about me?," asks the director. "I know! I'll add a character!"). I'm glad I got a comp, though - I wouldn't want to have to pay to see this splashy re-run.
I would agree, and I think most of the people around me felt the same way. When each act ended, I didn't hear anyone discussing the show. Everyone just sort of sat there and talked about other things, etc.
It's nothing brilliant. I don't know how some of you were "blown away" by it. I thought each act felt longer and more boring than the first.
I frankly can't imagine anyone being blown away by what I saw last night. It's a serviceable production with no discernible point of view. A lot of yelling going on, not much emotional honesty. Johansson has certainly grown up, she's a woman here with genuine stage presence and skill...but she's been directed to be Joan Crawford hard and it just doesn't work. Yes, she talks about having become hard and being desperate and fighting tooth and nail to maintain her position in the family...but where is her vulnerability, her regret, her...allure? She's a Maggie devoid of sex appeal, how did that happen? This cat has claws, but never once purrs. A very odd choice. Walker is a lightweight and barely registers. There's zero chemistry with Johansson, it's impossible to imagine that they ever had the great sex both talks about. Watch the first scene of Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman in the film if you want to see what the Brick/Maggie relationship is all about.
Hinds, although very good, reminded me of Pacino at his blustery best (or is it worst?). Debra Monk comes off well, but even she ends up screaming by play's end. And what's with the portentous, pretentious gonging at the top of every act? This is not a play that needs symbolism or a "concept." Why is Big Mama suddenly in an echo chamber for her Act Three speech, why do we go into some sort of alternative universe during the storm? Give me a director who simply let's the story tell itself and gets out of everyone's way.
What a perfect quote. I enjoy what Johansson does (career-wide) very much; but she's a young, very contemporary actress without a lot of variety going on inside her (at least, that I can see).
"As I'd said in another thread, I think it's a real shame the ghost Skipper is gone. It added a beautiful sadness to the story that I found extremely moving."
As if we needed to hear that twice.
I'm glad he's gone- permanently, one hopes. He never should have been there in the first place.
Ahd the play doesn't need any additional "beautiful sadness," unintended by the author.
I didn't care for Ghost Skipper, but that's a shame for Jordan Dean. To get cut during previews. I wonder if he'll still get paid/moved to Brick understudy or something. Is there any precedence for this in Equity rules?
"but where is her vulnerability, her regret, her...allure? She's a Maggie devoid of sex appeal, how did that happen? This cat has claws, but never once purrs. A very odd choice."
Thank you Lucyeth, you took the words right out of my mouth. And am quite surprised we seem to be in the minority on this.
And I say this as someone who usually loves Scarlett and thinks that if she weren't so badly directed she could be a wonderful Maggie.
On paper, Johansson as Maggie is inspired casting, kind of a no-brainer. But I think she's trying so hard to leave her youthful image behind that she's lost all sense of why she's right for the role. Sadly there wasn't a Bartlett Sher or Pam McKinnon at the helm here. The fact that there was a Ghost Skipper in the first place indicates how wrong-headed Ashford's direction is.
Just got back from the Saturday evening performance and agree that Scarlett's seems to have been directed to be strident without much shading until the third act.
Walker, especially in the second act, was excellent.
Seems like all the TDF tickets have been in the rear orchestra. And at this theater, the rear orchestra is raked, so it can be quite weird. I hate being under the overhang of the mezz. Makes me feel so claustrophobic.