First of all, the set was beautiful. As soon as the curtain came up, many of the audience members broke into applause. The parlor in the first scene of act one was ornate and looked like rich people lived there. Upon seeing the set, I had high hopes for the production. I'm sad to say that I was a bit disappointed.
Allison McLemore (Tracy Lord) looked very similar to Katherine Hepburn. Her hair (wig) was styled similar to Katherine's in the film. Also, her voice inflections and mannerisms were very similar to Hepburn's, and it annoyed me that Allison was trying to imitate her. Katherine Hepburn may have originated the role of Tracy Lord, but most actors don't recreate the performance of another actor, they try to make the character their own. Grace Kelly did a wonderful job of making the part her own when she starred in the movie musical remake of the story, High Society. I wish that Allison would have tried more to make the role her own.
Todd Gearhart (C.K. Dexter Haven) physically fit the role that Cary Grant played in the film (I'm so glad they cast someone who looked more like Cary Grant than Bing Crosby, who played Dexter in High Society *wink*). He was very handsome (in fact, he had a uncanny resemblance to a friend of mine, who has also done some acting); however, he was extremely stiff and didn't seem to have the debonaire quality that Dexter should have. Also, I was surprised at how small Dexter's part is in the first act. In the play, Dexter doesn't bring the reporters to the Lord home, it's Tracy's brother, Alex, whose role was completely cut from the film.
The actors were good at their craft, but I had a problem with the style of acting that either they or the director chose. You could tell they were "acting." When you perform on stage, you want your acting to seem like you're "being," to allow the audience to get caught up in the story and believe in your character. I don't know if it was because the actors were intimidated by the material or if they thought that that's the way to perform plays written in the late 1930s. I don't know, it was just very affected. When the first act ended, I couldn't help but voice my disappointment in the production so far to my friend.
The second act was actually better than the first. I started to enjoy the production after Tracy gets drunk following her pre-wedding party. That's when she started being a little more real to me, and so did many of the other actors.
Some of the costumes seemed totally wrong for the period the play is set in. 1940's women's fashion is wonderful, and I feel the costumer lost a great opportunity to design stunning dresses for the actresses. I was very excited to see the evening gowns because women had beautiful evening gowns then. However, the evening gowns were simply ordinary. Even the slacks that Tracy wears in the first act were more modern than period-appropriate. The waist band was low on the actress's hips, and the waist bands of pants from that time on both men and women were usually even higher than the natural waist. Tracy looked so out of place in those slacks.
I was looking forward to a different interpretation of the play from the well-known film. I didn't expect so many mannerisms and blocking to remind me of the movie. I wish the director had brought a new and fresh vision to the play. Yet, in spite of its negatives, I did enjoy the production in the end because they had such a great script to work with, and if you're going to recreate a film, The Philadelphia Story isn't a bad one to choose.
No comments:
Post a Comment