the problem with Grey Gardens

[dfwtheatreguy]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 1:08pm

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).

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 1:10pm

Well, I'm glad the creative team has you to point that out to them. ...on a message board.

[WaltSummersPI]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 1:10pm

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).

[Miss.Vanessi]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 1:19pm

Thank God you've come along to point this out for us.

And all along I thought it was the intention of the writers of the show to keep that question open for speculation. I bet they just threw something together haphazardly in a basement and hoped people bought it, without research at all.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 1:33pm

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?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 1:34pm

The spiral downward was because of 3 key things that happen in Act One:

1. Big Edie's divorce

2. Little Edie's broken engagement

3. Big Edie's losing the trust fund

this meant no money and led to the women falling out with society on top of all the other things that are discussed in the musical.

[artscallion]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 1:35pm

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.

[dfwtheatreguy]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 1:38pm

Thank you RoninJoey - that is exactly my point - I felt like SO much happened during intermission that the audience had to guess about - act 1 is pre drama and act 2 is post. i wanted to see the drama.

there was no mystery - act 2 was created based on an actual documentary while act 1 was a pure fabrication - if act 1 had been more factual and linked to act 2 then i would say that the wisps of information were there, but as it stands, it was a who, what, and where without the why and the how.

Updated On: 10/23/07 at 01:38 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 1:38pm

"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.

[dfwtheatreguy]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 1:42pm

i know people evolve jerby - but the act 1 women DEvolved into the act 2 women with no explanation of their downward slope.

it's hard to imagine an event so catacylsmic to turn a wealthy, proper young lady into a reclusive loon, similarly it's a HUGE stretch to think that because of a divorce big edie went from the hostess with the mostess to a bed-ridden catlady.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 1:47pm

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.

[gymdudeva]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 1:51pm

I agree with dfwtheatreguy and Ron. I'm pretty sophisticated and don't like everythig explained or spelled out, but I think the writers missed a chance to do something stunning or intelligent with the transition. And sorry, I don't think Act I is full is clever clues. Act I was the made-up past, act II pretty much literally the documentary, and there was no synergy between the two.

I also think the score was generic and I didn't see anything so intelligent or brilliant in the thing. So there! With all the SA bashing on this board, GG was always trotted out as the INTELLIGENT, ADULT alternative....sorry, I thought it was a good show but oh so mature and sophisticated? Not in my opinion.

[dfwtheatreguy]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 1:51pm

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

[ashley0139]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 2:43pm

I think the show is fluff with interesting music.

What show were you watching? Because whatever it was, it certainly wasn't fluff.

I agree with the people who enjoy that part of the mystery. There are clues, but they don't tell you everything. Heaven forbid we have theatre nowadays that makes us think. You have to piece it together- the losses of the trust fund, the divorce, the Daddy's Girl scene, the telegram, etc.

And regarding the plot- what is Spring Awakening about? Everyone will tell you teenage sexual awakening in 1890 (?) Germany. That's not a plot either. Grey Gardens is about two women who start as social royalty and fall to the bottom of society. I see it happen.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 3:14pm

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.

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 3:46pm

I love how the Act One vs. Act Two styles clash against each other.

Act One is a traditional Phillip Barry well-constructed play.. while act two is plotless and all the drama is under the surface.. emotional conflicts and battles that bubble up ...

The stuff during the intermission is missing for a good reason.. it forces the audience to keep asking ..How? It keeps you continually surprised at that their behavior.

If you spell it out altogether Act Two becomes meaningless and pointless. If the audience sat their and said "OH yeah, she wears sweaters on her head because she - fill in the blank," it becomes less potent.

As I've said before.. for me.. the flaw in Grey Gardens is in the first act. The first act central Character is Little Edie. She has the sustained dramatic and compelling "want." She wants to leave Grey Gardens and everything gets in her way.

The problem comes when the Star of the show is introduced to the audience as the lead character and is really secondary. The audience expects to follow her story... but she doesn't have much of one. It takes the audience a while to catch on that we need to follow Little Edie... not Big Edie.

Also.. while not exactly a dramatic problem.. It really think that we should see the Act One room in Act Two. We should see how the room as changed as well.

[sanda]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 3:52pm

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.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 4:23pm

The conflict and major theme of these women's story is wanting something there were never allowed to have. They both wanted to be performers and it was denied to them because of who they were. You did NOT pursue acting in that society. There is also Little Edie's issue of having to take care of her mother instead of pursuing a career.

These are just a couple of the things that I found myself relating to and hearing so many others sharing how they related to the characters and their situation---the universality I mean. There is so much humanity in the piece.

And I see this piece as being about BOTH Edies. I don't feel that there was any imbalance because the star was in a secondary role in the first act. I don't agree with that at all.

And, I would rather y'all do some searching for earlier GG threads as I and others have exasperated ourselves before about this.

It's also possible, this just wasn't your cup of tea. And if that's the case, why bother debating the crap out of it?

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 4:34pm

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.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 4:43pm

Act One is not a "fantasy". Like all biographical stories, they condensed major events into a story. Dramatic licensing. It's all based on the docs and speaking to people who knew them from the Maysles to Jerry.

The dramatic question is whether or not Little Edie is going to escape this existence. She does at the end of Act One only to end up back where she began but with greater obstacles. Big Edie wants to hold onto her daughter after having lost everything else.

"Either Edie is now too old or too crazy to realistically pursue an acting career and they know it."

I'd say that is all wrong given that Little Edie DID pursue a career after Big Edie's death.

Better?

[gymdudeva]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 4:47pm

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.

[broadwaybelter]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 4:52pm

While a majority of the claims that are made are quite relative and bear, to some capacity, validity; there is one huge problem that most of you are overlooking. The quite simple fact that this production, "Grey Gardens" has not come to San Francisco.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 4:52pm

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.

[ashbash1990]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 4:52pm

I don't think thae audience has to know what happened, the important thing is that the ACTORS know and its reflected in their performances...

[WickedBoy2]

Posted: 10/23/07 at 5:00pm

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