Everything I’d read about the latest revival of Tennessee
Williams’ Cat on a Hot Tin Roof promised that it was going to be a hot
mess. The show’s top-billed star Scarlett Johansson kept hinting about how she wanted
to tone down the sexiness of the character Maggie, who is known for her
sexiness. In his interviews, her co-star Benjamin Walker, who plays Maggie’s
alcoholic and perhaps closeted husband Brick, was saying that “bringing
a sexuality and a vitality to the play” would distinguish it from previous
productions. Notice any contradictions?
Meanwhile, their director Rob Ashford, better known for staging
musicals than classic dramas, was reportedly experimenting with touches like
ghost characters and musical numbers (click here to read gossip columnist Michael Riedel’s early account of that).
So I’ll admit that when my friend Priscilla and I settled
into our seats at the Richard Rodgers Theatre, where the show is scheduled to
play a limited run through March 30, I was prepared to wallow in the
schadenfreude of it all. But guess what? The show isn’t as bad as I thought it would be or as bad as some of the
critics have made it out to be, judging by the C- it scored on StageGrade,
which aggregates the opinions of the city’s top reviewers (click here to read some of them).
This is not to say that the production is all that good either.
But even a tepid production of Williams' Pulitzer Prize-winning play (his second to win the prize) is a reminder of
just how great he really was.
Because of the 1958 movie, with an unabashedly sexy Elizabeth
Taylor as Maggie and Paul Newman as Brick, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is one of the
most familiar plays in the canon. And Williams’
tale about the secrets and lies of a nouveau riche southern family gathered for what may be the final
birthday of its patriarch is one of the most frequently revived.
This is the sixth Broadway production since the original
premiered in 1956. The standouts among them have been Elizabeth Ashley’s legendary
turn in 1974, Kathleen Turner’s smoldering one in 1990 and an all-black version
five years ago in which James Earl Jones stole the show as the domineering Big
Daddy.
The current production is unlikely to join that list of the
memorable ones. But it’s still an
interesting effort. For the actors playing each of the principal family
members—Maggie, Brick, Big Daddy and his wife Big Mama—have tried to come up
with fresh takes on their now-iconic characters.
The temptation to do that is understandable. Who wants to play—or see—the same old thing
that has been done a zillion times? But there are some limitations. First, any new interpretation must be rooted
in the text. And second, it helps if the director coordinates the individual
explorations that the cast members are making. Alas, there were lapses on both
fronts in this production.
Having won a Tony three years ago for her supporting role as
the niece in A View From the Bridge, Johansson was eager for a bigger challenge
(click here to see an interview with her). Indeed, her sultry voice,
curvaceous body and feisty personality make Johansson a natural for Maggie, who grew up in genteel poverty and will do whatever it takes to hold on to her place in the rich
family she’s married into.
But in her effort to be a different kind of Maggie, Johansson
mutes the character to the point that Maggie’s impassioned desperation comes
across as petty whining. Similarly, Walker, tall, lean and almost girlishly pretty,
would seem to be an ideal Brick (click here to read about him). But the role is mainly subtext and Walker just
stays on the surface so that his Brick seems little more than a sullen rich boy
who likes to drink.
The stage vet Debra Monk completely reimagines Big Mama, who
is usually played as an aging airhead totally cowed by her husband. But Monk’s
Big Mama is so ballsy that it’s not hard to imagine her taking over the running
of the family plantation and doing a decent job of it (click here to read an interview with her). It’s an interesting spin
on the character but I’m not sure it was what Williams intended.
I had worried most about Ciarán Hinds, not so much because
the actor is less physically imposing than previous Big Daddys have been or
because he is Irish but because I had seen him in “Political Animals,” the TV
series in which he played a Bill Clinton-like ex-president to Sigourney
Weaver’s Hillary Clinton-like Secretary of State and Hinds’ accent and mannerisms
were so over the top that I stopped watching midway through the pilot.
But Hinds has toned down the cornpone for his rendition of
Big Daddy. He isn’t as crude or menacing
as some of his predecessors have been in the role but Hinds is so honest in
the man-to-man talk between father and son that it is not only the centerpiece
of the second act but the best part of the entire evening (click here for a Q&A with him).
It isn’t, however, enough to overcome the baffling things
that Ashford has done to make the play his own. Both the onstage ghost and the interporlated songs had been cut by the time I saw the show. But just as egregious was the decision to keep
sound effects so intrusive that they often drowned out important lines in the
dialog. And don’t get me started on the
“happy darkies” motif he's woven throughout the show.
Even set designer Christopher Oram has been allowed to
improvise—again to the detriment of the text. The
play has Maggie saying “walls have ears.” But there are few walls in sight. If there were as much transparency as
all this set’s windows and gauzy material would suggest, lots of secrets would
have been outed long ago.
And yet, the pathos in Williams’ script still manages to
claw its way out. Some regular
theatergoers gripe that Broadway gets too many revivals of plays like Cat on a
Hot Tin Roof. But not me.
I know that these old shows may be driving out some new shows (click here to see NYTimes theater reporter Patrick Healy's smart piece on this phenomenon) but I’m still envious of
the opera lovers who get to see what different performers bring to their noblest warhorses season
after season. And so I’m already itching to
see another production of this play—but I'm also hoping that one will bring more heat.
1 comment:
as always incisive. You give the reader a good reason to exercise the eyeballs.
Post a Comment