The Glass Menagerie lacks a delicate touch

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      By Tennessee Williams. Directed by Shawn Macdonald. A Fire Escape Equity Co-op production. At the Jericho Arts Centre on Wednesday, December 10. Continues until December 21

      Tennessee Williams’s The Glass Menagerie is one of the most beautiful scripts in the English language—but this production only reveals that beauty intermittently. 

      The play is about love and suffocation, freedom and loneliness. Six years out of high school, Tom, the narrator, is still living in a St. Louis flat with his mother, Amanda—the faded and domineering southern belle—and his pathologically shy sister, Laura. Tom works in a shoe warehouse, but he composes poems on the shoebox lids and dreams of joining the merchant marine.

      In his first address to the audience, Tom announces that he has tricks in his pocket: “To begin with, I turn back time. I reverse it to that quaint period, the thirties, when the huge middle class of America was matriculating in a school for the blind. Their eyes had failed them or they had failed their eyes, and so they were having their fingers pressed forcibly down on the fiery Braille alphabet of a dissolving economy.” Clearly, the play is saturated with poetry, and, as Tom says, “Being a memory play, it is dimly lighted, it is sentimental, it is not realistic.”

      In his program notes, director Shawn Macdonald acknowledges the script’s delicacy—but he doesn’t treat it delicately. Under Macdonald’s direction, the play’s emotional undercurrents too often become melodramatic and even funny because they’re overplayed.

      As Tom, Scott Button sometimes delivers affecting work. When Tom is teasing his mother about bringing a gentleman caller around to meet Laura, his wicked playfulness in the exchange helps to make their relationship feel real, and, at the end of the story, Tom’s declaration of love for his sister broke my heart. But under Macdonald’s direction, Button also unnecessarily ornaments the text, illustrating with coy poses Tom’s description of his mother’s women’s magazine, for instance. And Tom’s angry outbursts are so extreme and sustained that they squander the play’s narrative tension.

      Christine Quintana has even more trouble as Laura. In the script, Laura has a limp that she regards as pronounced. In my experience—so far—the most effective acting choice is to make Laura’s limp slight so that it’s clear that she’s isolating herself by exaggerating her supposed defect. But Macdonald doesn’t go for the internal or the understated. In his production, Quintana’s Laura has the most exaggerated physical disability of any Laura I’ve seen, and she’s not even close to being the old-fashioned girl that Jim, the gentleman caller who eventually comes by, describes; she’s a flailing, neurotic mess.

      As with Button, Quintana has a legitimate emotional bead on the character. When she encourages Jim to hold one of the glass animals from her collection—“Go on. I trust you with him”—the moment is undeniably moving. But, as with Button’s Tom, too much of what should be inside Quintana’s Laura is on the outside.

      Amanda is the starring role in Glass Menagerie, and Marilyn Norry, who plays the part here, is one of the best actors in town, but her performance is only okay in my opinion. There are affecting moments—Amanda’s despair when she finds out that Laura has been skipping her typing lessons, for instance—but Norry’s work isn’t as deep or clear as I expected it to be.

      Surprisingly, Graeme McComb delivers the performance of the evening in the smallest role: Jim. The gentleman caller is a showboat, but he’s also kind, and McComb effortlessly embodies that complexity. In his scene with Laura, this production finally comes into focus.

      Director Macdonald’s most successful choice, other than casting McComb, is to include violinist Masae Day on-stage. There’s just the right combination of magic and melancholy in that decision. If only the rest of this production were as original and subtle.

      Comments

      3 Comments

      Bruce

      Dec 18, 2014 at 7:33pm

      What's the point of having merely one opinion about how a play you've already seen should be performed, Mr. Thomas? You do this quite often when reviewing classic plays and it's tiring. What if a person with a severe physical disability performed the part of Laura? Would it be too much? It shouldn't be, because that happens to be THAT person playing THAT Laura in the same way Quintana is doing her interpretation.

      You state that Quintana's Laura isn't "old fashioned" in contrary to what Jim states. Instead she is "flailing" and "neurotic". Surely flailing and neurotic people existed back then. Also, this is Jim talking. Not the narrator. You should judge his lines as facts about himself, not rules on how Quintana should act.

      It's one thing to judge a play on the faults that the script or production present, but to judge a play based on your own personal history with the material is redundant.

      ColinThomasGS

      Dec 18, 2014 at 11:25pm

      Bruce, I love it when a production allows me to see a familiar play in a new way. Anita Rochon's interpretation of Cymbeline at Bard this summer was very different from other takes I've seen, for instance. I liked Kim Collier's Hamlet a lot and loved her visceral Joan of Arc. For me, the most astonishing example was probably when, years ago, Larry Lillo turned A Streetcar Named Desire on its head. That was downright thrilling.

      The thing is that the new interpretation has to work on its own terms. For me, much of this version of The Glass Menagerie didn't succeed. But I remain open to new interpretations. That's why I wrote, "In my experience—so far—the most effective acting choice is to make Laura’s limp slight."

      And part of the point of Jim's description of Laura is that it can lead the audience to believe that he might be attracted to her. But this Laura was so extremely neurotic that there was little hope for such a relationship, which reduced the dramatic tension—and this audience member's investment.

      Bruce

      Dec 19, 2014 at 7:19pm

      I agree, those productions brought great new life to old material which was refreshing. This production in comparison was undoubtedly more conventional and perhaps it's easier to compare to previous staging. I would love Rochon's or Collier's take on this play, but I probably would love their take on most things.

      I still would say, however, that from your reply (thank you for replying, by the way, I can understand how many people might comment on your reviews) you seem locked as to what this play "should" be, your opinion on Jim's line being case in point. People are attracted to different kinds of people, even the screw-ups. And sometimes people don't say what they mean; they say what they think they should say in order to achieve an objective. Perhaps Jim didn't know what to say because he hadn't met anyone like her before. Or perhaps the fact that he hadn't met anyone like her was a turn-on. Or perhaps he was feeling as powerless as Tom, saw this as an opportunity to have his ego stroked and was using his words to achieve that. He's not going to do that by saying "hey, you're a flailing, neurotic mess."

      I bought this relationship, thanks to the bravado of McComb and Quintana's neurotic frailty. I've seen this play and read it a hundred times and never thought of that before seeing this production. I'm thankful I wasn't limited to a narrow interpretation of how a man might be attracted to a woman.